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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The Department of Health and Social Care works across government to ensure every child can have the best possible start in life. This includes a significant increase in mental health support in schools.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Secretary of State very much for that reply. May I first pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)? I think his actions last night were very honourable, and he has been an exceptional Health Minister.
May I ask the Secretary of State also to look at how we can join up services much more strongly on the ground? Whether it is early years, child mental health or special educational needs and disability support, time and again we hear problems about how services are not joined up.
Matt Hancock
I agree with the hon. Lady on both counts. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was an excellent Public Health Minister, who did exemplary work and drove the agenda with great passion and determination, and he has behaved honourably in every sense.
On the point about cross-government working, the hon. Lady is completely right. The need to join up, breaking down the barriers of silos that sometimes exist between agencies, is vital. There is a huge amount of work under way in all of the areas she mentioned, and I am determined to see that work.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
On Friday, I met two clinical commissioning groups that cover my constituency specifically to discuss mental health and children’s health and wellbeing. While it is an extremely complex issue, does the Secretary of State agree with me that, with the perceived rigorous spending rules requiring health providers to spend only on pure health services, it will remain extremely challenging for them to work with other agencies to support methods, such as those to build resilience, that improve outcomes for children’s health?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. The most forward-looking CCGs in the country are working with all sorts of partners—the voluntary sector, charities, local authorities—to deliver better services that make people healthier, even if they are not purely medicinal in the first instance. For instance, tennis lessons may sometimes help people, Mr Speaker, as may all sorts of other activities. This is all part of a broadening social-prescribing agenda to get people healthy, however that is best done.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, last Monday, I published my report, with the Royal Society for Public Health, on children’s mental health and social media. May I place on the record my thanks to him for his tweet in support of the report? I have asked Education Ministers and I will be doing this with the devolved institutions as well, but would he agree to a meeting with me—and with the Mental Health Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—to look at the report and the recommendations so that we can start working across Departments and across devolved institutions?
Matt Hancock
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his all-party group on social media and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. It is an incredibly important topic. We must make sure that social media is safe and that we protect children’s mental health, which the evidence increasingly shows can be negatively impacted by the wrong use of social media. Social media can be a great, powerful force for good, but it also has its downsides and we need to mitigate those, and there is a lot more coming from the Government soon.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to meet the Sport and Recreation Alliance to hear its ideas on how we ensure children and young people lead healthier and more active lives?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would love to. I think this is an incredibly important agenda. It ties in directly with the question from my former ministerial colleague when I was at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). There is lots to do on this agenda.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There has been an alarming rise in the need for the use of baby banks for children. While I am proud that organisations such as Little Village in Tooting are doing such amazing work, it is shocking that we even need baby banks in this day and age. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is a stain on this Government and highlights the drastic inequalities seen in our society?
Matt Hancock
We are determined to do everything we can to support people, especially at the time—in the first 1,000 days—that is so critical to people’s whole lives, and that is an incredibly important part of the work. Improving maternity services is important, but the link-up with other broader agencies is also important, and we should not denigrate or downplay the vital role that charities too can play in supporting people.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Hinckley to see co-ordination and social prescribing in action. Will he be taking steps to further develop personal budgets, which save money and improve lives?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. Driving the social prescribing agenda, which is based on increasingly strong evidence of the power of social prescribing to help people stay healthy and get them healthy again when they are ill, will also involve wider use of personal budgets. Almost 1 million people have personal budgets.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) in paying tribute to the very hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Has the Secretary of State seen Professor Clare Bambra’s research in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health this month, showing that inequalities in infant mortality between deprived and more affluent areas fell between 1999 and 2010 when there was a Labour Government, and then increased from 2011 to 2017? Is it not true that only Labour has the range of co-ordinated, cross-governmental policies that reduce inequalities in child health?
Matt Hancock
No. The NHS long-term plan has a whole swathe of policy to reduce health inequalities. The best thing we can do to reduce health inequalities is ensure that more people are in work, and the record number of jobs that have been delivered is a vital part of that agenda.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
The long-term plan sets out how we will make the NHS a world-class employer and ensure that the NHS has the people that it needs. The NHS, led by Baroness Harding, is engaging with people across the sector to develop a people plan. That plan will set out how the challenges of supply and demand reform can be met, and it will be published in the spring.
Derek Thomas
I thank the Minister for that response. In Cornwall, we have set up the Health and Social Care Academy, and we use the apprenticeship levy to enable local people to train within the NHS service or social care wherever they want to. However, there are many restrictions around the levy, and I wonder if the Minister will meet me and others to discuss how the levy can actually be about training and supporting people into the NHS, rather than just restrictions about paying fees.
Stephen Hammond
The apprenticeship levy was obviously introduced to cover the training and assessment costs of apprenticeships at a rate that would meet employee demand. I recognise some of the challenges that there are, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues that he has raised.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman knows that I wrote to him on 20 March on this issue, and I outlined that officials from DHSC had contacted the scheme administrator about the issues with Livewell. I can confirm that the members there would still be dealt with in the way set out prior to the implementation date, and I am happy to meet him.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The best way that Kettering General Hospital could deliver the NHS’s 10-year plan would be to have the funding for an urgent care hub. I thank the Hospitals Minister for visiting recently. What can he do to ensure that that project is delivered?
Stephen Hammond
I was delighted to visit Kettering and to meet the chief executive and the chairman of the trust again. They made very strong representations. The representations by my hon. Friend and the trust have been heard, and he knows that they are at the forefront of my mind.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Changes to the pensions allowance are particularly impacting consultants in their willingness to do additional shifts, or indeed stay in their roles, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the effect of the changes to pension allowances on the retention of consultants in the NHS?
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both had conversations with the Treasury and the Chancellor, and there are ongoing discussions.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Government have done well to get more medical students into general practice, but we are not doing quite so well at retaining GPs later on. What more can we do to make sure that GPs stay in general practice, so that more of our constituents can go and see a doctor more easily?
Stephen Hammond
NHS Improvement has a number of retention schemes in place, for GPs and for nurses, to look at why some people are leaving. The interim plan being developed by Baroness Harding has an employer of excellence work stream, which will report on a number of potential issues.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I just take a moment, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench team, to thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for all his work? We found him a decent, fair-minded Minister, and I wish to pass on my personal thanks for the work that he did on the children of alcoholics agenda.
We have 100,000 vacancies across the NHS. The Brexit mess means that we have fewer EU nurses and health visitors. Across the NHS, voluntary resignations are up 55% since 2011, and the professional development budgets have been cut by £250 million. Does the Minister agree that for Dido Harding’s review to be taken seriously, those cuts to continuing professional development must be reversed?
Stephen Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman heard me say earlier, Baroness Harding is developing the implementation plan, which will then feed into the final implementation plan published after the comprehensive spending review. The cuts, as he describes them, are not cuts. He knows that we are increasing the budget for the NHS in real terms and in cash terms up to 2023-24.
Jonathan Ashworth
The Minister is responsible for workforce, but does not seem to understand that training budgets have been cut. Baroness Harding’s review will only be taken seriously if it is backed up by real investment.
Outsourcing and transferring of staff, whether to wholly owned subsidiaries or the privatisation of clinical services, further undermines staff morale and creates a more fragmented workforce. The Secretary of State went to the Health and Social Care Committee and said no more privatisations on his watch, yet cancer scanning services in Oxford are being privatised. Will the Minister reverse those privatisations, or can we simply not believe a word the Secretary of State says?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman can believe everything my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says. He has delivered on his promise to work with the NHS to deliver a long-term plan, to deliver the funding that will make it possible, and to deliver the workforce that will ensure the plan is not undermined.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The latest work from the Office for National Statistics shows that life expectancy is projected to increase, but none the less there are inequalities within those figures. That is why we are taking action to reduce smoking, prevent cardiovascular disease and diabetes, improve cancer outcomes and, of course, tackle childhood obesity. I can also add that reducing health inequalities is an important component of our NHS long-term plan. All local health systems will be expected to set out how they will specifically reduce health inequalities by 2023-24.
Liz Twist
Sir Michael Marmot, the world-recognised authority on public health, has warned that the country has, since 2010, stalled in the task of improving the life expectancy of our population. There are already wide inequalities. For example, a Gateshead man can expect to have 57 years of life in good health, compared to the England average of 63.4 years; and a Gateshead woman can expect to have an average of 59.1 years in good health, compared to the England average of 64.1 years. What is the Minister doing to redress those real inequalities?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I mentioned, the NHS long-term plan will be asking local health systems to specifically address this issue. Certainly, there are particular trends that I personally want to address. They are the real inequalities that affect people with learning disabilities, which are worse than the figures the hon. Lady mentions. We also see that the outcomes she refers to can be laid at the door of a slowdown of heart disease and stroke mortality improvements, so we really need to focus our interventions there. We are also seeing an increase in the fall in life expectancy due to alcohol misuse.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Medway has some of the highest health inequalities in the country. As the Minister rightly says, high inequalities are linked to a greater chance of a stroke. Despite that, the sustainability and transformation partnership and the clinical commissioning group decided to put an acute stroke service in Dartford, which is very close to London and is served by King’s College London. The criteria was not followed correctly. The matter is now with the Secretary of State to review. Can the Minister assure me that the criteria will be re-looked at to ensure that justice is done?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend will know that this has to be reviewed independently, but the Secretary of State does have duties to consider inequalities in all his work.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I, too, wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who I sparred with many times in Westminster Hall. We might not have agreed on how to go about it, but he was clearly passionate about improving health.
The Secretary of State’s vision for NHS England includes video links to GPs, diagnostic phone apps and healthy people undergoing gene tests for a few hundred pounds. Considering his own experience of such a gene test, does he not recognise that this just increases access for the well-off, will drive demand in the system and will actually widen health inequalities?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do not accept that at all. Apart from anything else, we are seeing younger generations be more technologically savvy. We are taking advantage of that technological innovation to spread good health prevention and to help people look after themselves.
Mr Speaker
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon; I thought she wanted two questions on this. Maybe I was misinformed. Very well—she can have another question later.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The data that my right hon. Friend asks for is not available, but it is important that we take action to make sure the right drugs are available for the right people.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Was it intended to make them as rare as hens’ teeth? What measures is the Secretary of State taking to support clinicians in actually prescribing?
Matt Hancock
I met the parents of some of the children whose needs are best met through the use of medicinal cannabis. My heart goes out to those who are fighting for this cause. We changed the law in the autumn to try to make it easier, and I am looking very closely at what we can do to make sure that the intention of that decision is met.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Health Committee heard last week that patients are dying unnecessarily and up to a million families are being driven to criminality by getting medical cannabis illegally, and the situation has got worse since the Government changed the law in November. When are these families going to get access to medical cannabis for their children and other sufferers that they would have access to if they lived in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada or the United States?
Matt Hancock
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I supported and indeed participated in the decision to ensure that access was made legal in the autumn, and I am working right now on trying to make sure that some of the challenges in the system are unblocked. Ultimately, these things have to be clinician led, but my sympathy is with those who are campaigning, whom I have met, because I know of the anguish that this problem is causing.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
Extensive arrangements are already in place to help people afford NHS prescriptions. Those include a broad range of prescription charge exemptions, for which somebody with asthma may apply.
Mary Glindon
More than 90% of people on low incomes say they struggle to afford their prescriptions, and 71% told Asthma UK they skipped their asthma medication due to cost. Given the health inequalities in this country, will the Minister investigate that injustice?
Caroline Dinenage
People on low incomes who do not qualify for an exemption may be eligible for either full or partial help with prescription charges through the NHS low-income scheme. In addition, for those who do not qualify for that, the prescription pre-payment certificate is available, under which everybody can get all the prescriptions they need for only £2 a week.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Of the 300,000 who have missed out on their prescriptions, a quarter have had a flare-up of their asthma and 13% have ended up in hospital. Does the Minister not accept that prescription charges simply are not cost-effective and should be abolished, as they have been in Scotland?
Caroline Dinenage
Almost 90% of prescription items dispensed in the community in England are free of charge. That includes medicines for the treatment of asthma. The fact is that people who, like me, suffer from asthma and need those prescriptions have to decide, as taxpayers—as the people funding our NHS—whether we would rather contribute to those prescriptions or see the underfunding we have seen in Scotland, where GPs have been underfunded by almost £660 million over the last four years. It is a case of priorities.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I miss the former Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), but commend him for his principled stance.
The Minister is missing the point on prescription charges. It is now more than 50 years since the eligibility criteria for medical exemption charges were reviewed, and next week prescription charges will rise again, placing a financial burden on many who require regular medication for long-term conditions. Does she agree that it is high time the Government moved to address the very many anomalies in the system? How can it be fair that patients with some chronic illnesses get free prescriptions for all their ailments, while asthma sufferers pay for everything? When will she review this unfair system?
Caroline Dinenage
We all miss my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), so I thank the hon. Lady for her comments.
Since prescription charges were introduced, Governments of all colours have decided that some patients should pay prescription charges to contribute to the cost of running the NHS, but almost 90% of prescription items are dispensed in the community free of charge, which I think the hon. Lady will agree is an enormous amount.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 11 March, I held a meeting with all the parties to discuss how best to ensure that people with cystic fibrosis and their families can benefit from the best drugs as soon as possible. Vertex, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England met on Thursday and have agreed to take those discussions forward.
Mr Hepburn
Does the Secretary of State support immediate interim access to Orkambi while the negotiations are going on, and has he asked NHS England, NICE and Vertex to consider this option?
Matt Hancock
We are having constructive discussions—I am delighted that finally Vertex has agreed to participate in them; the parties have committed to providing the data needed for an objective assessment of the drugs in question, and I look forward to the discussions proceeding effectively.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
A constituent of mine came to see me in my surgery. He had been born with cystic fibrosis and told me what a transformative effect the drug had had on him. He was lucky enough to be accepted on the trial, but he says we need to raise awareness because millions of people are not getting the drug. What response can the Secretary of State give to him and fellow sufferers?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend’s constituent is absolutely right about raising awareness of the issue and the need for these drugs. I know the impact that cystic fibrosis can have on people and of the hope that these drugs will save lives. We have made a significant offer to the pharmaceutical company, Vertex, to allow these drugs to be provided in the UK, and I very much hope we can come to an agreement.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On NICE decision making, my young constituents Nicole and Jessica Rich have the life-limiting rare condition Batten disease. Last month, NICE turned down a proven treatment for the condition after a year of deliberation. I and several cross-party colleagues wrote to the Secretary of State to ask if we could discuss this urgent matter, but we received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood), saying that she could not meet us because of diary commitments. This is insulting. Will the Secretary of State meet us to discuss this urgent issue?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course I will. I understand exactly where that process has got to. It concerns a different drug from the one in the question, but it is also a very important consideration for a number of people.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State agree to or consider temporary interim access to Orkambi while the negotiations continue, and has he had any discussion so far on that subject?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to consider all options that can secure access in a way that provides value for money based on an objective assessment of what is clinically right. That is the basis of our discussions.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking a personal interest in this matter. In Thursday’s debate, I mentioned the case of Oli Rayner, who gave evidence to the Health Select Committee. He fell ill in his 30s and was given Orkambi just to make him well enough to undergo a lung transplant operation. Is it not ludicrous to wait until people are virtually at death’s door before being prepared to give them the drug?
Matt Hancock
That is one very important consideration. Having met people suffering from cystic fibrosis and heard directly the stories they tell about the impact on their lives and how it potentially shortens their lives, I think it is very important that we find a solution, which is why I was so determined to bring the parties together.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The new five-year national action plan to tackle antimicrobial resistance contains the commitment to support more research into new and alternative treatments, including vaccines and diagnostic tests, to promote broader access to vaccines for both humans and animals.
Stephen Crabb
Stopping the spread of diseases such as TB by using vaccines will play a key role in tackling AMR worldwide, so what plans does my right hon. Friend have for building on the excellent work of the UK Vaccine Network, with all the funding that goes with that, to ensure continued UK leadership in vaccinology?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Of all the challenges facing the world, the risk that antibiotics will fail to work in the future is a huge one that we cannot afford to allow to come to pass. We are putting significant research money into the production of new antibiotics and ensuring that we roll out vaccines so that antibiotics do not have to be used.
The use of antibiotics in the chicken population in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 70% over the last five years. This is doable: we will provide the money that is necessary to ensure that people can use antibiotics well into the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Secretary of State to snap out of the trance that he now seems to be in and wake up to the fact that many of the key researchers in this area are going back to their European homes because of the threat of Brexit? We are losing Spanish nurses, for instance, on whom my constituents absolutely depend for healthcare. Up and down the country, our health system is haemorrhaging talent because of the Secretary of State’s lack of action. Wake up, Secretary of State, and smell the coffee!
Matt Hancock
I am afraid that I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who used to be so sensible. Antimicrobial resistance is a global problem and we contribute to global funds, because only by coming together as a whole world will we be able to tackle it— and that is what we are going to do.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Health Education England is leading a national nursing associate expansion plan to train 7,500 apprentice associates in 2019, building on the 5,000 who were trained in 2018.
Andrew Lewer
The University of Northampton successfully carried out its partnership with Northampton General Hospital in training the first wave of nursing associates in the United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State saw when he visited the hospital recently. What can he and his team do to encourage other universities and local hospitals to form partnerships to deliver similar results?
Stephen Hammond
I know that the Secretary of State enjoyed his visit and was very impressed by what he saw. Health Education England has led the establishment of test site partnerships across England. There were 11 test sites in the first wave and a further 24 in April 2017, and the programme is now being rolled out all over the country.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with nursing associations and the Home Secretary about the recruitment of nurses and social care workers from the European Union after we leave and about how it can be made easier?
Stephen Hammond
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care met the Home Secretary last week and that there are ongoing discussions.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
The National Institute for Health Research is supporting the study of Lyme disease by researching markers that would offer a faster and more accurate diagnosis. Meanwhile, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published clinical guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of the disease for healthcare professionals.
Sir Hugo Swire
Lyme disease is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late, which results in widespread suffering such as joint pain, paralysis and brain damage. Will the Minister therefore join me in congratulating the charity Caudwell LymeCo, which has pledged £1 million in research funding, and will her Department commission research on a better test for the disease?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We know that the outcome of Lyme disease depends on whether it is diagnosed and treated at an early stage. That is why my Department commissioned four separate independent systematic reviews of all the relevant literature on the diagnosis, treatment, transition and prevention of the disease, which were published in December 2017 and which assess the existing evidence for the research community, research funders and the public. We welcome all independent researchers who want to do more work on that basis.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents have faced many challenges in relation to Lyme disease. They have had to go overseas to be tested and given a diagnosis. However, the NHS does not recognise those tests. What is the Minister doing about that?
Caroline Dinenage
Most people are diagnosed and treated successfully by GPs and recover uneventfully, but in a few cases people who are diagnosed late or are not treated adequately may develop significant complications. That is why the National Institute for Health Research welcomes applications for research funds.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this: we do need to do more in this space, and that is why we are investing over £1 billion a year in health research through the National Institute of Health Research.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What evaluation is being put in place to see how effective the 2018 NICE guidelines for clinicians on managing Lyme disease are in improving the treatment of this dreadful disease?
Caroline Dinenage
All NICE guidelines are permanently kept under review. If the research we are investing in throws new light on any issues, that will always be taken into consideration.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
It is a great pity to see the hon. Gentleman back up there on the Back Benches as he was such a force—and a rare force—for reason and progress on the Opposition Front Bench until recently.
Standards in the NHS should be based on clinical evidence, and NHS England’s proposals will be rigorously field-tested to gather further evidence on clinical, operational, workforce and financial implications, all with the goal of improving the quality of care.
Justin Madders
I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute—although it is not going to change the question I am going to ask. He will be aware that since July 2015 the four-hour A&E target has not been met and last month saw the worst performance on record, so regardless of any clinical reviews, is it not time that Ministers admitted that the four-hour A&E target has effectively been abandoned?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we are aiming to meet and improve against the targets, including with the injection of the extra money—£34 billion extra in cash terms over the next five years. At the same time, we must make sure that the standards to which we hold the NHS are the right ones clinically for the times, and that is what this review of standards is all about.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We have some of the highest HPV—human papillomavirus—vaccination rates in the world. This month we launched a major new national campaign to increase the number of women attending cervical screening across England, and throughout the NHS long-term plan we have committed to radically overhaul screening programmes and further invest in the latest technology to transform diagnosis and boost research and innovation.
Mary Robinson
Figures from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust show that 200,000 women in Greater Manchester have missed their smear test, including half of women aged 25 to 29, yet we know that smear tests save lives. What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the importance of attending screening to prevent cervical cancer?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is right: cervical screening saves up to 5,000 lives every year, so we cannot do enough to encourage women to take advantage of the screening. It is not the most pleasant experience to go through, but it can save lives. I would encourage everyone to take advantage of the screening, and we will continue to do our best to promote it.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
In Newcastle, cervical screening rates have fallen since 2010: they range from 85% to just 23% and are consistently lower in poorer areas and among younger women and ethnic minority women, and across the UK women are more likely to die in more deprived areas. What specifically is the Minister doing not just to encourage women to attend but to make screening more available at the weekends, out of hours and closer to where people live?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady makes some excellent points and highlights those areas of the community where take-up is much lower. We need to be more imaginative about how we promote the need for screening, and in that regard I am very pleased to see the work of Jo’s Trust, and also that of the Eve Appeal to raise awareness. We can all do our bit, and I would encourage everyone to spread the word about the need to get screened.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I, too, want to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—he is a big loss to the Front Bench—and also to the Minister I used to shadow, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). Credit where it is due: I know cancer charities and campaigners are all tweeting their regret, because the hon. Gentleman was, and hopefully will remain, a true ally of that cause.
Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women. Smear tests can prevent 75% of cervical cancers from developing, but one in four women do not attend their smear tests and screening is now at a 21-year low. This was not helped by the failure of the outsourced screening to Capita, which failed to write to 48,000 women in six months. What are the Government going to do to ensure that women and girls know what happens at a smear test, what it is for and why it is so important?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As the hon. Lady will know, we have brought that service back in-house, but we should leave no stone unturned in relation to thinking more imaginatively about how we spread the word about the need for screening. I should like to pay tribute to those celebrities who have tweeted pictures of themselves going for their smear tests, because it is only by normalising it and ensuring that everyone realises that it is something they should do that we are going to encourage take-up.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Primary and community care are set to receive an additional £4.5 billion a year of taxpayers’ money as part of the NHS long-term plan, to ensure that we can get the best possible access to GPs.
Helen Whately
In parts of my constituency, it is very difficult for people to see their GP. For example, in the area of Park Wood, there is just one GP for 4,000 patients. I welcome the extra money going into primary care that my right hon. Friend just mentioned, as well as the additional GP training places and the fact that a Kent medical school is coming our way, but we need more nurses, physios and other health professionals in primary care. What is he doing to ensure that people can see the right health professional when they need to do so?
Matt Hancock
This is an incredibly important agenda that is close to my heart. It is at the core of the prevention of ill health to ensure that we have the right primary care services. Yes, that includes more GPs, but it also includes more of the other health professionals who support them. We have 1,000 extra non-GP clinical staff already working in general practice compared with just two years ago, but there is much more to do.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
But what is the Secretary of State doing about retaining GPs? This is a real problem, and we have seen more and more GPs taking early retirement in recent years. What is he doing specifically to support retention?
Matt Hancock
This is a core question that Baroness Dido Harding’s workforce review will be looking into, and work is going on right across government to try to fix it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
GPs are the first line of defence against superbugs and antimicrobial resistance, and the Secretary of State is already proving to be a world leader in this area. The idea of a resistance tax has the support of other world leaders including Lord O’Neill and Dame Sally Davies. Would he consider this approach?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to look at all approaches to how we can reduce the overuse of antibiotics to preserve them so that they work effectively where they are needed. Of course GPs have a role to play in that, and the number of antibiotics prescribed by GPs has fallen in recent years, but again there is much more work to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline whether his Department is willing to enter into an agreement with medical students to wipe out their student loans if they contract to carry out five years of GP service?
Matt Hancock
That is an interesting proposition and I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman more about the idea. I was in Northern Ireland last week looking at medical services there and at what we can learn, and that might be another idea.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Workforce is a key priority for the Government, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Baroness Dido Harding to develop an interim workforce implementation plan for the spring, including a 2019-20 action plan. It is right that local leaders and clinicians should be empowered to shape the services they need, which is why NHS Improvement has written to all system leaders in England to ask for their views on the vision that is coming forward.
Jeff Smith
The all-party parliamentary group on mental health’s recent report found that workforce is the biggest challenge to delivering improvements to mental health care. Given that there are 4,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were in 2010, what additional guidance and funding will the Government provide to ensure that local partnerships can recruit mental health nurses, and what are they doing to expand medical school places so that we can train more doctors, particularly in psychiatric specialties?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions there. It is true that the NHS has recently asked all sustainability and transformation partnerships and integrated care systems to create new five-year plans by autumn 2019 setting out how they are going to transform services. He will know that mental health is a priority in the long-term plan and that we are expanding the number of places for clinicians.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the severe shortage of pathologists to carry out post mortems? Professor Peter Hutton’s report referenced some ideas that we could take forward.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend has already mentioned several such ideas and I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right: early diagnosis of cancer is vital for successful outcomes. The Government are absolutely committed to a cancer workforce with the skills and expertise to ensure that 75% of all cancers are diagnosed early, not just the top 10. As I have said several times, that is why we asked Baroness Dido Harding to develop a detailed workforce plan to ensure that that can be delivered.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Blood cancer is the fifth most common and the third biggest killer in the UK. What assurances can I get that the workforce in that area will be increased?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend has been a champion of this cause for a long time, raising the matter on the Floor of the House several times. He can be assured that, as I said to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), Baroness Harding has been asked to bring forward detailed plans for the cancer workforce in her implementation plan.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Mental health nurse numbers have fallen for the second month running, and learning disability nurse numbers have fallen by 40% since this Government came to power. Nearly 13,000 mental health staff left their roles between May and October 2018, and the vacancy rate is now almost 10%. The King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation say that
“Urgent action is now required to avoid a vicious cycle of growing shortages and declining quality.”
Is it not time for Ministers to start taking such advice, rather than giving it?
Stephen Hammond
The Department of course takes such things seriously. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Care met Baroness Harding last week to discuss how to ensure that there are nurses and carers to help people with learning disabilities. The money that has been promised to make that possible comes in the new financial year, which starts next week.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
We are pursuing a multi-agency approach to prevent and tackle serious violence. Healthcare is of course one of the important and relevant agencies that need to work together right across government to reduce knife crime.
Vicky Foxcroft
The Government are committed to a public health approach, but we heard the Secretary of State dismiss it just a few weeks ago. What assurances can he give that he is now fully signed up to the approach? What evidence is his Department collating? How is the Department working with the Home Office to ensure that we have a long-term strategy for keeping our young people safe?
Matt Hancock
I am a huge fan of the public health approach to tackling knife crime. In fact, I was in Croydon yesterday to talk to charities and to students at Croydon College about the role the NHS can play in tackling the scourge of knife crime. I am a big fan of this agenda, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and colleagues from across the House.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
All children should receive good-quality relationships and sex education so that they understand the benefits of healthy relationships and how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections, HIV, unplanned pregnancy and abuse.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the Minister believe that the £6 million allocated for relationships and sex education is enough when it equates to a few hundred quid per school? Her Department has cut £3.2 billion from public health spending, meaning that many young people now cannot access STI testing, and we are seeing a boom in STIs among young people.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman’s question is actually a matter for the Department for Education, but I do not accept his statement. The new relationships and sex education proposals were widely welcomed across the House when they were announced, and we will improve children’s ability to look after themselves and have healthy sexual relationships.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
We all in this House have huge admiration for the dedicated staff who work night and day to deliver world-class care to patients in our NHS. We should recognise that today marks the 75th anniversary of the publication of the White Paper on the establishment of the NHS, delivered in this House by a Conservative Minister, under a Conservative Prime Minister.
Stephen Crabb
The prescription of powerful painkillers has soared, as has the number of overdoses and deaths from these prescription drugs, with some of the worst statistics in the poorest areas of the country. What is my right hon. Friend doing to reverse this worrying trend?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. There has been a rise in opioid-related deaths, and we need to work across government to tackle the problem. Public Health England is reviewing prescription drug dependence, including opioid dependence, and we recently announced a review of over-prescription in the NHS to make sure patients are taking the right medicines for the right amount of time.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
There are still 2,295 patients who are autistic or who have learning disabilities in hospital in-patient settings, despite a Government pledge in 2012 that no one would be in inappropriate settings by 2014. In 2015, the Government said they would close up to 50% of these in-patient places, and they failed to meet that pledge, too, because of a lack of social care funding. Will the Secretary of State now commit to proper social care funding for this programme and renew the pledge to end the misery of these placements by 2022?
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
The NHS long-term plan has made it clear that learning disability and autism are one of the key clinical pillars in its absolute priorities. This transforming care work is incredibly important. Where people need access to in-patient services for assessment and treatment of their needs, it has to be for as short a time as possible, it has to be as close to home as possible and it has to be with a very clear discharge plan in place.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I will certainly do that, and I am very surprised and disappointed to hear what my hon. Friend has to report. I pay tribute to her work in leading on this agenda, including setting up the all-party parliamentary group. She has campaigned hard to get the Scottish Government to act. Given the progress we have made on the target—by 2021, 95% of children and young people with an eating disorder receiving treatment within one week for urgent cases and four weeks for routine cases—we are on track to meet it. That is something we should be discussing, at the very least, with our Scottish colleagues.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
We have a range of work going on to improve access to innovative new treatments, both pharmaceutical treatments and the broader treatments that the hon. Gentleman describes, including ensuring, through an accelerated access collaborative led by the former Labour Minister Lord Darzi, that we drive innovation and that those innovations are taken up by other parts of the NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Last night, in the heat of the moment, I was discourteous to the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), and thereafter I apologised to him. However, I take this opportunity in the Chamber today to repeat that apology unreservedly to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will accept it in the genuine and sincere spirit in which the apology is intended.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend was not only a very good Whip, but is a very good constituency MP. He has made his case very well. “Shaping a healthier future” is no longer supported by the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Improvement or NHS England. The NHS will look at parts of the proposals that are in line with the long-term plan, such as the aspects that are focused on expanding the treatment of people in the community. As for the changes in A&E in west London that are part of “Shaping a healthier future”—for instance, those at Charing Cross Hospital, which he mentioned—these will not happen.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I had regular discussions with the sadly departed Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who provided really great challenge within the Department for Work and Pensions about how it handles such assessments. We must do all we can do to humanise them, especially when people are going through periods of ill health.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
I commend my hon. Friend for his commitment to raising the local priorities of his constituents and for the campaigning he does on behalf of the local NHS. I think that these plans are best worked through by the local NHS. However, if he would like, I would be happy to meet him to discuss the concerns that he has on behalf of his constituents.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to how vital local community services are in supporting people and to say that we really do need to invest in them. Clearly, these matters of investment are for local areas, which is why we allow CCGs to make these decisions, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give an evaluation of the “Future Fit” programme? We have secured more than £300 million for investment in our local hospital trust. What is his understanding of where the “Future Fit” programme has got to?
Matt Hancock
I have called in the independent review panel and asked it to consider all the evidence, at the request of the local council, to ensure that we properly assess all the evidence. We have made the money available, but we must ensure that the plans are the best ones possible for both Shrewsbury and Telford.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Caroline Dinenage
The Government take this very seriously. The NHS long-term plan sets out priorities for the NHS, and deaths from respiratory disease is a key indicator and an absolute priority. However, it is only right that people who can afford to pay for their prescriptions, like me—I am an asthma sufferer and I can afford to do it—do so. Local areas have to decide those priorities. At the moment, 90% of prescriptions are free.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Can Ministers outline the latest steps to support the children of alcohol-dependent parents? In the forthcoming alcohol strategies, will greater support be promoted for the families of alcoholics, who are often best placed to help to reduce alcohol harm in their loved ones?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to stress the role of families in supporting the children of alcoholics. We made progress on that and were able to announce funding just last week. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) for all his work—I enjoyed doing it with him—to do everything we can to support the children of alcoholics.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Matt Hancock
The relative funding across the country for different areas is assessed independently, and by law NHS England makes that assessment. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise details of how those allocations are devised—I am sure that he has got them; they are widely available—and an explanation of the conclusion that NHS England independently reached.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
What is being done to improve co-ordination between orthopaedic surgeons, osteopaths and chiropractors to reduce the burden on surgeons?
Matt Hancock
It is an important part of the agenda that we look right across the piece at interventions that can benefit patients. I know full well, not least because I am married to a former osteopath, the positive impact that that can have.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
In a debate on 24 January in this Chamber, many contributors outlined the dangers of using graded exercise therapy in treating ME. What conversations has the Department had with NICE on that issue before the proposed publication of the revised treatment guidelines in October 2020?
Caroline Dinenage
There are ongoing conversations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, NICE is updating existing clinical guidance on the diagnosis and management of ME and chronic fatigue syndrome. That guidance will be published in 2020.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I met the Secretary of State to discuss my campaign for a new health centre in Hornchurch and I welcome his subsequent announcement that NHS trusts can apply for NHS property assets. Will my right hon. Friend let me know how and when they can make those applications and whether he will consider fast-tracking any bid we make, given how close we were to receiving capital funding?
Matt Hancock
There is no better advocate for Hornchurch in the Chamber than my hon. Friend. She made her case with passion and commitment and I was very impressed by it. I will write to her with the full details, once they are published, of exactly how the process will work, and I look forward to working with her.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The north-west of England has only half the number of ambulances per head of population as London. In rural Cumbria, the situation is far worse. Will the Secretary of State agree to our proposal for an additional two ambulances for Westmorland so that we can keep our communities safe?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the winter funding round, extra ambulances were provided across the whole country. I am happy to meet him and discuss his proposals, which I will then consider carefully.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
ADHD Solutions is a community interest company based in the constituency of the shadow Health Secretary that serves children and young people with ADHD across Leicester and Leicestershire. Fifty per cent. of its referrals come from the NHS, yet it does not get funding for those referrals; however, those NHS services are able to meet NICE guidelines because ADHD Solutions is doing the job. Will the Health Secretary meet me and the shadow Health Secretary to discuss that?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), but I am more than happy to meet them to discuss that issue. From my perspective, services for people with ADHD are a bit of a Cinderella and I would like to do my best to address that, working with colleagues across the House.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
With a throwaway answer to the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), the Secretary of State has just pulled the west London strategic health framework, which has governed the delivery of hospital and community services for most of the last decade, absorbed tens of thousands of hours and cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Why has he not thought it appropriate to bring forward a statement so that the many of us who are concerned with this issue have an opportunity to interrogate the many very serious implications that this has for the delivery of healthcare across west London?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is sitting next to her, have run, over a number of years, totally inappropriate scare stories about what they said were potential changes to A&E in west London as part of “Shaping a healthier future”. It has been one of the worst aspects of local parliamentary campaigning and I am absolutely clear that the changes in A&E in west London as part of “Shaping a healthier future” will not happen. However, there are elements of “Shaping a healthier future” that are about more community services and treating more people in the community. We look forward to working with the local NHS on those parts of the proposal.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of this House, thank doctors and nurses in the NHS for the amazing news that death rates from breast cancer are falling at a faster rate here than in the six largest countries in Europe and that, since 2010, death rates have fallen by 17.7%? He will know that I raised the issue of my constituent Nicola Morgan Dingley, who is suffering from terminal breast cancer. He very kindly wrote to me. Will he agree to meet Nicola so that she can describe to him the challenges faced by women with triple negative breast cancer?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent. He is right that the fall in deaths from breast cancer is huge progress that we have made as a country. I pay tribute to the work of the NHS on that but, of course, every such death is a tragedy and we need to do yet more.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
“Shaping a healthier future” was the biggest hospital closure programme in the history of the NHS, with the loss of two major hospitals, including Charing Cross in my constituency. It was fully supported by the Conservative party not only nationally, but locally, as the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) well knows. After seven years, millions of pounds wasted in consultants, staff leaving through insecurity and 2 million people across west London threatened with the loss of essential and world-class hospitals, is that it today? Abandoning “Shaping a healthier future” is a victory for the people of Hammersmith, for the Save our Hospitals campaigners and for our Labour council, but there has been appalling judgment by a succession of Governments and Secretaries of State. Will this Secretary of State now apologise to my constituents?
Matt Hancock
It is astonishing, is it not? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) has made this case with objective clarity and reasonableness, is supporting his constituents and led to a very positive outcome, keeping the A&Es open but still doing the positive work in the community, and all we continue to get is information that I regard as erroneous from the hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned in the most terrible way on this over many years.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
A nine-year-old constituent of mine, Lydia Heptinstall, is a very brave sufferer of hypermobile Elhers-Danlos syndrome. She suffers from joint pain, headaches and numerous other symptoms and cannot do the things that other children can do. Will the Minister meet me to discuss Lydia and what the Government are doing to raise awareness of this condition?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and talk about her constituent’s concerns.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am wearing purple today for Epilepsy Day. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the causes of ongoing shortages of epilepsy medications? What action is being taken to address those problems and what impact will Brexit have on the supply of those medicines?
Matt Hancock
I, too, am wearing purple—purple socks in my case—to support this important campaign. Of course, we have done enormous amounts of work across the NHS. I pay tribute to the NHS and to suppliers for working to ensure that, whatever the Brexit outcome, there will be the continued supply of medicines, but there is one thing that the hon. Lady can do if she really wants to make sure that we put this issue to bed once and for all—vote for the deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry for disappointed remaining colleagues, but we must now move on. Before I take a possible point of order appertaining to business of which we have just treated, I want to say something with reference to yesterday’s decisions and tomorrow’s business.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I understand that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will be tabling a business of the House motion at approximately 4 pm today. Members have until the rise of the House this evening to table motions to be considered tomorrow under the indicative votes procedure. The indicative votes procedure itself, I must advise the House, will be set out in the amendable business of the House motion, which the House will debate tomorrow. I will leave it there for now. The Leader of the House will be making a supplementary business statement later, after the urgent question on Yemen. I hope, as a guide, that is helpful to the House.
Points of Order
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We cannot have a replay of Question Time because people are disappointed with the answers they got or whatever, but if there is some material point of order to be articulated briefly, I will hear it.
Debbie Abrahams
Can you advise me, Mr Speaker? I think the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), might have inadvertently misled the House in her response to Question 3 on health inequalities when she stated that there was an increase in life expectancy. In fact, the latest figures show that life expectancy has been revised downwards. Public Health England has done an investigation into this trend. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how she might correct the record?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Lady is that every Member in this place is responsible for what he or she says in it. If a Minister believes that an error has been made from the Treasury Bench, it is of course incumbent upon that Minister to correct the record. We shall have to wait to see whether the Minister judges that that is necessary in this case. If it is and it happens, I dare say the hon. Lady will be at least partly satisfied. If it is not thought to be required and therefore does not happen, my advice to her is to persist, if she wishes, through the use of the Order Paper, repairing to the Table Office to table questions, and seeking opportunities to ventilate the matter further at appropriate junctures in the Chamber.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As always in Health questions, you did your level best to get as many Back Benchers in as possible, so that we could put questions on behalf of our constituents, but obviously the desire of Members of this House to hold the Government to account on the NHS is such that Health questions are oversubscribed, as always. Every time we have Health questions, there are more people standing than the time allows. As Back Benchers, what can we do either to get more time for Health questions, which are so important, or to have them more regularly, so that Back Benchers can properly represent their constituents?
Mr Speaker
There are two possibilities. One is that Members can table further written questions—if they have already tabled some—or table them for the first time on the matter about which they are concerned and in relation to which they did not have an opportunity at oral questions. That is one avenue open to the hon. Gentleman and other Members.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman has a bigger concern, which I detect perhaps he has, and thinks that the salience of the issues and the level of interest in them are such that they warrant a greater allocation of time in the Chamber, my advice is to write to the distinguished Chair of the Procedure Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to inquire what the Committee might think about allocating greater time to these matters by comparison with others. For my part, as the hon. Gentleman would know, I would happily sit in the Chamber all day and probably all night, listening to nothing other than the dulcet and mellifluous tones of my colleagues in relation to these important matters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you further clarify your advice to the House about the processes to be followed tomorrow, and your suggestion about tabling proposed amendments before the rise of the House? There is a risk—we do not know—that the business on the Order Paper might collapse early. Would it not be more opportune to set a time by which all amendments should be tabled in case the business were to collapse and the House rise early?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I confess that I had not considered that point. The Clerk at the Table, having consulted his scholarly cranium with characteristic speed, has swivelled around to advise me on this matter, and he does not think it necessary; on balance, I do not think it necessary either. The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned about the possibility that the business of the House might conclude early, but it is not automatically to be assumed that that will be so. If that eventuality were to arise and Members were to be disadvantaged as a consequence, I would have to revisit the issue because my concern is to facilitate colleagues.
As things stand, I am working on the assumption—considering matters lying ahead, and playing for time as I do and as colleagues can see—that this need not arise. We have an urgent question on the situation in Yemen, consideration of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and a number of other items of business, including the consideration of Lords amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill and a motion regarding section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 that is amendable. I give the hon. Gentleman a hint that hon. Members may have expressed an interest to me in amending that motion. I can therefore see some hours of learned and eloquent debate ahead of us. I hope that allays his concern.
Melanie Onn
Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Speaker. It appears that hon. Members are able to submit oral questions for the weeks beginning 8 April and 15 April. Is that accurate, and has future business been amended?
Mr Speaker
I am advised that it may be a glitch in the system. The short answer is that the business for those weeks has not been announced. As I think the puckish grin on the hon. Lady’s face testifies, she knows that the business is a matter of some uncertainty at this stage. I do not know any more than she does, and as of this moment I possibly do not know any better than Members on the Government and Opposition Front Benches as to whether the House will be sitting in the weeks of 8 April and/or 15 April. It is a matter still to be determined.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the abhorrent racist abuse directed at England footballers during their match last night. I know that you will agree that we must do everything we can to stamp out this vile behaviour. Can you advise me whether it would be reasonable to expect the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to come to the House and make a statement on what the Government are doing to protect our players abroad and what action they are taking to push for the strongest possible punishments?
Mr Speaker
It is certainly perfectly reasonable for the hon. Lady to hope for a statement. Whether the Secretary of State has a plan to do so imminently—in truth, I do not know. It may be intended. There are other ways in which the House can air its concerns on the matter. I share entirely the hon. Lady’s view. Any and all racist abuse is to be utterly and unreservedly condemned, and all of us who have public voices—if I may put it that way—should take the opportunity to make it clear that there can be no justification for that behaviour by anyone, anywhere and at any time. A huge amount of work has been done by anti-racist organisations in football and more widely across sport to try to change behaviour and change the attitudes that underlie abhorrent behaviour. It is only a pity to note that, despite some fantastic work—of which the hon. Lady will also be well aware—much still remains to be done.
Yemen
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Yemen.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I hope you will indulge me for just one moment, Mr Speaker, while I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has left office and, in a normal state of affairs, would have been answering this question. He is a very old friend of mine. We have shared offices not just in the Foreign Office but in Portcullis House. I know that he will make a great contribution to international affairs and elsewhere, not least in the middle east, in the rest of his time in Parliament.
Today is the fourth anniversary of the intervention by the Saudi-led coalition into the conflict in Yemen, at the invitation of the Government of Yemen, which began when the Houthi rebels captured most of the capital, Sana’a, and expelled the internationally recognised Government. Since then, Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, the largest in the world, has continued to worsen, as many right hon. and hon. Members know. We call on both sides urgently to implement the agreements made at the Stockholm peace talks and bring an end to this dire conflict.
The United Kingdom is at the forefront of work towards a political solution to this conflict—there can only be a political solution, in the long term—and we will continue to show leadership as part of international efforts to end the appalling suffering that millions are facing. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the region at the beginning of the month in a display of the UK’s support for efforts to secure peace. During this time, he visited the port city of Aden, becoming the first western Foreign Minister to visit Yemen since the conflict began. He also attended the peace talks in Stockholm last December. This year—the tax year 2019-20—we have committed an additional £200 million of UK aid, bringing our total commitment to over £770 million since the conflict began. This support will save, and indeed is saving, lives by meeting the immediate food needs of more than 1 million Yemenis each and every month of the year, treating 30,000 children for malnutrition and providing more than 1 million people with improved water supply and basic sanitation.
The UK continues to support the work of the UN, and the UK-led UN Security Council resolutions 2451 and 2452 were unanimously approved by the Security Council in December 2018 and January 2019 respectively. Those resolutions enshrined the agreements made in Stockholm and authorised the deployment of monitors within the UN Mission to Support the Hodeidah Agreement, thus bolstering the peace process further. We believe that the Stockholm conference was a landmark point, as the first time that the parties had come to the negotiating table in over two years, but we all know that there is a serious risk that this window of opportunity to make progress towards lasting peace may slip away. The UK therefore urges both sides to act in good faith, to co-operate with the UN special envoy and General Lollesgaard and to implement the Stockholm agreements rapidly. We have been clear that a political settlement is the one and only way to bring about long-term stability in Yemen and to address the worsening humanitarian crisis. We shall continue to make every effort to support the UN-led process to get to the solution that so many Yemeni civilians so desperately require.
Emily Thornberry
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Let me begin by completely agreeing with the Minister about the terrible loss from the Foreign Office Front-Bench team of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who might well have been answering this question today were it not for his decision on a matter of principle. Labour Members applaud the right hon. Gentleman for that today, as we do the equally principled stance taken by the Minister for Asia and the Pacific. We will miss both the substance and the tone that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to our debates from the Front Bench over the past two years.
Unfortunately, however, the former Minister is one of several Foreign Office and Defence Ministers who have told us repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, in written answers and in evidence to Committees that Britain is not a party to the conflict in Yemen. Most crucially, for the past three years, that phrase has been used time and again by Ministers to explain that it is impossible to assess alleged individual violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen because we are not a party to the conflict. Yet this weekend we read reports in The Mail on Sunday that members of British special forces had been engaged in gun battles with the Houthi rebels in Yemen while providing support to the coalition forces.
I am not for a second expecting the Minister of State to comment on the activities of our special forces—something that the Government never do—but I want to ask him two important questions of principle. First, in the light of these reports, do the Government still stand by their long-standing statements that Britain is not a party to this conflict? We already know about our support for the Saudi air force and our supply of billions in arms for the Saudi coalition. If, in addition to all that, our forces are engaged in actual gun battles with the Houthi rebels and that does not constitute being a party to the conflict, I really do not know what does.
The second question of principle is this. It is an equally long-standing position of the Government that there is no military solution to this conflict. Indeed, the Minister has reaffirmed that today. So I simply ask this: why, if these reports are accurate, are British forces being put in harm’s way trying to deliver that military solution?
Finally, there was one especially disturbing allegation in The Mail on Sunday report that our forces are providing support to locally recruited, Saudi-funded militia and that many of the fighters—up to 40%, it was alleged—are children as young as 13 years old. Is that in any way true? If it is, that would confirm that our forces are not just a party to this conflict but witnesses to war crimes.
Mark Field
I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone of her contribution. She will appreciate—indeed, she expressly appreciated—that in relation to special forces we do not comment either to confirm or deny any involvement. Clearly, she is well aware that we have liaison officers who are based in Saudi Arabia, and have been routinely. I am very keen not in any way inadvertently to mislead the House on this matter, and therefore I will, if she will forgive me, ensure that she has a written response, liaising with the Ministry of Defence, about the issue of other engagement or involvement of British personnel in Yemen at the moment. We still hold to the firm view that we are not a party to the conflict. Clearly, we are supportive of Saudi Arabia, which has been a long-standing ally, as she is aware. There is no military solution to this matter.
I have never been to Yemen myself, but my late father’s first engagement out of Sandhurst was in Aden, in a different time. He had the fondest of memories, as indeed many people living in that country have of this country. That is why we have been a penholder at the UN Security Council.
I have also, of course, read the article in The Mail on Sunday, if perhaps slightly later than the right hon. Lady did—only this morning. It makes some very serious allegations. I am keen that we get to the bottom of those allegations. Again, I am very keen not in any way to mislead the House, but allegations made in relation to any engagement that involves bringing child soldiers on board would be appalling. I very much hope that the journalist will be in a position, within the sources that he can reveal, to make it clear what knowledge he had on the ground. Clearly, that will be investigated as a matter of urgency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very much hoping to move on no later than 1.30 pm, so brief questions and answers would be greatly appreciated.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will be grateful for the words of the Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary about my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I have worked with him on international development matters for the last 14 years, and the Government can ill afford to lose such a capable Minister at a time like this.
The welcome change of direction on Yemen that the new Foreign Secretary has ushered in is greatly to be applauded, but there were exceedingly serious, credible and authoritative allegations in the Sunday media that serving British military personnel have been seriously wounded in operations in Yemen. That flies in the face of assurances given from the Dispatch Box on countless occasions, including in emergency debates that you have authorised, Mr Speaker. I tabled a number of questions last night to the Ministry of Defence, and were it not for the all-consuming nature of Brexit, I suspect the House would want to explore this as a matter of urgency.
Mark Field
I thank my right hon. Friend. I know he has a long-standing interest in this issue, not least the humanitarian aspect, from his time as International Development Secretary. He is right; these are very serious allegations, and I am keen that I do not inadvertently give reassurances on the Floor of the House that could turn out not to be the case. We need to have an internal investigation. I will perhaps take this up in writing with him, but I suspect that we will come back to this issue on the Floor of the House before too long.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
May I add my own remarks about the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? This is a loss that the Government, never mind the FCO, can ill afford. He was a fine Minister, and I am sorry to see him go.
In the deepening humanitarian crisis, some aid agencies are saying that they cannot now work around Hodeidah, and the cholera crisis is spiralling out of control. How are we using our influence? We have been told that the Government are using their influence through arms sales. What influence has £4.6 billion-worth of arms sales delivered? The Minister said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, on the subject of the Mail on Sunday allegations, that
“we are not a party”
to the conflict, but “we are supportive”. Can he give more detail about what the difference is? What advice is the Foreign Office giving to the Home Office about those who manage to flee the conflict in Yemen, who are being diverted to Sudan at the moment? What advice is it giving about the safety of young families who have been sent there?
Mark Field
For obvious reasons, there is constant dialogue between the Home Office and the Foreign Office. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman on specifics, if I may. As far as the broader issue of arms sales is concerned, I appreciate that other Members may wish to raise this, but let me say generally that, as he will be aware, we have one of the strictest arms sales regimes in the world.
Mark Field
Well, as the right hon. Lady will be aware, it is a regime that came into place under the new Labour Administration.
Mark Field
I can confirm to the right hon. Lady that in my part of the world—in Asia and the Pacific—the issue that I probably spend the most time on is arms licences. All Foreign Office Ministers take that work extremely seriously. I have a strict rule in my mind that if the recommendation is to refuse, I will endorse that, but if it is to accept, I will look very carefully through the papers and will often ask for further and better particulars or will push back to refuse. That causes all sorts of day-to-day concerns with the Department for International Trade, but we do that. We take that very seriously as Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers—something I am sure she looks forward to doing at some point in the near future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
To what extent are offensive coalition air operations continuing? What is their intensity?
Mark Field
I will have to get back to my right hon. Friend on that matter. It is more an issue for the Ministry of Defence, I guess, than for the Foreign Office.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
May I echo what has been said about the former Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? He will be a huge loss to both the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development.
On Saturday in Birmingham, friends of Yemen from across the country came together with a very powerful voice for the diaspora. Can the Minister seek to ensure that, the next time Martin Griffiths is in the UK, he has a meeting with representatives of the Yemeni diaspora who live here, so that their voice can be heard in this process?
Mark Field
That is essential, and we will try to organise that. I will try to ensure that my private office gives the hon. Gentleman as much notice as possible of Martin Griffiths being here in the UK. We can be very proud of what we are doing on the humanitarian aspects of this. That links into the Yemeni diaspora in this country, and we hope that they will feel that they can play an important part in a better future for that country.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister rightly says that a political settlement is the only way to end this crisis, but pressure must be exerted from all sides. Does he have a message for the Government of Iran about how they can use their influence with the Houthi people to bring about peace?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that this war did not begin with a Saudi-led intervention. This whole matter began six months after Houthi rebels, representing no more than 15% of the Yemeni population, captured most of the capital, Sana’a, and expelled the internationally recognised Government. As she alludes to, they have been supported by Iran, and clearly the international community needs to try to come together. It is a desperate humanitarian situation on a scale that few of us can comprehend. I have been out to Cox’s Bazar, where the Rohingya are living, but this is on a scale literally 30 times as great; it is really quite horrific.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join the shadow Foreign Secretary and others in commending the incredible work of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
This is a grim anniversary. Since the ceasefire was announced, three civilians have died in this conflict every single day, and there are 110,000 cases of cholera. Three dates are essential: the date that we can have the next meeting of the Quad, the date when the peace talks will resume and the date for the appointment of a new Minister with responsibility for Yemen. When will those be? It is important that we have proper ministerial focus. The Minister cannot run the whole world. We need someone as focused as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire.
Mark Field
That is a fair question. I would like to think that I can do the job at least for urgent questions and the like, but I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman says. As far as a date for peace talks is concerned, we are desperate to ensure at the UN and with all our partners that there is momentum from what happened in Stockholm, which was very positive, but we feel that the momentum is coming to an end. As far as the Quad is concerned, there are ongoing discussions, and no doubt we will again try to get more movement and momentum to ensure that the progress made is built upon and does not dwindle away.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Are there any restrictions on our very large aid budget that would prevent us from applying it to a warzone such as this?
Mark Field
My right hon. Friend will recognise that that is an issue for the Secretary of State for International Development, but there are restrictions on it—in fact, fairly strict restrictions in international law, and our own legislation has come into play in that regard. Clearly, this is a desperate humanitarian situation. I think all of us feel that it is right that a significant amount of international aid is placed there. There is a recognition that it is sometimes difficult to get to the most vulnerable on the ground, but we shall do our level best to ensure that that happens.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I very much echo the comments that others have made about the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He was one of the very best, most thoughtful and most dedicated Ministers, and his departure from the Front Bench is a loss to the Government and the country.
There has been a huge reluctance on the part of the Government to criticise the Saudi regime, even in the face of the most appalling humanitarian situation in Yemen, which the Minister described, and the appalling conflict. It seems unacceptable that we continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. I do not call that leadership. Instead of leveraging our influence from our trading relationship with Saudi Arabia, it seems that we are silenced by it. Does the Minister share my assessment that, after Brexit, we will be in a weaker position, not a stronger one, to criticise states with a bad human rights record?
Mark Field
No. The truth of the matter—I see it even in my part of the world—is that the diplomatic channels are open, and we regularly express human rights concerns with countries with which we have trade. I reiterate that we do take our export licensing responsibilities extremely seriously, and we operate a very robust arms export regime. There is a respectable case that says we should not be in the arms business and should just not sell any at all, but we would like to think that our regime means that in many ways we are able to present a more robust case than many other countries that sell arms across the world.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has said that there are 50,000 metric tonnes of grain stuck in Hodeidah. Is it possible that we could use the port of Aden, which used to be a great port, to deliver aid and divert it another way?
Mark Field
I should say to my hon. Friend that the most vulnerable areas are in the north-west of the country, and important though Aden is as a port, Yemen is a large country and it is actually too far away. The roads from Aden to the most affected areas are of course particularly dangerous to traverse at this time.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What action is being taken to prevent children from Sudan from being used and exploited in the conflict in Yemen?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I look forward to crossing swords with her now she is on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We take the issue of children very seriously, and part and parcel of our work with non-governmental organisations and international bodies is ensuring that children are not used in any sort of conflict, particularly those being pushed across borders in the way she describes. We will do our level best, and if we have more specific information, I will obviously ensure that it is brought to her attention.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Iranian-backed “party of God”—Hezbollah—which is mainly based in Lebanon, has been supplying training, weaponry and missile technology to the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency. To what extent does the Minister believe that Hezbollah is egging on the Houthis not to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire?
Mark Field
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have very long-standing concerns about Hezbollah’s involvement in Yemen. Hezbollah and Iran are of course providing training and weapons to the Houthis, contrary to UN Security Council resolution 2216 and the embargo on the export of weapons by Iran. We shall continue to encourage Iran, the state sponsor of Hezbollah, to demonstrate that it can be a constructive part of the solution, rather than continue with its current conduct. We hope it can promote stability.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
With nearly 110,000 new cases of cholera since the start of the year, a third of which involve children under the age of five, does the Minister agree that any strategy to protect children must not only stop the appalling attacks on children, such as the attack on the school bus last summer, but take action against killer diseases such as cholera? Will he tell us what we are doing to achieve that?
Mark Field
It is an absolute tragedy of the first order. I am often reminded that cholera was discovered, if that is the right word, in my constituency, a stone’s throw from here, back in the 1840s, when it was discovered that it was a water-borne disease. It is obviously unthinkable that people would suffer from cholera in this country, and we are doing all we can to ensure that there is fresh water, and indeed that water supplies are as pure as possible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is probably also cholera in some of the more difficult to reach far-flung areas, where it is difficult to get access.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The initial optimism of the peace talks bringing the two sides together seems to have waned. What influence is my right hon. Friend seeking to have on the different parties to bring them to the negotiating table so that international aid can be provided to relieve the humanitarian suffering?
Mark Field
As we see it, the next phase of the Stockholm agreement is to provide for a mutual redeployment of the forces away from Hodeidah. Again, we are looking to work, as we need to do, with both sides of the conflict for an agreement on that, which would obviously have a big impact on the humanitarian situation. That has not been implemented to date, and to be frank with my hon. Friend, until that happens the ceasefire is unlikely to be sustained.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
To go further on that point, can the Minister give examples of how, practically, he is ensuring that aid is being delivered to all parts of Yemen, no matter who is holding that ground?
Mark Field
The detailed aspects of this are slightly sensitive. They are a matter for the Department for International Development, and I will do my best to write to the hon. Gentleman with some details.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Without wishing to repeat what others have said, keeping Hodeidah port open is absolutely critical to the flow of aid and food supplies to those most in need in Yemen. Given the heavy weapons fire between the warring parties in the city this week, what urgent pressure has the Minister sought to exert to restore the ceasefire there?
Mark Field
The work we are doing within the UN is clearly vital. We have to bring both sides of this conflict together, and we have done our level best to do that. We think the Yemeni Government understand the importance of this issue, and it is the single most important issue that will have such an impact on the lives of the many millions of Yemenis having to put up with this dreadful conflict.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
May I add my compliments to those paid to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)?
The allegations about child soldiers are very serious. I have previously raised them in the House, and it is very disappointing that it has taken us so long to discuss them. UNICEF has reported how many child soldiers were employed by the Houthis; the BBC has reported that they were being shot in the back; and we have seen other such crimes such as the use of mines. When are we going to take Yemen seriously, instead of discussing some issues around the edges that do not affect the situation in Yemen?
Mark Field
To be honest, until all parties in Yemen are committed to the peace process or start down that path, it is going to be very difficult. That is the truth. We will do as much as we can on the humanitarian side, and we will obviously continue to do as much as we can diplomatically, but there needs to be a sense within Yemen of all parties being committed to peace. Unfortunately, four years in, that is not yet the case. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s deep-seated concerns about the dreadful notion of child soldiers being used in this conflict.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister has talked of two sides being involved in this, but there is a third, which is Iran. What is being done to bring Iran into the process so the humanitarian crisis can be solved?
Mark Field
As I mentioned in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), we obviously recognise that Iran has an important part to play, not least because it is the state sponsor of Hezbollah. We will continue, in whatever way we can, to make representations to the Iranian Government—we do that out in Tehran, obviously, but also in the international community—and to try to impress on others the importance of their influence. As he says, it has all too often been a malign influence, and it needs to change.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
To follow up on that question about Iran, what further measures can the Foreign and Commonwealth Office bring into play to make sure that Iran, which obviously has a proxy in this conflict in Yemen, is brought to account for what it is doing?
Mark Field
On bringing Iran to account, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it has had a proxy in what has happened, as it has for some years, not least in encouraging the Houthi insurgents. We have recognised that if Yemen is to have unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, Iran clearly has an important part to play. We hope it will use its influence with the Houthis to encourage a de-escalation of the current crisis and to end their attacks on coalition countries, but also to support the moves back towards a political track.
As I have often said here about diplomacy, sometimes it is a matter of taking three steps forward and a couple of steps back. Stockholm was definitely three steps forward, and I think we are in a far better place today than we were six months ago. Equally, we do not want those advances to slip away. Iran has had an important part to play in that process, and will do in the years to come.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister is right to focus on the peaceful and negotiated solution that needs to be sought to bring an end to this conflict, but what discussions are there about long-term support to stabilise and rebuild the country? This is not just about bringing the fighting to an end; the long-term solution is about ensuring that it does not restart.
Mark Field
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course there is thought going into that. I see it in a different part of the world—in Afghanistan, where obviously we have had an engagement—and one realises just how long a haul this must be. As my hon. Friend says, an important aspect of that is to build up a sustainable economy. Of course, one does not start from zero in that regard. We need to work together with the international community to build up a sustainable economy in Yemen that can provide prosperity for future generations.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) was dedicated in office, a decent person and dignified in the leaving of office. He was also helping me with the case of my constituent Luke Symons, who has been held captive by the Houthis for two years in Sana’a, and we were, I hope, making some progress. Will the Minister—or perhaps the Foreign Secretary, who is aware of this case—agree to an urgent meeting with me in order that we do not lose momentum, given the former Minister’s departure?
Mark Field
I could not suppress a slight smile when the hon. Gentleman talked about my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt); it was as though he had died. I think he is still alive and kicking. He is probably having a quiet pint and a quiet afternoon—though maybe not.
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point about Luke Symons, on whose case he has worked extremely hard. He is aware that the Foreign Secretary brought up the case during his visit to Yemen earlier in the month. We have been providing consular advice to the UK-based family since 2017, and will continue to do so.
I wish to put it on the record that although I appreciate there were particular reasons why Luke Symons was out there—his wife is a Yemeni national—we now advise against all travel to Yemen, and therefore we are unable to provide consular assistance out in the country. Anyone who travels to Yemen against our advice is putting themselves at considerable risk.
Of course I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and indeed representatives of the Symons family.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I, too, would like to share my gratitude to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his work. I was very glad to be able to listen to Yemenis last week who were in London for events. They included Dalia Qasem Farea, Laila Al-shabibi and Hisham Al-Omeisy—the House may remember that he was held by the Houthis, and I have raised his case in the House.
Of ongoing concern to many aid agencies is the ability of goods and people to travel around Yemen to get to the places and people who need them. Can the Minister tell us more about what is being done to ensure that aid reaches those who need it the most?
Mark Field
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I have already alluded to that subject in several answers. Our immediate focus, obviously, remains on ensuring that enough food is getting through to the desperate Yemenis to prevent starvation and a disastrous famine. With the operating environment in Yemen extremely difficult for humanitarian organisations we are now focusing our attention on UN agencies, NGOs and other donors, to get out to those more difficult areas. Part of that is to assess the acuteness of need in those parts of Yemen, but that of course is an ongoing process and we feel that we have made some significant progress along with NGOs and other international partners.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
At a recent lobby of Parliament by Save the Children and Oxfam, my constituents were quite clear that the arms sales to Saudi Arabia need to end if the famine in Yemen is to end. Does the Minister share their sentiments?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken on the whole issue of the arms trade. He is putting forward a perfectly respectable position, but I think it is not necessarily shared by us all. I hope that the fact that we have safeguards in place that are, I think, more stringent than most other countries’ should give some comfort to his constituents; but I think that we will have a very active and live debate in this House, in relation to not only Yemen but the whole world, in the years to come.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. In an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the British Government confirmed that they had directly trained 102 Saudi pilots over the last 10 years. Last year they signed a deal to sell 48 Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia. How many of those pilots and planes have been operational in Yemen? Or is it the case that once the pilots are trained and the planes are sold, the British Government wash their hands?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I cannot answer that question directly, simply because we obviously do not have that information to hand. And no, it is not a matter of our washing our hands. We have military liaison in Saudi Arabia, and part of that is to try and encourage a sense of ethics. We have military liaison, of course, in a number of other countries that are at the heart of war zones as well. I obviously cannot give a direct answer because I do not have that data to hand, but I very much hope that the liaison officers that we have with the Saudi military are inculcating some of the values that we need, within warfare, to be properly adhered to.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the best wishes of the whole House will go out to those members of the British Special Forces who have been reported injured in Yemen. I do not expect the Minister to comment on the details of the operations that they might have been involved in, but can he say whether any members of the British armed forces operating in Yemen have observed, or been witness to, the use of child soldiers by the Saudi Arabian side?
Mark Field
I refer to my earlier answers. I do not wish to fob the hon. Gentleman off. Some serious allegations were made in The Mail on Sunday article. I am sure that they are well sourced, so I would be interested to know more about those sources. There will be an investigation on the matter.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Government clearly recognise the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, because they have recently increased aid; yet, sickeningly, unlike Germany, Norway, Denmark and Finland, UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia continue. Does the Minister feel that these continued arms sales are helping to cease or intensify the relentless and indiscriminate murder of innocent children and civilians?
Mark Field
I can really only refer the hon. Lady to what I said earlier on arms sales. Many of these are long-standing contracts, with arms that are in the hands of some of the combatants in the Saudi-led coalition in this regard. There is nothing that I can usefully add to that answer.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government contract the manufacture of UK arms for Saudi Arabia. They contract the issuing of bombs into UK aircraft in the kingdom. They have RAF soldiers in command centres, and now we learn that we have ground assets in Yemen. So can I ask again, because I do not think the Minister answered the question: if this does not constitute being a member of the coalition, what on earth does? What legal advice have Her Majesty’s Government received about potential complicity in war crimes and international humanitarian law abuses, which we could now be liable for?
Mark Field
Will the hon. Gentleman please be assured that there is ongoing legal advice on all the matters to which he referred? I should perhaps also say, to correct the record in that regard, that we do not have our liaison officers or others in command centres with the Saudis. The liaison is in Saudi; they are there in a training and advisory capacity.[Official Report, 27 March 2019, Vol. 657, c. 4MC.][Official Report, 10 April 2019, Vol. 658, c. 4MC.]
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Like many hon. Members, I attended some of the #YemenCantWait events over the past week. I was struck by one quote:
“We’ve had 4 years of WAR, and the SUFFERING is reflected on every face you see.”
The situation is beyond dire. What will the Minister say to the UN’s Martin Griffiths when he visits London—I believe this week—regarding the urgency of a continued effort on the peace process?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is an absolutely desperate situation. We are working closely with Martin Griffiths, and will continue to do so.
As I said at the outset, the most important thing is to try and move towards a political solution. We had some real progress, for the first time in two years, in Stockholm at the end of 2018, and we now need to build upon that. That is the message that goes out: how can we work together to build upon the progress that has already been made? It is, though, an utterly desperate situation.
Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that we are 110 seconds within your limit, so I could filibuster a little bit longer. [Laughter.] No, I do not wish to be too glib on this. I know that we shall come back to the subject repeatedly in future. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I appreciate, and they will appreciate, that for obvious reasons, one or two of their replies will have to be provided in writing. I think it is greatly to our credit that we are a UN penholder on this Yemeni issue. It is very close to our hearts. We shall be doing a lot of work, continually, on the humanitarian side. Some of the most important work that we do across the globe will be done, and many, many lives will be saved courtesy of the British taxpayer.
Business of the House
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
To assist the House, I would like to make a short business statement. The first business tomorrow will reflect the decision taken by the House yesterday. At the conclusion of that business, the Government will bring forward the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Amendment) Regulations 2019 for consideration.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. We welcome the fact that we can approve the statutory instrument to extend the exit day. I just have a couple of questions. When will the meaningful vote be brought back, given that the Prime Minister said it would be coming back this week? Can she confirm that it is also the Government’s understanding that: if the meaningful vote is passed, exit day is on 22 May; if there is no meaningful vote, we leave by 12 April; and there will be a further extension if we show purpose? We welcome the fact that the uncertainty of 29 March has now moved, albeit to 12 April.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. What I can say is that, as the Prime Minister has made very clear, the Government continue to believe that the best way to leave the EU is with a deal. The deal that she has negotiated has taken the best part of three years and is extremely complicated. It remains our view that it represents the best compromise for leaving the European Union while keeping a close economic and security partnership. As the Prime Minister has said, she will continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to seek to build support for her deal, so we can, if possible, this week approve the deal and guarantee Brexit.
On the hon. Lady’s specific question, the draft statutory instrument the Government hope to bring forward tomorrow will provide for two durations that were agreed with the EU27. Exit day, as amended, would be 22 May if the withdrawal agreement is approved before 11 pm on 29 March. Otherwise, it would be 11 pm on 12 April.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the appetite of colleagues. This is an important business statement by the Leader of the House, but its terms are relatively narrow and it is not the normal business statement so it really should focus on tomorrow, which is the subject matter on which the Leader focused.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader just clarify? I thought the 2018 Act required an exit date, not two optional dates. So I am surprised that the statutory instrument is actually naming two dates. I would have thought that the right thing would have been to have 12 April and then extend later if need be. Am I also right in thinking—I am sure the Leader would agree—that if those statutory instruments go through both Houses of Parliament, we will be coming out of the European Union, at least domestically, in three days’ time?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. This House voted on 14 March for a short extension to article 50. The EU Council’s conclusions were turned into a legal decision with which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom agreed. Those conclusions came into force last Friday. So the date for our departure from the EU has already changed in international law. The draft statutory instrument provides for both the durations that were agreed with the EU27. As I said to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), exit day, as amended, would be 22 May if the withdrawal agreement is approved before 11 pm on 29 March. Otherwise, it would be 11 pm on 12 April. I want to be very clear that a rejection of the statutory instrument that the Government seek to bring forward tomorrow would create a clash in UK law, because a large volume of EU exit legislation preparing the UK statute book for the moment that EU law ceases to apply is due to enter into force automatically on exit day. In international law, the exit date has already changed. The statutory instrument seeks to clarify that in UK law. I hope that that is clear to all Members.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We all look forward to the Leader of the House’s motion tomorrow, so this can be properly discussed. I think we are all particularly looking forward to a little bit of parliamentary innovation tomorrow. I am looking around for Prime Minister Letwin. He must still be with the Queen discussing the Parliament party legislative programme, which we will obviously get an opportunity to consider and debate tomorrow.
I get the sense that Parliament is about to take control of this process with all the enthusiasm of the first lieutenant of the Titanic taking over from Captain Edward John Smith. Can the Leader of the House confirm today that the Government will observe and respect whatever outcomes are agreed tomorrow, by a majority, in this great piece of parliamentary novelty? That is what the House really needs to hear from the Leader. We are sick and tired of voting repeatedly on motions that are passed, only for the Government to casually and contemptuously ignore them. Will they co-operate fully in ensuring that we get to some sort of solution with this House, and will they respect and observe it?
Andrea Leadsom
I reject what the hon. Gentleman says about the Government ignoring this House. It is, of course, as a result of the motion that was passed by this House on 14 March that we have an extension to article 50. As he knows well, as Leader of the House of Commons, I take very seriously my role to be Parliament’s voice in the Government.
On the options that will be brought forward tomorrow, what I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, at this stage, we do not know which options will be debated and voted on, let alone which will pass. To use his analogy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the new Prime Minister for West Dorset, has not yet indicated that manifesto. Nor indeed has the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) indicated his manifesto. I think we need to wait for that advice. I do jest, in case any hon. Gentleman is determined to take offence at my joke there, Mr Speaker. I say that for clarity in this Chamber.
The second point is that any options passed by this House must be negotiable. They have to be deliverable in negotiations with the EU and they would also have to take account of how long those negotiations would take.
Finally, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in the discussion yesterday, and as the shadow Brexit Secretary also made clear in the House, it would not be possible for different parties to accept proposals that their party manifestos rejected at the last general election. [Interruption.] The shadow Brexit Secretary was clear in the House yesterday that Labour would reject certain potential outcomes as inconsistent with the Labour manifesto. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) shouts “Rubbish”, but she needs to talk to her Front Benchers. It is absolutely vital that this House delivers outcomes that are negotiable, feasible and in line with the will of the manifestos and the referendum on which we all stood.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If the measure was defeated or the Prime Minister stayed her hand, then the European Communities Act 1972 would cease to apply on Friday evening and we would be free, wouldn’t we?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is correct to say that a commencement order is required under section 25(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order to give effect to the repeal. The timing of that commencement order will depend on the date we leave the EU. We need to commence the repeal of the 1972 Act on the date of our departure, which is either 12 April as things stand if the deal is not approved, or 22 May if the deal is approved.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
May I join the Leader of the House in welcoming her resistance to what I must now call the anarcho-Brextremists on her own side who want to mess around by voting against the motion she has brought today to put UK law in line with the international treaty agreements that the Prime Minister has made? Will she clarify something she said in her statement? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said she was no longer going to bring the deal back for a third meaningful vote, but the Leader of the House has just said that that might happen this week. Can she clarify which is true?
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister has said that she will continue to seek further support for the withdrawal agreement and political declaration. Should she succeed in that, we will seek to bring back the meaningful vote for this House to consider. To be clear again, it is only if this House approves the withdrawal agreement before 11 pm on 29 March that there is then an extension to 22 May.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If this House does not approve the withdrawal agreement—indeed, it might be that it is not possible for the withdrawal agreement to be brought back before this House anyway—and if the Prime Minister therefore decides that exiting on World Trade Organisation terms is preferable to no Brexit, is there anything that this House can actually do to prevent the Prime Minister ensuring that we exit on WTO terms? I think the answer to that question is no, isn’t it?
Andrea Leadsom
I think my right hon. Friend poses an unanswerable question, because of course the ingenuity of the House knows no bounds. What the House has been clear about is that it does not want a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit on WTO terms. I share that desire, but, as we have always been clear, the way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to vote for the deal. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will quote directly from the European Council conclusions:
“The European Council reiterates that there can be no opening of the Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed between the Union and the United Kingdom in November 2018. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement.”
So all the terms under which the UK leaves the EU are subject to the agreement by this House of the withdrawal agreement.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is potty to announce today that we are going to have the statutory instrument tomorrow evening, at the fag end of the business. That is absolutely ludicrous when we could perfectly easily do it on Thursday.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether we will be sitting on Friday? I have a particular interest: Friday is Brain Tumour Research’s Wear A Hat Day, and it is encouraging everybody around the country to wear a hat to work on that day. As you will know, Mr Speaker, “Erskine May” is now silent, on page 451, about whether we can wear a hat in the Chamber, although I think we are expected to speak uncovered. Would it not be a good idea for the Leader of the House to announce now, if we are sitting on Friday, that we are going to do that on Friday, or if not, that we can all wear hats on Thursday?
Andrea Leadsom
Excellent. I once wore a hat because I wanted to take my hat off to the right hon. Baroness Jowell, who sadly is no longer with us, for her brilliance in establishing Sure Start. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that you tolerated my wearing of a hat in honour of what I felt was a very good cause.
The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific question. As he will be aware, at the moment there are no plans to sit on Friday. If there were plans to do that, it would require the passing of a motion to that effect, which the House would have to agree.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that to get the longer extension requires the passing of the withdrawal agreement, not the withdrawal agreement plus the political declaration, and that the political declaration provides for a wide spectrum of potential outcomes for the long-term relationship between the UK and the EU?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right that the European Council decision requires that this House has agreed the withdrawal agreement—or has introduced the withdrawal agreement—in order to get the long extension ready for the legislation. I encourage all hon. Members to consider that a lot of the proposals being put forward for tomorrow would themselves require a withdrawal agreement to be approved in order for them to be taken forward. We need to be clear that what we will be talking about in the indicative votes tomorrow are, potentially, replacements for the future arrangements as opposed to replacements for the withdrawal agreement. I urge hon. Members again to consider the Prime Minister’s deal and to accept the reality, which is that the European Council requires us to look positively at the withdrawal agreement.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House knows, and I welcome the fact, that I am now semi-clear about what the future progress in the House will be, but does she agree that it is most important in this troubled and tumultuous time that we inform our constituents about what we are doing as honestly and openly as possible? Will she stop her colleagues in the Cabinet going on radio and television and saying that there has been a vote on a people’s vote, or a second referendum? That has not taken place. A minority group in the House moved a motion, on which most of the Opposition abstained. There has not been a major vote on the people having the opportunity of a new referendum. Will she stop her Cabinet colleagues saying there has been?
Andrea Leadsom
There very much was a people’s vote. That was in June 2016, and the people decided to leave the European Union.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the very act of the Prime Minister signing what is, in effect, an amendment to the Lisbon treaty under royal prerogative makes whatever we have to say on the matter of an extension rather irrelevant?
Andrea Leadsom
This House voted on 14 March for a short extension of article 50. At the time, the Prime Minister made it very clear that if this House were to vote for that short extension, she would seek to negotiate it but that she could not be certain what the EU would offer in return. My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister agreed a short extension. That was not necessarily every individual’s definition of exactly what that should be, but she agreed it on behalf of the United Kingdom. As such, in international law, the date of our exit from the EU has now changed irreversibly to 12 April, or to 22 May if we have agreed to progress with the withdrawal agreement.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Is it the Government’s intention to table their own business motion for the Speaker to deliberate on regarding tomorrow’s business?
Andrea Leadsom
As I set out just now in the business statement, the first business tomorrow will reflect the decision taken by the House yesterday, and at the conclusion of that business the Government will bring forward the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Given that the Leader of the House has said that we are not sitting on Friday, and given that House business takes priority tomorrow, does she expect to make a business statement at the end of House business tomorrow announcing that the meaningful vote will take place on Thursday?
Andrea Leadsom
I cannot give my hon. Friend absolute certainty on any issues of future business right now. As I have set out, we are continuing to seek support for the Prime Minister’s deal, and that is absolutely the focus for the Government. Should we feel that there was sufficient support for that deal, we would seek to bring that vote back, because that would mean we would be in a position by the end of this week to have an orderly departure from the European Union, with a close economic and security partnership to go with it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am sorry if I missed it, but will the Leader of the House clarify tomorrow’s business? Will there be protected time for the SI? It seems strange to cram it in tomorrow, given the decisions the House has made about debates tomorrow. Will she clarify how much business there will be, whether we will have protected time for it and whether the Government will table their own business motion to deal with the indicative votes tomorrow?
Andrea Leadsom
Hon. Members will realise that the vote yesterday was that the Government would not be responsible for tomorrow’s business. The Government are seeking to engage in a productive and constructive way with those who have control of tomorrow’s business to ensure that we debate this very important statutory instrument, which will provide certainty—not certainty about our departure date but legal certainty between 29 March and, in the first instance, 12 April—to businesses and citizens. The Government are working closely with those right hon. and hon. Members who are controlling the business tomorrow to seek agreement that Government business will be able to carry on after the moment of interruption. As is normal with statutory instruments, I would expect that to be a 90-minute discussion followed by a vote, but that is not in my hands.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
There has been a real lack of clarity in what the Leader of the House has said about whether meaningful vote 3 will come back this week, next week or perhaps even the week after. Given that the question sessions for the weeks beginning 8 April and 15 April are now available for tabling on Parliament’s Member hub, will she confirm what we all know to be self-evident: that recess is cancelled?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will know, I have announced the dates for the Easter recess, but recess dates are always announced subject to the progress of business. We will need time in the House either to find a way forward or to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill, and I think the country will rightly expect Parliament to be working flat out in either scenario. Further announcements on future recess dates will be made in due course in the usual way.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Leader of the House said that anything the House proposed had to be negotiable and deliverable before the Government could support it. Tomorrow, with cross-party colleagues, I will be bringing forward an amendment on the revocation of article 50 to avoid a no-deal Brexit. Given that revocation has the virtue of requiring no negotiation and is deliverable, will she confirm that were that to be passed in an indicative vote tomorrow, she would respect that vote?
Andrea Leadsom
We will wait to see what the indicative votes are on tomorrow before deciding how to respond.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has talked about the Easter recess. One of the dates she mentioned this morning is during that recess. The Table Office is already populating that fortnight for questions. When will the Government come clean and tell us the Easter recess is cancelled?
Andrea Leadsom
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response I just gave. The Easter recess has been announced, but it will be subject to the progress of business. Of course, we hope to have a clear way forward in the next few days, and I will make a further statement on recesses as soon as I can.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am sorry if I missed this, but, following the question from the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), will the Leader of the House clarify whether the four SIs on the Order Paper tomorrow—on exiting the EU and food, the protection of trading interests, animals and constitutional law—will remain as Chamber business? I ask because I have a rather excellent Adjournment debate that I do not want Members to miss out on.
Andrea Leadsom
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are in proactive discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on what Government business can take place tomorrow.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has referenced the silence of “Erskine May” on sartorial matters, perhaps the newly elevated right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) could appear in the toga he once wore when he appears before us.
On tomorrow’s business, will the Leader of the House clarify what the Government’s attitude will be if, as expected, tomorrow’s indicative votes do not come up with a solution and more time is required? Will the House have to wrestle that time from the Government again, or, instead, given the clear views of the House, will they be prepared to provide more time to settle the matter?
Andrea Leadsom
There is no question of wrestling; what we do in this place is vote and take decisions. The Government’s position is that the withdrawal agreement and future political declaration are essential to an orderly and proper departure from the EU. That is the Government’s position. Anything else that is voted on by the House will have to considered as and when it arises.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto at the last general election was defeated. Is that true?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It feels as though the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister still have not grasped that last night’s vote was because Parliament is fed up with this broken record about the only way to avoid a no deal being to vote for the withdrawal agreement the Prime Minister negotiated. To quote one of the most reasonable and respected Ministers, who resigned last night, the Government continue to play roulette with people’s livelihoods. The Leader of the house has not answered this question yet: what will the Government do to respect the votes tomorrow and what measures will be in place to contact the EU and plan for legislation to respect them?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman says it is boring, but it is actually true: the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal. The second very important truth is that hon. Members can put forward other bespoke solutions, but they have to be negotiable—that is the absolutely incontrovertible fact. The House cannot just decide; it requires the EU to negotiate the other side of that transaction. The Government will look very carefully at what the indicative votes show tomorrow and then respond accordingly.
Point of Order
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to raise this matter directly with the Speaker, as it arises from his exchange with the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who raised a point of order about racism in football. In response, the Speaker from the Chair gave us a homily on racism in football and its evils, which was particularly welcome, coming as it did from a former secretary of the immigration sub-committee of the Monday Club. I have, however, raised previously my concerns about the bias of the Speaker, and I would be grateful if you could convey it to him, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the fewer views he expresses, either from the Chair or as the Speaker, the less anxious we will be about his bias.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I think we now need to press on with the business in hand.
Bill Presented
Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Clive Lewis, presented a Bill to place duties on the Secretary of State to decarbonise the United Kingdom economy and to eradicate inequality; to establish a ten-year economic and public investment strategy that prioritises decarbonisation, community and employee-led transition from high-carbon to low and zero-carbon industry, and the eradication of inequality; to require the Government to report on its adherence to the strategy; to establish higher environmental standards for air, water and green spaces; to make provision to protect and restore natural habitats; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April; and to be printed (Bill 365).
Compensation Orders (Child Sexual Abuse)
Tuesday 26th March 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Compensation Orders (Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2017-19 View all Compensation Orders (Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Lord Chancellor to report on the use by courts of compensation orders for child sexual abuse offences; and for connected purposes.
People come to this House for many reasons—to deliver Brexit, to fight racism, to champion social justice, to reform Parliament—but I am sure that everyone in the House, from all parties, comes here to help the victims, the vulnerable and those with the least voice, and there can be fewer in our society more in need of our help than the victims of crime, and in particular victims of child sexual abuse. In this place, we regularly discuss the abuse that has occurred in our country. It has occupied much of our time in the Chamber. We have discussed the horrendous abuse that took place in the 1970s and in the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
More recently, we have spent much time talking about the horrific and widespread abuse in towns up and down the country such as Rotherham and Bradford. The suffering of those children is indescribable and unimaginable, and it is only right that this place does all it can to reduce the possibility of such things happening again. Nobody can take away from those victims the pain that their abuse has caused, the trauma and the suffering that they have endured, not just as a child when the abuse happened but, all too often, in later life, when the trauma comes back and bubbles to the surface.
We all want to do our very best in this place for those survivors. As someone who was himself a victim of child sexual abuse, I know how difficult and traumatic it is to discuss such issues. I kept my secret hidden for some 40 years. I locked it away, chained it down and hoped it would never surface. I convinced myself that if I did not give it words, I could deny it a reality. That was my view. How wrong I was! Talking about what happened to me, and explaining it to other people, was the best thing I could have done. I hope that other people who see this debate or read my testimony will think about coming forward and speaking out about their abuse and the trauma they have suffered.
To talk about these things takes courage. If it took sitting in a psychiatric ward with a psychiatrist for me to be able to talk about my trauma, how much more difficult must it be for victims who find themselves in the courtroom—in that intimidating and forbidding place—who have to suffer cross-examination by a skilled and forensic barrister? All too often, they have to face the perpetrator—the person who caused them so much pain and anguish over their lifetime—across the courtroom. And yet they do it. They speak out. They find, from somewhere within, the courage to be able to do that. Surely we—Parliament, the judiciary and the police—should support them in any way we can if we are to stamp out the scourge of child abuse that we see all too often in our country.
The House has mandated support for those victims. One of the objectives of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 was to increase the use of criminal compensation orders to ensure that victims of crime were compensated by right, as a norm, without the need for expensive civil litigation and the prospect of having to retell and relive the story of their abuse in the courtroom. That was consolidated in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The Sentencing Council itself says:
“the court must order compensation wherever possible and should not have regard to… other sources such as civil litigation or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.”
So if everyone agrees that survivors should receive compensation as of right, and judges have the power to award that compensation straight away, at the time of sentencing, CCOs in child sexual abuse cases should be used regularly and to good effect. Surely that is a given, is it not? Sadly, the answer is a resounding “No”.
In 2017, the last year for which figures are available, there were some 6,861 convictions: 6,861 people were found guilty and sentenced for committing a child sexual abuse crime. Yet in how many of those 6,861 cases in which a CCO could have been used was one received? How many would the House suggest—50%, 25%, even 10%? The shocking reality is that just 26 people received compensation: just 0.4%. That is a criminal act. We should be ashamed that we are treating victims of child sexual abuse in that way. It is an outrage. We are letting down the survivors, and we must do something to change that.
The power is there. It lies in the hands of the judges, but they are simply choosing to ignore the use of CCOs. Despite all the guidance that the Ministry of Justice has issued and all the advice that has been given to the judiciary over many years, the courts are simply ignoring it, either by design or by accident, and compensation is not being given to the people who so justly deserve it. Moreover, although the police are supposed to be providing the CPS with information at an early stage so that judges can make the necessary decisions when sentencing, that information is simply not being collated. The crazy thing is that all too often the police do collate information for the courts, but in this instance, when there seems to be an obvious opportunity to use CCOs for a good purpose, the information is not being gathered.
Evidence shows that victims are being let down through a general lack of awareness and a lack of purpose behind a fundamental statutory provision. How can it be that we are not using such a simple tool to help those victims? I am sorry to report to the Minister that the Ministry of Justice’s “Victims Strategy” document, although it is a great document—very worthy and very laudable—makes no reference to the use of CCOs.
My Bill asks the Government to report routinely to Parliament on the use of CCOs in child sexual abuse cases. Let me quote a well-known phrase that my dad used to use: “What gets measured gets done.” I firmly believe that such reporting, if adopted by the Government—in association with other simple and straightforward methods—will stimulate the judiciary to secure for the victims the compensation scheme that they deserve.
I thank all the Members who have supported the Bill so far, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), all of whom have been hugely helpful, as has Alan Collins of Hugh James, the solicitors, whom I also thank. However, there must be more that we can do to help those victims. It is in the Minister’s hands. Victims of child sexual abuse deserve better, and we can deliver it. I ask the House please to accept the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Griffiths, Sarah Newton, Fiona Bruce, Sarah Champion, Tracy Brabin, John Mann, Dr Philippa Whitford, Antoinette Sandbach, Carolyn Harris and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Andrew Griffiths accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April and to be printed (Bill 366).
Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Changed to Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill) (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (changed to the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill) for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 November 2018 (Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 10, 18 to 20, 3 to 7 and 11 to 17.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Paul Maynard.)
Question agreed to.
Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Changed to Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill)
Tuesday 26th March 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 View all Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 166-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF) - (18 Mar 2019)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2, 8 to 10, 18 to 20, 3 to 7 and 11 to 17.
Stephen Hammond
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber this afternoon. We now have the opportunity to turn our attention to an issue of great importance which, I know, commands the support of the House: the issue of reciprocal healthcare. As Members know, our ability to fund healthcare abroad brings invaluable benefits to people, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we continue to make them available to the public. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their work in considering the Bill so far, including those who have spoken to me about it outside the Chamber.
The amendments deal with the global scope of the Bill. It was intended to provide the Secretary of State with powers to fund healthcare outside the UK, to give effect to healthcare arrangements and healthcare agreements between the United Kingdom and other countries or international organisations—such as the European Union—and to make provision in relation to data processing, which is necessary to underpin these arrangements and agreements. Although it was introduced as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU, it was intended to be forward-facing and not to deal only with EU exit. It offered an opportunity to implement new comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the EU.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am sorry that the Minister was not able to join us at St Helier Hospital yesterday. I understand the reasons for that perfectly, but I hope that he will back the plan for the hospital.
The Minister mentioned the international scope of the Bill. Does he accept that that was a mistake in view of the concerns that people have expressed about, for instance, the opening up of the NHS in future international trade deals with countries such as the United States?
Stephen Hammond
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about why I was unable to go to St Helier Hospital. He knows that, as a Minister, it would have been inappropriate, but as a constituency Member of Parliament, I have no doubt that I will be visiting there again soon. I do not accept his criticism. That was never the point of the Bill. We made that argument consistently both in this House and in the Lords. But we have listened carefully to what has been said about the scope of the Bill and I am about to address that now.
As we prepare for our imminent exit from the EU, the global scope of this Bill has been the source of much discussion in here, outside this House and in the other place. I am pleased that the noble lords did not fundamentally disagree with the idea of reciprocal healthcare arrangements outside the EU. However, it was strongly felt that this was not the time to provide for it. Although the Government would have welcomed that opportunity to provide for it, they have recognised that through this group of amendments their lordships voted to restrict the scope of the Bill to making provision only for EU/EEA countries and Switzerland.
The Government believe it is disappointing to lose at this particular time the opportunity to be able to help UK nationals to obtain healthcare when they visit countries outside the EU, such as when they are travelling, studying or working abroad, or if they want to give birth or obtain treatment. It remains the Government’s view that international arrangements on these issues could promote more life options for our citizens outside the EU, offer greater personalisation of care and assist further in the fostering of international healthcare co-operation. However, it must be our foremost priority to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent and is in place so we can respond to the different scenarios without delay and assist, as appropriate, the people who rely on these vital healthcare arrangements.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister and I have form on this, in that we were in a Statutory Instrument Committee only yesterday when I was trying to get over to him the need to be very clear to our constituents that, when we leave the EU, the EHIC—the European health insurance card—will disappear and when our constituents go to anywhere in Europe the full bank of healthcare will disappear. Yesterday, the Minister suggested people should take out private insurance instead. Is it not his job as a Minister to tell his constituents and my constituents the truth about this?
Stephen Hammond
It absolutely is my job to tell my constituents and the whole of the country the truth, and I did that yesterday in Committee and will do it again now. If the hon. Gentleman votes for the withdrawal agreement and it passes, the EHIC will remain in place, as I said yesterday. As I also said yesterday it has always been the Government’s advice that people should purchase travel insurance. None of that has changed and that is exactly what I said yesterday and it is exactly what I am saying today.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be very clear that, with the EHIC, people will get treated as if they are a local; it is not the NHS on tour, so to speak, so we can still face some charges? Particular note should be taken of repatriation costs. If going abroad on something like a skiing holiday, people would be foolish not to take out full travel insurance.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is right. I made that point yesterday; I made it when I was speaking at the Dispatch Box on Report; and I am happy to make that commitment again today.
It must be our foremost priority to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent and is in place so that we can respond to different scenarios. We take this decision with regard for the people who currently rely on the EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements and, only with that in mind, we are choosing not to disagree with the Lords amendments.
Stephen Hammond
One last time because the hon. Gentleman and I had form on this yesterday.
Mr Sheerman
This is an important issue. If the Minister wants me to make a series of points of order, I will because this is so important. Yesterday in a Committee Room, none of us could understand this. At one point, the Minister said, “This is transitional. This will only cover the transition until we are out of the EU. After we have left the EU, EHIC won’t apply.” That is what he said yesterday. I am still not sure whether EHIC will apply only in the transition period, or will go on forever. He has not been clear about this.
Stephen Hammond
I have been clear. One can say these things as many times as one likes, but if someone won’t hear, they won’t hear. I will say one more time to the hon. Gentleman—I am happy to take his interventions if he is going to move on to other points—that, as I made clear yesterday, if the withdrawal Bill passes, the current arrangements for reciprocal healthcare will continue throughout the implementation period. During that implementation period, it is the express intention of the Government and the EU to secure continuing reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman chunters that there is no guarantee. I have given him the guarantee that it is the express intention of both the UK and the EU to ensure reciprocal healthcare arrangements for our citizens post EU exit. I have set out clearly that, in the event of the withdrawal Bill passing and the implementation period starting, EHIC will continue and I think—
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister and I were in an SI Committee yesterday and you will know how pressurised they are. Four SIs were all blended together, so it was very difficult to separate them and do our job of scrutinising the legislation going through this place, which is our prime responsibility. What we could not get from the Minister was absolute clarity, speaking out to the public and saying that actually the likelihood of keeping EHIC after we leave the EU is on a wing and a prayer—there is no certainty at all.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly clarified what he believes needs to be put on the record.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman put that on the record yesterday. I answered the question yesterday. I did so with clarity, in a way that I think almost any member of the public could have understood, and I hope that with that we can move on.
The next amendment I wish to discuss is Lords amendment 3. Their lordships have amended clause 2 to limit the regulation-making powers at clause 2(1). Clause 2(2) was intended to be an illustrative list setting out examples of the type of provision that may be included in regulations made under clause 2(1). It is not, on its own, a delegated power. The effect of amendment 3 is to make the list at clause 2(2) exhaustive. Regulations made under clause 2(1) can now only provide for those things on the list at clause 2(2). The intention of the Government has always been to be prudent and transparent in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers and the list was included to be helpful by demonstrating the types of provision that the regulation-making powers at clause 2(1) could include.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I like the Minister—he is a nice man—but he is reading a brief that for most of my constituents and his is absolute gobbledegook—brackets, references here and sub-clauses there. Surely his job as a Minister is to tell this House in plain English what the dangers are to their future travel—their holidays and business in Europe?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Let’s calm it down a little. In fairness, I think the Minister needs to get to the end of his speech. We cannot have him being interrupted on points of order; it is not good form in this House to do so. What I would say is, “Who knows?” because I cannot predict what the Minister is going to say. He may well get to the points the hon. Gentleman feels are not being addressed.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a Back Bencher who is keen to see this debate develop and move on so we can get on to other equally important business, what advice can you give me to stop other hon. Members asking pointless points of order in this debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman not making another point of order might be helpful as well. Let’s just get on and move forward because it is in everybody’s best interests to hear what the Minister has to say.
Stephen Hammond
Much of what we discuss in this House is clearly of a technical nature, and sometimes its language is impenetrable to others who are watching. However, as the hon. Members for Burnley (Julie Cooper) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) will know, the House has had a chance to look at this in a fairly exhaustive way. They will know exactly what I am referring to, and I am sure that they will wish to refer to it in their speeches.
Using “for example” to introduce an illustrative list of things that can be done under a regulation-making power can be found in a number of other pieces of legislation. Section 11(2) of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, for example”.
Section 48G(2) of the Banking Act 2009 says:
“An order may, for example”.
Using “for example” is not unknown. However, we acknowledge the concerns raised about the breadth of the delegated powers in the Bill, and the Government have taken considerable steps to address those concerns via a number of Government amendments that were accepted in the other place, which I will come to shortly. In addition, we are choosing not to disagree to this amendment, to give further reassurance that the delegated powers in the Bill are no wider than necessary.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister knows that I have also been on another, similar Statutory Instrument Committee, which looked at the use of the green card that gives our constituents the assurance when they travel to Europe that if they are hit by an uninsured driver they will be covered by the insurance industry. That will be lost when we leave the European Union. I used that example yesterday, but the Minister did not come back on it. That is a right and privilege that our constituents expect, and now they are going to lose a similar one relating to healthcare. Is it not clear that these are both examples of the real damage that leaving the European Union will do to us?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman has confused various clauses of the Bill, but I will not trouble to explain that. I simply say that the green card is clearly an issue for another Department. I also say again, as I said to him yesterday, that citizens are not going to lose the benefits they enjoy under the EHIC if the withdrawal agreement is passed and the implementation period starts. I would guide him by saying that the easiest way to ensure that all the good burghers of Huddersfield whom he so ably represents can continue to enjoy those rights is to vote for the withdrawal agreement.
As I was saying, the Government have taken considerable steps to address these concerns via a series of Government amendments that were accepted in the other place. In addition, we are choosing not to disagree to this amendment, to give further reassurance that the delegated powers in the Bill are no wider than necessary. Our primary concern, as I have said, is to ensure that the Bill is in place so we have the legal mechanism to support people who rely on these vital healthcare arrangements, as may be necessary.
I would now like to turn to the Government amendments in this group. The Government have also sought to restrict the regulation-making powers in clause 2(1). Amendments 4, 5, and 6 will ensure that, if we confer or delegate functions, this will only be to public authorities. The Government have listened closely to the concerns that the regulations could be used to confer functions on “anyone, anywhere”. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston argued in Committee that this wide-ranging scope was unacceptable. As I said to him, there has never been an intention to confer functions on private bodies in order to implement reciprocal healthcare arrangements, but, given the concerns that have been raised, we were prepared to make this restriction clear through these amendments to clause 2.
The Government have also brought forward amendment 7. Arguably the most persistent criticism in both Houses has concerned the Bill’s delegated powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee both raised particular concerns about the breadth of the powers. The powers in the Bill were sought to provide options in the event of no deal to mitigate the detrimental effects of a sudden change in healthcare overseas for UK nationals living in the EU. In particular, the regulation-making powers in clause 2 (1)(a) and 2(1)(b) provide a means for dealing with situations where there is no bilateral or multilateral agreement in place.
The Government listened carefully to the concerns raised by parliamentarians across both Houses about the scope of the Bill’s regulation-making powers and concluded that the powers used to establish unilateral healthcare arrangements outside of reciprocal healthcare agreements should be sunset for a period of five years following the UK’s exit from the EU. During the five years before the sunset, we will have the ability to use regulations under clause 2(1) as appropriate. These powers can be used to support UK nationals in the EU in different EU exit scenarios. After the sunset, making use of the regulation-making powers under clause 2(1) would be limited to clause 2(1)(c) only. This provides the Government with a mechanism to give effect to future complex healthcare agreements with the EU, individual EEA member states and/or Switzerland.
Mr Sheerman
Will the Minister give a crystal clear guarantee to all those people who are related to our constituents and who live across Europe and have perhaps retired there that, if they have a long-term health need, the benefits they enjoy under the EHIC at the moment will continue? I do not want to hear anything about the difference between transitional and long term; can he assure those people that they will continue to get those health benefits in the long term?
Stephen Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman votes for the withdrawal agreement, he will be able to give them that reassurance.
I want to turn now to Government amendment 11. The matter of financial reporting and parliamentary scrutiny has also been a matter of legitimate concern to this House and the other place, and amendment 11 speaks to this concern. As I explained in Committee, the Government are firmly committed to transparency in the use of public money. We have made this commitment plain in the Bill with a duty on the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each year. This report will outline all payments made during the preceding financial year in respect of healthcare arrangements implemented by the Bill. I believe that this amendment directly addresses the concerns raised by hon. Members in Committee, particularly those raised by the hon. Member for Burnley. The nature and implementation of future reciprocal healthcare agreements is a matter for future negotiations. However, we envisage that through this reporting mechanism we would also be able to provide Parliament with further information on the operation of future agreements. For example, we anticipate that this report would include details of both expenditure and income to reflect the reciprocal nature of the agreements.
Before I speak to Government amendment 12, I am pleased to report that we have secured legislative consent motions from both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, in addition to having positive and productive engagement with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Office. I want to put on record my thanks to all of them. We have amended the Bill to reflect the outcome of our productive discussions, and the Secretary of State must now consult the relevant devolved authority before making regulations under clause 2(1) that contain any provision that is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature. To underpin and facilitate this consultation, we have developed and agreed a memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations. The MOU sets out a practical and mutually beneficial working relationship that will ensure that the devolved Administrations continue to play a vital role in delivering reciprocal healthcare for the benefit of all UK nationals. We believe that this practical and pragmatic agreement allows us to move forward in a collaborative way with all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister will remember that, in our previous encounter on this matter in Committee, we asked him how far he had spread his discussions about the impact of this Bill in Northern Ireland. He was very honest and said that he had spoken mainly to officials and civil servants, and not to the politicians who represent the constituents there. Has he changed his mind about that, because that seems like a strangely narrow sort of consultation?
Stephen Hammond
I do not think that it was narrow in the slightest. We have discussed matters with the Welsh and Scottish Governments and, given the situation in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Gentleman well knows, with the Northern Ireland civil service, the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Office here. I think that that is exactly what I said yesterday, and I am happy to repeat it.
Turning to amendment 15 and transparency, we have also amended the Bill to allow for further parliamentary scrutiny of the list of persons who can lawfully process data as a part of implementing new reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the Bill.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being generous in giving way. He will be aware that even Henry VIII in his full pomp would not have got away with stealing the right to health cover of British citizens travelling on holiday to Europe or visiting on business without full democratic scrutiny of the decision. Henry VIII would have been pleased to have had that privilege. This Government have been smuggling the decision through, both in Committee and here in this empty Chamber, and they are stealing the rights of British people.
Stephen Hammond
Given that I just said that we have accepted the amendment that would remove the powers, that argument is hardly powerful. I also suspect that the Opposition spokesperson and the other members of the Committee will be surprised to hear that they had not fulfilled their role when they sat through the hours of scrutiny in Committee.
In conclusion, I offer my thanks to hon. Members from across the House and to the Lords for its constructive work in scrutinising and improving this Bill. We share a common goal in wanting to ensure that we can continue to benefit from the current reciprocal healthcare schemes and benefit from similar arrangements in the future. This Bill is an important and necessary piece of legislation that seeks to ensure that the Government are ready and able to respond to different EU-exit scenarios and that we are in a position to support, as appropriate, people who rely on current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements. For that reason, it is critical that we take those steps and that the Bill can become law.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I rise to support the Lords amendments before us. I thank all the Members who have worked on the Bill at various stages and the staff of the House, who have provided invaluable support. I also put on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his great work during the Bill’s earlier stages. I also thank those in the lords for their exceptional work on this Bill. Thanks to their endeavours, we now have a Bill that is fit for purpose. I am pleased that the Government have decided to listen to our noble friends and give full support to the amended Bill, which marks a welcome, if rather belated, climbdown by the Government.
As we prepare to leave the European Union, it is vital that the Government are able to respond to the widest range of possible EU-exit outcomes in relation to reciprocal healthcare. So many people are reliant on the continuation of reciprocal arrangements and the Government are quite right to seek to secure such arrangements as we leave the EU. The Opposition have supported the principle of this Bill from the outset. but our concerns have been around the scope and the wide-ranging powers that were originally proposed. We were not happy to give the Government a blank cheque to enter into any number of health agreements, with anyone anywhere in world, with no requirement to report back to Parliament, and with little or no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. These amendments have addressed our concerns, and I again thank those in the lords for their work.
Turning to amendments 1, 2, 8, 10 and 18 to 20, I want to stress to the House the scale of the issue before us, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is no longer in his seat. Under the existing arrangements, 190,000 UK state pensioners and their dependants who live abroad, principally in Ireland, Spain, France and Cyprus, enjoy the benefits of reciprocal health agreements. The current arrangements also provide full access through the EHIC to healthcare and emergency treatment for UK residents who visit the EU on holiday, to study or to work. The same protections are extended on a reciprocal basis to EU nationals who reside in the UK or who seek to visit. For the sake of those people, I am glad that the Government have come to their senses. These arrangements, which give full peace of mind for healthcare, must be protected.
I remind the House of the evidence given by representatives of Kidney Care UK. We heard that 29,000 people in the UK are dependent on dialysis, which involves three five-hour sessions per week to ensure survival. Under the current arrangements, if those people choose to holiday in the EU, they can easily pre-book slots for dialysis, with Kidney Care UK saying that that
“means that people are able to go away with the confidence that they will be able to be supported and receive the treatment they need.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 12, Q39.]
That also means that they and their families are able to get a much-needed break. Kidney Care UK also made the point that
“it is easier to go away for two weeks in Europe and take a break in that way than it is to get two weeks in a UK unit”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 14, Q43.]
Perhaps there is a learning point for us there.
Based on that evidence, the Minister concluded at the time that without a continuation of these arrangements it would be more or less impossible for sufferers of kidney disease to travel. I totally agree, and I am delighted that the Government appreciate the urgency of the situation in which we find ourselves and are giving their full support to this amended Bill. That is important because we may yet leave the EU with no deal, and there will be many British citizens listening nervously to this debate because they have already booked holidays—some of them will be departing at the weekend or in the coming weeks. However, they can now be reassured that the legislation will pass without further delay.
I reassure Baroness Chisholm that the main Opposition priority is always to ensure that those who need care get it. Further to that, we are right in the first instance to protect the rights that UK citizens already enjoy. In short, we must protect our rights to reciprocal healthcare in Europe before we seek to acquire global healthcare provision. Similarly, those UK citizens who have retired to the EU will be relieved to know that treatment for chronic health conditions and ongoing health support will continue to be provided for them, as it is now, without interruption.
If that was not the case because the Bill was unable to receive Royal Assent in a timely fashion, there would have been much understandable consternation and anger among UK citizens currently residing in the EU. A significant proportion of these citizens are pensioners, and they would have been personally liable for healthcare costs after exit day unless a new agreement with the EU or new bilateral agreements with member states were in place. We must also consider the fact that if there is an interruption in provision, many British expats would have no alternative but to return to the UK, which would of course add to the pressures on our already overstretched NHS.
At every stage, both here and in the other place, concerns have been raised about what those in the lords described as the breathtaking powers sought in this Bill. Lords amendments 3 to 7 serve in part to restrict the powers to those that are clearly defined and to those that are necessary for the purpose of protecting reciprocal health arrangements. In amendment 3, just removing the words “for example” assists in terms of essential accountability issues by restricting the powers of the Secretary of State to those regulations specifically listed. The powers listed remain extensive, and the lords was assured that they give the Government everything they need to take forward the negotiations on reciprocal healthcare. We welcome amendments 5 and 6, which ensure that the power to deliver functions is conferred only to a public authority. We are happy that the powers conferred by clause 2 should also be subject to a five-year sunset clause.
We support amendment 11, which provides an important and necessary requirement to consult with the devolved authorities, namely the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We fully support the vital role that the devolved Administrations play in delivering reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and we welcome the memorandum of understanding that has already been achieved.
Amendment 12, which requires the Secretary of State to report on repayments made under this Bill, is also welcome. This amendment reasonably calls for annual reports to be published after the end of each financial year as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is anticipated that these reports will include details of both expenditure and income. This will facilitate transparency on the Government’s use of public money. I am especially pleased that the Minister has withdrawn his former opposition to that procedure.
On a wider point, in connection with repayments, it is important that we do not overlook the fact that many hospital trusts are struggling to recoup moneys owed under current EU arrangements. Indeed, some costs are never recovered. The UK recovers less than £50 million a year for the cost of treating European patients, while paying £675 million for the care of Britons in Europe.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The hon. Lady is pointing out the disparity in payments between the UK and the EU. Recognising that there are considerably more EU users of the NHS than UK users of health services on the continent, why is it that the Labour party, in the past, criticised the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care for trying to recover sums due from EU citizens for taking advantage of our health service?
Julie Cooper
I think the objections raised by the Labour party in the past were based on the methodology used and the potential abuse of personal data, but we would fully support an efficient system to recover moneys owed to the UK.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
When talking about the disparity in numbers—there are more than 3 million European citizens here and approximately 1.5 million UK citizens there—is it not the case that the majority of EU citizens here are working and paying taxes and therefore are not covered by this system but are covered by the tax they already pay?
Julie Cooper
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I was referring to the fact identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its concerns about collecting what is due, but I take her point that many people pay for their own health provision while in the UK.
My point further reinforces the rationale of restricting the scope of this Bill to the EEA and Switzerland, which will help to ensure the priority is to improve the recovery of healthcare costs, where they are due, before we even begin to think of entering into non-EEA agreements.
We, of course, welcome the Government’s decision to remove the Henry VIII powers from this Bill. We repeatedly return to that issue in this raft of Brexit legislation, and I hope now, and certainly in connection with this Bill, that the Government agree it can never be right to confer on any Minister the same powers as are conferred on Parliament.
I understand that the Minister has a big vision and wants to take this opportunity to extend the current arrangements and to present a Bill that allows the Government to enter into any number of new reciprocal health agreements with any and every nation of the world, should they so choose. There could be a time and a place for such legislation, but it is not now because time is so short. There is not time for Parliament to scrutinise such an extensive range of proposals properly for such wide-ranging powers.
Our noble Friends raised some very reasonable concerns on that point, and they are correct to note the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when it concluded that the Bill, in its original form, gave law-making powers that were too wide. Our noble Friends were right to give serious consideration to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the scope of the Bill should be limited to countries that participate in the existing EHIC scheme:
“While the exceptional circumstances of the UK’s departure from the European Union might justify legislation containing broader powers than would otherwise be constitutionally acceptable, this does not extend to giving effect to new policy unrelated to Brexit.”
Above all, we now have a Bill that does what was intended: to ensure the continuation of the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the nations of the EU and the EEA. Given that that is the Bill’s principal target, there is no need to give the Bill worldwide scope.
I am pleased to join the Minister in giving our full support to the amended Bill before us.
Kevin Foster
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I do not intend to detain the House long with my observations. I enjoyed the Minister’s introduction.
I welcome the Lords amendments, particularly the ones that change the thrust of the Bill to the EEA and Switzerland, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear in mind that, in the long run, the goal of having reciprocal healthcare arrangements with other nations is not a negative one in itself. I was disappointed yet again to hear from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that this is all about opening up the NHS to the US health giants—it is not. It is about having reciprocal arrangements for visitors to other countries, including those on business and those who are travelling.
Julie Cooper
I made the point that, in future, there may be a place for such arrangements, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that time is so short, given the urgency of getting something in place to secure arrangements, that now is not the time for that?
Kevin Foster
I meant it more as a comment. I accept the Lords amendments. To be blunt, given the pressure of time and the need to get the Bill on the statute book to give people certainty about their healthcare arrangements, if these amendments achieve consensus with Opposition Front Benchers and the other place, I am more than happy to support them.
In relation to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who sadly has not stayed for the rest of the debate, this is about making sure that people who go to hospital to access emergency care are not suddenly faced with a bill for the full cost as if they were completely uninsured.
We have arrangements with Australia and New Zealand that are not at the same level as we have with other EU countries, but they could potentially be developed. I do not want to see that aspiration lost, because we want our young people to have the opportunity to travel and work abroad where appropriate. In many countries, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) rightly said, people who work will start earning rights under that country’s social insurance system, which would trump the Bill.
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. In talking about other Commonwealth nations to which we would like to extend such arrangements, does he agree that the dominions of the Channel Islands, which do not currently have reciprocal status with the UK, should not be ignored and should be a matter of importance once the EU arrangements have been completed?
Kevin Foster
As always, I thank my right hon. Friend for his incisive intervention. The Channel Islands might use our currency and, in many ways, fly our flag, but people forget they have a very different constitutional status and are not part of the European Union. For some visitors, it can be a surprise that there is not a reciprocal agreement. There is a reciprocal arrangement with Gibraltar, for example, and it makes eminent sense to try to have such an arrangement between the UK and the Channel Islands, not least given the strong cultural links and the fact that many families split their time between the mainland and the islands.
Looking across the Commonwealth more widely, it might make sense to have arrangements with countries such as Canada and Jamaica in the long run, based on the fact that they have comparable systems of healthcare provision. That is perhaps where the oft-cited example of the United States starts to fall apart, because it is one of the handful of modern, developed countries that do not have a guaranteed system of universal healthcare free at the point of need rather than a system based on insurance schemes for which people may pay.
It is welcome to have ambition, and the Bill is clear about where we are going. I have no problems with the Lords amendments, which are welcome, and I am happy to support them. I am conscious that we are looking to move the debate forward, but I wanted to get those thoughts on the record.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, the Bill itself is quite small. It does not extend or protect continuing reciprocal healthcare rights; it is simply an enabling Bill that gives the Secretary of State powers to try to do that. It enables him to pay for overseas treatment in the EEA and Switzerland. We have heard how the Lords removed the powers to extend that worldwide and increase the scope, as well as limiting some of the Henry VIII powers.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State and his team to negotiate healthcare agreements with the EEA and Switzerland as a group through the EU system or, failing that, to make bilateral agreements. Unfortunately, that would mean having bilateral agreements with 31 countries, which would inevitably be more complex, more bureaucratic and more expensive.
Clause 4 allows data exchange, which most Members would recognise is absolutely critical not just for collecting payments or swapping money, but for accessing medical health records if someone goes for treatment in another country. It is important that that will be handled only by an authorised person who is part of a statutory body—a public body.
I welcome the new clause in Lords amendment 11, which says that the devolved Governments must be consulted, because it is the three devolved Governments who deliver healthcare in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is critical that they are involved in any agreements.
This legislation is needed whether there is a deal or no deal. As came out of the points of order exchange earlier, the withdrawal agreement would extend through the transition period, but we have all seen how the last three years have melted away like snow off a dyke. The next 20 months will also disappear, so legislation is required for the long-term protection of those who already live in Europe and want to stay there, particularly those who have been there only a few years and do not have five years-worth of residency rights in the country they have chosen to settle in. After the Bill is passed, it is therefore important that the Government hope to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal healthcare.
The problem is that reciprocal healthcare is not a free-standing thing on its own; it is there simply to enable freedom of movement. People cannot exercise their freedom of movement rights if they simply cannot afford healthcare where they choose to live, work, love, settle or retire. We have had the right over the past few decades to retire and settle anywhere. People are well aware of my husband’s situation as a German citizen who lives here and has spent virtually all his adult life working in our health system. That was certainly his first concern after the Brexit vote, and I am sure it is a concern for all 5 million people who have either settled here from Europe or settled in Europe from the UK.
The problem is that, as the Government reject freedom of movement and talk merely about a mobility framework, any reciprocal arrangement is likely to be proportional to that mobility framework, as is described in the impact assessment. The Government are not offering visas of over a year for unskilled workers. They are demanding that people be high skilled, possibly that they earn more than £30,000 a year and that they are economically active and are contributors. Will pensioners still be able to retire elsewhere, since they are not necessarily contributors in a major sense and are certainly not necessarily economically active?
People highlight the difference between what the UK has to pay into the European system and what we get back from Europe. A lot of that difference is quite simply because of the number of UK pensioners who choose to retire to sunnier climes—who can blame them?—and the general lack of obsession with retiring to the drizzle and moving in the other direction. Living in Scotland, I can vouch for that. Who would choose to leave the south of France and come to live in the mist, fog and drizzle? That is why the number of European pensioners retiring to the UK is considerably smaller than the number of UK pensioners who retire to the south of Spain and the south of France. That is simple logic.
Dr Whitford
The right hon. Gentleman probably would not like me to get into the clearances of the 17th and 18th centuries when people were burnt out of their villages and put on boats, or when people were transported for criminal activities. There are all sorts of reasons why Scots have ended up all over the world, and they are not all about the weather.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I just want to say to the hon. Lady that I adore Scotland. I just love the mist, the fog, the rain—it is what I call proper weather, and it is to be celebrated.
Dr Whitford
That is why I live there, right beside the sea, but that does not necessarily mean that somebody living in the vineyards of France will think, “You know what? The weather’s a bit boring here. I fancy somewhere with snow, sleet, hail and sunshine all in one day.”
It is a fact that the disparity is because of the number of pensioners. It is often described as if it is the EU somehow tricking the UK—it simply is not. We are obliged to pay for the pensioners from the UK who have settled in Europe. Indeed, we pay a fixed rate per head that is considerably lower than—just over half—what would be charged for a European citizen settling here.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that another reason for the disparity is that the NHS, in being free at the point of need, has not over the years been as geared up as other countries for recording the patient episodes of EU nationals and collecting that kind of data? Because it is not an insurance-based system but is free at the point of delivery, it does not necessarily have the mindset or the paperwork to think about healthcare in terms of money.
Dr Whitford
I totally agree that that is part of it. The Government have to consider, given the numbers involved, whether creating that entire administrative system will bring more money back in than is spent on administering it.
It is important to consider exactly how we will expect doctors and other health staff to demand to see someone’s settled status. Will it be based on a foreign sounding name, a skin colour or an accent? Will people have to produce an ID card if they were born here, they grew up here, they have never been anywhere else and their family are 20 generations English? That is the point: there is no ID card here. In other European countries, there is an ID card and it will show that UK citizens have whatever the equivalent of settled status is. I think doctors and others are anxious about the circumstances in which they should ask for proof of habitual residency.
We see that already in respect of universal credit. I have dealt with a German lady who has been settled here for 30 years and who was refused universal credit on the basis that she was not habitually resident. We are already seeing these things, and we do not want to see them around healthcare.
As we have heard, there are three main groups. The biggest group is the almost 200,000 pensioners using their S1 rights to register somewhere they have never paid tax—and yet they benefit as if they have. It is important that their rights continue, or they may end up having to come back home. They would cost more here than the Government are paying France or Spain to deliver their healthcare. It is important that they are not limited in some way, so that only people who do not have medical health risks are accepted, as happens with insurance. Ordinary pensioners who have exercised those rights would simply not be able to afford comprehensive private health insurance.
A lot of work is being done to protect those who have settled already, but what about the rest of us, who might fancy settling in the south of France or Spain? Will this be achievable by ordinary pensioners in the future?
Approximately 1,300 UK citizens use S2 forms for planned treatment, and the biggest number is the 250,000 claims a year that are made through the EHIC card, which allows people to travel or study all over the EU. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) said, that includes people with expensive chronic conditions that require treatment such as dialysis three times a week. I defy any Member to find affordable health insurance that would cover such treatment. That is not a risk of healthcare, but planned healthcare, otherwise the trip simply cannot be made.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate—from the Back Benches on this occasion. Although I would have preferred to contribute from the Front Bench as I did during previous stages of the Bill, the Opposition are in safe hands, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper).
It is curious that both the Minister who led for the Government on Second Reading and I, as Opposition spokesperson, have moved on since then, him to become Brexit Secretary and me to become a Back Bencher. We could have a debate—perhaps even a Division—on who got the better deal.
However, perhaps most curious is that, along the way, the measure has gone from being an international arrangements Bill to an EEA and Swiss arrangements Bill. I have been here for only four years, but I have never heard of a Bill changing its name—but then before this year, I had never heard of Cabinet Ministers breaking collective responsibility and staying in their job, or Parliament taking control of the Order Paper. There are obviously many other examples of the strange times we live in, and this is just another curiosity to add to the list.
The Lords amendments pick up on many of the anxieties we expressed previously about the implications of the sweeping powers in the Bill. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton and her team who have obviously got greater powers of persuasion than us. They have come up with a series of amendments that rightly curtail the breathtaking powers the Government sought to claim for themselves.
When the Bill began its progress in November, there was a clear assumption on the part of the Government that agreement with the EU would have been reached by now and that arrangements would be in place to carry on very much as we are, at least in the interim period. That in itself raised serious questions about why the scope of the Bill was so wide, and it would not be an understatement to say that the orderly exit envisaged at the time is now not quite so certain. That makes it all the more important that we have a Bill with proportionality and transparency at its heart.
It is worth reminding ourselves that when the Bill first surfaced, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place set out very clearly its potential impact if it remained unamended. It said that the measure gave the Secretary of State the power to fund the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia. Although we pushed the Minister on the reason for the need for such wide powers—accepting of course that they would be unlikely ever to be used—the only justification given was that they might prove useful at some future time in trade deals. Although that might be the case, without a clear objective, debated and agreed in Parliament, the powers were unnecessarily broad, so it is right that the Lords raised those concerns and amended the Bill accordingly.
We all have constituents who regularly raise concerns about access to the NHS being used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. If the Bill had remained unamended, it would only have given those people more reason to be concerned about such deals. Restricting its scope to EEA countries and Switzerland is therefore proportionate and sensible.
I want to say a few words about amendment 12, which is very similar to an amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee. It deserves support because even under the current arrangements, cost recovery has not always been handled satisfactorily. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee described it as “chaotic”. The Law Society of Scotland was clear on the importance of that issue when it gave evidence to the Lords Committee. It said that
“as the NHS has never been very effective in reclaiming the fees owed to it by overseas visitors to the UK, the UK may find itself substantially worse off financially when new arrangements for funding cross-national use of health services are put in place.”
The case for greater accountability is there and has been strengthened by the Government’s impact assessment, which seemed to seriously underestimate the consequences of a no-deal scenario. It set out that the cost of establishing future reciprocal healthcare arrangements on the same basis as now would be £630 million a year, but it went on to estimate that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, the costs are expected
“to be similar or less, depending on the number of schemes that are established.”
I do not think it has ever been clear why the costs might be less unless we stopped reciprocating with some countries, and I do not believe that has ever been an express policy objective of the Government. In fact, they have often—rightly—said the opposite, but the reality is that, in that scenario, the costs could be significantly higher. Both the BMA and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated that if no EU-wide reciprocal agreement was achievable, the significant extra costs of establishing bilateral reciprocal arrangements with EU and EEA countries in future could fall on the NHS. We need, but have never had, a commitment that, in those circumstances, any extra costs would not be borne directly by NHS trusts. I hope that today the Minister can give such an assurance.
The Lords picked up on a related issue, which we have raised previously, on the lack of clarity about how dispute resolution will work in the event of bilateral agreements being necessary. We know from what the Minister has previously told us that, if we manage to reach full agreement with the EU27, there will still be a limited role for the European Court of Justice, but we do not know what the dispute resolution procedure will be if we do not.
The Lords rightly pointed out that there would be little incentive for other countries to agree to a brand new dispute resolution procedure, and they would certainly be loth to do that if they were expected to pay for it, so in the event of a no-deal scenario, is it not the case that there will be significant additional costs for the UK taxpayer in setting up and resourcing a new dispute resolution scheme? Does the Minister envisage those costs being part of the reporting requirements under amendment 12 and again, can he give a commitment today that those costs will not be directly borne by NHS trusts?
The Bill is in a much better condition than when it started. It does what it is supposed to do, and no more. Crucially, it gives much greater parliamentary oversight than we originally had. I think it is called taking back control.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2, 8 to 10, 18 to 20, 3 to 7 and 11 to 17 agreed to.
Offensive Weapons Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offensive Weapons Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Amanda Milling.)
Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Offensive Weapons Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 27 June 2018 (Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme)) and 28 November 2018 (Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 1 to 26 and 29 to 95.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Offensive Weapons Bill
Tuesday 26th March 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 26 March 2019 - (26 Mar 2019)
16:35 - divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 27, 28, 35, 43 to 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 73, 88 and 93. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
I must also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected all the amendments as provided on the relevant papers.
Clause 17
Delivery of bladed products to residential premises etc
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 27.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28.
Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 27 and 28.
Lords amendments 1 to 6.
Lords amendment 7, and amendments (a) to (d) thereto.
Lords amendment 8.
Lords amendment 9, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 10, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 11.
Lords amendment 12, and amendments (a) to (c) thereto.
Lords amendment 13.
Lords amendment 14, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 15 to 22.
Lords amendment 23, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 24 to 26.
Lords amendments 29 to 61.
Lords amendment 62, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 63, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 64 to 95.
Victoria Atkins
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for what I know to be quite a complicated bit of procedure. I hope that I deal with the procedure correctly, and I am very grateful to your learned Clerks for advising me on the wording. I shall be speaking to amendments 27 and 28, Government amendments (a) to (k) which are laid in lieu, and Lords amendments 1 to 26 and 29 to 95. I may not be able to speak to the details of some of those later amendments, but, obviously, I will be very happy to take interventions.
The Offensive Weapons Bill is an important piece of legislation. It is just one of the measures that the Government are taking to tackle serious violence in the serious violence strategy. The Bill has enjoyed a collaborative approach across the House, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members and noble lords who have helped with the passage of the Bill thus far. I am sure that this afternoon will continue in that spirit.
I will first address Lords amendments 27 and 28, which were moved by Lord Kennedy in the other place. I am grateful to him for his assistance on this part of the Bill. We have laid amendments in lieu, because the Government cannot agree with the trusted courier amendments as they sit, but I very much hope that the amendments that we have laid in lieu will meet with the House’s approval.
The trusted courier scheme would have practical difficulties in its bureaucracy and regulation. It risks making it more difficult to determine whether a delivery company can be trusted to provide reassurances that a bladed product will not be handed to a person aged under 18, and it is not clear, for example, how this scheme would apply to self-employed delivery drivers working on a casual basis for some of the larger firms. We are also concerned that simply being part of a scheme, or being in possession of a seal of approval as a trusted courier, does not guarantee compliance with the conditions in the scheme. We note that no responsibility is placed on the courier or company, and therefore there does not appear to be any consequence for the courier company if it fails to comply with the requirement not to hand a bladed product to a person aged under 18. One can envisage a courier in a rush, for example, pushing a package through a letterbox without conducting checks. It is this lack of liability for age checks in the scheme that we believe risks undermining the purpose of the Bill, which means that we must, I am afraid, disagree with it at this stage.
The Government have, however, given considerable thought to the views expressed on the sale-of-knives provisions throughout the passage of the Bill by Members both in this place and the other place and, importantly, by representatives of the business community, particularly those in small and medium-sized businesses in the capital of knife and steel manufacturing in Sheffield. I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for their assistance in this. We have tabled amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 27 and 28, which I hope address their concerns. In short, these amendments in lieu would enable a remote seller to deliver a bladed product to residential premises where they have arrangements in place with a deliverer not to hand them over to a person aged under 18. This approach mirrors, largely, the clause already in the Bill regarding delivery companies relating to overseas sales, although it is limited to bladed products and to deliveries to residential premises. Regulations on overseas sales by contrast apply to deliveries to all premises and to all bladed articles.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I hope that she will show me where I am wrong, but I always understood that delivery companies, particularly those delivering post and packages, have an X-ray procedure to see what the contents are.
Victoria Atkins
I am not sure whether I am in a position to answer that. Of course, every company will have its own security arrangements. The hon. Gentleman will know that what we have inserted through this Bill are further conditions on sellers to ensure that their packages, if they contain bladed products, are labelled very clearly so that anyone handling that package understands what is inside it. We appreciate that perhaps not everyone has access to those facilities.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that she has done on this very important Bill and on this particular issue as well, which will make it much more difficult for people, especially young people, to buy knives online. Last week, I was very interested to hear that Asda will no longer sell individual knives, and I wondered whether she might like to comment on that.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. She has taken a keen interest in this matter both as a constituency MP and in her contributions to this place. She is absolutely right to raise the example of Asda. Asda and other major retailers are signed up to our voluntary commitments when it comes to the sale of knives online, and we believe that that is another way in which we can ensure that retailers are doing what they should be doing in terms of selling bladed products and sharp knives responsibly. I am delighted that Asda has taken that decision of its own volition. I know that other retailers are doing great things in this space as well, but we all want to ensure that those standards are met not just by the large retailers, but by smaller ones, too.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and me and I also thank her colleague in the House of Lords for doing the same. I also thank them both for listening. What clause 17 does is recognise the importance of making sure that knives are not sold to young people, but here it establishes a procedure for proving that young people are 18, as they are checked at the point of sale and at the point of delivery. The measure also protects small businesses such as Taylor’s Eye Witness, which manufactures knives in my constituency, from the effects of the original legislation. I also want to say that the real thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and his assistant Paula who have done an incredible amount of work on this. They, along with Lord Kennedy in the House of Lords, deserve particular thanks for getting this far.
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words and for that meeting I had with him. He is absolutely right that we wanted to listen on this. As I said at the beginning, this Bill has been, I hope, a good example of collaborative work across the House and I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My concern about retailers has always been not with the Asdas or John Lewises, whom one would expect to do the right thing—they have a public image as well—but with the disreputable merchants. Will my hon. Friend at least keep this matter on watch, so that if it turns out that those not following the code are seen to be doing wrong, we can review the amendment that was discussed the last time we considered the Bill?
Victoria Atkins
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend, who has been particularly persistent about locking away bladed products or sharp knives. We absolutely keep that point under review. We have had a good response from the retail industry thus far, but we will of course keep the pressure up, and I am extremely grateful to him for his contribution to that.
Liability under our amendments in lieu attaches only to companies that enter into arrangements to deliver bladed products. A delivery company could choose simply not to do so. Our amendments therefore provide the flexibility that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East described, so that if a seller does not enter into an arrangement with a delivery company, the provisions in the Bill that prohibit delivery to residential premises of a bladed product will still apply. A seller in those circumstances will not be able to send a bladed product to residential premises and the product will have to be collected in person at a collection point, which at least gives small and medium-sized businesses the choice over how to conduct their business. We believe that these amendments will help to address the concern behind the Bill and achieve the aim of stopping young people and those under 18 having access to these products through online sales when they should not have such access. I very much hope that our amendment will meet the approval of the House.
Let me turn to knife crime prevention orders. It is vital that the police have the powers they need to prevent knife crime and to protect the public from the devastating effects of violent crime on our streets. It is frankly already too late when we prosecute young people for knife crime. If measures are available that might help to steer children and young people away from carrying or using a knife, we should not hesitate to put them in place. That is why the Government have introduced, in short order, knife crime prevention orders in the Bill. The police made that request of us at the very end of the summer last year, and we were pleased to insert the provision into the Bill in the House of Lords. These are civil orders aimed at young people at risk of engaging in knife crime, people whom the police call habitual knife carriers of any age and those who have been convicted of a violent offence or an offence involving knives.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that although these are civil orders, if they are breached they become criminal, and that 12-year-old children could end up in prison for two years? Will she also confirm that not a single organisation, from the magistrates and local government to charities, lawyers and anybody involved in youth offending teams, supports this change? They all think that we are acting too quickly and need to take more time looking at the implications before introducing it.
Victoria Atkins
I am about to come to the framework for these orders, because I am conscious that in an ideal world we would have had the measure in the Bill when it was first laid before the House in the early summer last year. However, the police came to their view and alerted us to their thinking at the end of summer, and although we have frankly acted pretty quickly, we could not by definition have put the measure in the Bill before the police asked us to. We are doing this in response to the express wish of the police; in fact, the Mayor of London wrote to the Home Secretary in December asking that the orders be inserted in the Bill.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had a chance to speak to the Mayor of London, but the reason we are introducing these orders is that we want to try to help local communities to tackle knife crime. They are one measure. We do not pretend that they will solve all knife crime, but they are about preventing young people from getting ensnared in criminal gangs or getting into a situation where they think that carrying a knife will protect them. This is about trying to wrap services around those children before they become criminalised.
I know that concerns have been raised about the age at which the orders can be imposed. The orders apply from the age of 12 upwards because the police tell us that the age at which people carry knives is getting younger. We also know from hospital data that younger children are victims and perpetrators. That is why we have chosen that age. If we are serious about tackling knife crime on our streets, the measures that we take must apply to young people and children.
Sir Edward Davey
I think the whole House is with the Minister in the determination to tackle knife crime and to try to prevent young people from getting into it, but can she tell the House what other mechanisms, orders or contracts the Government looked at before concluding that this was the right way forward? I have spoken to her privately about antisocial behaviour orders, which in the past did not work, whereas acceptable behaviour contracts, which worked with the young person, did work. Have the Government looked at those?
Victoria Atkins
I think the right hon. Gentleman and I talked about that last week. As I have said to him, I will happily look into those. We looked at whether gang injunctions are appropriate, but as Members across the House will know, not every child carrying a knife is a member of a gang. We also looked at criminal behaviour orders, but both those measures are contingent on a child being convicted of a criminal offence. With knife crime prevention orders, we want to try to reach those children before they are convicted of carrying a knife. The orders are also available upon conviction, because we want to wrap services around children if they are convicted and serve a detention training order. We wanted an extra structure around children to try to tackle the issue.
Victoria Atkins
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress.
The order may impose such requirements or prohibitions on a person as a court considers necessary to protect any person from risk of harm or to prevent the commission of an offence involving a bladed article. A KCPO that imposes a requirement must specify a person who is responsible for supervising compliance with that requirement. Again, I emphasise that this is about protection and prevention. It is not about criminalising children. The order is a civil order. We do, however, accept that the breach of an order is, in itself, a criminal matter. I know that some have argued that it would be better to go down the antisocial behaviour injunction route, which applies to children as young as 10. The argument is that having a contempt of court rather than a criminal offence for a breach would make the orders more palatable, because it would mean that children did not get a criminal record. The advice from the police—it is advice that we must listen to very carefully—is that making it a criminal offence to breach an order is important if we want these orders to be taken seriously.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend most sincerely on producing a much needed Bill? Acid, knives and certain firearms are issues that we absolutely need to crack down on. Does she agree that knife prevention orders are a good mechanism? It is becoming de rigueur in some of our cities for people to carry knives in self-defence, in case they might want to use them, which is totally the wrong culture. With these orders, the police will be able to warn youngsters that if they carry knives again, they will be subject to an order and could be subject to a criminal penalty if they breach it.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend summarises the orders succinctly, and I thank him for all his work on the Bill. The point of the orders is to try to reach those children before they are in the criminal justice system. They include, for example, the ability to prohibit a child from accessing social media or entering certain postcodes, because we know the tensions arising on the streets from particular groups of young people in certain parts of our large cities. This is not about criminalising those young people; it is about trying to reach them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
In the Minister’s discussions with the police about programmes that work and the investment that they want to see, has she considered expanding Prevent, a programme with proven successes, or early intervention measures such as investing in our youth services? What the police keep saying, and what Ministers keep quoting, is that we cannot just police our way out. If that is the case, we need to invest in all those programmes that support our young people, so I would be grateful if the Minister said something about Prevent in particular.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady again for all the work that she does through the Youth Violence Commission. She is absolutely right. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Offensive Weapons Bill is but one measure within the serious violence strategy, and these orders are but one measure within the Bill. We do not for one moment claim that the orders are going to solve everything, but we hope that they will be a path to reaching some of the children who are currently so difficult to reach, as the hon. Lady knows. These measures come on top of all the early intervention and the youth endowment fund, through which we are investing £200 million over the next 10 years to give certainty to the organisations that win bids. All those measures are really important.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As I have stated previously in the Chamber, the Offensive Weapons Bill has been a cause of serious concern within the British Sikh community, with a feeling that the centuries-old religious requirement of wearing a kirpan, a Sikh sword, could be unintentionally criminalised and that even the tradition of honouring a non-Sikh within a gurdwara, a place of worship, by bestowing them with a kirpan could be deemed illegal. However, thanks to the strong leadership of the noble Lord Roy Kennedy and others in the House of Lords, with excellent assistance from Lord Singh, Lord Paddick, Baroness Verma, the organisation Sikhs in Politics and others, amendments were tabled. As Lord Tunnicliffe and Baroness Williams said, those amendments were passed with unanimity. Although I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the courtesy that she extended to me during our recent meeting to seek my views on the matter, for the record—and to assuage community concerns—can she confirm that the Government wholeheartedly support those amendments and will incorporate them into the Bill?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman has jumped right to the end of my speech. However, I will respond now because I am conscious that it is such an excellent intervention. I will then return to KCPOs.
Let me put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and many noble lords in the other place for their work to ensure that this Bill reaches the issues in knife possession that we really want to tackle, and it does not inadvertently and completely mistakenly in any way affect the gifting, use or possession of Sikh kirpans, which was never the Government’s intention. I am grateful to all hon. Members, as well as to the many Sikh organisations that have been involved in this process, for helping us to clarify and improve the law.
I can confirm that the amendments will create defences to sections 141(1) and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 50(2) and (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 relating to the custom of gifting kirpans by ceremonial presentation. The amendments will create a defence for a person of the Sikh faith to present another person with a curved sword in
“a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event.”
They will also provide a defence for possessing such swords for the purposes of presenting them to others at a ceremony, and for the recipients of such a gift to possess swords that have been presented to them. It was never the intention of the Bill to affect this custom, and I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their work on these measures.
Victoria Atkins
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must move on because I am conscious that others wish to speak.
Let me return to KCPOs. I know that the shadow Minister has tabled some amendments, and I will deal with them in a moment. On the question of age and the concern that youth offending teams must be consulted, we have included in the Bill a requirement that youth offending teams must be consulted on any orders for people under the age of 18. We have also said that we will consult publicly on the guidance with community groups, youth organisations and others before these orders are brought into force.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Before the Minister finishes discussing prevention orders, will she tell the House a little bit more about the pilots? How many pilots are there going to be, when are they going to start and how long will they last? Given the urgency of implementing this legislation and the concerns that have been raised, will the Government report back to the House on how the pilots have operated, so that we have a further opportunity to amend and adapt the measures if necessary?
Victoria Atkins
Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the pilots. Some of the concerns raised today were also raised in the other place, so their lordships saw fit to insert an amendment regarding piloting. I hope that it gives some comfort to the House that we will pilot the provisions in one or more specified areas in England and Wales. We have not yet determined which forces will have the privilege of starting these pilots. The second condition of piloting is that the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament
“a report on the operation of some or all of the provisions”
relating to KCPOs, so the House will be fully updated on the progress. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more details regarding the operational aspects of the pilots at this precise moment in time, but I want to deal with the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.
Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 14, would make it a requirement for the police to obtain—and, by implication, for the youth offending team to produce—a pre-injunction report, including an assessment of the defendant, before making an application on conviction, or otherwise than on conviction if the defendant is under the age of 18, and to provide that report to the court as part of their application. It follows from this proposed amendment that the outcome of the consultation should be available to the court. The requirement to consult is an important safeguard to ensure that the youth offending team has a chance to influence the process, and we expect the YOT’s view to be before the court when it is considering the application. We will state in guidance that we expect the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to share with the court the outcome of the consultation with the youth offending team, and we will reinforce the message during the pilots that the applicant police force should share the outcome of the YOT consultation with the court.
Amendment (c) to Lords amendment 12 would also set down a requirement in relation to a pre-injunction report. Again, we believe that the requirement to consult the youth offending team addresses this, and I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to include a requirement to consult the youth offending team if an application without notice were made, given the urgency of such applications. However, the consultation requirement must be fulfilled before the full hearing takes place.
Amendment (d) to Lords amendment 7 is not needed. The Bill already provides a power for the court to require evidence from the individual responsible for promoting, supporting and monitoring compliance with any requirement included in the order. That individual could be the youth offending team, but it could also be a community group or a charity, for example. Let me remind the House that the police fully support the provisions in the Bill as they stand in the Lords amendments that we have tabled in the Home Secretary’s name. There are already safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the orders are proportionate and that the views of the youth offending teams are taken into account during the application process. I therefore ask the shadow Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) not to press their amendments.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 requires a report to be laid before Parliament on the outcome of the pilots. I would expect that, as has already been set out in our amendment, a report will be laid before Parliament about the success or otherwise of the pilots, and that KCPOs will be the subject of ongoing scrutiny.
Vicky Foxcroft
Will the Minister confirm that when that report is laid before Parliament, there will not be a further roll-out of the KCPOs without our seeing it in Parliament first?
Victoria Atkins
I think the hon. Lady is talking about the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. We do not agree with that amendment. We believe that piloting and then the Secretary of State laying a report before the House is a perfectly proportionate way of assessing the pilots’ success. Let us not forget that we are talking about youth courts and magistrates courts using civil orders, with all the safeguards that are in the regime. This regime mirrors similar regimes used in, for example, gang injunctions. We should have trust in our youth courts and others that they will be able to meet the expectations of the House in terms of ensuring the wellbeing and the welfare of the young people they are looking after. The aim of these orders is to protect young people and also the wider community. On the proposal that a full report should be laid out, I am afraid that, in the usual way, such regulations are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and the Government see no reason to adopt a different approach in this case.
There are of course other provisions that I have not even begun to address, although I may well have a chance do so at the end. However, I hope that my focusing on the three main issues arising during the passage of the Bill meets with colleagues’ approval. I very much look forward to hearing their contributions in the rest of the debate.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank those in the other place for their careful consideration of this Bill, which is certainly in better shape than when it left this Chamber.
As the Minister has outlined, we have offered our sincere and constructive support throughout the passage of the Bill for the Government’s attempts to respond to the surge in violent crime. We offered our support in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. We have fought to enhance protections on the sale of knives, to close dangerous loopholes in our gun laws, to force the Home Office to release evidence on the consequences of cuts to vital services for levels of serious violence, to force the Government to assess whether the police have the resources they need to tackle violence involving offensive weapons and to put the rights of victims of crime on a statutory footing—rights that have been neglected despite repeated manifesto promises by the Conservative party.
Let us not forget the absolutely farcical spectacle of the Home Secretary and the Minister, on Second Reading and in Committee, making the case for a ban on high-powered rifles—guns that have an effective range of 6 km—and then coming back to the Chamber on Report and making the exact opposite case in the face of Back-Bench rebellion. Our gun laws are in need of updating, and it is a sad reflection on the Government that all the passage of this Bill has done is weaken the provisions on firearms and kick the can down the road once again in pushing the issue to consultation. Furthermore, the Bill as it stands still ignores much of the key evidence contained in a leaked Home Office report on the drivers of serious violence. This included compelling evidence that violence was, in part, being driven by a precarious and vulnerable youth cohort shorn of the support, early intervention and prevention work necessary to stop those vulnerable people falling into a spiral of serious violence.
Turning to the amendments, I am grateful for the work of the noble Lord Kennedy, and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who have managed to find a consensus on the delivery of knives to residential premises that protects children while not unduly hampering specialist knife manufacturers and businesses. We are therefore happy to support the amendment in the name of the Home Secretary whereby businesses will need to prove they have taken all necessary measures to ensure that a knife is delivered into the hands of an adult or will feel the full weight of the law.
On kirpans and Sikh ceremonial swords, I again congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) on their work. We understood the concerns raised across the House, and I am pleased that the Labour Lords amendment has been accepted that will allow Sikhs to practice their religion freely without fear of criminalisation.
But undoubtedly the biggest change has been the introduction of knife crime prevention orders, and that is what I wish to focus my remarks on. It is important when making any changes to the suite of police powers that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to consider the evidence and implications. That is why we are extremely concerned about both the way in which these proposed orders have been brought forward and some of their content. Our concerns are threefold, and I will address each in turn. As the Minister said, our amendments to the Lords amendments speak to those concerns.
Victoria Atkins
To correct the record, these orders have been discussed in the serious violence taskforce, which is attended by the Children’s Commissioner and many of the others that the hon. Lady mentioned. This is action that the police required of us. We turned it around as quickly as we could to get it into the Bill, in order to protect children. We are doing it on the advice of the police.
Louise Haigh
I would respectfully suggest that putting before Parliament orders that would criminalise children for up to two years requires more than discussion at a meeting. It requires full consultation and full parliamentary scrutiny, and none of that has happened.
Before Parliament approves any roll-out, the Government should release a report giving an explanation of what guidance has been given to authorities on the burden on proof, which is a civil standard, the impact of orders on the rights of children and the impact on different racial groups as defined in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Does the hon. Lady not think it is a bit rich that she is complaining on the one hand about the Government introducing a full consultation on a whole range of firearms issues enshrined in statute under the Bill, and on the other hand that the Government have not consulted enough on knife crime prevention orders, which are suggested by the police and are a much-needed part of the armoury in the fight against knife crime?
Louise Haigh
The Government consulted on the ban on weapons ahead of the Bill and concluded, on the basis of evidence from the most senior counter-terror police in the country, that it was right to ban assault rifles. It was only in response to a Back-Bench rebellion led by the hon. Gentleman that the Government caved and made the exact opposite case to the one that they made on Second Reading.
These are very basic requests for what is, in truth, information that Parliament should already have when being asked to pass legislation. The parliamentary lock we are seeking to add to the orders should not be necessary, but we know the damage that can result from a lack of joined-up thinking in youth justice, and our communities simply cannot afford another misstep. That is why it is only right that parliamentarians are given the full facts before being asked to approve a further roll-out.
Turning to the content of the orders themselves, all of us in this place are united in our mission to do everything in our power to bear down on the terrible scourge of knife crime, but we must be wary of taking action for the sake of action. Interventions must be evidence-based, have a clear purpose and fill a gap in the existing legislation. The police already have a substantial suite of powers for those they suspect of possessing a knife. The issue is, and has been for several years, the ability and capacity of the police to enforce those powers. As the chair of the Police Federation has said,
“How the Home Secretary thinks we have the officers available to monitor teenagers’ social media use or check they are at home at 10pm when we are struggling to answer 999 calls is beyond me.”
This Government have taken 21,000 police officers off our streets. Response times have rocketed, and in some force areas residential burglaries are rarely attended. The police’s capacity to respond to crime has been extremely diminished, so it is beyond doubt that they do not have the capacity to place orders on people who have not actually committed a crime, and then to monitor and implement those orders effectively. There has been no impact assessment of the resource implications for the police or any of the other services that may be brought in by these orders. We are concerned, and this is what our amendments speak to, that in trying to establish so-called wraparound care for young people, these orders will inevitably end up focusing on the restrictive elements such as curfews, social media bans and prohibitions, rather than the potential for positive, rehabilitative action.
I think we have now reached consensus in this place that, to combat youth violence effectively, a whole-system, cross-governmental public health approach is required. These orders could have been an attempt to bridge such a divide, but instead they place sole responsibility on the police as the only authority that can apply for an order, which risks narrowing the focus of the suite of options available. The fact that there is no statutory requirement to assess the needs of a child, establish their circumstances and consider the safeguarding implications of an order or their family history prior to an order being granted should be fatal for a legislative proposal that the Government have styled as a route to access wraparound services. It simply does not do what is required. That is why our amendments would establish a statutory requirement to consult with the YOT to produce a pre-sentence report. However, we are satisfied with the Minister’s commitment that this will be made clear in guidance.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the Government, in using the example of a youth worker as someone to be responsible for the delivery of an order, recognise the bind they would be putting such an individual in if they were responsible for reporting any breaches to the police. Central to a public health approach is a consistent, constant adult in vulnerable young people’s lives. This could provide an opportunity for that, but it cannot do so if such individuals are then forced to report them to the criminal justice system every time they do not abide by the conditions laid down in their order.
I will round off with a number of questions to which I hope the Minister will respond when she speaks again. The civil burden of proof is concerning, so what sort of intelligence does the Minister envisage would be sufficient for a court to grant an order? Will the police use the gangs matrix to target individuals? Will association with known offenders be sufficient for an order to be placed? Will past offending be sufficient, as the Minister in the other place appeared to suggest?
Does the Minister share the concerns of Members across the House that we risk criminalising children as young as 12 who have not actually committed a criminal offence? Does she really believe that a two-year custodial sentence is proportionate to a breach of a civil order, and can she give an example of when such a sentence would be appropriate? What exactly can KCPOs require or prohibit? Will guidance be brought forward on what measures are effective in tackling knife crime, or will it be anything that the court deems necessary, proportionate and enforceable?
Finally, who will be required or allowed to know that a child has an order, and what action will their school or alternative provider be expected to take when one has been granted? The implications for alternative provision are potentially severe, as some providers refuse to take children who have knife convictions, leaving them completely out of education and therefore much more vulnerable to becoming involved in violence. What consideration has been given to this?
I do not think that the Minister has satisfactorily answered the concerns raised by the Opposition in our amendments or those of expert organisations that work on these issues every single day, such as the Magistrates Association and the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. We will therefore divide the House on our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 in relation to the parliamentary lock, as the report that the Home Secretary brings forward must be voted on before the pilots can be rolled out.
I conclude by thanking and congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends who have significantly improved the Bill and subjected it to scrutiny during its passage, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central, for Sheffield South East, for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Birmingham, Edgbaston and for Slough. The amendments in our names have sought to strengthen and improve the weak legislation before us today. They have sought an evidence-based response to the long-term trend of violence that we are witnessing as a result of this Government’s austerity agenda. We hope that the Government will accept that much more needs to be done if we are to prevent any more young lives from being needlessly taken, and we hope that the Government will accept the amendments in our names today.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh).
I should like to focus on knife crime prevention orders. If we are to reduce knife crime, we need to address the issue of drug usage. So many of the young people dying in our communities are dying as a result of the drugs trade—particularly cocaine. We need to consider increasing the costs attached to the usage of drugs, because drugs are historically extremely cheap at the moment; and if we want to attack usage, we have to increase the costs attached to recreational possession. The Minister said that she had looked at dealing with gangs—she had looked at knife crime prevention orders—but I think we need to look at drug prevention orders.
I think it is appalling that the chattering classes, wherever we may find them, whatever their politics, are wringing their hands about the deaths of mostly young men and children on our streets and then, moments later, too many of them are shoving a line of cocaine up their noses. That is not a line of white powder; that is a line of blood, and users of cocaine have blood on their hands—the lives of many, many young people and children.
So I say this to the Minister. Let us not build more prisons. Let us not lock more recreational users up—but let us hit them in the pocket. If they are caught in possession of cocaine, if they are responsible for the deaths on our streets, they should be fined accordingly. Let us say that you are a City trader on £300,000 a year, Minister: you should be fined a third of your income—a third of your income—if you are caught in recreational possession. Then users might start to think. If they do not care about the young lives being lost on the streets, they might start thinking about the consequences to themselves and their finances.
It may be a City trader. It may be a Member of Parliament. It may be a doctor. It may be a teacher. But if they are using cocaine, they are responsible for the tragedies that are happening daily, and I think they should pay—pay for recreational usage. They should pay by being fined a significant amount of their income the first time they are caught in possession, 50% the second time and 100% the third time. When we introduce laws like that, Minister, people may start taking this matter seriously, and we may actually start to address the mayhem, destruction and tragedy that is afflicting so many of our communities.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I start by confirming that the SNP has supported the Bill from the outset. As I previously acknowledged, the Government here have worked closely with the Scottish Government on many of its provisions, given that the Bill’s subject matter covers a range of both devolved and reserved competences. We remain of the view that the Bill will help tackle crimes involving corrosive substances, knives and certain firearms, so it continues to enjoy our support. However, we took—and continue to take—the view that more important tools include police funding, police numbers, cross-government working and a genuine switch to a public health approach to knife crime.
For today, though, the 95 amendments passed in the Lords focus on three specific areas. One set of changes proposed in the Lords does not convince us at all. One set of changes appears absolutely reasonable to us. Another group of amendments is welcome but still falls short of what was in the Bill at the outset. We are far from convinced on the knife crime prevention orders. As we have heard, things have moved very quickly, essentially closing down time for proper consideration, scrutiny and consultation. It is fair to recall, however, that this morning the Metropolitan Police Commissioner defended the proposals robustly before the Home Affairs Committee. I absolutely respect the fact that they are well-intentioned. I question, however, whether the reasoning behind them and the form they now take are well-founded. The all-party group on knife crime, excellently chaired by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), heard evidence from a series of groups who have significant concerns about the impact they will have. As we have heard, concerns have been raised by magistrates, local government, the Children’s Society, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, the Prison Reform Trust and the Police Federation.
Huw Merriman
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), whose constituency I will not even try to pronounce correctly. He always speaks with such eloquence. I attended the same meeting of groups hosted by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and listened to the arguments about knife crime prevention orders. It was hard not to be persuaded by some of those arguments, but I want to explain why I think introducing those orders is the right thing to do.
The Government are absolutely right to follow a public health approach to knife crime. It is time to look holistically at all our agencies in delivering both a health-based solution and a criminal justice solution. We have the youth endowment fund and the review of drugs policy, and we should recognise that prison sentences for knife crime have increased: 85% of people convicted serve at least three months, compared with 53% only 10 years ago. The courts are putting in place a whole range of tougher measures, and the Government and local authorities are looking to introduce wraparound support, yet the reality is that knife crime is endemic and will not be solved in the short term with those measures alone. I therefore absolutely support knife crime prevention orders.
What makes this issue so stark for me is the number of recorded knife crime offences in the 12 months to September 2018. There were 40,000—an increase of two thirds since March 2014. Those figures are appalling. In the context of overall violence having fallen by a quarter since 2013, it is clear that we have an issue specific to the carrying of knives. I was struck by a recent survey by the Centre for Social Justice, in which 6% of Londoners polled confessed to having carried a knife in the past 12 months. There is a contagion effect. Young people carry knives to protect themselves, because they do not feel confident, but we all know that someone is more likely to die when they are carrying a knife than when they are not. We must make some kind of intervention to tackle that.
The Mayor of London was absolutely right in his letter to the Home Secretary in December. He was critical because nothing had yet been inserted into the Bill. He said that he was
“concerned to note that despite requests from the police…no amendments have yet been tabled”.
Now they have, which is to be welcomed. He went on to say that the introduction of the orders would
“enable better protection for the community, particularly those working with vulnerable and high-risk young people,”
and added:
“At the same time, they will enable the police and partner agencies to intervene and prevent future crime.”
They will prevent future tragedies, too.
Last month, I heard from senior officers in the Met who have asked for knife crime prevention orders to be introduced. Again, it was hard not to be impressed by what they had to say. Absolutely, introducing the orders is a slight roll of the dice—they are new and innovative—but it is important that we do so.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I think the main point is that if someone is on a knife crime prevention order, people around them will realise that they are and may concentrate more on looking after them and stopping them doing something wrong again. That is very important, too.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about that care and intervention as well as having a deterrent. Of course there has to be a deterrent.
We must not overlook the fact that applications will have to be made by either the Crown Prosecution Service or a chief officer of police, and that the court will have to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that on at least two occasions in the previous two years the defendant had a bladed article in a public place or a place of education. That is not enough, either: if there has been a big conversion, that can be demonstrated, and the magistrates court must think it is necessary to make the order to protect the public from harm from a bladed article or, indeed, to protect the respondent from committing an offence.
We talk about locks; there is a series of locks in the magistrates courts, and we must trust our magistrates to look fairly and objectively at the evidence before putting in place an order, which I say will deter young people from causing a tragedy to themselves or other people. Only if that order is breached will we be talking about a custodial sentence. Orders will be reviewed if they are longer than 12 months, and they can be varied, too. To me, they make absolute sense.
I will conclude by explaining why I feel so passionately about this issue. We can talk about long-term interventions, but the reality for young people who carry knives is that one mistake leads to loss of life—either theirs or others’. The impacts of that are dramatic. In 2007, the number of knife crime-related homicides was high—it was 272. We —both Labour and Conservative Governments—brought it down to 186 in 2015. It has now risen to 285 killings in the last year, which is the highest since records began in 1946. Something has to be done, and done now.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I want to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) just said. In addition to the safeguards my hon. Friend has ably set out, there is the provision for under-18s that, before an order can be granted, a youth offending team has to be consulted, meaning they can be helped by experts not to reoffend.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; YOTs will be consulted. I do not agree with the idea of having a more specific order, because that would tie the whole process up in knots, whereas this needs to be a fluid process. YOTs would indeed be consulted, and then appropriate adults—youth workers—would supervise any requirements under the order.
These interventions can help people turn their lives around. I spent five years working in a youth organisation that was trying to turn young people’s lives around and stop them making these mistakes. We helped with their education and encouraged them to put their energy into sports, performing arts, environmental projects, and so on—something that could turn them away from a life of crime and give them something more interesting, exciting and exacting to work on. That said, we have now regressed. Far too many young people are being attracted by gangs and carrying knives either because of the glamour or as protection. We need to do something now to turn that around and save lives.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) speaks with authority as a former youth worker, and one listens to him with great attention, but I disagree with his conclusion that the proposal before the House is the best way forward. I want to suggest alternatives that I hope he will consider.
There is no doubt that action on knife crime is needed—that fact unites us all—and a lot of the action will involve spending money, whether on policing, including community policing, or on youth workers. There may have been a lot of youth workers when the hon. Gentleman was active, but when I look around communities today I do not see many youth workers or community police officers, but we will need them to implement these orders. We will need to spend money if we are to have the people in place to give those young people alternatives and protect them. We as a Parliament have to recognise that the public health approach is not a cheap option.
Do we need another legal power? The Government argue that, despite the panoply of powers already on the statute book, we need a new one, which is why the House is right to scrutinise the proposal; I only wish it had more time. Will the proposal work? We have some evidence from the past. As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had many debates in this House, in previous Parliaments, on how to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we have seen policies such as antisocial behaviour orders, on which, I believe, these knife crime prevention orders are modelled. My noble Friend Lord Paddick in the other place has pointed out some of the major problems with ASBOs that we believe knife crime prevention orders will also have.
I want to be constructive, however, and to support the Minister in her work to tackle knife crime. I hope that she will agree to meet me to discuss the Liberal Democrats’ proposal for what I have named anti-blade contracts—linked to the ABCs, or acceptable behaviour contracts, of the past—which could be far more effective in preventing young people from carrying knives in the first place. I would also make the case for other similar initiatives, such as what I call knife crime prevention injunctions, which would have the benefit of not resulting in criminal records for young people.
First, though, I will make the case against the Government’s proposal. The fundamental problem is that these will be pre-conviction orders—as opposed to on-conviction orders—which means that young people as young as 12 could be handed a court order on the grounds that, on the balance of probability, they may have carried a knife. That ought to alarm every colleague. Guilty before anything has been proven—that is a shocking legal principle. I am surprised that a lawyer as distinguished as the Minister feels comfortable about young people getting court orders even when it has not been proved that they committed a crime.
The Minister’s mitigation is that this is a civil offence, but if the order’s conditions are breached, it becomes a criminal offence. A condition may, for instance, be a requirement to notify. A young person who fails to notify the police of a change of address within three days will be in breach of the order, and could be imprisoned.
This legislation has no link to real life—to the chaotic lives that some of these young people lead. The idea that they will remember to notify a police officer within three days that they have changed their address because they have moved from one parent or carer to another, thus avoiding a prison sentence, is total nonsense. Why do we need to criminalise young people who have not committed a crime? Where is the evidence that that will tackle knife crime? Prisons are overcrowded, and there are high levels of self-harm. Is this really a sensible approach?
Victoria Atkins
The point of the orders is that there is information suggesting that these children have been carrying a knife on two or more occasions. The criminality, if we are talking in those terms, would be in the fact of the possession, and a magistrates court or a youth court would consider that very carefully. A child who is carrying a knife may well get into terrible trouble with the police because he or she has used it against someone, and we are trying to get to children before that happens.
Sir Edward Davey
There I have sympathy with the Minister, and I want to propose an alternative which addresses that very point. However, she was beginning to suggest—I am not sure that she meant to—that a criminal test had to be passed, and that is not what is in the Bill. It is not a criminal test that must be passed; it is a civil test, which could then result in a criminal record. I think that the House should think very carefully before going down that road.
Let me say a little about the alternative model that I want the Minister to consider. I am proposing what I have called anti-blade contracts. The idea is that a police officer, along with the parents or a carer, or possibly a youth officer, would sit down with a young person and require them to sign a contract saying that they should not carry a knife and that there would be consequences—for instance, fines or community sentences —if they were caught doing so. Crucially, however, linked with the public health or prevention approach would be positive elements. Young people could, for example, contact a named youth worker or police officer if they were concerned about their safety. There could also be a package of other support, which might involve access to youth services.
That is the way to change behaviour. That is the way to prevent a young person from ending up on the pathway to more crime. People who go to prison often see it as a college of crime, and we must try to avoid that. The approach that I am suggesting would do what the Minister wants: it would meet her objectives, but without the cost and without the potentially damaging impact that her orders would have.
Bob Stewart
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that all young people should sign such contracts? That has a certain appeal to me—the idea that everyone at school, say, is given a lesson and then signs a contract, so that they understand what they are doing. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing?
Sir Edward Davey
Not in the first place. The idea—and this goes alongside the Government’s proposal—is not that every young person would be open to the process, but that it could be offered to young people who were thought to be in danger. I am not sure whether we would want it to be applied to every young person, although it could go further and be part of an educative process as well. Given the lack of resources in the police and youth services, I think that we should target those who are most at risk in the first instance.
The crucial part of my argument is that I am putting forward something that is based on evidence. The evidence from the Home Office, in its reports on the difference between antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts back in 2004, and the evidence from the National Audit Office in a 2006 report, suggested that ABCs were far more effective in changing young people’s behaviour, which is what we want to do. More important—or, at least, as important—was the fact that they were cheaper. They took less time. Orders that need to go to court require considerable police resources, and we do not have those resources. They also take up the time of magistrates, which is already rather stretched, so we are putting forward something that goes against the evidence from the past and that we know is going to be more expensive and more time consuming. This is an urgent problem, and our proposal based on evidence does not need even this place to legislate. We could get on with it; we could issue guidance. Why on earth are we doing this? The situation is far more urgent than the Government seem to think. The Minister’s proposal would take so much time and money when we know that is not available.
I implore the Minister: I am pleased that she has nodded from a sedentary position to indicate that she is prepared to meet me to discuss our proposal—
Sir Edward Davey
I am very grateful to the Minister for doing that, but I hope she will reflect on this.
I will be supporting the Labour amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) tonight, which are well tailored. The Labour proposal requiring this House to vote on a report on the evidence from the pilot is a good compromise; it is an example of this Parliament working together to make sure that what we do is evidence-based. The good thing the Minister could do if she goes down my route is proceed with my anti-blade contracts while those pilots are going on, because an anti-blade contract does not need to bother this legislature.
Sarah Jones
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) and I agree with much of what he said. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) put his finger on it when he said that these knife crime prevention orders are a roll of the dice. That is absolutely the point we all want to make, and while I completely disagree with the conclusion he has come to, this is what we are doing in this House: we are rolling a dice and there might be unintended consequences that we do not know yet. That is what I want to speak about today. I shall speak to the amendments I added my name to: 7, 9, 10, 12 and 23.
I chair the all-party group on knife crime, and yesterday we hosted an event on knife crime prevention orders. We heard evidence from the Magistrates Association, lawyers, academics, charities and youth offending teams who work with children and young people involved in knife crime. There was resounding agreement: they all want to stop knife crime and protect young people, but they all believe that these orders are not the answer. I think they are a knee-jerk reaction to a moral panic and they risk exacerbating, not diminishing, the problem. Lawyers, magistrates and youth offending teams are all in agreement that, far from being preventive, as the name of the orders suggests, the orders will have unintended consequences that could criminalise a generation of young people and actively work against the Government’s stated aim of reducing knife crime.
This final stage of the Offensive Weapons Bill is the first opportunity MPs have had to have our say on whether or not these orders should become law. This is indicative of the Government’s approach of late: rushing through ill-thought-out plans so they can appear to be doing something without actually listening or engaging with experts or allowing parliamentary scrutiny. No real consultation took place other than some rushed consultation within the police—although we heard yesterday that even the senior police representative for children and young people was not asked about these knife crime prevention orders.
As far as we can tell, the orders are the result of a few behind closed doors conversations between the Home Office and a few senior Met police. They have not comprehensively been thought out, and they were not a part of the Government’s own serious violence strategy. This is not the proper way for the Government to create laws, and it is an example of how bad, ineffective policy is created.
As we have heard, these are civil orders that would be placed on children as young as 12 who are suspected of carrying a knife. They could place severe, lengthy and potentially unlimited requirements and restrictions on the person subject to the order. If the requirements are not all met, a breach will be punishable by up to two years in prison. We have a situation in which somebody—a child—who may never have carried a knife and never have broken the law will end up with a criminal record and potentially a prison sentence for an order placed on them just on the basis of probability, rather than a criminal standard of proof. This leaves room for subjective decisions being made and for many young people to feel unfairly targeted.
The Government should be seeking to draw people away from the criminal justice system, not pushing children into it. And for solutions to be effective, they need to target the underlying cause of the behaviour. Sending children to custody does not work and is not an appropriate or proportionate response. Vulnerable young people must have access to education and employment so that they have routes away from drug gangs and the like. Criminal records and other criminal sanctions will disrupt lives and further marginalise young people, locking them out of mainstream society and exacerbating the root causes of violence. Children and young people have told our all-party parliamentary group many times that many are picking up knives out of fear. They feel that it is a necessary form of self-protection because everyone else has one and the police are not there to help them. Knife crime prevention orders will not deter children from picking up knives. They would rather be in prison for carrying a knife than be stabbed to death.
Another thing that was clear from our meeting yesterday was that the orders are neither necessary nor new. Magistrates and lawyers who are involved in children’s sentences have not called for more sentencing options. There are already intervention options available that could be promoted and developed. Many youth offending teams have programmes to address knife carrying, and if they had the money to do more outreach, they could help more children in this way. Conditional cautions can place requirements on children and young people, such as having to see their youth offending team and attend education programmes. These have lower reoffending rates than other more punitive responses, and they deal with behaviour outside the court system. Likewise, there is the triage system, where a young person who is arrested in a police station can be directed to appropriate intervention without being unnecessarily over-criminalised.
The similarities between knife crime prevention orders and the old antisocial behaviour orders are clear. The author of the Youth Justice Board report on ASBOs told us yesterday that they were disproportionately used on children and that they were breached in over two thirds of those cases. The use of ASBOs petered out over time because the courts and other agencies became increasingly concerned that they were counterproductive. Children had come to view them almost as a badge of honour and to define their identity around them. ASBOs were actually encouraging the behaviour they were designed to discourage. Over a nine-year period, more than 5,500 children were sent to prison for breaching their order. The bottom line was that they were not effective, because the kids kept coming back.
A number of other concerns have highlighted how little time has been given to the detail of these orders. Who will monitor them? Who will be responsible for reporting breaches? It seems that charities running programmes with young people would be expected to tell on their young people if they did not turn up. That would betray all the trust those organisations had carefully built up and would undoubtedly affect engagement. If the orders are imposed on the basis of probability, will not the victims of crime be more resistant to going to the police in case they get an order slapped on them, too? If school exclusions are already a big problem and a driver of young people becoming involved in violence, what impact do the Government expect the orders to have on access to education? A school will not want to take on a child who has been issued with a knife crime prevention order.
Finally, young black boys are already disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, and there are real problems with trust and community relationships with the police. The imposition of restrictive orders such as these, especially when someone is only suspected of carrying a knife, will feed into those young boys feeling disproportionately targeted or harassed by police, their feelings of marginalisation and alienation, and their feeling that they are being treated less fairly than others by the justice system. This will be a major setback.
In 2010, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), described ASBOs as a
“top-down, bureaucratic, gimmick-laden approach”.
She said that they were
“too complex and bureaucratic…they were too time consuming and expensive and they too often criminalised young people unnecessarily, acting as a conveyor belt to serious crime and prison.”
The Government should listen to that now. They should also listen to the wide coalition of professional bodies and organisations that have come out against these orders. They should listen to concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to the Justice Secretary himself, who has highlighted a lack of evidence that the orders will be effective. They should also look at the evidence of what works to tackle violent crime. They should consult, and they should work out the actual impact of the policy before imposing it.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs, I want to thank Members across the House for their support for the amendment that we tabled in this House and for their subsequent support for removing the unintended consequences for the Sikh community that the Bill would have had in its previous form. Unamended, the Bill would have meant that Sikhs who possessed a 50 cm kirpan in the home would be committing a criminal act and subject to a year’s imprisonment, so I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention to amend the justification for a Sikh possessing a kirpan from the narrow “religious ceremonies” to “religious reasons”. This was a fundamental change to protect the rights of Sikhs to purchase and possess a kirpan.
The Lords has made a further amendment on the gifting of the kirpan to others at a ceremony, and I thank Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick for their work. I also pay tribute not only to the work done behind the scenes, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but to the Offensive Weapons Bill team in the Home Office.
With this amendment, the Sikh community have been given a clear commitment by the Government that they will not be penalised, and I hope that that approach will be taken by all other Departments. The APPG would like to work with the Minister on developing the statutory guidance surrounding the amendment, and I hope that she will continue to work with us to protect the Sikh community from any further discrimination.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will speak briefly about the Government’s response to Lords amendments 27 and 28. The Minister talked about the collaborative approach that has been adopted in relation to many aspects of the Bill, and I want to thank her for her engagement and also thank her colleague Baroness Williams. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I had two constructive meetings where we brought knife manufacturers to meet the Minister and Baroness Williams, and we were pleased with how the Minister engaged with the concerns that were raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, who is no longer in his place, for his generous comments and—there is a bit of a Sheffield theme here—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—[Interruption.] Sheffield is the centre of the world, depending on where you start from.
The point on which we all agree relates to the deep concern within all our communities that are affected by knife crime in some of the most horrific ways. We all want effective action to tackle the problem, and the emphasis should be on effective action. We need the right laws to tackle the problem without unintended consequences. I was concerned about the original proposals, which would not have addressed the problem and would have caused unnecessary damage to the knife manufacturing sector and to small businesses in particular, to which the Minister referred in her opening remarks.
It was for that reason that I proposed a trusted trader scheme on Report simply to open up the debate, and that discussion developed in the Lords into the proposals for a trusted courier scheme. I pay tribute to Lord Kennedy for taking up the issue effectively, brokering some of the meetings and engaging productively with Ministers. Although the proposals that we have from the Government today offer a different approach, they nevertheless address our concerns and are probably better than my original amendment on Report.
I have consulted with the local businesses who joined us at the meetings, and I pay particular tribute to James Goodwin from Egginton Bros Ltd for first raising the issue with me, and also to Alastair Fisher from Taylor’s Eye Witness. They welcomed the Government’s proposals in response to the Lords amendments. More widely, the knife manufacturing sector and retailers, who also had a lot at stake in ensuring that we got things right, will also welcome the proposals. With that, I join other hon. Members in endorsing the Government’s proposals.
Lords amendment 27 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 28 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (k) made in lieu of Lords amendments 27 and 28.
Lords amendments 1 to 22 agreed to.
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 23.—(Louise Haigh.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019
Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:02 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move,
That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, HM Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
I hope, first of all, that this will be one of the last times that we talk about this subject. We do not want to be holding this debate on the convergence programme document any more. I look forward to the opportunity to move on to a period of future growth outside the European Union.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you listened to some of the public discourse today—the teeth gnashing, the wailing, the portents of doom—you would not realise that in fact the British economy is doing rather well and that Britain is on the up. We have more people in work than ever before, the fastest wage rises in more than a decade and a record number of new start-ups. What is particularly interesting is that it is younger people in particular who are starting up those businesses. We have seen an 85% increase in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds setting up businesses in the last three years, so far from being a bunch of Starbucks-hating socialists, they are in fact more pro-low taxes and pro-enterprise than many older generations.
We are also seeing investment flooding into Britain. We have got more investment in technology than other European countries, and the latest growth forecasts show that the UK economy is set to grow faster than Germany’s or Japan’s. The public finances have been brought back under control after years of profligacy under Labour; debt is falling as a proportion of GDP; and we are reducing the deficit ahead of our plans. Why has this happened? Well, it has not happened by accident or because the Government say it should happen. It has happened because this country has a successful free enterprise economy, and the private sector has created millions of new jobs. The Government have created the conditions to enable this to happen and built the infrastructure to help those businesses to succeed. We have cut corporation tax and other taxes so that businesses are able to invest more in training and capital investment. We have made it easier for companies to take on staff through employment reforms. We have reformed our welfare system, introducing universal credit so that it always pays to work and to move up the jobs ladder.
We are seeing the flourishing of Britain right across the country, with new businesses being established and succeeding. From Skyscanner in Edinburgh to WANdisco in Sheffield, Britain is leading the technology revolution. The sky is the limit for Britain, and there will be even more opportunities for growth and new trade around the world when we leave the EU.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I remember all the dire predictions of economic meltdown if the people voted to leave. What has happened to all those predictions? What does my right hon. Friend think would happen if we were to leave with no deal on Friday? Or perhaps I should ask the jobbing Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), because he appears to be in charge at the moment. Anyway, I am interested in the Minister’s opinion about all the dire predictions of gloom if we leave with no deal.
Elizabeth Truss
The UK economy is projected to grow under all circumstances. Our future is in the hands of individuals and businesses in this country. It is those people who determine whether we will be successful or whether we will fail. I have a huge amount of respect for the entrepreneurs in this country who are setting up new businesses, growing and investing. We have a very bright future ahead of us.
The reality is that the threat to British prosperity is not our precise relationship with the European Union, but the ideas of some in this Chamber who want to limit people’s opportunities, see public spending balloon and start increasing our national debt again by £1,000 billion. And what would happen then? Taxes would go up; people would be able to keep less of their own money; businesses would not have the funds they needed to invest in the future; and our economy would decline rather than grow. That is the real threat to British prosperity. Fundamentally, we have been successful and moved on from the post-crash era because we have backed the British people and British businesses to succeed. We have not gone out there and said that business is the enemy—something that should be fought against. We have said that business is a friend of success and aspiration, and we need to back it.
This year represents a big opportunity for Britain. First, 2019 is the year when we are leaving the European Union, but it is also the year of the spending review. As the Chancellor announced in the spring statement, we will be launching the spending review just before the summer and completing it in the autumn. That spending review will set the budgets for the next three years. For the first time since the financial crash we have choices, because there is now headroom in our budget. That headroom is thanks to the fact that there are more people in work than ever before, and they are contributing in taxes.
We now have choices we can make. First, we have the ability to cut taxes, which we will already be doing this April. People will see more money coming into their bank accounts from this April onwards thanks to the fact that this Government have decided to reduce taxes for those on the basic rate and for those on the higher rate. We are also able to invest in public services. Because we have taken these difficult decisions, we have allowed the economy to grow. We have an opportunity to modernise government to make it sleeker and better value for the people it serves.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On investing in public services, what is the right hon. Lady going to do to invest in local authorities so that they, in turn, can invest? Coventry is a good example. Coventry has encouraged small businesses, and we have the University of Warwick science park and so forth. What is she doing to encourage local authorities to invest in their public services, as she knows that for the past few years that has been very difficult for local authorities, to say the least?
Elizabeth Truss
I was very glad to visit a successful business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I know that he is very committed to the development of business in his area. It is important that money spent is raised locally as far as possible. As a Government, we have rebalanced from central Government giving money to local government to more of that money being kept locally, whether through business rates retention or council tax. That is an important principle. However, we did recognise in the Budget that local authorities were under pressure. That is why we put in an extra £650 million, which can particularly be spent on adult social care and children’s social care where there is pressure. Of course, we will look at that balance in the spending review.
At the moment, we have a complicated landscape in the support offered to business. When there is a complicated landscape, it can sometimes be the big businesses that know how to work the system that end up getting the money. We need to move to a system where we have lower taxes and it is clearer and simpler to see where the support is. Of course, we are also investing in the infrastructure that helps business to succeed, whether it is local roads, fibre or rail. Ahead of the spending review, I am making visits around the country to hear from people on the ground to understand what the public’s priorities for public spending are. It can sometimes be easy in Whitehall to listen to the big lobby groups— the big organisations that have an operation here in Westminster—but I want to hear what people in Coventry and other places around the country think about what their priorities are. I have done a few of these sessions so far, and the topics that come up tend to be education, local roads, the NHS—for which we have already put in additional money—and police. We need very much to keep in mind what the public want to see our money spent on rather than just listening to the big organisations.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend mention education. May I press her to consider the fact that in our rural areas the funding per pupil is still not as it should be by comparison with urban schools? We have a huge number of Victorian schools, such as that which I visited earlier in the week in Motcombe in my constituency, where the maintenance of the buildings costs far more. We are therefore looking, in the comprehensive spending review, for a long-term increase in new money to deliver the first-class education to grow the entrepreneurs who will return the investment that we put into their education while they were at school.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about education funding and how important young people having a good education is to the future of the economy. In this year’s spending review, we are looking not just at how investment in physical infrastructure like bridges and roads improves our economy, but at human capital—where we need to put in extra money to make sure that children and young people leave school, university or an apprenticeship with the skills that will help them to get a good job and to live a successful and fruitful life. That is very important. In the past, Governments have been more interested in spending money on things that are sexy and new—the big new pieces of infrastructure—and maintenance has sometimes taken a back seat, but it is very important to make sure that all the existing assets we have, whether roads or schools, are fit for purpose. In the zero-based capital review, we are looking at the balance between maintenance and new infrastructure investment.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for giving way. Has she had any discussions with the Children’s Minister, who is currently considering the very relevant issue of investment in nursery schools, which is an obvious case of human capital investment as it has a considerable benefit for society after only a few years?
Elizabeth Truss
I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Children’s Minister. That is one reason why we put additional funding into children’s services at the Budget. Part of the human capital review is looking at where we invest in education. As a country, we currently put more money into the later stages of education. There are laudable reasons for that, but we put more money equivalently into universities than secondary schools. We are looking at how to ensure that all children are getting the best possible start of life. There is a lot of evidence that the earlier the investment, the better.
I mentioned the zero-based capital review, which will look at all capital infrastructure to ensure that we are getting the most bang for our buck. That is an opportunity in 2019 to look afresh at our future projects and where the greatest impact can be made. We are also looking at opportunities to reform the way we do things in government. Housing is a good example. At the moment, we spend £34 billion on housing through the housing benefit budget and things such as the housing infrastructure fund and Help to Buy. My question is: by liberalising planning and making it easier to build, can we reduce costs for people looking to get on the housing ladder and at the same time reduce costs for the Government? We should not always assume that it is just about spending more money. We also need to think about how we reform things to do them better, to reduce the cost for people for whom housing is a big item on their household budget and to reduce the cost for the Government.
In summary, 2019 is going to be a huge year for our country. The economy and the public finances are on the right trajectory, but we are not complacent at the Treasury. We are looking very carefully at how every single pound is spent. We want it to be spent as much as possible on ensuring that everybody has access to a good start in life, that our core public services are provided and that we help companies and enterprises continue to deliver the economic growth that they have over the past few years.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary referred to the gnashing of teeth. The only gnashing of teeth going on in this country is by those people who cannot get access to a dentist because of her party’s health policy. She talked about the Tories being the party of business. She may well wish to have a word with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who used an Anglo-Saxon phrase in relation to business—the second word was “off”, basically.
If education is so wonderful and marvellous and schools are in such a good state, how come headteachers marched on Downing Street and presented the largest petition about the condition of schools and education? The answer from the right hon. Lady is always more deregulation.
Peter Dowd
That is what the right hon. Lady said in relation to planning law. It is deregulation—that is what it comes down to. However she wants to dress it up, it is deregulation. Deregulation has got this country into so much trouble in a whole range of areas, including banking and housing. Let us not hear any more about how deregulation is going to solve all the problems of the world. It will not.
After that, I would like to thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and give credit where credit is due. In a speech given on 19 March, the Chief Secretary finally acknowledged that we will now
“throw off the constraints of the post-financial crash world”.
There it is: it is official. It was a financial crash world, not Labour’s crash. But better late than never—apology accepted.
We find ourselves in the absurd and surreal position of debating a motion to approve the Government’s programme of convergence with the EU at a time when the issue of Britain’s membership of the EU is about to bring down yet another Conservative Prime Minister, so the only convergence on the cards is the one between the Prime Minister and her P45. The theological obsession of the European Research Group, which is opposed to any convergence with reality in fact, has hamstrung the Brexit negotiations and left the majority over there—on the Government Benches—as spectators in an unfolding disaster of their own making.
Reflecting on the first time I spoke in the debate on the Government’s convergence programme with the EU, I recall it was just before the snap election in spring 2017. I am sure we all remember that. At the time, prominent newspapers ran headlines such as “Blue Murder” in the sure and certain belief that the Conservatives would wipe out the Labour party, or “Steel of the New Iron Lady”, comparing the Prime Minister to Margaret Thatcher.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
We’re still in government.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman says that they are still in government, but that is a complete and utter fantasy, and even his honourable colleagues all smiled and smirked at that particular one.
Those supine, oleaginous headlines in the newspapers are gone, along with the words that dare not speak their name, “Strong and stable”. Whatever happened to that? Just two years later, those same newspapers now call for the Prime Minister to resign, stating, “Time’s up, Theresa”. This sea change among the Tories’ biggest supporters in the press sums up the failures of this Government.
While we are on the maritime theme, the Environment Secretary could not even use the limited imagination he has to think up another metaphor, and resorted to the hackneyed one:
“It’s not time to change the captain of the ship”.
What an imagination!
The Prime Minister’s red lines and her intransigence and insistence on a deal that has little or no support in the country or in this House have led us to this crisis. This weekend, we had the ludicrous spectacle—the ludicrous spectacle—of Cabinet Ministers jostling to brief the press about her imminent departure and her would-be likely successor, only to be followed by quick recants and unconvincing oaths of loyalty. It is almost Shakespearian.
The Government’s motion is based on the economic forecast provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Chancellor’s spring statement—what there was of it. I am sure all Members would agree that the work of Robert Chote and his staff at the OBR is indispensable in informing debate and offering an independent forecast of UK economy. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) wants to intervene, he should feel free to do so, but perhaps he could stop muttering across the Chamber inane comments that nobody can hear and nobody understands, and I suspect he himself does not even understand what he is actually saying.
However, it is worrying that the OBR’s recent forecast continues to be based on the UK securing a Brexit deal, which the Chief Secretary did not even mention, and a smooth transition, which she did not mention, particularly at a time when the Prime Minister continues to keep the option of no deal on the table. It is still there; it has not been taken off. This assumption means that if the UK does leave without a deal or leaves with a poor deal, the OBR’s forecasts will be in serious need of revision.
Similarly, at the spring statement the Chancellor spoke again of this mythical Brexit “deal dividend” that the economy will receive once parliamentarians sign up to the Prime Minister’s deal. According to the Chancellor’s imagination—which is significantly more febrile than the Environment Secretary’s—this “deal dividend” will lead to an increase in the public coffers. However, the Chancellor’s claims have already been debunked by the Treasury Committee, which described the dividend as “not credible” and “not fully consistent” with his own fiscal rules—yes, the rules that keep changing.
Rather than the fantastical picture that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury seeks to paint for our EU partners, I will take the opportunity to outline the real state of the UK economy and the Government’s woeful record. That is where we hear the gnashing of teeth—woeful record. Under the Conservatives, we have faced nine years of politically instituted austerity, which has weakened our economy and pushed our public services to breaking point. The Government’s austerity programme has suppressed incomes by more than £3,600 per household, costing the economy £100 billion; yet austerity is far from over. The departmental spending review that the Chief Secretary mentioned—likely to report in the autumn, as she said—will see real-terms cuts for most Departments. I will sit down if the right hon. Lady would like to give us some more information on that one.
Peter Dowd
I do not think that is correct. I am afraid we will have to look at those figures. We will see them and we will hold the Chief Secretary to account when she is at this Dispatch Box and I am at the Dispatch Box where she is now.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the complete failure of the Government’s austerity agenda. Earlier, the Chief Secretary mentioned nursery schools. Many school and nursery school heads are experiencing a continuing programme of austerity, which is actually due to get worse. She mentioned that she had a brief conversation with her colleague in the Education Department. [Interruption.] However long the conversation was, the message I have had from headteachers is quite to the contrary; actually, a very short stay of execution has been given, for just one year, when the headteachers I speak to in my Reading constituency need a long-term programme of sustainable investment in nursery schools, rather than warm words.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I nip back to the point about the 1.2% increase, if I may beg your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker? The 1.2% is the overall increase. What will happen—[Interruption.] No; the reality is that some Departments will have major cuts in their budget.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is referring to a number of figures that he claims show a hit to every taxpayer; but 32 million taxpayers have had their taxes reduced under this Government, so they are keeping more of what they earn and they are better off. How many of those 32 million people would see their taxes put up under his proposals, and how many would be poorer under his proposals?
Peter Dowd
I will pick up some of those points later.
The reality is that meanwhile, the Government have presided over the slowest recovery since the 1920s—stubborn fact. The OBR has revised down GDP growth, and business investment is now falling. Those are not my figures; they are the OBR’s figures. What about wages? I will touch on the points that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) raised. Real wages are still lower than they were a decade ago, and according to the OBR,
“average earnings growth remains below the rates typical before the financial crisis”.
These are real people’s real lives—real wages are not going up. For many workers who have seen their wages stagnate, borrowing and debt has plugged the gap. Household debt relative to income is forecast to increase over the next few years.
What about transparency in Government spending? Long gone are the days when Tory Ministers hailed their Government as the most transparent in history—replaced by a culture of secrecy and a disregard for parliamentary convention that saw the Government held in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history. It is not a proud record to have.
Even on transactional issues, such as the regular and timely release of figures for departmental spending of over £25,000, the Government seem to have quietly backslid, in some cases releasing data series late, incomplete, or not at all. The question is: what are they hiding? The Chief Secretary has made much of the Government’s record on the deficit, yet the reality is that on her watch, and that of her predecessor, they have simply passed deficits on to our schools, our hospitals and our local councils, with departmental spending cuts of over £40 billion since 2010.
Mr Jim Cunningham
When we talk about more money being put into Departments, whether for education or the health service, we have to remember that any additional money starts from a lower base. The Government are partially replacing what they took out in the first place. People do not seem to understand that major point. They said that austerity was over, but we still have it. Yes, people are in jobs, but they are very low-paid jobs. That is not taking people out of poverty; that is keeping people in poverty. What interests me the most, however, is that nothing has been said about further education, which has had major cuts. If the Government want to continue with austerity, they have to do something about further education.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend has obviously been reading Labour’s “Funding Britain’s Future” document, in which we picked up on that particular point. The hon. Member for Redditch mentioned tax cuts. Try telling that to people who have had 15% and 16% rises in their council tax, because the Government have shunted that on to the people. They are still taxpayers. Try mentioning to them that they have fantastic local services, when increases to their council tax do not even cover social care bills.
The Chief Secretary has bragged about the so-called Tory jobs miracle. However, she made no mention in the speech of the fact that it is built on insecure work, low pay and regional disparities. We have nearly 4 million people in insecure work and nearly 3 million people working under 15 hours a week across the UK. Workers in the north-east earn around £200 less than those in London, reifying the regional imbalance.
Simon Hoare
I hate to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s unicorn just as he has started to ride it, but 90% of new jobs created are full-time jobs. This is a total myth that his party keeps peddling. It belies the hard work, initiative and enterprise of the British people. Is it not time to stop misleading?
Peter Dowd
Try telling that to the 3 million people in insecure work. It is okay hon. Members jumping up and being outraged at the facts. The facts are stubborn, I completely grant them that. We are not living in the halcyon world that the hon. Member thinks we are living in. There are 3 million people living in insecure work. That is not acceptable in a modern society. The Chief Secretary has done nothing to help headteachers who having to close schools early or the 87 people a day dying while they are waiting for social care, or to assist the nurses, doctors, police officers, social workers, road sweepers, fire fighters, security services staff, civil servants or the back-office staff who keep all those services running day in, day out and night in, night out. Those are the so-called vested interests the Chief Secretary refers to in her regular speeches.
The Chief Secretary recently visited Felixstowe, Walsall and Tadcaster—commiserations to the people of Felixstowe, Walsall and Tadcaster. She said that people want
“the local roads fixed and not to have to sit in a traffic jam.”
Well, the Government are in a big jam at the moment. She went on:
“They want a less crowded commute into work. They want the basics sorted.”
This is after nine years of Tory Government! Where has she been? Did she really have to ask that question? A report today highlights that there are 2 million potholes out there with a £10 billion backlog of repairs under the Tories. No wonder people are sitting in traffic jams—they cannot get through the road for potholes. That is the reality under the Tories. Anyone with a scintilla of awareness already knows the answer to that. The good people of north Lincolnshire were certainly aware of it when I was in Crowle on Saturday, campaigning to rid them of their useless Tory council with the excellent Labour candidates. They want the Transport Secretary to do his job, and they want the Chief Secretary to do hers.
What about productivity—another abysmal failure of Tory economic policy? Productivity remains weaker than in most other advanced economies. The fact is that the Government have failed to prepare the UK economy for the future. Britain’s infrastructure ranks behind that of Germany, France, the USA and Japan in terms of quality, and its rate of public investment is among the lowest in the OECD.
Elizabeth Truss
Is it not the case that in 1997 the Labour Government cancelled the road building programme?
Peter Dowd
Yes—to invest in public transport. We now have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury resorting to decisions made by a Labour Government two decades ago. That is how grim it has got for the Conservatives’ arguments—they are talking about something that happened 20 years ago.
Despite that, the Government have cut planned public sector investment. Their failure to negotiate a credible Brexit deal has already led to huge uncertainty, stifling investment and putting jobs at risk. Manufacturing is in recession; numerous employers have announced job losses; and businesses that rely on the EU supply chain have been left in confusion and despair—like most Government Members, who are in confusion and despair at the actions of the Prime Minister.
The internecine warfare within the Conservative party has paralysed the Government yet again, while the economy and many people’s livelihoods hang in the balance. It is affecting people’s livelihoods, manufacturing and business—more vested interests to be ridiculed and ignored by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. All that while the Government are reporting to our EU partners that everything in the garden is rosy—no pun intended, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is time for the Chief Secretary to acknowledge that the only Brexit that will gain majority support is Labour’s alternative plan: a permanent customs union, a strong relationship with the single market and full guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections.
The Government’s assessment of the UK economy is not based in reality. It does not account for the Conservatives’ catastrophic record of austerity, which continues to destroy our public services and suffocate the economy. It pays no regard to the Tory failure on wages, which remain lower than they were a decade ago. In addition to radio silence on productivity, there is little mention of the lack of public investment in our infrastructure. In short, the Government’s assessment says far more about the ideological position of Tory Ministers and their insolvent ideas than it does about the actual economy. It says more about the hubris of a Government who have stayed in office well past their sell-by date and do not recognise the experiences of ordinary people.
In summary, economic growth stands at 1.2%; productivity is 35% below the Germans’; household debt as a proportion of income is set to rise from 139% to 143% by 2024; the national debt still stands at 82% of GDP—the Conservatives have doubled the national debt —and the deficit is £22.8 billion. That is the Conservative Government’s record after nine years of economic incompetence. That epitomises why the country needs a Labour Government that will put jobs and our economy first and invest to rebuild Britain for the many, not the few. I urge Members to reject the motion.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Simon Hoare
I mean the shadow Chief Secretary. [Laughter.] Of, course, it is a pleasure to follow the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is a greater pleasure to follow her shadow, the emphasis being on the word “shadow”—it is sort of me and my shadow. I call him a friend; I think we get on pretty well when we have a gossip in the Tea Room. He is known for his great sense of humour, and it was deployed beautifully in his speech, which started as a serious attempt and then descended into some sort of 1890s music hall act slightly on its way out—rather like the Labour party and its economic manifesto. I am sorry he did not talk about the need to ring-fence anything in the Budget for the re-education of Treasury officials, which the little red book and Chairman Mao will doubtless be planning the curriculum for even as I speak.
I rise to make a few points to the Treasury Bench. This is a key time in our national economic affairs. The challenge/opportunity of Brexit, including the need for a deal to ensure an orderly withdrawal from the EU, will provide a fundamental foundation for maintaining economic growth and jobs, as my right hon. Friend referenced. From those jobs, of course, come the taxes that pay for the nurses, the doctors, the teachers, the roads and any other project the Government wish to support. We are approaching, if we have not already arrived at, that opportunity which comes with having fiscal headroom and permits choices to be made.
In the last few years—let us be frank—it has been economic management by necessity. We have been trying to deal with the task that we were bequeathed, not by choice, but which the electorate trusted the Conservative party to resolve. Treasury Ministers past and present deserve the nation’s thanks for facing into those difficult decisions. It is all too often characterised, sometimes by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and his colleagues, as an ideological pursuit by the Conservative party that in some way engenders jollity and laughter. I believe that all politicians enter public office and service to improve lives and the lot of our constituents. More and more of our constituents, as they get older, look to public services, and it should always be a matter of pride for a Conservative Government with a sound record of economic stewardship to deliver quality public services as efficiently as possible.
The end of the legacy of the crash and everything that flowed from it now provides that opportunity for choices. I would characterise those choices as needing the striking of a balance that is both sensitive and sophisticated. With my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the helm of the Treasury, I think we have both those characteristics, although I will not say which of them is sensitive and which is sophisticated—probably they will meld into the two. That is important, though, because we now have an opportunity to choose.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I are very much children of the 1980s—our views and thoughts were shaped by the economic miracle that Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe worked—but we must appreciate that times have moved on. I am very struck by the fact that people in an earning bracket such that 25 or 30 years ago they would have looked to private health provision and education now look to and use state provision. I applaud that. I used the NHS. I had an operation at Dorchester last week, and I use my local education service—we have three girls in our local primary school. It is important to bear that in mind.
My right hon. Friend is right to point to the need for competitive taxation, whereby we can take people out of tax such that they have more money to spend, and it is absolutely right that our policies focus on those on the lowest incomes, but it is also right, in a fair and equitable society, that those who can should shoulder the burden, in a competitive way, to make sure we can deliver those services that people are looking for. I think it is too easy a prescription merely to say that we must pursue an agenda of tax cuts, as if British society had not evolved since 1985, 1986 or 1987. That is where the balance needs to be struck. It may be the balance between a liberal Tory and a more Thatcherite Tory—I do not know—but it needs to be struck.
As other Members have pointed out, as a result of a period of austerity we are now in a period in which the fiscal headroom allows for additional investment. The spring statement was helpful, and what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said about an average increase of 1.2% in departmental expenditure was also welcome. However, we would be foolish to ignore the fact that we are now having to claw our way back from a period in which spending has been—albeit quite justifiably —capped.
Any Member whose constituency contains a prison will notice that the fabric of the prison estate has deteriorated. Some people might say that that is a good thing because we are talking about prisoners, but I am inclined to think that if we are serious about bringing people back into society—the redemption strategy—we need to provide a satisfactory prison environment.
In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I mentioned schools and the need for the long-term provision of new money in the comprehensive spending review. It is great that we are offering the widest and deepest range of free-at-the-point-of-use educational opportunities in our country, and when T-levels come on stream, it will become even wider and even deeper, but it is folly to suggest that we can continue to provide that, and can make the necessary investment to deliver a happy, educated, productive next generation, with the fiscal envelope currently enjoyed by the Department for Education.
Matt Rodda
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and thoughtful speech. Has he considered the Government’s policy of placing additional pension demands on schools in an unfunded way? If so, what does he think of it?
Simon Hoare
In an intervention on the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Gentleman referred to something that I am sure we have all heard from headteachers in our constituencies. Whether we are talking about national insurance, about pensions or about the demands of special educational needs, although increased DFE expenditure is going into most of our schools, it is nowhere near enough. We are asking schools to do more for more pupils with not quite as much money as they need. That is why I make the distinction. I welcome the increase, but new money is required, particularly as the range and the choice become wider and deeper.
I challenge anyone who represents a rural constituency, as I do, not to share my views on rural schools. I was delighted when the Chief Secretary took my point about the needs of maintenance. The costs of heating and running a whole estate of Victorian primary schools are greater than those in new build, perhaps in an urban setting, although that is not to say that there are no Victorian schools in urban settings. Such schools do not provide a good learning environment. Last month, I visited Motcombe primary school in my constituency. In a small classroom, one child is effectively being fried against a not particularly adequate heater, because the school does not have enough money to replace the heating system.
We must make a balanced judgment: we must aim to take those at the lowest end of the earning spectrum out of taxation, while also investing properly. We must strike that sensitive and sophisticated balance. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right: it is not just the big and sexy that we must consider, but schemes for local roads such as the C13 and the A350 in my constituency, and support for those who wish to remedy the rural broadband and mobile blackspots, which could become engines of economic growth and entrepreneurialism.
That takes me to my closing point, to which the hon. Member for Bootle alluded. Some of our recent debates appear to have pitted my party against the Government. I am sorry—I meant to say “against business”. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip—or perhaps it was.
Business is the engine that generates the tax that delivers the services. We cannot have a hostile viewpoint; we cannot have a hostile environment for UK business to flourish. Without a flourishing business sector, without the freeing up of the entrepreneurial spirit that underpins the British character, the proceeds of growth—
Simon Hoare
I am drawing to a conclusion.
We all want to see the proceeds of growth and the investment in our public services that is required.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out from “House” to end, and add
“declines to approve for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 the Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, because it does not contain detailed analysis of the impact of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Framework for the Future Relationship with the EU on the UK’s economic and fiscal position; and calls on the Government to publish an assessment containing that analysis immediately.”.
I was curious to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury start by saying she is so glad that this is the last statement she will ever have to make to the EU. I cannot agree, and the Scottish National party cannot agree either. It is surreal to be standing here days from the original day of departure from the EU attempting to fulfil this legal obligation as though things were business as usual. These past few days prove beyond any doubt that we could not be any further from business as usual in this House; we are absolutely through the looking glass. Events are developing every day around what kind of country we are going to be left with; there are grave concerns about the future from every aspect of civic society. So I certainly do not share the Chief Secretary’s optimism that there is a bright future ahead.
The Chief Secretary talked about young people. Young people are the most pro-EU group in this country, and it is their future that this Government want to take away, so shame on her for not recognising the limitations that young people will face when they want to set up businesses, when they want to trade with the EU, when they want to travel and advance their education and opportunities in life.
I do not wish by way of proposing the amendment to diminish the work that the Office for Budget Responsibility does. My colleagues on these Benches and I will always welcome efforts to make public accounts more transparent and independent. The OBR has conducted this analysis rightfully and properly within its remit, but unfortunately this is precisely the reason why the SNP cannot support the approval of this statement tonight: because the OBR can only make forecasts on the basis of stated Government policy regardless of whether the policy is likely to be achieved or, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, whether it is his party against the Government, or whether in fact the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is now the Prime Minister, because who knows? It is a Dorset thing; Dorset is leading the rebellion against their own Government. That is very interesting—and I see how happy the hon. Member for North Dorset is to be doing so. It is an absolute shambles when a Member who ought to be supporting the Government ends up leading the charge against them—although that is not at all uncommon these days; it is part of the whole madness of this Government.
The latest OBR fiscal sustainability report was published on 17 July 2018. It does not reflect the reality of the Prime Minister’s proposed deal, which was published much later, on 25 November 2018. In the OBR’s outline of the assumptions made in its economic and fiscal outlook, it is clear that the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU are unclear and that there is “no meaningful basis” on which to predict the nature of the relationship between the UK and EU. That is the situation in which we have we remained.
I checked and I have £3.52 in my purse and I would be as well throwing it down the stank as putting it on any outcome of the UK leaving the EU, so it would be an understatement to say that I could find it risky to endorse a fiscal spending plan based on one assumption of our future relationship with Europe. It is ludicrous for MPs to be asked to approve this motion without having any sight of any analysis of the Prime Minister’s deal. It is our job in this place as MPs to scrutinise the UK Government, but we are not being given the opportunity to do so effectively.
The Prime Minister has said that such an analysis of her deal does exist. She confirmed it in a letter to my colleague, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), so why will the Prime Minister not share the details of that analysis with the House? Is it because she knows, as we all know, that the economists are right and her deal will be bad for GDP, public finances and the living standards of all our constituents?
GDP growth has gone from being the highest in the G7 before the EU referendum to the lowest today. Imports have been slower than for other G7 countries, despite an unprecedented drop in the value of sterling, and it is interesting that for some time now the exchange rate on the cash machines at Glasgow airport, which I see when I come down to London every week, has been taken off, because nobody would take any money out if they saw how dreadful it was.
Inward and outward foreign direct investment have dropped, with some analysis suggesting that the drop in inward FDI is as much as 19% compared with a no-Brexit scenario, and we are starting to see job losses on a regular basis across these islands. It is no coincidence that this is happening. The Brexit job loss index says that more than 200,000 jobs have been lost already, without the UK having even left. In a no-deal scenario, Scotland can expect to lose 100,000 jobs, according to research by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is based in my constituency. Speaking of my constituency, I recall hearing from a significant business there on Friday afternoon. It says that it is going down from a five-day week to a four-day week, that it has laid off temporary staff and that it is losing orders because of the uncertainty of this Government. It is unacceptable that businesses the length and breadth of these islands are being put into this position because of an internal dispute within the Tory party.
The OBR has not explicitly modelled the effects of a no-deal Brexit on the economy, but the London School of Economics has suggested that if the UK Government were to stick to their frankly unreasonable targets for reducing net migration, it would not be unreasonable to expect a long-term decline in output and productivity. The UK Government’s shambolic Brexit deal would also be hugely damaging, because EU nationals contribute hugely to our society and our economy. The Government’s aim to reduce the number of EU nationals here by 80% would have a massive impact on the UK’s economy, on population growth and, quite frankly, on our ability to survive as a country. The Government do not want poor people to have children—they have brought in the two-child limit—and they do not want people to come to this country and build their lives here, but we have an ageing population. Where do they think we are going to get the people from? I have absolutely no idea, and neither do they.
On top of all this, income inequality has risen since the Brexit vote to the extent that on two occasions the OBR could not predict the levels of tax that the Treasury was going to receive from the 1% in society. The tax windfall that the Chancellor is celebrating is not a sign that the economy performing well; it is a sign of deep-seated inequality, which is worsening under the UK Tory Government.
Peter Dowd
I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an extra £5 billion will be required to maintain services in line with population growth, along with an appropriate number of people to support those services.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely correct. Without people, the economy will falter. That is the economic reality.
The Resolution Foundation has said that the income tax take is up 8% so far this year, but that that is coming from the very highest earners. The wages at the bottom continue to stagnate. If the OBR cannot openly predict the short-term economic performance, it is unreasonable to ask the House to sign off on its guidance. It is more difficult now for families to survive on the money they have. Since the vote, the cost of bread is up 11%, the cost of butter is up 23% and the cost of milk is up 11%—and we still have not left the EU. If people cannot afford to put bread and butter on the table, this economy is heading for the drain.
It is a well-established fact that Scotland did not vote for or particularly want to leave the EU. I checked just before I stood up to speak, and 13,920 of my constituents have now signed the petition to revoke article 50. The Prime Minister has consistently ignored attempts by the Scottish Parliament to find any kind of compromise solution, such as staying in the customs union and the single market, which would limit the damage of this hard Tory Brexit. If she wants to drag Scotland out of the EU against its will, she should have the bottle to come to this House and present the analysis that she says exists. She should have the courage to tell people that it will cost jobs and businesses and that she cannot make guarantees about the future.
If the Prime Minister does not believe that her Brexit deal can stand up to scrutiny in this House, the UK Government need to face up to reality and ditch Brexit altogether by revoking article 50. They are throwing good money after bad on no-deal planning, on fridges, on staged traffic jams and on botched ferry contracts, when they could be spending that money on lifting the awful austerity cuts that we have seen over the past nine years. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talks about going round the country and listening to people’s public spending priorities, but I bet none of them talked about spending £33 million on Eurotunnel due to the shambles created by the Secretary of State for Transport, or about the £1 billion to bribe the Democratic Unionist party in an attempt to keep the Government in power.
Day after day in my constituency, I see the impact of this Government’s callous approach to cost-cutting. I see the benefits freeze, which is expected to cost families £800 a year, on top of the £900 a year that the Bank of England says Brexit is already costing every family. I see the two-child policy, which leaves families nearly £3,000 a year worse off if they have a third child and which makes a woman with three children on a 16-hour contract work the equivalent of 45 hours to make up the difference. I also see the thousands of pounds a year being lost by the WASPI women who are no longer entitled to their side of the pension bargain, having had their pensions cruelly stolen by previous Governments and by this one as well. How can any Minister look the population in the eye and say, “There is no money for you,” when the Government are asking us to sign a blank cheque for a hard Brexit?
I am a lifelong campaigner for Scottish independence and scarcely have I seen a clearer case for it than the shambles of the Conservatives and the incompetence of the Labour party in opposing them. The UK Government’s incompetence is changing hearts and minds all over Scotland on the merits of independence, and I hope that there will soon be an opportunity for the people of Scotland to take matters into their own hands.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I rise to support the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is rather a heroine and is leading a one-woman campaign to try to keep public spending down. It is all very well to call for more public spending—I use the NHS exclusively and value the work of those who care for me and my family—but only patients would suffer were we dramatically to increase health spending in line with Labour party policy. There would be a dramatic decline in productivity and no obvious increase in good healthcare.
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke for nearly 20 minutes, but it was interesting that there was little about the Labour party’s plans. Although this Parliament is staring at the detail of the various Brexit solutions, all the various outcomes pale into insignificance compared with the threat posed to this country by a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition. Conservative Members of Parliament need to point the finger again and again at what will happen if this Government go and the Labour party takes over under its present management. One cannot meet a Labour MP who does not say in private that they are scared stiff by a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition.
What would happen if the present Leader of the Opposition took over? I predict that there would a few months of dramatic spending increases and everybody would be happy. In the end, however, the country and the economy would be crashed. Let us remember that the present Leader of the Opposition execrated the Governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, saying that they were right-wing stooges of capitalism, and he is the man who now wants to lead us on what would be the road to ruin. He would open the gates and unleash mass immigration. In the end, we would not have a better health service, better education or better investment; we would have only economic chaos and mismanagement.
Conservative Members must look laser-like at the alternatives, but we also have to put our own house in order. My advice to my hon. Friends is, frankly, to get on with Brexit and to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. The economic clouds would lift; the pound would shoot up; and investment would increase. The Government could then carry on to the next general election, when we could really put the spotlight where it needs to be: on the disaster that would befall this country if the shadow Chief Secretary gets anywhere near power.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I am glad to rise to support my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I serve on the Treasury Committee, and it is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is so optimistic. I am also glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who always speaks from the heart.
Do Labour Members and SNP Members welcome the fact that, despite their concerns about Brexit, Forbes recognises the UK as the No. 1 place to do business? The UK is currently the second highest location for inward investment in the world and the highest in Europe. The market believes that the UK has a future after Brexit; Opposition Members do not.
Alison Thewliss
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is no deal as good as the deal that the UK currently has as an EU member state?
Colin Clark
I do not agree with that, actually. The Treasury Committee has discussed the fact that the UK has the highest employment growth in Europe, which is an inexplicable miracle. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, could not explain why it is happening. This country is a jobs miracle because this Government believe in private enterprise. Opposition Members do not believe in private enterprise. They believe in the crushing hand of the state, which damages business and does not build it up.
In my constituency, we have 1.2% unemployment. We have the highest employment levels we have ever had. The oil and gas industry expects £200 billion-worth of future investment because it is optimistic about business. This Government’s Treasury is supporting the oil and gas industry and backing much of the fiscal policy that is making this the most attractive place to do business.
This is so difficult because the Opposition parties simply cannot get their heads around the Conservatives being the party that supports aspiration, which is instinctively what we do. Many Conservative Members are, like me, self-made businessmen. We are the party of enterprise, and I am living proof of that enterprise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Colin Clark
We are the party of optimism and, on the subject of optimism, I will let a pessimist speak up.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about the UK’s high ranking in Forbes magazine. Can he tell us how the UK rates on food bank usage?
Colin Clark
That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and me, because I consider the fact there are food banks to support people to be an example of charitableness. I want to celebrate the success of this country, not the failure, and it is the Conservative party that will make sure this country is a success.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Colin Clark
I will finish, because we are running out of time.
We are the party of opportunity, and they are the parties that would destroy opportunity. We are the party that wants to support everyone in society and give people a hand up, and they are the parties that would crush people with taxation. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned the OBR and taxation, because it was the OBR that recognised that the differential in taxation will damage the Scottish economy—and that was the Scottish Government’s choice.
This is a Conservative party building the economy, and the socialist parties on the Opposition Benches would crush the United Kingdom economy as we leave. I support the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Mr Speaker
I have to inform the House of a correction to the result of the Division held earlier today on amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 to the Offensive Weapons Bill. The number of Members voting in the No Lobby was 308, as previously announced, but the number of Members who represent constituencies in England or Wales and who voted No was 286, not 285. There is no change to the outcome of the Division.
Business without Debate
18:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 10 to 26, all appertaining to exiting the European Union, but covering sea fisheries, animals, a plentiful supply on agriculture, matters relating to the health service and to health and personal social services, and one on customs, together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Sea Fisheries)
That the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.
That the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 March, be approved.
That the draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 March, be approved.
That the draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
That the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.
That the draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Health Services)
That the draft Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (National Health Service)
That the draft National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Health and Personal Social Services)
That the draft Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the draft Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Bereavement Counselling
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
“You have a lot of misfortune in your family.” Those, Mr Speaker, are the words that a registrar spoke to me when I registered the death of my mother, who died 20 years ago today, aged 53. Kind, compassionate, understated, he said them because just six weeks previously I had registered the death of my father.
I was, Mr Speaker, 27. I was not a child, but I was, I think, too young to know how to bear some of the sadness that I felt in 2009. Some people have, by the age of 27, borne far more emotion: they have married, had families, served and sometimes died for their countries, and in many instances they have also buried both their parents. However, 27 is young to be an orphan in the western world. I struggled to admit it then and I struggle to admit it now, but I found it impossibly hard. I should have looked for help, because grief makes us all angry, irrational, upset and difficult.
Perhaps too many of us in the House think that that strength is incompatible with weakness. Perhaps too many of us are stubborn. It is often said that that which does not kill us makes us stronger; perhaps that which kills those closest to us can make us stronger still, but few can do it on their own. In this Adjournment debate, I want simply to say to those who struggle with the loss of loved ones—and even the loss of close family members who are not so obviously loved—that there is already help out there, and to say, “You are strongest when you take it up, and go to the doctor or just talk to friends.” However, it is also true that more can be done by the Government and by others.
This week, we celebrate Mother’s Day. Mothers up and down the country will be appreciated through cards, breakfast in bed, and often questionable artwork from their children. For some, though—myself included—that day is a reminder of what we have lost. To use the modern jargon, it is a trigger. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting my personal circumstances have some influence on the parliamentary calendar. Changing it seems to be all the rage at the moment, but you know that MPs are surely at their best when we draw on our personal experiences.
The coming of Mother’s Day gives this debate a broader relevance, because I also want to raise the question of what more we can do in government to support those who have been bereaved, and how we can encourage wider society to make small, seemingly insignificant changes that can prevent immense upset for so many people. The bereavement charity Cruse currently claims on its home page that it can “help this Mother’s Day”, and that is hugely welcome, but such is the volume that the charity has suspended its email help service, and its phone lines are not open 24/7. It takes more than charity to tackle bereavement; it takes society, in all its little family platoons.
The Government have done great work in introducing bereavement counselling for parents who lose children, thanks in part to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), as well as other Members on both sides of the House. I am not calling for a similar kind of bereavement leave for everyone, because businesses, in truth, are largely respectful, and they are also hugely varied. However, I know from personal experience that many people do not feel the true impact of their loss for weeks, months, or even, in some instances, years after the person whom they have loved has passed away. Often they are in shock or trying to be strong for others, and that is on top of all the mundane considerations that have to be dealt with in such circumstances.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I know how proud his parents would have been to witness him doing so. I know about the delay that he has mentioned. My father died 30 years ago this year, of mesothelioma, and I remember reading my mother’s diary, in which she was crying out for help nine months later. It is incumbent on us to recognise that delay, and I appreciate everything that my hon. Friend is saying.
Matt Warman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and that is why in some ways I am calling on the Government to have ongoing support for those who are recently bereaved and an open-ended offer of counselling on the NHS which can be accessed when they are ready, not at the easiest point for the NHS.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and telling his own personal story. Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland one in four people suffers from mental health issues, and many of them are a result of the grief from someone close to them leaving, especially when that is sudden. Early intervention is key, and I would like the Minister to respond on that. Does the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) agree that we should have early intervention through the use of Cruse and perhaps other groups—I am thinking of church groups and ministers who are on call if needed?
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him and will mention that issue in a few moments.
There should be a dedicated mental health helpline provided through the NHS, which under the long-term plan will be accessed via 111. It is important that there is an understanding within that that bereavement for a long time is an exacerbating factor in loneliness, suicide and more; it is a red flag that should be recorded for a long time.
The importance of such ongoing support cannot be overstated. We have spoken in this House many times about the tragedy of the rise in male suicide; while things are improving there is still a huge stigma around men feeling unable to open up and show their emotions—although I am hopefully doing all right today.
This is why it is particularly important to normalise the support around bereavement, and we must not leave it solely to those affected to reach out to organisations such as the Samaritans or Cruse. That registrar who I spoke to 10 years ago should have been trained to offer a signpost—although I confess that if he was or if he did I was in no state to listen—and the NHS and our volunteering strategy should include better plans to encourage more people to train as volunteer bereavement friends and counsellors, as in the hugely valuable work we see with Dementia Friends, or, as Sue Ryder has called them, the bereavement “first aiders”.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech and a series of good points. I am not at all ashamed to say that I had bereavement counselling when my son died, and I cannot see why anyone would not; we go to the doctor when we are feeling unwell, and of course we go to the bereavement counsellor when we need help with grief. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that we normalise this?
Matt Warman
I absolutely agree.
There is also a role for us to play in opening up the debate and shining light on steps outside organisations can take to make bereavement in general more bearable, but also, on the theme of this debate, to make Mother’s Day or Father’s Day less difficult for those who have experienced loss.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I wonder if there may be a role for funeral directors in this, given the links they have with families. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his moving speech.
Matt Warman
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. The Co-op has done interesting and very valuable work on this, and the Department can put some of these initiatives together.
One interesting example I would like to see introduced across the board is the new policy from an online flower company called Bloom & Wild. It has given customers the opportunity to opt out of Mother’s Day emails as it recognises that it can be a very sensitive time for some. If other companies were to follow suit, the dread—and I do mean dread—around this day might be mitigated for many people. I personally do not feel, for whatever reason, the same dread about Father’s Day marketing, but obviously it should be treated equally in case anyone is worried. Organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority could perhaps make this part of a voluntary code around data. I am not a Tory asking for some enormous nanny state. I am saying that providing another tick box for when people sign up for yet more emails would be kind. Companies bang on about corporate social responsibility all the time, so why not try this?
This debate is important to me for three reasons. Yes, this is a sad anniversary, but I am lucky to have this platform to say that the Government are right to acknowledge that they need to do more to ensure that there is ongoing support for those who have lost someone they love. This is also a chance to open up the discussion on how everyone in society and business can play a role in increasing the sensitivity with which these difficult days, which last for many years, are handled. I hope that by securing this debate, through your good offices, Mr Speaker, we will move fractionally closer to ensuring that all men and women who, like myself, have not always felt comfortable discussing such emotional topics are able to do so more freely, to seize the help that is there and perhaps ultimately to need that help just a fraction less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
Thank you for allowing this debate, Mr Speaker. I am really glad to have this opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who has spoken incredibly movingly about his personal experience. In this place, it is difficult to speak rawly from the heart, but he has done well today. He has done extremely well. His speech sets in stark relief the fact that we are all human beings in this place, although people might be forgiven for thinking otherwise in recent days. We all bring our own experiences here, and it takes a lot of courage to share some of them. I am not always as confident and brave as he is when it comes to sharing my own stories. It is a pleasure to reply to him tonight.
The effects of bereavement and loss are different for us all, as my hon. Friend said. They can differ depending on age, on family circumstances and on whom we can reach out to for help, but one thing that I would really like to land is the fact that grief is lifelong. Grief never leaves us. When we lose a loved one, it stays with us for the rest of our life. My hon. Friend mentioned triggers, and they can happen at any point. It is important that I, as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, ensure that we have sufficient support for people who are grieving, because it can come from nowhere. He used the word “normalise”, and that is so important when we talk about any aspect of mental ill health and mental stress, because it is not uncommon for us all to go through periods when we feel like that.
It is difficult, particularly for men, to reach out and ask for help. That is because it is seen as a sign of weakness, but it really should not be. “No man is an island” is the trite phrase that we often use, but it is also true. Sometimes, people feel that they cannot show weakness because they are the linchpin of their family and cannot grieve because they need to be strong for everyone else. It will be the mark of a compassionate society that we ensure that we have services for all those people. From a health perspective, it is also really important that we do that, because people who are suffering in this way are more likely to suffer from physical ill health and from weight loss, depression and anxiety. I have witnessed this within my own family following a bereavement. We must encourage people to access support from bereavement counsellors.
My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the fact that Mother’s Day was a particular trigger for him. He lost his mother and father at a young age, and the sense of grief when life ends prematurely is perhaps even more acute at that time. I was reminded of people I have met who were victims of terror, for example, or of Grenfell Tower. There, too, life ended very prematurely for those people. Sometimes we do not even think about the effects of seeing pictures of that fire flashed up every time Grenfell Tower comes up on the news. We risk re-traumatising people in that way, and as a society we really need to start looking at some of those behaviours. These things are often done with the best of intentions. I remember when we started the independent inquiry into Grenfell, there was obviously great interest in it on the news, but those pictures being flashed out on every news programme cannot have been pleasant for those left behind. There is a role for us to think carefully about news reporting, broadcasting and what is available on the internet. There is also a challenge for editorial teams about how to report such things after the event, because we really should not expect people just to tolerate living with ongoing trauma.
Bereavement counselling is available to people at any time, and it is important to realise that the grieving process does last a lifetime and that feelings could be suppressed for decades before being triggered again. The first step for someone wanting to access a counsellor should be to go to their local GP or to self-refer to Cruse, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I am pleased that we will be making more services available through the 111 facility, because people being able to access care, advice and support when they need it will mitigate any harm that they are experiencing.
Cruse Bereavement Care is funded by clinical commissioning groups and local authorities and has branches all over the country that offer free, confidential advice to anyone who needs it. Cruse’s aim is that everyone who loses somebody should have someone to talk to when they need it, and I am pleased with the service it offers. The quality of service could be improved, however, so we are working with NHS England to develop better provision so that everyone can access it.
I also cannot commend the voluntary and charity sector’s input enough. I keep saying to CCGs that we should not look at mental ill health just as something to be medicalised, because support from voluntary providers and people with other skills can be just as important in helping people to get better and get used to their condition as any appointment with a clinician. The 111 service will provide 24/7 mental health crisis support, enabling access to a trained mental health professional who can signpost to treatment and other support, but the system should be holistic, so we need voluntary services, bereavement counselling and mental health professionals where they are needed.
My hon. Friend told us this evening that Mother’s Day is a particularly difficult time for him, and any kind of anniversary can reignite grief. I was interested to hear about Bloom & Wild’s policy, which is a good reminder of how a bit of sensitive thinking can make life so much easier. I would encourage all companies that are involved in activity around such times—any business that builds relationships with its customers—to be more sensitive in how it contacts people. That is just good corporate social responsibility, as he said. Advertising in the United Kingdom is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority, but it could do more to spread good practice and encourage companies to think more carefully, because everyone can support people who have been bereaved.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) was here earlier. The Baby Loss Awareness Week debate is now an annual fixture, and there is never a dry eye in the House when hon. Friends share their direct experiences. I find it amazing that it was so taboo to talk about such things until recently, but in this sphere we have led the way in acknowledging our grief and talking about it, and in so doing we are setting a good example for the rest of society. I know that it is difficult for colleagues, as I said, to talk so rawly about the emotions that they have experienced, but when pictures go out from this House showing not a point-scoring bearpit but real naked human emotion, that is what the public want to see. They are the things that remind them that, in this place, we are all citizens of the United Kingdom with all the problems and challenges that everyone else has. We are not some class apart living a completely different life—not living in the real world, as some would say.
Those pictures from the annual baby loss debate open people’s eyes and tackle the taboo. I very much hope that people watching those debates will think, “Do you know what? It’s okay to feel bad. It’s okay to have a good cry about something that happened to me many years ago.” Grief is something you have to manage. You will never stop missing that loved one, and you will never stop regretting the fact you have lost them. Much of the time memories are happy and, in your own mind, you can celebrate their life and their contribution to your life, but the regret that they cannot see what you are doing now is something that never leaves you, and that is just a sign of being a good human being.
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness for securing this debate. He raised the issue of suicide, and particularly male suicide, which underlines the need to encourage men to acknowledge that it is okay to have a good cry and to ask for help. They do not have to be superhuman and it is not a sign of weakness. We need to do much more to encourage men to open up, and I have seen that directly in my role as Minister for suicide prevention. I have met families who have lost young men to suicide, and it might sound weird, but it is a privilege to have heard their stories and for them to be able to share their pain. I find it so inspiring that people who have gone through the most tragic things want to use that experience to make life better for everyone else.
Perhaps that is a good note on which to finish. We are all very proud of my hon. Friend, because he has done exactly that. He has shared his pain so we can all learn from it. That is the best of Britishness.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mr Howarth, it is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables the Government to provide continuity and legal certainty by bringing EU legislation into UK law as retained EU law and to fix any legal deficiencies in the retained texts that exist as a consequence of EU exit.
The statutory instrument makes operability amendments to retained EU legislation on the identification and traceability of livestock, especially for cattle—all bovines—sheep and goats, so that it continues to function correctly on our statute book after the UK exits the European Union. Pigs are not mentioned in the SI, because EU legislation on pig identification and traceability has been fully transposed into UK law, as it originated in a European Community directive.
EU legislation in this area consists of an EU Council regulation for bovines, and one for sheep and goats. Underneath them sit Commission regulations or decisions that set out more technical details. In summary, the Council regulations prescribe regimes to help to control disease outbreaks by ensuring that the movements of farmed bovines, sheep and goats can be traced. To do that, they say how and when animals are identified, what records their keepers shall maintain and when they must report movements to a competent authority. The Commission regulations that sit below them address such details as criteria for selecting farms for compliance inspections, rules on ear-tagging and passports for bovines, and technical standards for electronic ID tags used for sheep.
I should make it clear that the changes being made to the retained law are technical operability changes. They include such matters as changing references to “Member States” to “the appropriate Minister” or to “the United Kingdom”, “Community rules” to
“rules set out in retained EU direct legislation”
and so on.
The EU legislation to be retained is directly applicable in each member state. As animal health policy and its delivery are a devolved competence, each territory of the UK enforces them via its own separate existing SIs, and will continue to do so with the retained law. The devolved Administrations were fully involved in the preparation of the instrument, and their Assemblies have consented to its being made.
I should also emphasise that the SI does not introduce new policies. The current rules that livestock keepers or businesses must comply with will be unchanged by the SI. The UK Administrations have plans to modernise our respective livestock traceability systems and rules over the coming years—for example, to make them more digital. That work is not affected by the content of the SI, which is about maintaining the status quo.
I will now address points made about the SI by the Committees that sifted it as a negative procedure SI in December: the Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee and the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Both Committees considered that it met the requirements to be changed to an affirmative SI, because they saw it as conferring significant new legislative functions on Ministers and allowing Ministers to charge for certain controls.
On the first point, the Committees considered amendments made by the SI as conferring new legislative functions on Ministers in the UK, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or in the UK devolved Administrations. In practice, animal health policy is a devolved competence in the UK. How that function is exercised is therefore already a matter for devolved Ministers. The changes made by the SI simply clarify that the delivery of livestock ID and movement functions will, as now, be for the appropriate Ministers in the UK: the Secretary of State at DEFRA, Welsh and Scottish Ministers, or Ministers in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
The transfer of legislation-making functions—the ability to make policy changes in the future—from the Commission to appropriate Ministers in the area of retained animal health law is effected by a different affirmative SI, which some of us may remember, that was approved by this House on 27 February: the Animals (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
David Rutley
The hon. Member for Bristol West shows how assiduous she is in her duties by remembering that SI. Excellent! That is particularly good at such an early hour in the morning in Parliament.
On the second point, both Committees noted that the draft SI contains a charging power, with the Commons sifting Committee noting that Regulation 4(12) has the effect of allowing Ministers to charge to cattle farmers the costs of systems set up to identify and register cattle and trace their movements. I simply note that although that possibility is set out in article 9 of the retained Council regulation on the identification and registration of bovines, charging for those controls is not the policy of present and past UK Administrations. There are no plans to make it so.
The power to make EU exit SIs exists to fix deficiencies in retained law that there would otherwise be as a consequence of EU exit. The existence of the charging power is not such a deficiency. The change that article 4(12) of the draft SI makes to that provision is to change the term “Member States” to “appropriate Minister”. The SI has also been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has made no observations on it.
Key stakeholders, including farming unions and sector bodies, were informed in the early stages that this instrument was being prepared. None has commented on drafts of the instrument during its preparation. Given that it is concerned simply with ensuring that the retained EU legislation is operable, and as the changes it makes entail no changes to the day-to-day rules that keepers comply with or to the systems they use to record and report movements, that is understandable. The stakeholders have been much more focused on, and involved with, our plans to develop our livestock movement tracing systems over the next few years but, again, they are not part of the SI. An impact assessment has not been produced for the draft instrument, as it will have no impact on the livestock or other sectors.
The SI will ensure that the law on livestock identification and traceability, as retained, will continue to function correctly after we leave the EU. For the reasons that I have set out, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I am glad he is still there and that DEFRA remains intact, unlike most other parts of the Government. We are thankful for that at least.
I give the usual caveat: that the draft regulations are one of those bits of secondary legislation that in themselves are minor, but if the Government get them wrong they shut down the country. We saw that with both BSE and foot and mouth. It is therefore not unimportant that we give the correct scrutiny.
I am intrigued by what the Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee said about the draft regulations. I slightly disagree with the Minister. To quote from the Committee’s report of 27 November, paragraph 4.5,
“The Committee disagrees with the Department’s position set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum to this proposed negative statutory instrument, which states that the amendments made by this instrument are ‘minor and technical’. In the Committee’s view, this instrument makes significant amendments, and is required by law to be subject to the affirmative procedure”—
Which, of course, is why we are in Committee today. The draft regulations were seen to be of greater importance than the Government placed on them in the explanatory memorandum.
The important functions we are looking at, to go back to what the sifting Committee said, include
“determining mandatory time periods; extending time periods, derogating from obligations, and adding to criteria set out in legislation; creating obligations; and laying down rules on penalties for breaching obligations set out in legislation.”
We will start with charges. The Minister said that the Government have no intention of charging for cattle, but the draft SI—unless I am wrong—will give the mechanism by which the Government could impose charges. That is why we need to be careful about what we allow through today.
As always, I have a number of queries and questions, which relate to the nature of the disease control that we are talking about, how to report animal movements and which competent authorities are to look at how that will be done. I start with the obvious point: this will not be carried out at no cost. What are the financial implications of the transition? What authoritative body will oversee the costs of databases and new mechanisms for monitoring the movement of animals? Will it be the Rural Payments Agency or some other body?
The Lords sifting Committee was particularly critical about some of the issues. It picked up on the fact that the Government have the means to charge fees to cover the cost of identification and registration of cattle—the point is not that they will, but that they have the means to do so. I have already touched on what the Commons sifting Committee said.
Regulation 1760/2000 is amended by two different instruments because it covers two discrete areas: identification and registration of bovine animals, and the labelling of beef and beef products. These areas have been worked on separately by DEFRA. Although we are looking at one SI today, it is something of a composite because the two different areas have been brought together.
What are the timetables for these two different areas and do they coincide? Is there any flexibility in how the timetables can be operated? Again, the instrument makes it clear that this is a devolved matter. It is good that the Scottish National party is represented here; no doubt it will have something to say about the impact on Scotland.
Will there be transparency between the different Administrations? So far, England and Wales seem to do reasonably similar things; Scotland does its own thing; and Northern Ireland is completely hamstrung by the absence of an Administration—effectively, it is being administered through Whitehall. Will there be transparency in how this new arrangement will work as we move from being a member state to being an independent nation looking at our own thing?
The Government have said that no charges apply for different animals—sheep, goats and pigs. Nevertheless, there are 12 separate legislative changes in the instrument. Who will defray the costs? There is a change, and we will come to what the National Pig Association says. The Minister said this does not relate to pigs, but why not? Pigs should be covered. The NPA said that the direction of travel through the Agriculture Bill implied certain things, and yet pigs are left out of this SI. The NPA’s point is that we want to improve public health, manage microbial resistance and cope with zoonotic pathogens, but where is the incentive to ensure that that is done properly?
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I am coming to my final points. They relate to our usual questions about the database. DEFRA has revealed that the livestock traceability system will be operational from 2019. If we crash out next week, what will the interim arrangements be? The Livestock Information Service will identify and track animal movements—initially cattle, sheep, goats and pigs—using electronic IDs.
Is the database on schedule? Who is doing the work? It is replacing the AML2 movement licence system. Are we going to change the tagging system at all, or is this going to be completely capable of dealing with the tagging system? Are we going to share our information with our current friends in the EU or are we going to keep our own information and see what happens? Clearly, animal diseases do not respect territorial borders—they come and go. We are facing a real challenge at the moment with African swine fever, which is coming our way shortly. It is important to know what the mechanism will be, if and when we leave the EU, for sharing information with our current colleague states and what information we expect from that. Presumably, the Livestock Information Service will be compatible with current arrangements; otherwise, we will find all sorts of problems with how we can exchange information, which is the only way to bear down on disease. One hopes that that will be the case, otherwise there will be some attempt by other countries to use that for non-tariff barriers.
In conclusion, my biggest concern is where we are with the IT. Is the replacement system on track to be introduced this year? If not, why not? If not, what do we do in its stead, given that, presumably, we have to go back to relying on the EU to allow us to continue to use some of its systems? Although we will not be voting against the instrument, which is minor in its context, the wider ramifications are important. That is why it is here under the affirmative procedure and why we make no apologies for asking these questions.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Howarth. Like the hon. Member for Stroud, we will not be opposing this statutory instrument. However, I gently remind the Minister, who talked about the devolved Assemblies, that Scotland does not have an Assembly: Scotland has a Parliament. That is an important distinction—particularly when talking about the devolution of agriculture, which I will come to in a moment.
We will not oppose this SI. If Brexit has to happen, it is important that preparations are made, and we have to be seen to be doing the right thing. We accept that this instrument will ensure that retained EU legislation on the identification and registration of livestock will continue—it is vital that it does—and that, if we are to leave the EU, the law has to change with regard to traceability, disease control, how species are identified, what records keepers must retain and what reports there are of animal movement. We also accept that the relevant authorities must be able to record the information on a central basis. We recognise how important that is.
However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. He said that no impact assessment was deemed necessary. Then he said that the introduction of a new central database will have an impact and the fact that the legislation allows for the introduction of charges means that there could be an impact further down the line. The Minister needs to explain a bit more about the charges. If there is no intention of ever using them, why are they there? What groups, stakeholders and industry bodies were consulted on the matter? Did they agree with the Minister that there would be no impact on the industry? If so, what was their input into the discussions when they came to that conclusion?
Finally, can the Minister guarantee that, through this SI, the devolution settlement will be fully respected and protected, with absolutely no threat to the Scottish Parliament’s rights with regard to agriculture?
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I start, I wish to declare an interest: my little sister is a sheep farmer who farms rare breed sheep in Cornwall. She does a brilliant job.
I have two questions for the Minister in relation to Regulation 1760/2000. The first one relates to 5(c)(ii) of these regulations, in which
“The appropriate Minister may not make use of an electronic identifier compulsory as one of the two means of identification provided for in paragraph 1 before 18 July 2019.”
Will the Minister set out why 18 July 2019 is an operable date? What happens if the commencement date of this statutory instrument is on exit day? What happens in respect of the ability to deploy electronic identifiers if exit day and 18 July 2019 do not align?
In relation to Regulation 1760/2000 (6), these regulations state:
“In Article 4a, for ‘Member State in which the animal was born’ substitute ‘appropriate Minister’”
I have been looking on the EU website and this provision does not seem to fit with the language of that article—this is in relation to ear tags worn by the animal. This could be a drafting error. Will the Minister state whether that is the correct wording? It seems to sit slightly awkwardly with the wording of the regulation itself.
David Rutley
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. A number of important points have been made. Yes, these are minor technical changes but they come against a landscape of important Government policy, so I take seriously all the issues raised. I reassure Committee members that these changes are very technical: they do not change the day-to-day processes that keepers currently have to comply with.
I reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that the SI does not change powers that already exist. The Government have no plans to change the balance of funding between the taxpayer and the industry, except in the matter already announced: sampling fallen stock for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, or TSE. That accounts for about £15 a year on average for farmers.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked why the ability to charge was being transferred across. We are trying to maintain continuity in the law and to minimise the number of changes; we want to make only changes that need to be made. I reassure the hon. Gentleman again. As I said on my opening remarks, what he mentioned is not the current policy of present or past UK Administrations and devolved Administrations, and there are no plans for it to be. The issue is continuity.
The hon. Member for Stroud was concerned about why pigs are not included in this statutory instrument. I reassure him—I did try to get this across in my opening remarks—that the operability fixes for domestic pig movement were in a negative SI that has already been approved. They have been taken care of in another piece of legislation.
The hon. Member for Stroud also asked about changes to beef labelling and timetables of bovine identification. The SI regarding changes to beef labelling references was approved yesterday. It is complicated: we are discussing several different SIs at any given point. The hon. Member for Stroud, and other Members, were concerned about a new database. We are working in partnership with the industry to improve animal health with a new database. We are working closely with industry partners on taxpayer-funded programmes, and we want to encourage our partners to share data. The system is in development. Our current systems remain in place, and both function for international trade, including with the EU.
Another issue raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute related to the amount of consultation. There had been an active dialogue. I meet with the National Farmers Union every week along with other food industry trade bodies. They have been engaged in the early stages of this SI, but no issues came up because it is so technical. There has been much more active engagement on new plans for the future related to livestock tracking, and that might have been confusing. That relates to future plans, and is not included in this SI.
I am seeking inspiration so that I can answer the questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. He will be pleased with my answer: could he please repeat the question? I think that means that I will come back to him in writing. I know that he takes these questions very seriously; rather than giving him an answer on the fly, I will give him a full answer, if that meets with his approval.
David Rutley
I am very grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the date of the introduction of bovine electronic identification. The date comes from the EU Council regulation, and we have retained that date.
I think I have answered nearly all the questions—except for some; we will respond about the technical ones.
Brendan O'Hara
Very quickly, one question that the Minister has not answered is about the impact on the devolved Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly. Can he guarantee that there will be no impact in respect of agriculture?
David Rutley
That was an oversight on my part. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no impact.
I am grateful to Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. To summarise, these regulations are making technical changes to ensure that existing EU law operates appropriately once we leave the EU. For those reasons, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The regulations are necessary to maintain the ban on trade in cat and dog fur following withdrawal from the European Union. Without them, the legislation imposing the ban would be inoperable. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 March and are made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Committee knows, given the context, that the powers are limited. All that they allow us to do is to correct technical deficiencies in existing EU law that, by the operation of the Act, will be retained in UK law following withdrawal.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Most of us would welcome the continuation of the ban, but is the Minister looking to widen the issue in any way? There is a growing campaign against the consumption of dog meat and I wonder whether he has given any consideration to banning the import or consumption of dog meat.
George Hollingbery
The simple fact is that today we are able to deal only with the legislation before us. We are bringing the regulation across operably into the UK context. In fact, we are specifically prohibited under the withdrawal Act from considering further policy implications. That does not mean that the Government do not have an interest in the area, although policy judgments on that front would fall not to the Department for International Trade but to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s remarks will have been heard in the right quarters and I will ensure that I mention them to the Secretary of State when I see him next.
As I was saying, the regulations will correct such deficiencies, for example, by replacing references to the European Union, its institutions and its legislation with the appropriate UK references. To ensure that the ban on the trade in cat and dog fur is maintained, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, on an issue that is of extreme interest to many of our constituents. The brevity of the Minister’s opening remarks possibly does not do justice to the size of the mailbag that many of us receive on such occasions.
I was struck by how odd it was that we were given this statutory instrument to scrutinise while we have not been asked to scrutinise certain others, such as the 42-page and 79-page trade remedies statutory instruments that the Minister’s Department laid before the House of Commons on 5 March and brought into force the following day, missing the 21 days for which it is custom and practice to let such instruments be laid before us to consider and, if we so wish, object to. It is odd to compare such a small, uncontroversial SI as the one that we are considering—we will support the Government in what they propose—with such significant documents as those on trade remedies, with their far-reaching implications. Frankly, that shows what a bizarre situation we are in.
The Chair
Order. I will not allow the Committee to stray from the scope of the legislation that we are considering, as much as that will be a temptation, if not to the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps to others. I will give the shadow Minister some rope, but I do not want to hand it out such that others hang themselves.
Mr Harper
I will keep my remarks focused on this Committee. Is not the reason why we are considering this statutory instrument that the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which scrutinises the range of European statutory instruments and makes a judgment about whether they should be considered using the negative or affirmative procedure, decided that it should be considered in this way and, I presume, that the others should not?
Bill Esterson
I shall not be drawn too far in responding to that intervention, Mr Paisley, but of course it is not just the statutory instruments Committee that can decide whether an SI is considered using the negative or the affirmative procedure. The Government can decide, in the first instance, whether an SI is dealt with using the affirmative procedure.
We will move on. The detail of the European Union’s impact assessment, when it brought the regulation in, acknowledged just how straightforward, important and uncontroversial that was, and its assessment was extremely thorough. That is in stark contrast to the fact that the Government did not feel the need even to revisit what was in the EU’s impact assessment of some years ago and to make similar points about the desirability of these regulations in removing the trade in cat and dog fur and the implications for trade in the fur of other animals. It is regrettable that yet again we have an SI without an impact assessment, especially given the quality and depth of the EU’s work, even on something so straightforward and uncontroversial.
I shall explain why I am raising the matter now. I am sure that all hon. Members will reach the same conclusion: this measure is straightforward and clearly something that we need to adopt in UK law and will all want to support. However, without the evidence that we could have been given in a thorough impact assessment and without the engagement of a full consultation process, how can we, as laymen and women without the necessary expertise, really be in a position to judge whether these regulations deliver the technical detail needed to achieve what the Government say they want to achieve? We are having to take this as an item of faith, without the necessary scrutiny to back up the decision making. I place on record that that is a concern we have, but we will have to put that to one side later on.
I am aware that this instrument replaces a similarly named instrument previously laid and subsequently withdrawn because of a technical error. That sort of makes the point that I was alluding to about concerns regarding the technical nature of such regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could advise the Committee of what error was made in the initial drafting and how the amended drafting rectifies the errors or individual error.
That said, the regulations before us seem right and proper to ensure that the UK maintains the existing ban on the import and export and placing on the market of products that use cat or dog fur, with the attached criminal penalties for any breach of the ban. It is entirely right that steps are being taken to ensure that the ban remains in place once the UK has withdrawn our membership of the EU and where we are no longer covered by the existing legislation, which comes by way of EC regulation 1523/2007 as adopted in domestic law under the Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008.
The issue brought to our attention by the sifting Committee is the power conferred on the Secretary of State to
“make regulations allowing the placing on the market or the import or export of cat and dog fur or products containing such fur for educational or taxidermy purposes.”
I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to bring forward regulations to that effect, and if so, how they propose to determine the intended purpose of such imports and how they would ensure that any such future concession is not subject to abuse.
The ban was introduced due to public indignation and moral outcry about the trade in fur products and is considered a potential test case for future efforts to end the trade in furs, pelts, skins and other products that have been subject to animal cruelty concerns about the way in which they are harvested. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire pointed out at the start of the Minister’s remarks, there is great public interest in this—so much so that 400,000 people signed the “Fur Free Britain” petition.
It would be helpful to know the Government’s policy intention in that respect and whether the regulations may be followed in due course by other measures to bring about an end to the fur trade or the importing of goods that are considered to be in contravention of our domestic standards on environmental animal welfare or sanitary and phytosanitary grounds. Recent public opinion polls suggest that fewer than one in 10 people in the UK find it acceptable to buy or sell dog, cat or seal fur products.
There is, of course, a risk that cat and dog fur products may still enter the UK market, having been mislabelled or otherwise, and I ask the Minister to clarify what efforts the Government are making to police that. He will remember that great concern was raised in the European Union’s impact assessment about the challenge of products from outside the EU in the trade in cat and dog fur. What efforts have been made and what analysis have the Government carried out to determine how much of a problem this trade from outside the EU has been, and what plans do the Government have to address that after we have left the EU?
My party has been clear that a Labour Government would ban fur imports entirely. Do the Government intend to bring forward their own policy proposals in that respect? Article 20 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade lists the general exceptions under which members may introduce restrictions on trade, which include measures:
“(a) necessary to protect public morals”
and
“(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.
As such, the EU and US bans on cat and dog fur products have not been challenged through the World Trade Organisation since their introduction more than 10 years ago.
Bill Esterson
We are very clear that we want to maintain minimum standards and alignment with the EU as part of that customs union, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows. It is as important to influence what goes on in the European Union as it is to develop our own domestic policy.
Mr Harper
I promise I will desist shortly, Mr Paisley. The problem is that if we are in a permanent customs union and are no longer in the European Union, we will have no say over the rules. If the European Union did not want to ban this stuff, we could not do it unilaterally, and if the European Union woke up one day and decided to allow this stuff to be imported, we would have no ability to stop it if we were in a permanent customs union. Is that not correct?
Bill Esterson
I will say what I should have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first remark: it is not membership of the customs union, but access to the internal market that would affect such regulations. I was making a point about the WTO, and perhaps the Minister can tell us about the assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of a challenge being made against the United Kingdom as a consequence of the regulations being transferred from the EU to UK-only competence. Assuming that the Minister confirms that such a challenge is unlikely and certainly could not be successful, will he explain why the Government have not sought to ban other imports into the EU such as hormone-fed beef or chlorine-washed chicken in line with existing EU bans once we have left the EU? There is a clear and demonstrable public opposition to such imports on morality and animal welfare grounds, let alone outstanding questions about the impact on human health.
Bill Esterson
I am about to conclude my remarks. We welcome the Government’s efforts to introduce these measures. There are serious concerns about the Government’s future policy intentions. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will address those concerns and state whether he will rule out imports of agricultural products now or in the future, including those that I mentioned, that are not produced to the same standards as our own and that offend our national moral sentiments.
George Hollingbery
I am going to limit myself to the scope of this instrument.
George Hollingbery
Exactly. I will briefly answer one or two of the questions that I was asked. The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked about an impact assessment. I can do an impact assessment in front of this Committee instantly: if we do not transfer these regulations today, there will be no control on the import of cat and dog fur into the UK, and the impact will therefore be that it is lawful to import cat and dog fur to the UK for sale at any time by anybody, wherever they wish. I suspect that the Opposition would not particularly want that to happen.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Secretary of State’s right to bring forward a statutory instrument to allow importation for education and taxidermy—indeed, that is part of the current EU legislation. The Secretary of State taking on the duty has taken that away from the slightly complex solution in which countries report to the European Commission, and so on. I confirm that the Secretary of State has no plans to bring such exceptions forward. We will not be using that part of the legislation, but it is brought through simply because we cannot change policy through the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that allow us to do what we are doing today.
Policing of the importation of cat and dog fur is done through DNA analysis. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs conducts inspections at the border under the powers in the 2008 regulations. That will continue to have effect. HMRC will continue to have the same role that it had previously. It can seize goods and start criminal proceedings, and so on.
I have made no particular assessment about the World Trade Organisation and any potential challenge, but if I stood in front of the Committee today and said that there has never been—
Gareth Thomas
Can the Minister give us any indication of the number of investigations being undertaken by HMRC in this area and the extent to which it has asked for additional resources post-Brexit to cope with a potential increase in the need for inspections?
George Hollingbery
The straight answer is that I do not know. Plainly, that is in the hands of the Treasury and HMRC. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to write to HMRC to make such an inquiry, I would be very happy to do so. All I can say finally is that I welcome the Opposition’s support for the motion.
The Chair
Who would have thought that Delegated Legislation Committees could be such fun?
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The draft instrument is extremely straightforward. It ensures that inoperabilities are corrected in EU regulation 2018/956, which concerns the monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions from and the fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles, or HDVs, so that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime in the event of no deal.
The statutory instrument requires all relevant data that is calculated in line with the set certification methodology to be monitored, reported and published. The data will be made available to all stakeholders, to allow transport operators access to information on the performance of HDVs of different makes with similar characteristics, thus enabling them to make better informed purchasing decisions. Vehicle manufacturers will also be able to compare their vehicle’s performance with those of their competitors, thus providing an increased incentive for innovation. The draft instrument also continues to provide for analysis of vehicle data, which will support the proposed future CO2 emissions standards for HDVs.
The main policy content, including the purpose and objectives of the current EU regulations, remains unchanged. Provisions on the monitoring and reporting timetable, the data to be monitored, HDVs in scope, fines and publication data will also remain unchanged. The amendments that the SI makes simply ensure that the EU regulation continues to apply after exit day to HDVs registered in the UK, and 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 the Commission. Any fines will be levied in pounds, rather than euros.
As these are minor changes, a formal consultation has not been carried out, but the Government have made stakeholders in the relevant trade associations aware of the draft instrument and its planned introduction into UK law. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My remarks will be very brief.
As the Minister has outlined, EU regulation 2018/956 requires EU member states and EU heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers to monitor and report to the European Commission data relating to the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles registered in the European Union. The draft instrument effectively transfers the powers and obligations of the Commission to the Secretary of State. The regulations are absolutely necessary, and the Opposition support them.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful for the Opposition’s constructive support, but I am sad to note the SNP’s absence from this Committee on an important statutory instrument relating to the EU. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Farming (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair again, Mr Gray. 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. The corrections deal with removing or amending references, converting EU procedures to UK procedures, and transferring EU functions to the UK.
For genetically modified organisms, the SI makes purely technical changes, to keep the retained EU legislation operable on exit from the EU. The operability changes 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 that originate in the UK and those merely passing through the UK. The SI also seeks to correct minor errors in EU exit statutory instruments that have already been made.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I seek a bit of clarity from the Minister; I was just looking through the documentation. Will we just carry on with the EU-directed regime, which is based not on science, but on hysteria against genetically modified organisms—particularly genetically modified crops? Alternatively, will we be able to use Brexit to get a policy based on science and agriculture, which would embrace that technology where appropriate?
David Rutley
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously, science will underpin our approach to genetically modified organisms, but it is worth noting that there are no genetically modified products in the approval pipeline, at least in the UK, and none is anticipated.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
My intervention will be somewhat different. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no watering down of the standards that we currently enjoy with regard to food and farming as a result of this statutory instrument?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point, one that the Opposition Front Benchers—perhaps I should call them the three musketeers—have consistently been making, with support from the Scottish National party spokespeople, too. I stress—as I have on numerous occasions, but it is worth doing it again for the record—that there is no intention whatever to water down our standards. I wanted to make that point, because it is easy to get concerned about these issues. As the hon. Member for Stroud will recognise in his remarks, these regulations are about operability changes; they are not about changing policy.
John Spellar
There is a world of difference between watering down regulations that are clearly of proven scientific benefit to consumers, animals and the environment, and policies that are based purely on campaigns with a heavy degree of hysteria—particularly those against genetically modified crops, which have no proven negative impact on the health of the individuals consuming them. Is the Minister suggesting that we are not going to take the opportunity? There may not be an application, and that may be because the current policy is dictated by one or two European countries. Will we not become a bit more progressive and take a science-based approach?
The Chair
Order. If the Minister wishes to answer that question, he must do so strictly in the context of the statutory instrument before us.
David Rutley
With the guidance of Mr Gray, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman quickly. We will let science be our guide. However, as I said before, this statutory instrument makes no changes to policy, but purely to operability. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I think I have answered it. We can have a long debate about GMOs, but this is not the day to do it—unless Mr Gray feels that it is.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gray feels very firmly indeed that this is not the moment for wider discussion of GM policy.
David Rutley
Thank you for the clarification, Mr Gray.
With respect to wines, this instrument will amend EU retained law to make it operable from the day of exit. The changes to existing EU law will allow us to continue to apply or enforce provisions relating to detailed winemaking practices, including the blending and analysis of wine. This SI will enable us to continue to ensure consumer confidence in wines, maintain our trade and production of wines, and protect the significant contribution this sector makes to the UK economy.
On spirit drinks, this instrument makes operable the regulation, protection of and methodology for analysis of spirit drinks once we exit the EU. The changes specify protection for the UK’s geographical indications. This instrument will make the necessary operability amendments to ensure ongoing protection of US spirit drinks Bourbon whiskey and Tennessee whiskey, following the signing of the UK-US spirit drinks agreement in January. The instrument will also prevent the EU27 spirit drink geographical indication from being automatically protected in the UK after leaving the EU.
The amendments to spirits, together with those for wine, are part of establishing a geographical indication scheme in the UK. These changes are a component of a wider sweep of DEFRA legislation on geographical indications. For those who have been on the journey, these include the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated and approved on 13 March, and the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, debated on 20 March.
Finally, this instrument will also make minor technical amendments to roll over currently existing provisions in retained EU law on DEFRA’s direct payment statutory instrument. The corrections relate to environmentally sensitive permanent grassland, buffer strips, field margins and the 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 the corrections, however. They address drafting errors in two of DEFRA’s EU exit statutory instruments relating to direct payment. An error was made when we laid the earlier instruments and we have sought to rectify these errors at the earliest possible opportunity. I apologise to colleagues and members of the Committee for those minor errors, but these are necessary corrections and we must get the legislation right.
It is worth noting that this statutory instrument was originally laid under the negative procedure. However, the Lord’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the regulations be made under the affirmative procedure. The recommendation was based on the Committee’s view that the proposed amendments go 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 to GIs, which they believed could have a considerable commercial and economic impact. As a result of this view, DEFRA Ministers subsequently agreed that the instrument be made subject to the affirmative procedure.
This statutory instrument will apply to all devolved Administrations. DEFRA has consulted devolved Administrations on the amendments in this instrument and, where appropriate, they have consented to its coming into force. The policy on GIs is reserved, as it is about intellectual property, but, as we discussed last week in a similar Committee, the Government have been working closely with devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a well-functioning system across the UK.
Decisions to release or market genetically modified organisms are a devolved matter in Wales and Scotland, and a transferred matter in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations have been consulted throughout the process for bringing this instrument into force and they support that approach.
We have engaged extensively and listened to stakeholder views on the policy areas addressed in this legislation. The Government launched a public consultation in October 2018 seeking the views of stakeholders and the public about the proposed new UK GI rules, which this SI helps to bring into place. The majority of respondents supported the Government’s proposals and we have engaged with any concerns raised by stakeholders. There was no consultation undertaken for direct payments and GMOs because the changes are entirely technical and intended to ensure that current provisions continue to be available after EU exit.
A technical notice and further guidance was recently published for GMOs. This SI makes minor corrections to earlier GMO-specific regulations. In October, DEFRA engaged with parties with an interest in GMOs, such as umbrella industry organisations representing agricultural-biotechnology companies, research establishments and NGOs. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this statutory instrument because minimal impact on business is expected.
The purpose of this SI is to make purely technical or operability corrections to ensure that the policy regimes for GMOs, wines, spirit drinks and direct payments remain able to operate after our exit from the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We are at it again—now we are revising the revisions. Mistakes were made in earlier Committees, so we have had to come back and review them. In correspondence with me, and I am sure with the Minister, the Green Alliance has said:
“The pace at which draft legislation has been processed has been relentless, with many different areas covered each week. 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 strongly concur, because we are here doing it morning, noon and night. This is the second of my three SI Committees today; no doubt the Minister and I will be engaging later, unless he is being given time off for good or bad behaviour.
The pace is a worry, because the legislation has been so rushed that mistakes were bound to be made, as we have been saying. As much as we love and trust the civil service, the rate of knots at which it is having to work begs the question of what will happen if some of it goes wrong. In this case, some of it has already gone wrong and we must correct what we did.
The Minister says that these are minor amendments—amendments of amendments—and I understand that. On 5 March, however, which is not that long ago, the European Statutory Instruments Committee noted that the explanatory memorandum says that the instrument
“will, as far as possible, provide that retained EU law has the same effect as current legislation, ensuring that consumers and businesses are able, after exit day, to provide and make use of the same information, presented in the same way as before”.
I am not sure whether that is legal, political or something about interpretation, but it does not give me the greatest confidence that what we are doing will be completely right. It may be that some of it is not right and that we will be back here again next week amending the amendments.
In many respects, the regulations are fairly technical. I will not argue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, who may have different views on GM. In fact, as we are not changing the policy—at least, I do not think we are—we cannot have that argument, as the Chair would tell us.
Dr Drew
Such an argument would be unseemly, particularly within the Labour Benches, and this would not be the appropriate place.
I have several things to say to the Minister, because some points need to be brought out, including on minor amendments. Although he has said time after time—we have been here before—that there is no change in policy, the implication of the instrument is that there could be, and to some extent it opens the door to what the future policy changes could be. It is interesting that we are doing this now. As he said, we would not necessarily disagree with the direction of change, but the rate at which change is happening is significant.
I ask the Minister again what the implied costs are of the instrument. It is always said that there is no cost, which is why we do not have a regulatory impact assessment, but according to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which scrutinised the instrument and moved it from negative to affirmative on 5 March,
“a significant new duty is being conferred on the Secretary of State.”
We cannot all be right. Either significant new duties—not powers—are being imposed on the Secretary of State, or they are not. I would welcome it if the Minister said something about that.
Again, the problem is that there has been little engagement with other organisations. By chance, I had a meeting with the RSPB this morning. I said, “We’re not getting much from you about SIs. We rely on you being the eyes and ears because you are dealing with how this will be implemented in practical terms”. The answer was, “We just can’t keep up with them. We have no capacity.” That was the RSPB, which has 2 million members. It has a fair number of staff and they cannot keep up. The NFU cannot keep up. It says something when the Opposition have to struggle through the policy issues and the organisations working on them with lots of specialists cannot keep up with the rate of change.
There have been some comments from the Nature Friendly Farming Network, which makes a point about the complexity of layers of policy changes, and the different way of looking at things. We are extracting things from EU legislation and bringing them into UK law. This may be a consolidation, but the Nature Friendly Farming Network implies that the changes afoot need to be scrutinised in much greater detail. Its biggest concern is the lack of requirement for independent scientific evidence and input in respect of the replacement of the European Food Safety Authority by competent authorities. I assume “competent authority” means our own Food Standards Agency, but does it have the capability, capacity and interest to be able to take on some of these great changes?
I may disagree with some aspects of GM, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley is right that those who believe that the agricultural industry has to change are looking at the science and technology—not necessarily genetic modification, but other ways of looking at how plant breeding takes place.
We have discussed pesticide regimes in a separate SI; those are very important in the regulation of GM. The Nature Friendly Farming Network argued that there should have been much more consultation with farmers and scientists on what is happening and how.
The major concern of the NFU is with no deal and its implications for British farming. It worries that some of the changes have been made in such a hurried way that the impact of a no-deal exit will create uncertainty; I know the Minister will lecture us on why we could have a deal, but we have to look at the uncertainties. The reason why they matter is that this legislation could be enforced sooner rather than later. If it is not right, somebody somewhere is going to pay for the consequences. It is very important that we continue to ask these questions; I have not asked many today, because this legislation is more straightforward and we are revising the revisions.
However, the regulations are important. I am not impugning the civil service, which will understand them, but others who are involved in the issues have to understand them as well. It is vital that we get this right. I am worried about how this issue has come back. Are we getting it right, and what do we do if we get it wrong?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I have concerns about the geographical indications for spirits. To be honest, I have concerns about the Government’s generally cavalier attitude to protected products and about the adverse effects that it may have as we plunge down the Brexit cliff towards the waiting rocks.
Specifically, I have concerns about the explanation offered in the explanatory memorandum that spirit drink geographical indications for products from the EU27 nations will be gone after Brexit and that we will retain only the UK ones. Why would that be considered a good thing? It is better for consumers here to know that the drinks they are consuming—especially alcoholic drinks—are the genuine article. If someone in Leith fancies a Calvados after dinner, they should be confident that it is Calvados, just as they would be confident in a good Scotch.
That decision is especially strange alongside the decision to recognise spirits from the US and the stated intention to recognise two Mexican spirits when negotiations are complete. That seems so strange that there must be some intent behind it. Is there something that has not been made clear to us that would necessitate such a specific diminution of the relationship with EU spirits producers and such a specific improvement in the relationship with US producers?
The curiosity of that anomaly is not lessened by the notes on engagement at the end of the explanatory memorandum. Under the GMO bit, there is a fair deal of engagement with companies interested in developing GMOs, with “establishments”—a strange word to use—interested in researching them, with NGOs and with environmental campaign groups. On wine, the devolved Administrations were involved in the detailed drafting and the provisions in the regulations, and industry and producer stakeholders were kept informed. On direct payments, stakeholders in England were consulted. On spirit drinks, though, the full text says:
“Defra has engaged with industry throughout the development of the new replacement regulation for 110/2008, and although no formal consultation has taken place with industry or the Devolved Administrations, stakeholders have been kept informed of progress.”
Why was there no formal consultation? Why was there no involvement of the devolved Administrations in the detailed drafting? Scotland, after all, has the bulk of the distilling industry, including 70% of the gin distilled in the UK. I very much hope the Minister will offer us an explanation for this strangeness and some greater insight into why such an asymmetrical decision has been taken.
I also wonder what effect this approach will have on our own spirits that are sold in the EU27 after we leave. Is whisky’s protection going to be diminished? Will Plymouth gin lose its protection in the EU? There is also a huge list of spirits drinks—nine full pages of the list in the EU regulation—that will no longer be protected in the UK. Will we now be open to poor-quality imitations?
Much of this SI seems fairly straightforward, but this issue needs some serious explanation before we are asked to approve the regulations. What is the rationale behind what appears to be a very strange idea?
David Rutley
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We have discussed some of these issues in similar Committees before.
In response to the hon. Member for Stroud, who made points about the view of the House of Lords sifting committee on this particular SI, it is worth noting that this SI was laid, as I said, under the negative procedure, and it was then recommended that it be laid under the affirmative procedure. That is what we have done and, clearly, we are debating it today.
Again, I just want to point out that the suite of legislation on geographical indications under the EU withdrawal Act confers new duties on the Secretary of State; that is in consequence of the Secretary of State taking on functions from the European Commission as a result of withdrawal. However, it is not the instrument that we are considering today that confers new legislative duties. For spirit drinks, for example, that was the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we debated earlier this month. This instrument confers only administrative functions on the Secretary of State from the EU Commission.
The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. As I said in my opening remarks, there are no legislative duties being imposed on the Secretary of State by this instrument. In terms of the administrative duties that result from this instrument, there are no costs associated with those duties.
The hon. Gentleman asked about scientific advice particularly around GMOs. At the moment, decisions on things such as commercial cultivation of GM crops and the marketing of GM products are taken at EU level, with each member state having a vote, and the European Food Safety Authority issues an opinion on the application. For the UK, that EFSA opinion is considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, a statutory body of experts that provides Ministers with independent scientific advice that informs UK votes. If we are to leave, EFSA opinions are publicly available, so we will continue to have access to them. ACRE will continue to have a role in advising the UK Government on applications made to, for example, grow a GM crop in the UK. The final decision will be taken away from the EU and made in the UK.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith made some important points, particularly on spirit drinks, and we have discussed some of them before. She asked about the consultation that has been going on. I assure her we have a very strong relationship with the industry, through the Scotch Whisky Association. I was fortunate to meet the SWA in Edinburgh last November. That visit was one of the first things I did when I was able to get time away from the estate. We have a close dialogue with the Scotch whisky industry.
We recognise the geographic indication of Scotch whisky is pivotal to the industry and vital for the UK economy and the Scottish economy as well. We have not yet announced a decision on how EU GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. The UK is not obliged to protect EU GIs after exit. The Government look forward to negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU, during which we will be able to discuss the relationship between the UK’s new GI schemes and the EU schemes. In addition, we will warmly welcome any application from member states of the EU27, as we would from producers in the UK or from other countries around the world.
Deidre Brock
Is the Minister saying that current protections for those spirit drinks from Europe, which we have recognised up to this point, are no longer guaranteed to continue, and that it is very much dependent on negotiations?
David Rutley
I will reiterate what I said, because these are important matters: the UK Government have not announced how EU GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. I also said that we look forward to further negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU. All these things will be considered in that round.
Dr Drew
I apologise, but I meant to mention that the annexe of geographical indicators is where most, if not all, of our specialist branded goods appear. What will happen to those? Will we have our own annexe to some future piece of legislation? Will we still be able to go to the EU and ask it to put various UK products on its list? I do not know if the Minister has a ready answer to that, but that issue was picked up by the Committee.
David Rutley
We will create our own UK GI scheme, which will protect UK GIs within the UK. We will publish guidance on the day that we leave. I talked about how we will recognise EU GIs in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. All those things will need to be negotiated and reviewed as we go further forward. However, I assure Committee members that we are working closely with key stakeholders, not least the SWA, as we take this work further forward. I promised the hon. Lady that I will meet her to discuss this in more detail. We will fix that up shortly. I know that this is a key interest for her, both in her role as a spokesperson and as a constituency Member of Parliament.
Once again, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. This SI sets out operability changes that are technical in nature, important as they are. As a result of what has been said, I once again commend this SI to the Committee.
Question put.
draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (miscellaneous amendments, etc.) (eu exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and common agricultural policy (miscellaneous amendments) (eu exit) regulations 2019
Draft Agriculture (Legislative Fuctions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(5 years 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 Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.
Mr Goodwill
As a farmer myself, and given the family business’s participation in an agri-environmental scheme, I should mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The three statutory instruments amend retained EU law setting out the overarching framework for the common organisation of markets in agricultural products, and retained EU and domestic legislation on related wider common agricultural policy provisions. They also amend retained EU law on organic food and feed, and on imports and exports of processed agricultural goods. The amendments 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, and will ensure minimal disruption for businesses and other stakeholders.
The legislation is technical in nature and limited in scope. We are upholding standards and maintaining processes, and the legislation makes appropriate corrections to ensure that those standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that they will have a limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. All three instruments apply across the whole UK, and we have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the legislation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets continues to work, while respecting the devolution agreements.
Two of the instruments, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, operate in areas of primarily devolved competence, with the appropriate powers transferring to the devolved Ministers. In many of those 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, in certain instances allowing the Secretary of State to legislate or otherwise act on behalf of Wales would have implications for devolved competence for Wales. 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 reflects the outcome of that consideration.
The other instrument, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—[Laughter]—amends only provisions relating to reserved matters.
Mr Goodwill
There will be an opportunity, I am sure.
All three instruments concern the common organisation of the agriculture markets, more commonly referred to as the CMO. The CMO sits in pillar one of the common agricultural policy, alongside direct payments, and it 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, incentivise collaboration between and competitiveness of agricultural producers, and facilitate trade.
The first statutory instrument, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amends the overarching framework for the CMO rather than the details of each policy area, and is intended to lay the groundwork for the more detailed amendments in other CMO instruments. The policy areas in the instrument can be described as public intervention and aid for private storage, aid schemes, marketing standards, producer organisations, import and export rules and crisis measures. The instrument also deals with the basic legislation for the scheme for the promotion of agricultural products, EU regulation No. 1144/2014.
The second statutory instrument in the grouping, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, ensures the operability of certain provisions relating to the reserved policy areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices; international trade; imports and exports; and intellectual property law.
The second set of regulations amend provisions in legislation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets and the wider common agricultural policy, as well as in EU legislation relating to imports and exports of processed agricultural goods that largely mirrors the relevant provisions on non-processed agricultural goods within the CMO. The regulations also confer legislative functions held by the Commission on the Secretary of State in reserved policy areas, to enable the smooth functioning of related schemes for producers, traders, importers and exporters of agricultural goods.
In particular, the second statutory instrument contains amendments to: recognise producer organisations that provide exemptions from certain aspects of competition law across all agricultural sectors; make operable requirements for written contracts in the dairy sector; provide for an appeals route in the domestic courts relating to protection of a name as a designation of origin or geographical indication for wine; confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations about checks relating to protected designations of origin and geographical indications for wine; facilitate and regulate the import of beef and veal, wine, hops, fruits and vegetables, and ovalbumin and lactalbumin; facilitate and regulate the import and export of fruit and vegetables; and make operable rules relating to the granting of export refunds for processed agricultural goods.
The third statutory instrument in the group, the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, amends EU legislation relating to CMO schemes; CAP financing, management and monitoring; and organic food and feed. Under the amendments, functions currently exercised by the European Commission will instead be exercisable by public authorities in the United Kingdom. That will enable those legislative functions to continue to be used at a national level after the UK leaves the EU.
The instrument relates to EU regulations covering the common organisation of agricultural products and related CAP provisions, as well as organic food and feed. The EU regulations confer various functions on the Commission, so that it can develop the technical details required to operate a specific regime. Examples of those functions include: specifying forms to be used; setting financial limits or prices; defining scheme eligibility criteria; establishing key dates; and defining programmes or scheme periods. After EU exit, without amendment, the legislative functions in these retained EU regulations would be inoperable. That would prevent the UK Government and, where applicable, the devolved Administrations from being able to make any necessary changes to these policy regimes to keep them up to date. This instrument uses powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct that deficiency, so that the functions can be exercised by UK public authorities.
I will try to pre-empt some of the questions that I suspect I might get from the Opposition. I am sure that they will want to ask whether the instruments will also be needed if we agree a deal with the EU. Yes; they make operability amendments that will be necessary for the retained EU law to function, 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.
I know I will be asked whether a formal consultation has been carried out. I make it clear to the Committee that we have not carried out a formal consultation, as the changes are technical in nature and do not describe any change in policy. There will be no concrete changes. We continue to engage with stakeholders; indeed, I am meeting the chiefs of the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association later in the week.
I might be asked when the Agriculture Bill will be coming back. I make it clear to the Committee that we wish to bring the Agriculture Bill here as soon as possible. It would be helpful if we could get the withdrawal agreement through at the third time of asking. That would clear the House and enable us to get these important bits of legislation through. I may be asked how we can change what is the statutory instruments. Once we have left the EU, we can amend and change the provisions; the SIs are about maintaining the status quo, including any changes that may flow from the Agriculture Bill, or other changes we wish to make.
In closing, the instruments make appropriate changes to ensure an operable legal framework for the CMO on leaving the European Union. The changes are deliberately minimal, and will commence only when necessary to ensure operability and address deficiency.
Dr Drew
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and I welcome the Minister to his place. This is my third SI of the day, so if I sound tired, it is because I am tired—rather tired of SIs. Given that the Minister has worked out all the questions I was going to ask, my job could be relatively short. I had better think of some other questions, just to make sure that the civil servants earn their pay for the day. I also welcome the former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, yet again. We have a double act here. He does this for free now, but he should not tell his colleagues that; they will think it is a good way forward, and we might get a few more of them acting in that way. We will say nothing more about that.
I state my usual caveat: we are doing these things in an incredibly rushed way, and mistakes will be made. In fact, the previous SI we considered was all about the mistakes in an SI from last week, so we are going back over what we went over. That will happen, given that we are going through these SIs at a rate of knots.
I am a simple soul, so I will take the SIs in some sort of order; otherwise I will get confused. There are four instruments, but effectively three statutory instruments. I am still trying to struggle through them, but I will try to make my explanation as simple as I can. The first is the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the Minister mentioned. Much of the subject matter is devolved, and I am intrigued about the extent to which there is an attempt to pull back to the centre some of the changes coming from the EU. The Minister touched on this and made the point about the Administration in Cardiff. I would like him to at least allay my fears that the devolved Administration are losing out in some way. I am sure that the Scottish National Party spokesman will have something to say about that.
This whole area of market structure is not easily picked up; I found it complex—perhaps I am not that clever. I know enough about pillar one, and the way it has worked for a long time, having studied it for a long time. There are issues to do with the lack of clarity on how this will be restructured, even though we are talking about just a transfer of powers, according to the Government. We are told these are technical regulations, but at least some stakeholders disagree with that and feel that there is a change in the relationship. Given the attempt to conflate all these SIs, we have to pick through them carefully.
The Minister outlined the different things covered by market organisation—public intervention, aid for private storage, aid schemes, marketing standards, producer organisations, import and export rules and price measures —all of which are covered by the transfer of powers, as far as I understand. As I said in my rant to the Minister’s colleague in the last SI Committee, the Opposition struggle because all the non-governmental organisations are struggling to keep up to date. I am glad that the Minister is meeting the NFU and CLA, but the various non-governmental organisations to whom I have spoken say that they do not have the capacity to undertake any scrutiny of these SIs because of their complexity and the speed with which they are moving through the House.
The NFU has, however, commented on the first SI. It sees producer organisations as being very important, so continuity as the European legislation becomes UK law is important, as is remaining exempt from competition law; if there is no exemption, it will complicate matters. That is particularly true of horticulture. I would welcome hearing from the Minister on that, so that we can be sure that there are genuinely no changes.
EU member states have been encouraged to work on strengthening routes to market; I know from talking to farmers that they see that as being where they should go. How will these SIs, which are all about market structure, encourage farmers to move closer to the marketplace without raising food prices? We have to be well aware of that. The issue is the degree to which these SIs touch on competition law, and whether the UK will have to revisit its competition law.
The second SI, the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, seems to anticipate future SIs. What are those future SIs and changes? How will they impinge on the way the market operates? Given that this has a lot to do with producer organisations, where is the financial analysis? That is the question that I always ask. Can we be assured that the burden will not fall on the producer organisations, which already suffer from market precariousness? In the short term, there will be churning in the policy vacuum—and there is bound to be a vacuum; things may operate seamlessly, but various questions will remain.
We have to look at where we are, and where we want to be, and make sure that policies are as fair, open and transparent as possible, because any unfair trading practices will undermine the point of trying to encourage producer organisations. That is borne out by what the NFU said to me. It believes that producer organisations are the way in which farm businesses should be moving, so that they can negotiate more successfully with retailers and directly with the customer.
Greener UK asked me a series of questions about the regulations. I will not go through all of them. It is concerned about how the effect of the changes on the environment will be monitored and measured in a fully transparent fashion. It wants to know how the searchlight will be turned on, and how we will make sure that procedures are fully operative as early as possible. That is all linked to the implementation of environmental law and policy. It is also interested in how we will deal with possible breaches, and that will reflect how citizens or civil society organisations will look at this. Greener UK has views on the fairness or unfairness of how things work. Producers and representatives of customers have questions about transparency, accountability, and what to do when things do not work as they should.
The draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 are much more about the structure itself, but concern such aspects as organic production and labelling, which we have talked about in previous Committees. It is important that we recognise that that sector needs greater protection, because it will undergo considerable changes. Although we have our own organic regulators in this country, so much of it is about commonality with the rest of the EU, and that will have to change.
The main issues are diverse, and extend to the functioning of age schemes, including for school milk and the fruit and vegetable scheme, which is of course about providing good-quality food to children, and subsidising the industry, to put it bluntly. The question is how can the Government realistically think that anyone, especially key stakeholders, can cover that? There is such a wide range of elements in the SI. The Minister said that the Government did not need to consult, but it would be interesting to know what consultation, if any, has taken place.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
All we are doing with the SIs is substituting “a member state” for “national authority”, or replacing “Commission” with “the appropriate authority”, simply to make the existing regulations operable. The real question is where was our ability to scrutinise the original EU regulations that were imposed on us? Nobody generally bothered to look at them, barring the Ministers who were there at the time.
Dr Drew
The answer is that we could always do it better, and now we have no reason not to. It puts the onus on us, which is why the SIs are important. If we do not get it right now, it will come back to haunt us, either because we will have missed an opportunity or because we will have to revisit the SIs, as we did with those laid just a week or so ago. I accept what the former Minister says, but a whole series of market segments are affected by the CMO and the way in which the SI will operate.
The Government say that there are no costs, but somebody, somewhere, has to bear some of the costs, because there will be new regulatory burdens. As yet, the Government are not clear on how those burdens will be set up, and what form they will take. It would be interesting to understand the Government’s thinking on that, because unless we get the market structure right at least some of the different segments within the food industry will suffer, at least in the short run. Some of the legislation really matters, because it is about emergency measures, which we all ought to know about because of what has happened in previous food scares.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that my final point will be my usual entreaty about databases. We are looking at how we will set up a new databank—in this case, of isotopic data—to detect fraud. The current one is based on samples taken by the member states; we will have to replicate that in a UK context. It would be interesting to know where we are with all the wonderful IT innovations that the Government are trying to introduce, also at a speed of knots.
There is no date for this, so I do not know whether we will borrow stuff from the EU. Clearly, they have collected and stored a lot of material on, for example, the authenticity of wine and what level of sugar has been added, and how much water is in the wine. There is something biblical about that. If we are starting from scratch—I do not know whether we are—can we just bring all the information across, or do we have to pay for it? Alternatively, can we use comparable databases?
It is the usual questions. Where are the databases? How advanced are they in terms of their operation? Who will have access to them? If there is evidence of fraud in the way these different market sectors are operating, what do the Government intend to do? I have nothing more to ask. This is one of the more complex SIs of the many we have been through. As the Minister answered many of my questions to start with, I have come up with a few different ones, but I welcome that we are now getting the answers as well as the questions. It makes my job that much easier.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Evans. I had a thorough speech that I was going to give, but the hon. Member for Stroud has gone through everything. He spoke of the authenticity of wine. Most Members attending these SI Committees dread coming, but if we were getting to check out the authenticity of wine, we might find there were more volunteers.
In the Scottish National party, regardless of our opposition to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in principle and in its entirety, we understand that it is important to have instruments to establish and preserve the framework around the status quo, so I will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon. Given that this is another DEFRA SI of the several coming forward at the moment, I wish to reflect on the general landscape around Brexit.
During the Brexit campaign, a string of false promises was made to farmers, in particular in Scotland. The Tories have been involved in constant scaremongering that payments will not be able to be made to Scottish farmers post Brexit if a legislative consent motion is not given to the Agriculture Bill, whenever it appears. The Cabinet Secretary in Scotland has confirmed that is simply untrue and payments can and will be made.
When we think about the chaos that emanates from this shambolic Brexit process and in particular the threat of no deal, I reflect on the comments from the president of NFU Scotland, Andrew McCornick, who said
“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 the current chaos. Parliament will take control of the agenda tomorrow and we might see some of that.
In conclusion, the stockpiling of food in preparation for Brexit demonstrates how drastic an effect Brexit has had on all of the most basic human requirements. People in Scotland will look on this process and see how being governed from this Parliament, and the absolute chaos emanating from this place, only emphasises our view that Scotland is a nation and nations are best served when they govern themselves.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister is double acting with his former Minister, he will excuse me if the shadow team does the same. I have only a few technical questions.
In the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, explanatory note 7.5 on page 4 states:
“The Secretary of State may also exercise the functions on behalf of a devolved administration, but only with their consent.”
Can the Minister provide clarification with regard to the concerns he raised earlier about the functions being used in relation to powers in Wales? What type of consent does the Minister need to seek? For the sake of clarity, can the Minister set out whether he can exercise those powers in Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly due to the devolution settlement being confused?
The Minister, and certainly his predecessor, will know that I have been critical about the wording of impact assessments throughout this entire process and the phraseology that said there is no or no significant impact was used in earlier statutory instruments. As we are coming to the end of these DEFRA SIs, I wish to put on record that impact assessment paragraph 12.3 on page 5 is significantly better than the wording when we started the process. I am grateful to officials for beefing that up. I am also especially grateful for the addition of the understanding about the financial threshold and the impact the instrument suggests. In this case, it states that
“the change in regulation falls below the £5m p.a. threshold for net direct costs to business.”
In my mind, £5 million seems to be a significant impact for businesses. I believe that threshold level is still too broad, but it is good to see that a threshold level is being inserted at all.
On the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, can the Minister explain the revocations in part 4? My understanding is that this SI revokes geographical indication protection for a series of incredibly posh wines that I have not been fortunate enough to try, including Bürgstadter Berg and Monzinger Niederberg, which according to my friends at Google is a wonderful Riesling. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether those protections are replicated elsewhere, or whether what we are doing here is removing geographical indication protections. As the Minister will know, and the former Minister will certainly know, I am a big fan of keeping geographical indication protections so that the GI status of, for example, Cornish pasties can be protected after whatever form of Brexit we have. I am concerned that revoking protections on certain types of wine will be the start of a reduction in GI protections that could encourage our European friends to further remove protections on UK products.
Finally, in the explanatory memorandum for the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, paragraph 7.3 on page 4 states:
“With exit day less than one year away, and in the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive”.
That is technically correct—three days is certainly less than one year away—but I wonder how long this SI has been sitting on the books. There is a point here about how late we are looking at so many of these SIs, ahead of what was previously exit day on 29 March. That sentence suggests to me that this SI has been sitting around for a long time.
George Eustice
Perhaps officials in the Department could foresee that Parliament would baulk at the idea of leaving without a deal. “One year” might be a reference to the extension.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the former Minister, who is again backseat driving the Minister’s role. I would like to think that officials are that prescient about the Government’s inability to bring forward a deal that they can get a parliamentary majority for, but I suspect the answer is that this SI has been sitting on a desk in DEFRA for some considerable time, and we are waiting until the last moment for these SIs to be given the scrutiny they deserve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, driving through so many SIs means that the level of scrutiny that stakeholders and the Opposition can give them is more limited than if we had been given more time. However, I would be grateful if the Minister set out answers, particularly about the geographical indications and what they mean for the read-across of UK protections.
Mr Goodwill
I will take the questions in reverse order, starting with those asked by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. He specifically asked about the functions that the Secretary of State exercises on behalf of the devolved Administrations. I repeat the point I made in my opening remarks: 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 reflects the outcome of that consideration. I met with the Welsh and the Scots yesterday, and I think we have a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations. We wish above all to respect the devolution settlements, and we understand the importance of decision making at that level. Indeed, part of the wish expressed by the British people in the referendum was to have control of our own affairs, and not be controlled from another capital. I am sure that people in Edinburgh would sympathise with that, although we wish to keep the United Kingdom together as one country.
To quickly address the wine situation, the Government have not announced a decision about how non-UK GIs will be treated if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place, but we recognise the cultural and economic importance of geographical indications. The hon. Gentleman talked about the day on which we will leave the European Union; maybe we should have a sweepstake in the Committee to see who gets closest. However, as far as I am aware, we will leave on 12 April in the event of no deal, and on 22 May if the deal can be delivered. Those who are concerned about no deal face a simple choice: they should vote for the deal, to enable us to leave in an orderly way. If we do not leave the European Union as instructed in the referendum, I do not believe the people of this country will treat any party kindly.
To respond to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I have already mentioned how we respect the devolution settlement. Voting for the deal is the best way of avoiding any chaos that he may predict.
The hon. Member for Stroud talked about mistakes that may have been made. As I said, there may have been mistakes, but they can be corrected very easily. Many of the changes that we may need to make in future will be the result not of mistakes, but of the need to keep up with changes at an EU level. He said that these measures are complex; that is true, but the changes being made are simple. Most of these regulations received scant scrutiny the first time they were presented to Westminster, having been decided in Europe, but in future we will be able to amend them in our sovereign Parliament without needing another 27 countries to agree to our way forward.
The hon. Gentleman raised the NFU’s concerns about producer organisations. Those are important to us, but no change is being made. In many ways, the power in this country tends to lie with the supermarkets, so I am not worried that producer organisations will misuse the exemption. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at how supermarkets are exercising their powers—[Interruption.]
Mr Goodwill
Before we were so rudely interrupted, I was trying to rush through my comments in order to get to the end before the Division, but I can now take a little more time to explain the situation and to answer the questions comprehensively.
The hon. Member for Stroud talked about anticipating future SIs. Changes will need to be made to keep up with changes to EU legislation, as I already said, but the SIs before us today make no fundamental changes. They are about changing EU authorities into the relevant UK authority.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we are rolling over the articles, rather than starting afresh. With regard to future competition law as it relates to agriculture, the articles covering the EU producer organisation regime are being amended by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in order to be made operable, but will eventually be repealed and replaced by domestic successor legislation using the powers in the Agriculture Bill.
Greener UK were concerned about any reduction in our very tight environmental standards. The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, that there will be no change. There will be no reduction in our standards. Indeed, with our new method of agricultural support delivering public goods, in my opinion we will have the greenest agriculture in Europe.
The hon. Gentleman talked about organic production. Of course, we will continue to respect EU standards, but many of the licensing bodies in the UK, such as the Soil Association, have even more stringent requirements. The Agriculture Bill will give us the opportunity to help those farmers who may well want to convert to organics. The chance to have better trade relations with the United States will be a great opportunity for UK food, particularly organic food, to be sold into the United States market.
We are transferring powers on organic regulations to the UK from the European Commission. The powers include measures to implement the prohibition of genetically modified organisms, measures to implement rules for production, conversion, processing, approval of certain products, exceptional production, labelling, and precautionary and control measures, which will ensure the notification of UK organic operators, and measures to set out the forms and methods of communication. I think we have a comprehensive approach to the issue of organic production.
A question was asked about school milk, which EU funding supports to an extent. We want children to be healthy and well-nourished, and regular dairy consumption makes an important contribution to that. I have a glass of milk most days myself, as it is the cheapest beverage in the Tea Room—it says a lot for the way that milk is taken for granted that a glass of milk in the Tea Room is a third of the price of a cup of tea. Alongside participating in the school milk scheme, the Government are doing a great deal nationally to promote children’s dairy consumption through, for example, the much larger national free nursery milk scheme, and ensuring the availability of milk for pupils under the school food standards, including free milk for disadvantaged pupils.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which leads me smoothly on to my next point. Regardless of whether we have a deal with the EU, funding will be available under the scheme for at least the next few years, and we will keep the position under review.
My last point is on the database and IT availability for a whole variety of areas. We are working very hard as a Department to make sure that we have IT systems up and running. I am very optimistic that they will work well.
Mr Goodwill
I know the history. The hon. Member for Stroud can shake his head, but we know that this has been a problem for various Governments. A lot of the systems have been run at the beta phase—the testing phase—and they have worked well, including in my previous Department, Education, for the nursery scheme. That system worked very well after a few initial glitches.
The operability amendments made by the regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of this legislation on the common organisation of agricultural markets and wider CAP provisions that would otherwise be inoperable following our exit from the European Union, as well as the provisions covering organic food and feed, and imports and exports of processed agricultural goods. They will ensure that we can continue to operate schemes under these 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 Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
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
Forced Live Organ Extraction
(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered forced live organ extraction.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to open this debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have found time to attend this morning, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. This issue is very topical, and something that I, along with other hon. Members, have followed for some time, and we are pleased to participate. I thank members of the audience who have come to listen to our proceedings, in particular Becky James, who I thank for everything she did to provide me with important information. Many others also contributed, including Rob Gray, who is in the audience, and I thank him for his help in putting this speech together. I also thank Amro, who works for me on the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, because this issue is regularly brought to my attention.
Finally, I thank the Minister for being here—he is always responsive. He knows that we are fond of him as a Minister, but we are also fond of his responses, which are always excellent and sum up the points made. I thank him in advance for summing up the debate. He knows that I am impressed by his tireless efforts, and we very much looking forward to hearing his response.
Two days ago, the UN marked the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims. Its purpose was to honour the memory of victims of gross and systematic human rights violations, and to promote the importance of the right to truth and justice. How fitting that we should be gathered here today to seek the truth about one of the most concerning human rights violations imaginable—forced live organ extraction. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is also here. When preparing for this debate, we discussed these issues and decided that that would be the most appropriate title.
For years, human rights organisations have reported that the Chinese Government are complicit in forcibly removing the organs of religious prisoners of conscience to supply organs on demand for China’s vast and lucrative transplant industry. That horrifying practice is so terrible that it is hard to believe. A major world power—a permanent member of the UN Security Council no less—is treating human beings like commodities, like cattle, because they profess the wrong faith. Can any of us even begin to imagine living in a world where Government officials could stroll in, round up all the Christians in the Chamber—with respect, that probably includes most people here—and take their organs to supply to anyone who needs them? That is totally unacceptable.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
When it comes to the extraction of organs, is it an age thing? Does it affect older people, or children? Do the organs have to come from more mature people, or are children included?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Today I wish to highlight forced live organ extraction from prisoners of conscience, including Christians, Uyghur Muslims, and those who have been in jail for some time. It is hard to encapsulate the vastness of what is taking place and the numbers involved. This level of cruelty is almost impossible to comprehend, and as much as we would all like the allegations against the Chinese Government to be unfounded, an extensive and growing body of evidence suggests otherwise.
One of the principal pieces of evidence—I am sure the Minister is familiar with it—is the work of former Canadian Cabinet Minister, David Kilgour. Alongside international human rights lawyer David Matas, and investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann—he has also been a good friend and helped us along the way—Kilgour conducted an investigation that indicates that somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000 more transplants have taken place in China than official figures claim. It is quite unbelievable.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual commitment to encouraging debate, and I have been listening to his good speech. Is he drawn to the comparisons and the fact that we have seen this before? People were herded into camps; they were experimented on and had their organs harvested. People were persecuted for their faith, and we know where that ended, because millions of people died as a result of the holocaust. If we look at history, we see that there were opportunities for Governments to intervene and act, but they did not. Are we now at the point where we, as the western world, should say, “This must stop”?
Jim Shannon
That intervention has encapsulated the whole debate, and that is why it is so important. That is why we are here to speak today, and why we look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is diligent in speaking about the causes he pursues. This issue is very important. Under the Chinese Government, the Falun Gong are being re-educated and persecuted for their faith. Does he agree that between 70 million and 100 million people are affected by such actions and—this returns to the point raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths)—perhaps we are in a way going down the road that led to the second world war. We found out after that war what took place in Germany.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman and I are often in debates together—sometimes I intervene on him, or he intervenes on me, and it is pleasing to hear his comments. He reinforced the point made by the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths).
The investigation by David Kilgour is far from our only source of evidence. There are testimonies from prisoners, confessions from Chinese medical professionals, and impossibly short waiting list times for transplants—I could go on and on. Some of that evidence was supplied by the China tribunal, which is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The focus is on the allegations, and on what evidence has been submitted, investigated and documented. For example, there are discrepancies in explaining the source of the organs for the claimed number of transplants, which suggests an undisclosed source. Wider concerns link religious persecution and mass imprisonment with the threat of live organ extraction in China. That includes the Falun Gong, Christians, and the Uyghur Muslims. Case studies from the China tribunal give examples of Chinese prisoners facing torture, or undergoing forced DNA, blood and organ scanning tests. There is also the Chinese law relating to forced organ removal from executed prisoners, which led to an international response from Governments and subsequent legislation. All those things are mentioned in the inquiry by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, and they clearly underline the issues.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Falun Gong have been particularly targeted by this awful practice, and that it should stop immediately as it is an abuse of human rights?
Jim Shannon
I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for attending this morning. I know he is attending a Select Committee later, but he contributed early to this debate, which I appreciate.
All that evidence has been reviewed by many different organisations across the world including parliamentary bodies, or Parliaments themselves, in Italy, Spain, Canada, Israel, Taiwan, Ireland, the Czech Republic and the United States, as well as non-parliamentary bodies such as the UK Conservative Party Human Rights Commission— the hon. Member for Congleton is involved with that—and the China tribunal. I am here because of my interest in human rights, and because I wish, as we all do, to stand up for people across the world who are being persecuted because of their faith, or because they have no faith.
It would be much easier politically—and it would make it easier to sleep at night—to remain sceptical in the face of the evidence and be reluctant to accept it, and to push for absolute certainty before reaching any definitive conclusions, yet despite that natural inclination, all those bodies, on examining the evidence, could not help but arrive at the view that forced organ extraction is taking place in China. Indeed, the ongoing China tribunal, which is being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, went as far as saying, in an interim judgment, that
“the tribunal members, are all certain, unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time, involving a very substantial number of victims...by state organised or approved organisations or individuals”.
The evidence must be remarkably convincing to have drawn such a strong statement from an esteemed body of impartial investigators. Indeed, it is so convincing that several countries have passed or introduced legislation to make travelling to China for organ transplants illegal.
I carry an organ donation card. We have a different system in Northern Ireland. I am glad that legislation is coming through for change here at Westminster. I totally support that and I would be pleased to know that my organs might save a life if I were to pass. That would be good. However, where else in the world other than China is it possible to get an organ almost on demand?
The UK still claims that, because the World Health Organisation has declared China’s transplant system ethical, all the evidence can be ignored. How has the WHO arrived at such a different conclusion? Has it assessed all the same evidence? If not, why? If it has, why has it not produced an explanation of why the evidence is unsatisfactory? What investigations has it carried out? Has it been to military and prison hospitals in China? Has it asked to go to them? Has it been free to examine those hospitals independently, or were its representatives taken on show tours by Chinese authorities? My principal request of the Minister today is that he formally write to the WHO and ask it to assess all the evidence and, if it deems that it is not accurate and does not reflect the situation, to produce a report to demonstrate clearly why that is so. Surely that would not be too burdensome for the WHO if it has already collected the evidence to show that there is nothing suspicious about China’s transplant system.
It is worth noting that there will be further public hearings of the China tribunal on 6 and 7 April. The tribunal has issued a public call for evidence and is open to receiving further evidence on China’s past and present transplant practices from Chinese officials, as well as from organisations such as the Transplantation Society, the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group and the WHO. I thank the Minister for sending FCO officials to attend the previous hearings. It shows commitment. I ask him to encourage the WHO to participate in the process. The truth is that we all sincerely, desperately hope that the allegations against the Chinese Government are false. If they are, is it not in everyone’s interest for China and the WHO quickly to demonstrate that they are false so that we can all focus on other pressing issues?
That brings to me one of my key points. The allegations have been around for years. If there is no truth to them, have not the Chinese Government had ample time to prove that they are false? They have not done so. Would it not be a simple thing for them just to open their doors and allow the world in to investigate? They have not done that. The WHO itself has said it has concerns about the transparency of China’s transplant system. What reason could there be for secrecy about the programme if it is clearly and demonstrably operating in line with international standards? Surely if the WHO has evaluated the system, it is a simple matter to point to the evidence that shows that there are no problems. Perhaps there is a perfectly genuine, straightforward reason why it is possible to get a kidney in two weeks in Beijing, as opposed to two years in the United Kingdom. Surely that in itself tells a story. Does it not raise a question in people’s minds? Perhaps not, but we should honestly ask how it is possible. It seems that China has an organ transplant system that is the envy of the entire world. What possible reason could there be for hiding it?
Moreover, should not the Chinese Government want to stop the allegations? If the UK were for years to be incorrectly accused of killing religious minority groups to provide the rest of the population with organs, and if countries the world over were passing legislation against us, we would be doing everything in our power to present the evidence showing that the allegations were false, yet for some reason China has been utterly unable or unwilling to do so.
Why should that be? One might argue that China would not want to dignify the rumours with a response because they are so ludicrous. That might be the logic. However, the Chinese Government have already admitted to taking organs from executed prisoners without their consent in the past. There is an evidential basis, and it is hardly as if the allegations are so beyond the realm of possibility that they are not worth responding to, yet the Chinese Government continue to claim that their transplant system is ethical, while maintaining its shroud of secrecy, and the UK Government continue to accept the claim at face value despite all evidence to the contrary. I refer the Minister again to the evidence available through the forum of the inquiry led by Sir Geoffrey Nice.
What we are talking about in this debate is organ harvesting—crimes against humanity, and a regime that is responsible for the greatest mass incarceration of a religious group since the Nazis in the second world war, as the hon. Member for Burton said in his intervention. I am afraid that simply to accept the Chinese Government’s flimsy narrative because it is convenient is a total and utter abdication of our responsibility to all those who have suffered at the hands of tyrannical regimes. How will history judge us? The hon. Gentleman is right: now is the time to draw the line and stop live organ transplantation, and transplantation without permission of the people whose organs are removed. We say “Never again”, but we do not, with our next breath, do something to make that brave declaration reality and ask the tough questions—although we are trying to do so in the Chamber today. We would rather bury our heads in the sand than deal with the harsh light of the truth that radiates all around us. The evidence has been gathered, presented, analysed and judged countless times by countless different institutions. It has repeatedly been found to be wholly credible and convincing. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government have offered nothing substantial by way of rebuttal, despite the fact that it would be easy to do so if they were telling the truth. The absence of comment from them reinforces what I am saying.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to act on the findings of the China tribunal and to take appropriate action, including potentially following in the footsteps of many other countries and banning organ tourism to China from the UK. Over the years I have put down a number of questions. It is wrong that people should travel from here to China for what is almost a live organ on demand to suit themselves. It is hard to take in what that means —it leaves one incredulous. It means someone can sit in London or in Newtownards and order an organ to be provided on demand. Within a month they can have the operation. We need to control that, structurally, as other countries have, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is necessary to protect UK citizens from unwittingly playing a role in the horrifying suffering of religious or belief groups in China.
If, however, the Government are not willing to do that, I ask the Minister at the very least to be a friend to the Chinese Government and ask them and the WHO to engage with the China tribunal process in their own interests. Will he ask them to present clear evidence that shows that the Chinese transplant system is ethical, and that makes all the sceptical investigators, human rights organisations and legislatures feel very silly indeed? Perhaps there is some issue I am not seeing, but I simply cannot fathom why that would be a controversial or difficult request. It seems to be logical and sensible and absolutely what we should be doing morally. If China is operating an ethical transplant system, it should be jumping for joy to have opportunities to present the proof, or at least to relay it to the Minister to present to the House. If the Chinese Government are doing nothing wrong, there is absolutely no reason why the issue should be a sensitive one, or even require private diplomacy.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Although much of what we are rightly talking about concerns external pressure on the Chinese authorities to do what is right in the face of mounting evidence, does he agree that internal pressure could well be added to that? If the tens of thousands of Chinese tourists who come here and the Chinese students who study in further education colleges in the United Kingdom became aware of the extent of the problem, they could add to the pressure when they returned to the Chinese mainland. We know how Chinese authorities respond to internal pressure, but it would add to the external pressure and hopefully bring a satisfactory conclusion.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his salient and appropriate words.
I will quote the comments in the report, particularly the words of Sir Geoffrey Nice QC in the last paragraph:
“China’s totalitarian approach of exerting absolute control over its citizens often causes widespread criticism and concern while leaving many serious unanswered questions. Many of the linked concerns stem from the climate of religious intolerance that prevails throughout China. This has also been documented as being a key element of the campaigns currently being inflicted on multiple faiths and ethnic groups. These campaigns would, under most analyses, be described as bearing the hallmarks of genocidal intent.”
That is the seriousness of what we are saying here today. The report continues:
“The growing evidence of forced organ extraction in China, and the expert analysis of China’s transplant system is hard to refute or ignore. As, too, is the gravity of the threat of live forced organ extraction faced by prisoners of conscience in China. This is demonstrated by the China Tribunal making the unusual decision to issue an Interim Judgement.”
I referred to that earlier, and it is impossible to think otherwise. Sir Geoffrey Nice says:
“We should all, perhaps, reflect on how the oxygen of publicity given to the allegations made and supported to the extent they are by our interim judgment, may allow the real oxygen of life to continue life itself in some who might otherwise be killed. Such a conceivable outcome—slight as a probability, arguably remote but certainly possible—makes it not only appropriate for us to record our present certainty about the…forced organ harvesting practices but a duty publicly to do so. Doing so now may possibly save innocents from harm.”
In conclusion, when we add all those things together, they confirm why this debate is so important and express the viewpoint of Westminster Hall, our Minister and how we all collectively think. Let us give the Chinese Government a chance to clear its name proudly and publicly, and, if it should refuse that opportunity, let us not simply shrug our shoulders and move on, as others have said. We need to do something now.
Let us question this reluctance from China. Let us finally accept what all the evidence is telling us: that when it comes to organ transplants in China something is deeply, horrifyingly, morally not right. I put the issue before Westminster Hall for consideration and I look forward to contributions from right hon. and hon. Members; in particular, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I start by commending the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his impassioned, stirring and challenging speech. This is not the first time he has addressed the House on this issue and, sadly, I am sure it will not be the last. This is not the first time that I have addressed the issue of forced live organ extraction in China in this House, but again, it is unlikely to be the last; nor is it the first time that I have expressed my disappointment at the lack of attention to this issue from the UK Government—I say that with all courtesy to one of the most attentive and courteous Ministers in this place. It is also likely that it will not be the last time I express my disappointment at the lack of attention from the international community to an issue that cries out for such action.
Later on in my speech, I will be so bold as to suggest some specific action that could be taken to address a serious human rights concern, a crime against humanity and, if the information we are hearing is correct, potentially nothing less than a 21st century genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) implied in his strong intervention. Surely, at the very least, it demands further investigation at both UK Government and United Nations level.
Over the years, as we have heard, substantial research has been done on the issue of forced live organ extraction from prisoners of conscience in China. I have attended many meetings in this House, including with the Minister’s predecessor, and listened to the accounts of that research in countless meetings in Committee Rooms as well as in debates in this Chamber. The sheer numbers alleged are absolutely staggering.
As long ago as 2016 the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which I have the privilege of chairing, produced a report on this issue. We called it then:
“A form of genocide cloaked in modern medical scrubs”,
quoting Ethan Gutmann, to whom I pay tribute for his persistent work on this subject. We also quoted the first-hand testimony to us of Dr Enver Tohti, formerly a doctor in China, who gave evidence to our commission personally of having been forced to remove an organ from a live prisoner. He subsequently fled China and now lives in London, driving a London bus.
In this place, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission showed the horrifying film “The Bleeding Edge”, starring the brave actress Anastasia Lin. If the Minister and his officials have not seen that film, I urge them to do so. It showed in graphic detail a young Falun Gong woman being taken from prison and held down, screaming and without anaesthetic, while operators began the act of removing her organs. Let us make no mistake: once this lethal act is committed, the victim faces certain death. Indeed, that is how the film ends. It is a far cry from the voluntary organ donation we are used to in this country. That is why I do not use the term harvesting; as the hon. Member for Strangford has said, that is far too gentle a word for an utterly sinister act.
Yet, time and again, our Government give the same response to concerns expressed by Members of this House and of the other place on the issue of alleged forced live organ extraction in China. Just a few days ago, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon quoted the same response given in this Chamber in October 2016 when he said, in reply to concerns expressed by Lord Alton in a written parliamentary question on the issue:
“Although I do not doubt the need to maintain close scrutiny of organ transplant practices in China, we believe that the evidence base is not sufficiently strong to substantiate claims about the systematic harvesting of organs from minority groups. Indeed, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot conclude that this practice of ‘organ harvesting’ is definitely happening in China.”
That answer is simply not good enough.
Over the years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford, more research has been done on this issue. Most recently, as we have also heard, in December 2018, a people’s tribunal, the independent tribunal into forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China, was set up. Should not the very fact that that is being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC—a world-renowned lawyer and professor of law with decades of relevant experience who, among other things, led the prosecution of Slobodan Milošević at the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia—show that this issue merits time and attention at the most senior level of Government?
The tribunal has done its work. It has conducted days of hearings, it has heard evidence from some 30 witnesses and it is showing again and again that the evidence produced in the 2016 report by David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann, which I believe is 700 pages long and is entitled: “Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update”, must be looked into at Government level. In his recent oral evidence to the tribunal, Dr Matas emphasised that although there are problems with establishing exact data, sufficient concern has been raised for this issue to be investigated at the most senior level, both by Governments and by the UN.
The estimates in the report are so wildly different from the Chinese Government’s that they merit investigation. China’s central Government suggest that there are approximately 10,000 organ transplantations per year, but the research suggests that it may be as high as 60,000 to 100,000. In one hearing, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission heard of the size of the hospitals constructed to undertake these operations, pointing to a far greater number taking place than the Chinese Government’s official figures indicate.
Jim Shannon
We see hospitals on industrial scales; that is the magnitude of what the hon. Lady refers to. Those outside listening must grasp what we are looking at—industrial-scale organ removals from living people.
Fiona Bruce
That is a graphic description. Anyone who has seen an indication of these buildings has to be concerned about the scale of what is going on, and about the number of people disappearing. What is happening to those people?
Indications suggest that prisoners of conscience routinely have their blood type and DNA assessed, so that they can be made available for this tragic and sinister practice of forced organ removal. Indications suggest that specific groups are being targeted, such as prisoners of conscience and people of certain faiths, including Falun Gong, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and House Christians. This is religious persecution and a crime against humanity —the crime of crimes.
Witnesses have testified to the China tribunal that they have seen Falun Gong practitioners examined by doctors while other prisoners are not, then often disappearing from the prison without a trace. One witness, a Falun Gong practitioner herself, suggested that she was subject to the same thorough medical examinations as others but was diagnosed with a heart condition, so did not face the same fate. Presumably, because of her heart condition, she was deemed to be unfit to become an organ donor.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Lady is outlining in very graphic terms the extent of some of the problems. Does she agree that, for issues such as this, a huge amount of emphasis and onus rests on bodies regarded as reputable and reliable, such as the World Health Organisation? A considerable degree of responsibility rests on bodies such as those to respond to this emphatically, and to do their homework and research to ensure that they give a more accurate picture.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I raised that very point in a meeting with the Minister in Portcullis House. That must have been well over a year ago, yet nothing has been done to raise it with the WHO, as far as I am aware.
The China tribunal published an interim judgment confirming that it had identified several human rights violations, including breaches of the right to life under article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights, the right not to be subject to arbitrary arrest under article 9 and the right to be free from torture under article 5.
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend has such a passion for human rights. She is a real asset to this place, and I am privileged to intervene on her. When we hear about the selection of people to go through this process of forced organ harvesting, I am reminded yet again of the death camps. We hear about the WHO saying that the evidence does not demonstrate these kind of practices, which is reminiscent of the Red Cross turning up to the Nazi death camps and giving them a clean bill of health. We talk about the industrial nature of this practice, and that same industrial nature of the death camps meant that the Nazis could be so efficient in their hideous operation. Does she agree that all the evidence points to that taking place, and that we must do more to definitely prove it, and to take action?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is right. We condemn holocaust deniers absolutely. With all that is being done to raise concerns about this issue now, surely something must be done. To carry on—potentially—denying it is insufficient, inadequate and irresponsible. Let me reiterate: we are discussing the forced removal of organs in China, frequently from prisoners of conscience, which ultimately results in the death of the individuals subjected to this practice—a practice that amounts to manslaughter or, more probably in most cases, murder.
The speed with which organs can apparently be matched to those who request them, often from the west, is so swift—perhaps a couple of weeks. Matches in this country might take months, years or might never happen. There seems to be no other explanation than that organs are being removed to order. For donors to be available at such short notice seems virtually incredible.
The hon. Member for Strangford is right: organ tourism, as it has been called, has been banned by several countries, including Italy, Spain, Israel and Taiwan, and the Canadian Senate has approved similar legislation. We must do the same. It would send out a strong message of concern on the part of the UK Government. No evidence is needed for our Government to do so, if they are concerned about pointing to official evidence.
Far more Members in the House are concerned about this issue than will have the opportunity to speak today. Early-day motion 2138, which calls on the UK Government to ban organ tourism from this country, has been signed by 38 Members as of yesterday. That is a very high number to sign an early-day motion.
Andrew Griffiths
Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be an idea for the hon. Member for Strangford, herself and others to seek a Backbench Business debate on the issue, so as to better inform our colleagues? While 38 have signed that early-day motion, I am sure that, if the facts are laid before more Members, more will support our taking action.
Fiona Bruce
Indeed, I very much hope that, as a result of this debate, more and more Members will be concerned. It staggers me that so many people are silent in the face of such concerns. Is it because, putting it bluntly, contrary to contemporary mass atrocities, such as Daesh atrocities against religious minorities in Syria or Iraq, or military atrocities against religious minorities in Burma—now Myanmar—we do not have what might be called a smoking gun?
In the case of the Daesh genocide, we continue to find new mass graves. We hear from those tortured and raped; we hear from abused survivors. In the case of the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, we hear from people forcibly displaced to Bangladesh about the abuse that they suffered at the hands of the Burmese army. That is how we obtain the evidence to inform our actions to address such atrocities. But in the case of killing or murder by way of forced organ removal from prisoners of conscience in China, there are no such victims to tell their stories. That is because no one survives. It is almost a perfect crime.
Should that prevent us from speaking out? It should not. The continuing expressions of concern over several years should at least trigger red flags and stir the UK Government to, at a minimum, engage in a dialogue with the Chinese Government to inquire about those reports. Let me respectfully suggest that if the endeavours at dialogue fail, our Ministers should call for an independent UN inquiry. Surely, in all humanity, the time has come for that.
Should the challenge of the lack of evidence of mass graves faced by anyone trying to explore the truth prevent us from doing so? Should it prevent the UK Government from using their very considerable international influence to do so? Interestingly, I was at a meeting just last night with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who said that we underestimate in this country the respect with which our Government are regarded internationally—across the world.
Will we once again hear the phrase “never again” spoken with regret when eventually the truth comes out about this issue, as it surely will one day? It is not the case that nothing can be done. Our Government could inquire about the numbers of organ removals and their sources, as we have heard. They could reduce demand by banning organ tourism. If it becomes clear that the majority of organs do come from prisoners of conscience or Falun Gong practitioners, that in itself should sound alarm bells. If the Chinese Government do not want to co-operate with such inquiries, the international community must be engaged. This is not a case of a few voluntary organ transplants; it is a case of alleged mass killings through forced organ removal, of religious persecution, of grave allegations of crimes against humanity. It cries out to be addressed. Those who fail to do so will one day be held to account.
One step that the UK Government could take would be to proactively ensure that the UN investigate the alleged crimes properly. That could be achieved by way of a UN Human Rights Council resolution establishing, first, a UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in China and, secondly, a commission of inquiry to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in China.
If I may, I will be so impertinent as to read from two draft resolutions. I am sure that they are highly imperfect. I would be delighted if the Minister were willing to discuss them with me at some point after the debate and perhaps with others concerned about this issue. Let me explain what I mean. The draft resolution to establish a UN special rapporteur states:
“The Human Rights Council, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other human rights instruments, Reaffirming that all States Members of the United Nations have the obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms…Expresses its deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the People’s Republic of China…Notes with regret that the authorities of the People’s Republic of China have not created the necessary conditions to permit the international community, including the United Nations system, to examine these reports in an independent manner and calls upon the Government”—
of China—
“to address these reports and concerns in an open and constructive manner, including…By providing all pertinent information concerning the above mentioned issues and removing restrictions on access to the country by the international community”.
There is much more detail in the draft.
I will just quote briefly from the second proposed resolution, to establish a commission of inquiry. It states that the
“Human Rights Council, Alarmed by”
reports of
“the precarious humanitarian situation in the country”—
the People’s Republic of China—
“especially of religious groups persecuted because of their religion or belief, Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of the Government of the People’s Republic of China to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population, including by ensuring the right to freedom of religion or belief for all…Decides to establish, for a period of one year, a commission of inquiry comprising three members, one of whom should be the Special Rapporteur”.
As I have stated, the special rapporteur would be established by the previous resolution. The second resolution states that the Human Rights Council
“Further decides that the commission of inquiry will investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the People’s Republic of China, including…violations of…freedom of religion or belief, and enforced disappearances, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity”.
Will the Minister agree to meet me and others concerned about this issue to discuss what we have raised today? I believe that they are among the gravest concerns that have been raised in this House in recent times. Will the Minister agree that at the very least these issues merit further investigation by the UK Government and by the international community through the UN?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it and for the detailed and powerful speech that he delivered this morning.
I found it very difficult to learn about these graphic practices in China. I am simply appalled and disgusted by them. Credible research from multiple organisations, including the British Medical Journal, suggests that many thousands of people are being killed for their organs, particularly people in minority groups and most notably practitioners of Falun Gong—a peaceful, meditative practice—although Tibetans, Uyghurs and, potentially, House Christians have also been targeted for political reasons.
The allegations that Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans and Uyghurs have been victims of this horrific practice are well documented and strong. The international community has strongly condemned organ harvesting in China, and action needs to be taken to end this abhorrent and unethical practice. The UN special rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of religion or belief have both requested that the Chinese Government explain the sources of the organs and that they allow them to investigate. There has been no response.
I understand that the Chinese ambassador to the UK and prominent doctors in China who are involved in transplantation were invited repeatedly to give evidence, but they have not responded. That is deeply worrying. There needs to be accountability for these blatant human rights abuses.
My primary concern is that people’s organs are being harvested because of those individuals’ beliefs. The sheer discrepancy between the official transplant figures from the Chinese Government and the number of transplants reported by hospitals is alarming. Although the Chinese Government say that 10,000 transplants occur each year, hospital data shows that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted each year. Clearly, something does not add up.
Medical ethics are simply being put aside. An unregulated system exists in which organs are being delivered not to the most deserving recipients, but to the highest bidders. Furthermore, with the current situation of religious persecution and mass imprisonment of Uyghurs in re-education camps, it is clear that an independent investigation is required. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on that. I strongly advise the Government to follow in the footsteps of the European Parliament and the US Congress, both of which have called for an independent investigation. Several countries have already taken legislative action to prevent their citizens from taking part in transplant tourism.
Will the Minister provide urgent assurance that the British Government will step up their efforts to hold the Chinese Government to account for these blatant human rights violations? Will the Minister also urge the Government to condemn publicly and in the strongest possible terms any form of live forced organ extraction, and call for an end to the practice? The world’s silence on this barbaric issue must end.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to participate in this important debate, and I extend my warm thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. He set out a comprehensive and convincing case, as did other hon. Members, concerning forced live organ donation in China. We have heard from several hon. Members about the allegations of forced live organ extraction from prisoners in China. We have heard, for at least the past decade, about the alleged victims being members of religious and ethnic minorities.
Forced organ removal is when people are killed so that an organ can be removed—with the recipients being, apparently, wealthy Chinese people or transplant tourists who travel to China and pay substantial sums to receive transplants. The waiting times for such transplants are short, and it seems that vital organs can even be booked in advance. As the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, the China tribunal, which has investigated this, has issued an interim judgment stating that it is
“sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
We also heard that from the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). That is absolutely horrific and an affront to all that is decent. Quite frankly, it is the sort of thing that one would expect to read about in a science-fiction novel.
Around 2006, a report was published giving credence to the claims that the Chinese authorities were indeed removing organs from executed members of the Falun Gong. At that time, the Chinese authorities acknowledged that organs had been taken from executed prisoners, but only with their consent. However, the European Parliament disputed China’s official version of events and passed a motion condemning the state sanctioning of organ removal from non-consenting prisoners of conscience, including from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners who were imprisoned for their religious beliefs. The figure for transplants—we will probably never know the true figure—is somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000, as the hon. Member for Strangford set out.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Given that that first report was published in 2006, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK is 13 years overdue in calling for an inter-governmental investigation into Chinese practices?
Patricia Gibson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She tempts me to skip to that point in my remarks, but I will get there in due course. Her point is well made, and it has been made several times around the Chamber.
This barbaric, inhumane practice must end. As my hon. Friend said, the international community, including the UK—I hope that the UK will lead the international community on this, but I will settle for the UK being included—must leave China in no doubt about how repugnant this practice is to any country that has any sense of decency or places any value on the dignity of human life. There can be no equivocation, no excuses and no turning of blind eyes.
As the hon. Member for Strangford has pointed out, people are being treated like cattle. He gave us a comprehensive account of how utterly unspeakable the practice is. We find ourselves in a bizarre situation in which the World Health Organisation has declared organ transplants in China to be ethical, claiming that there is no cause for suspicion. I urge the Minister, as other hon. Members have done, to query and pursue that as a matter of urgency, since it seems to fly in the face of a considerable amount of evidence from the China tribunal, Geoffrey Nice QC and others. A number of hon. Members have expressed alarm at the World Health Organisation’s assessment, and I think that such a ruling undermines the organisation.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton, Italy, Spain, Israel and Taiwan have introduced laws banning their citizens from participating in organ tourism, with Canada working towards adopting similar legislation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what plans are in place to introduce similar legislation in the UK. Given that the UK has signed the Council of Europe convention against trafficking in human organs, forbidding the intentional removal of human organs from living or deceased donors, it is quite a small leap for the UK to forbid its citizens from engaging in organ tourism. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the Government are doing to take that small but extremely important leap. As the hon. Member for Congleton informed us, the UK Government and the UN must do more about the vast industrial scale of this horror and what can only be categorised as crimes against humanity.
The fact that Falun Gong practitioners are targeted in this way in China goes to the heart of the matter, as the hon. Member for Strangford has articulated, because an attack on freedom of religion is an attack on all freedoms. The right of all people to worship their God in peace, however they perceive their God, is a fundamental right. The threatening of that right endangers the very basis of freedom, in the widest sense, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out.
In June last year, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief produced a report, which found a signal lack of understanding and misperception of religion and belief among decision makers working within the UK asylum system. We need to understand religious persecution better and deal with it in an appropriately sensitive way. Decision makers in the UK asylum system need to have the appropriate training to ensure that they make the correct decisions, which are literally a matter of life and death to applicants seeking asylum.
There is no doubt that China exerts absolute and cruel control over its citizens, and that is something about which the international community is, and ought to be, exercised. The targeting of multiple faiths and ethnic groups has been characterised by some as the hallmark of genocidal intent, as the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who is no longer in his place, indicated. There are loud echoes of the evils of history.
The UK Government need to step up to their international and moral responsibilities, as does the international community. No one could fail to be moved and horrified by the evidence and the stories of forced live organ extraction. It is an outrage, and we must not be afraid to say so. International institutions and Governments around the globe must bring to bear as much pressure as possible on China. That is our duty, and it is what decency demands of us.
If any nation treats any of its people in such a cruel and despicable way, we need to stand with other free and democratic states and condemn it using the harshest and most unequivocal language that we can articulate. I look forward to the Minister telling us what influence and pressure his Government have exerted, and will continue to exert, on China in the light of this debate. I also ask the Minister what the UK Government will do to encourage greater action from the international community on this barbarism.
There is no doubt that China is an important and influential international player, but no state should be allowed to engage in such horrific human rights abuses simply because it is influential. We have an international duty to uphold human rights and values however we can. We can do more to effect change. It is time for the international community to do so, and the UK must play its part.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I should acknowledge that I had prior advice from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has just arrived, of a domestic emergency that prevented her attendance earlier. She has had a member of staff making notes throughout and I am sure that if she has notes for the Minister or for those who have called the debate she will deal with that afterwards. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I suggest, Mrs Moon, that if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) wanted to speak I would be very happy to hear her and then I will sum up on that basis. As she has just rushed into the Chamber she may not feel it is appropriate to do so.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am very sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on raising this important issue about which we are all extremely concerned. It overlaps with a debate we had a few months ago about the situation of the Uyghur people and the camps that they are in. That is where some of these activities are thought to be going on.
I have been concerned about the subject for some time. I think I first asked a parliamentary question about it in 2006, so it is a long-standing issue. As I was not able to be in the debate, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford and we look forward to hearing from the Minister about what he is going to do.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for giving me a mere 29 minutes to sum up on the debate. She was ably deputised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan).
This is a serious issue, so I do not want to be too light-hearted, but it is great to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate and for his birthday yesterday. There is also a birthday girl in the Chamber today: my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I am sure there was a misprint in The Times about the age.
Mark Field
There is clearly something in the water that gives these late March babies an interest in human rights. Both those hon. Members and others have raised major concerns about live organ extraction going back many years. I commend their characteristic dedication and welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) put on pressure when she said that we need to do more about the situation. We can work together with officials. I will set out the position, which I suspect may not be entirely satisfactory in the eyes of some of those who have contributed. As Minister, my commitment is to try and raise the profile of the issue internationally—not necessarily ramp up the pressure—because only when we work internationally can we make a genuine impact on the broader ethics of organ harvesting, as well as on the specifics about what we do with the WHO and other United Nations-related organisations.
In her brief contribution, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to broader Government concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang province, in north west China, and about wider reports about restrictions on freedom of religion and belief. Many Members will be aware about the Government’s extensive concerns about the situation in Xinjiang, which I discussed and debated with Members in this Chamber as recently as 29 January. There are credible reports that over 1 million Uyghur have been held in extrajudicial camps in Xinjiang and have faced a plethora of restrictions on their cultural and religious freedoms.
We also have substantial evidence of persecution of other religious minorities, including Christians, a range of Muslims from different sects, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners. They all face persecution and interference in their places of worship, their religious teaching and their customs. The UK Government are deeply concerned by the situation. In the last year no fewer than three different Ministers, including myself, have raised our concerns about human rights directly with our Chinese counterparts when visiting Beijing or at various international and public forums. At this month’s session of the UN Human Rights Council our Minister for Human Rights, Lord Ahmad, raised our concerns about Xinjiang in his opening address. The UK also raised the issue in our national statement and we co-sponsored a side event focusing on human rights in Xinjiang.
On the specific issue of Chinese state-sanctioned or state-sponsored organ harvesting, Members outlined concerns about the sheer number of transplants taking place in China, which far exceeds the publicly reported supply of organs available. Some have suggested that the reason for that must be Chinese state-sponsored and sanctioned organ harvesting. Others have alluded to reports that the supposed donors are held extrajudicially and murdered on demand to supply organs to wealthy Chinese and foreign patients. If true—we have to recognise that there has to be evidence—these practices would be truly horrifying. We need to properly and fully investigate such reports and allegations, and establish the facts.
It is certainly the case that China’s organ transplant policy and system is far from transparent, as we would understand it in this part of the world. We are also aware of the cultural sensitivities in China regarding voluntary organ donation, and that the number of registered donors is low.
Carol Monaghan
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing the debate. Does the Minister agree that the UK has a duty to update legislation—specifically the Human Tissue Act 2004—so that we can prevent UK citizens from travelling to China and participating in forced live organ donation, whether knowingly or not? The Minister has raised the issue of the doubts over what is happening. While those doubts exist, surely we must be doing more here to prevent people travelling to China.
Mark Field
I will come to the hon. Lady’s points later in my speech—there is a specific passage about that. We recognise that there are international comparators, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, which I would like to explore. I do not want to commit further than that, as I suspect it may be a Home Office or public health matter. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady have made very serious points about ethics, and I will come to them.
It would appear that, in the past, a significant proportion of organs were routinely taken from executed prisoners without prior consent. China committed to stopping this practice from January 2015. While this was an important and positive step, there are still fundamental ethical questions about the ability of condemned prisoners in China to give free and valid consent. Indeed, China’s use of the death penalty is itself a subject of great concern, not least because there is no transparency about the number of executions it carries out. Many NGOs assess that China executes more people than the rest of the world combined, but no accurate figures are available. We advocate against the use of the death penalty worldwide in all circumstances, including in China and a number of other countries, including close allies. We do not just condemn the practice, but advocate against it.
Members today have outlined concerns that organs are not only being taken from executed death row prisoners, but also from prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners, as well as other religious and ethnic minorities. Concerns have been raised that sometimes organs are removed while the victim is still alive, and without anaesthetic.
There is a growing body of research, much of which is very worrying. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned in his speech, one key source is the written analysis by David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann. My officials have studied their latest report carefully and consider it to be an important source of new information about China’s organ transplant system. It points out that it is extremely difficult to verify the number of organ transplants conducted in China each year, and to verify the sources of those organs. The report rightly questions the lack of transparency in China’s organ transplant system, but acknowledges the lack of incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing. The authors make it clear that they have no smoking gun, or smoking scalpel, to prove their allegations, so they are forced to rely on assumptions and less-than-rigorous research techniques. Some of those assumptions, particularly the statistical assumptions, came up in hon. Members’ contributions, but they are still assumptions. We have to work on the basis of rigorous evidence—obviously, we are trying to develop as big a body of that as we can. Those research techniques include having to infer the scale of the organ transplant system from hospital promotional material and media reports, rather than properly corroborated data sources.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Along with that evidence, which many hon. Members referred to in their contributions, is he aware of the report of the United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which referred to a clear evidential base? That might help the Minister when it comes to gauging and bringing together all the information. It recognises the outcome of the China tribunal in the investigations it has carried out. That wealth of evidence across the world—at home, as the Minister has referred to, and in the United States—cannot be ignored.
Mark Field
I am now aware of that report and I will try to learn more in our future discussions.
The Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann report was used at the recent tribunal organised by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, which was chaired by the eminent lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice, as has been said, and which my officials attended. Additional evidence considered by the tribunal was due to be published online earlier in the year. We are still waiting for it to be uploaded, but we are aware of the provisional findings, parts of which have been quoted extensively by hon. Members. We await with great interest the full publication.
From all the available credible evidence, it appears that China has not fully implemented its organ transplant commitments of January 2015. However, the World Health Organisation takes the view that, from its observations, China is putting in place a system of donation and transplantation that it regards as ethical and voluntary, and that allocates organs in a fair, transparent and traceable way in keeping with international norms and principles. The World Health Organisation shares that view with several of the world’s leading experts on organ donation and transplantation.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the WHO, the UN and international pressure. The WHO does not have a mandate or role to act as an inspector of whether new policies are being adhered to in China or any other country, but we will make it aware of the debate, of the new evidence and of the sources to which I have referred, as well as providing a copy of Hansard to illustrate the concerns that have been expressed. We also note with interest the work done by the tribunal, and the information generated so far. We do not want to duplicate that work, so we are keen to utilise the evidence when it is finally published.
The hon. Member for Congleton asked whether we could call on the UN to undertake an inquiry or push for a rapporteur on the specific issue. We are working closely with international partners in the UN Human Rights Council, and will continue to do so, on a range of human rights issues in China. That work has previously included calling on China to implement the recommendations regarding Xinjiang from the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and to allow the UN unrestricted access to monitor that implementation. Xinjiang is obviously a priority, but I appreciate that this is a separate issue, for which an increasingly important body of evidence is being amassed. I hope that, by working closely with the international community within the UN again, we can make genuine progress.
Fiona Bruce
Will that include liaising with the American roving ambassador for religion or belief who, in the last week, has expressed concern about human rights issues in China in strong terms?
Mark Field
I shall be delighted. I suspect my colleague, Lord Ahmad, will do that, but it makes a lot of sense, not least given our relationship in the United Nations.
We shall continue to scrutinise the situation carefully, and we welcome all new evidence. At present, however, our assessment is that there is not a strong enough evidential base to substantiate the claim, which has come up today, that systematic state-sponsored or sanctioned organ harvesting is taking place in China.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who was unfortunately unable to be present at the start of the debate, referred to the previous debate about the Uyghurs. I understand that there is an evidential base: some 15 million Uyghurs have had DNA blood tests for the compatibility of their tissue for organ transplant; nine crematoriums have been constructed in Xinjiang province, the first of which hired 50 security guards; and there is a dedicated organ transplant lane at a Uyghur airport. They are just some of the stories, but if they are not evidence of what is taking place, what would be?
Mark Field
There is evidence for deep concern, as has been demonstrated in the debate, but we believe that we are some way away from the notion of it being evidence that it is state sanctioned. However, I am well aware that the issue is now being looked at by a number of interested parties, to which I and the hon. Gentleman have referred. As I have said, we will work within the international community on the issue, which I think will raise the attention of many countries that have deep concerns about such matters.
The hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for North Ayrshire and Arran raised the separate but related issue of British citizens travelling to China for medical treatment—so-called organ tourism. We do not collect data on that and are not really able to do so, but we believe that relatively few people in the UK choose to travel to China for that purpose. As it stands, the British Government cannot prevent those individuals from travelling—I am sure hon. Members recognise that it would be difficult to police that and understand whether people had gone for that purpose—but it is important that we make them aware that other countries may have poorer medical and ethical safeguards than the UK, and that travelling abroad for treatments, including organ transplants, carries fundamental risks.
There is a broader issue about the sheer ethics of what we might call a free market in transplanted organs. This debate is an important staging post, although we have had debates in Parliament before. Health is one of the few attributes that some of the poorest people in the world have, and we find the notion that the rich world can take advantage of that an even bigger ethical concern. Travelling abroad, whether to China or elsewhere, is something that we want to work on with other countries. Where manageable legislation is in place that seems to be operating effectively, we should take it seriously.
I will come back to hon. Members with some thoughts about whether we feel legislation is practicable and can be introduced. I recognise hon. Members’ deep concerns, which reflect deeper ethical concerns about the notion of there being a free market for organs, and about the large-scale travel of British citizens to take advantage of that terrible harvest, although I do not think there is any evidence.
Patricia Gibson
I understand the Minister’s point about the difficulty of preventing people from travelling. I ask him—in his remarks a moment ago, he hinted at this—to consider that we pass a law preventing people from travelling for this reason and from being organ tourists. That would put our moral position on the map and set a marker, which is very important.
As the Minister says, we can look at what countries such as Italy, Taiwan, Israel and others have done and what measures they have in place to prevent their citizens from becoming organ tourists. Ethically, it is very important that we introduce such measures and it cannot be beyond the wit of any UK Government to put them in place.
Mark Field
I do not want to make any great commitment on this—I recognise that another Government Department may well have responsibility. We do not just want to put laws in place. We want to ensure they are effective. The worst of all worlds is to have legislation that is essentially bypassed in a straightforward way. Rather than making a commitment now that I end up having to backtrack on, I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I say that, given the depth of concern reflected by all Members, we will go back and try to look at things, particularly international comparators, to see how we can craft legislation that will be effective in the way that all of us would desire.
I conclude by taking this opportunity to reassure all hon. Members that, contrary to suggestions, our trading and economic relationship with China does not prevent us from having very frank discussions with the Chinese authorities, and nor does it affect our judgment on this increasingly important issue. We shall continue to engage with China on a full range of issues, including human rights. I outlined earlier the UK’s recent actions in the UN Human Rights Council and our vocal condemnation of the abuses perpetrated in Xinjiang. We shall continue to promote universal freedoms and human rights, and to raise serious and well-founded concerns with China at the highest levels.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I know that so much else that is going on crowds out interest elsewhere. It is great to see so many people in the Public Gallery, obviously recognising that these issues are close to the hearts of many representatives. Although it is perhaps understandable that much of the press coverage focuses on Brexit-related issues, a terrific amount of other work goes on. Many hon. Members—Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers alike—focus on that work.
As a Foreign Office Minister, I try to do my level best to keep working hard. I am afraid that a few conversations abroad obviously have a Brexit flavour to them, but there is also a sense that there is other important work to be done. Last week, I had two days away at the OECD in Paris, doing some very good work to stand up for the rules-based international order, and to work in relation to anti-corruption and integrity matters together with a number of other countries from across the world.
It is rather important that all of us utilise our energies in any way we can to address the important issues raised today, which I know we will come back to. I hope Members will work closely with the Government—with the Foreign Office and other Departments—to try to ensure that the terrible scourge of involuntary organ harvesting is, before too long, firmly in the past.
Jim Shannon
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which were very significant and helpful. I am particularly thankful to the Minister for his response. I never doubted that it would be honest, truthful and helpful, and I appreciate it. I understand the issues as we try to move forward, but I gently suggest to him that we need to use every avenue of opportunity we can to persuade China to stop what has been referred to as the industrial-scale removal of live organs.
Members have referred to the religious, ethnic and other groups across the whole of China that are affected: Falun Gong; Christians and House Christians; Uyghur Muslims; Tibetan Buddhists; and prisoners who are doing time for their crimes, but none the less should not have their organs removed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) was very helpful in her contribution, as indeed were all Members. It was said that there is no victim to tell their story except for the person who found that they had a heart defect and therefore were unsuitable for a heart transplant. There is some of the evidential base.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who spoke for the Scottish National party, suggested that this was like something out of a science fiction novel. It is not. It is worse than that—it is real life, or in this case real death.
We are all deeply indebted to you, Ms Moon, for chairing the debate. I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part, and to the audience who have attended today—a significant number of people are here.
We are here for one purpose. We want to see change, we want to see accountability and we want to see the removal of live organs for transplant stopped. We want China to grasp the urgency of the issue. The Minister referred to murder on demand, which we can never sanction. We urge the Chinese Government to realise that and draw back.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered forced live organ extraction.
Royal Commission on Police Funding
(5 years 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
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a Royal Commission on police funding in the 21st century.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Moon, and it is excellent that I am three minutes ahead, so we have 33 minutes for this debate. I am delighted to have secured the debate and to see the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service in his place. I am sure that his father is watching Parliament with great interest, but I will not go on about that.
The purpose of the debate is to implore the Government to implement a police royal commission. The last one was in 1962, which was before the Beatles; it is that long ago. It was the time when Elvis Presley was in his pomp, but this country has changed quite a bit since then, to put it mildly. In the ensuing 57 years, some elements of policing have remained the same—for example, there are 48 forces, all of which are very independent—but much else has changed. Governments of all complexions have made a few piecemeal adjustments here and there. Funding has gone up and down; it has been feast or famine. Now we are in 2019, and the vista for crime-fighting and the police force is completely different from how it was 57 years ago.
The idea of having a police royal commission has been around for about seven or eight years. My view is that over the last year or so, it has really begun to gain traction. The public understand it, and more than 370,000 people have signed a petition on it. In Parliament, there is growing cross-party support for it. In total, 51 MPs—from, importantly, all the different political parties—have signed my early-day motion. My objective in calling on the Government to establish a royal commission is not partisan, because I am absolutely certain that in this Parliament, in particular, anything partisan has absolutely zero chance of happening. My whole approach is to make this cross-party call; to engage with the different representatives of the police forces, from the national Police Federation to the superintendents to the Association of Chief Police Officers; and to engage with the media.
This is all about securing a royal commission, but why? I have talked about how it is 57 years since the last royal commission reported, and crime has changed so much in that time that I am not even going to labour the point—the Minister knows about that very, very well. In those days, we did not have cybercrime or the supranational, global crime that we are dealing with today. Equally, on a basic level there have been significant changes in how the police deal with crime. The Minister will be aware that research tends to indicate that the fêted bobby on the beat does not make a huge difference in driving down crime. He will also be well aware that there are good reasons why the public like to see police on the beat, so that they feel secure. The job of our police forces is to serve us and the public, and to ensure that the public feel secure.
To be blunt, in today’s climate, morale within the police is, as the Minister knows, perilously low, and it has been for the past couple of years. I do not want to say that it has never been lower, because that sounds like grandstanding.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. About 25 years ago, I served as a policeman in Greater Manchester police, which last summer ran a scheme that enabled MPs to go and experience what it is like. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that things have changed; things have changed since I was a police officer, and we can see that even more clearly if we look further back. How can we engage more Members so that we can go ahead with his good idea?
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, particularly as he used to be a police officer. His intervention is really useful, because he has hit the nail on the head. To make the idea work and to put enough pressure on the Government—they have one or two other things on their mind at the minute—we need to grow the number of Members who back it in Parliament, and grow it in the media. We have a good support base of 51 Members. I was talking to some peers last night, and we are looking to push this in the Lords as well. To me, it is self-evident that policing has transformed, and that policing needs have completely changed in almost 60 years.
As I said, the changes in police forces have been piecemeal. It is difficult for politicians today to understand what the real issues are, because so many different groups give us different ideas and solutions. Only a week or so ago, we had the Prime Minister saying that the cuts in police numbers bore no relation to the increase in knife crime, and the following day the Metropolitan Police Commissioner saying that they did.
I am not making a political point. I believe we need this royal commission because the public yearn to have a group of independent experts—not politicians or the media, but people from policing around the world—taking evidence from a whole range of groups. On a royal commission, such people would be recognisably independent and expert. Using the evidence that was given, they could assess what was fact and what was fiction. I use those words advisedly, because when I and other politicians try to understand policing issues, be they about resourcing or about what we ask the police to do, one problem is that we are told so many different things.
I am not an expert. Unlike the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), I have not been a policeman.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In my police force, a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about already happens. The force is already changing how it delivers police services; for example, there is a much bigger emphasis on rural crime. I am not sure how a royal commission would link into that, and what effect it would have on our very different constabularies.
Stephen Lloyd
That is a moot point, but the hon. Gentleman’s intervention reflects precisely my point: we can no longer have piecemeal changes, with one force doing one thing and another force doing another. A lack of consistency is at the heart of the problem of poor morale within police forces and a lack of engagement, support and trust among many of the public.
Let us take the numbers. Our ratio of policemen and women to members of the public is the third lowest in Europe. I do not know whether that is acceptable; perhaps it is, or perhaps we should have more, or less. The point is that it is incredibly difficult for politicians and the Government to understand accurately the needs of modern-day policing and what the resources should be. That is because when it comes to policing and resources, there is so much noise, and so many noises off, from the different interest and lobby groups, and we must draw a line.
No one in the Chamber can fail to recognise that policing and crime have changed so much in 57 years; we know they have. With a royal commission, we want to get the politics out of it. Policing is too important—I will not even get on to police and crime commissioners; that is for another day—for politics. Politics goes straight through policing, from top to bottom, be it about resourcing—too much, or not enough—or what the police should and should not be doing.
I think I am offering the Government an opportunity, because I believe that if a Government, of whichever kind, set up a royal commission properly and robustly, the public will be grateful to them. The findings and conclusions of such a commission will set policing for the next 40 or 50 years. Because of the respect in which a royal commission is held, the public will listen to it and believe what it says in its report. That is crucial, because all the spin, disingenuousness and vested interests around policing mean that the public do not know who to believe. They do not believe us any more, and I do not blame them. What the hell do I know about policing?
As it happens, I have family members in the police and I work closely with the force in Eastbourne, which is brilliant. I was out with Sergeant Scott Franklin-Lester only a few months ago. After four hours, in which he arrested two people, I said, “I hope your mum doesn’t know how dangerous your job is.” I asked that excellent police sergeant for guidance and advice, and his feedback was really helpful and productive. I am not going to drop him in it, but his feedback reminded me how huge the issue is, and that there is a lack of consistency and public trust, as well as low morale in the police. It seems to me that a police royal commission, which I am convinced would get wide cross-party support, is one answer.
Afzal Khan
At its heart, the matter is complex, and things have moved on. The Home Affairs Committee has said that the
“current model for police funding is not fit for purpose”.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that relying on council tax is a particularly unfair way of raising that funding, because areas that have been hardest hit by cuts will raise the least funding? There are clearly complex areas that need to be considered, and a royal commission would be the right way forward.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention on that specific point. I have a lot of respect for the Select Committee. However, he identifies, as did the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), that there are many different issues around funding, resources and what we want our police to look like over the next 40 or 50 years. That is why, in my campaign to get the police royal commission off the ground, I am deliberately trying not to pinpoint specific problems. I know them and I see them, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is absolutely right. But I do not simply want the Government to fix one issue, and then next year—or in six months’ time, after Brexit, if we are not in “Groundhog Day”—fix another little problem. As the hon. Member for Henley has quite rightly pointed out, for example, his own force recognises that rural crime is an issue, so it has fixed it. I am saying, “Stop.” We need to draw a line in the sand.
We need to get the right people on the commission. We need them to take evidence for, say, a year, from all the vested interests and from people with opinions, be they representatives of police forces, academics or possibly even politicians. Following that, we need to come up with a report that, depending on what we want for 21st-century policing and what areas we want to focus on, shows us the resources and the number of police officers required to keep the public safe. That would allow the public—and the politicians, but in this instance the public are key—to give real buy-in to what the commission propose, and also to our police force. I am not going to use clichés: our police force is highly respected as one of the best in the world, and the public have a lot of time for it, but I am concerned that that is fraying. That is wrong for the men and women who are in uniform out there, trying to keep us safe, and it is also wrong for our country.
It is absolutely crucial for the Government to make this decision while we are still slightly ahead of the game. A royal commission would not cost a ton of money—it is not a Chilcot report, or anything—or take an awful lot of time, but it would make a huge difference to the value that the public will put back into our police force. Most importantly, it would improve the police’s delivery and their capacity to fight crime. I urge the Government to recognise that a royal commission is going to happen; I am sure of it. With respect to the Minister, I know why the Government will push back: the line will be, “It will not be for a few years. We need to do something fast.” I do not know about the Minister, but frankly, I am pretty fed up with every Government bringing in new changes to the police here and there, and continuing with that piecemeal process. Let us get this done properly.
A royal commission would mean that other things, such as the excellent rural initiatives, stop. I think, however, that it would be worth the 18 months or so that it would take to put a commission together and compile a report, and the two or three years it would then take to roll out its conclusions. Let us prove to the public—particularly at the minute, with Brexit—that we are not just focused on short-term fix and mend; let us get this one right. If the Minister puts his name to a royal commission, I am sure that he will be much loved and appreciated across the length and breadth of the country, and that such a commission will have an enormously positive impact on our police forces, our public, and, most importantly, fighting crime in all its different forms. Let us not wait another 20 years; the time has come, and I urge the Minister to push the forward button now.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on having secured this debate, and on presenting a good case in an extremely beguiling manner. He has promised me the love and admiration of the nation if I accede to his request; he took me back in time to 1962, and he mentioned Elvis, but obviously the most important feature of that year is that it is the year I was born. He did his very best to beguile me, but he has not entirely persuaded me of his case. However, since we are in the mood for finding common ground, let me establish some, because it is important.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are recognised as having one of the best police systems in the world, and that the public still have relatively high levels of confidence in the police. He is right to point out that the public are increasingly concerned about crime, and are, I think, primarily unsettled by the terrible cycle of serious violence; that is not just an urban issue, but is deeply unsettling for everyone. The hon. Gentleman is also right about his fundamental point: we are working through a period of profound change in the nature of crime, the risks to public safety that we are trying to manage, and the nature of the demand on the police and the resources available to them. He did not mention this, but one of the defining features of our age is the growing power of technology to do both good and evil, and the make-up of our country’s communities and the cultural norms and attitudes that underpin them also continue to change fast. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the fundamental power of the seventh Peel principle:
“the police are the public and the public are the police”.
All of those are fundamental truths, and arguably the core challenge facing any Government or police leadership at any time.
We are living through a process of accelerated change, but I wholly support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell): the police are managing that change. There are ways in which we can improve, but just as the country and crime are changing, so are the police. My local police force, the Met, is unrecognisable from what it was 10 years ago. A lot of rubbish is talked about the police and their attitude to change, and some people have fallen into the trap of talking about them as one of the great unreformed public institutions. The police are managing a huge amount of change in what they do and how they work.
John Howell
The point that I was trying to make was that if we compare Thames Valley police with the Metropolitan police, for example, they are completely different organisations tackling different sorts of crimes. I wonder whether the differences in the make-up of constabularies are now so great that a royal commission would not be able to work across all those different activities.
Mr Hurd
That is a valid and important point. I understand the temptation to say, “There are lots of difficult things going on and there is a need to take a long-term view, so let us ask some sensible people to take some time, go away and talk to people, and think about this.” My concern is not just that which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley expressed, but that a royal commission feels like a rather outdated and static process, given the dynamic situation that we are in.
The practical point is that we are approaching an extremely important point in defining the future of policing in this country, which is the next spending review. We cannot be certain, because we live in uncertain times, but the Chancellor has indicated that all being well with Brexit—I know that is a big “if”—that will be a summer for autumn event. For me, that spending review is the next critical point for shaping the immediate future of policing in England and Wales, and there are some things that we just do not need royal commission advice on.
Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Eastbourne talked about resources and officer numbers. If we cut through all the smoke, fire and political heat, there is cross-party recognition of the need to increase the capacity of our police system. We can argue about how fast and how far, but the Government and Labour Front Benchers recognise the need to do that, and we are moving in that direction. Next year, as a country we will be investing £2 billion more in our police system than three years ago. Police forces up and down the country are recruiting more than 3,000 new officers, in addition to staff. It is not only about increasing investment and officer numbers, but about looking hard at how police time is managed, the power of technology to free up time and internal demand and external demand, not least of which are the demands of looking after people on the mental health spectrum. A huge amount of work is going into looking at how we can increase capacity through increased investment and looking again at how the valuable time of frontline officers is used. We do not need a commission to help us in that critical work.
Afzal Khan
The commission being proposed has a lot of weight. In a sense, two fundamental issues make the difference: the ability of people to move around and the ability to communicate. That has opened up a world of things on the crime side in terms of how criminals operate across counties and internationally, on the internet and through fraud. It would be helpful to have a commission to look at the totality and to help us have a police force that is fit for the 21st century.
Mr Hurd
I understand the point, and I will address it, but my point is that I am not sure that a royal commission is the right solution at the moment for addressing some of the challenges that we know about. We have the capacity among the Government, the political process in this place and police leadership to work through them ourselves. I mentioned the spending review, and that is the major opportunity in the short term. We must not lose sight of getting it right or be distracted by the idea of royal commissions.
We are working closely with the police to look at demand and cost pressures and to ensure that the bid into the spending review is properly informed. With the police we are working through the question of how much further we can go in making the police more efficient and productive on behalf of the taxpayer. We are looking at the balance between crime prevention and the reaction to crime. We are looking at how we can give better support to frontline officers, because it is clear that we can and should do that. We are looking at system issues—issues that have rolled down through the ages, but that continue to be relevant, such as the balance between the centre and the local, the question of how we build and deliver national capabilities and the fundamental question of how we learn from the past for the next stage of upgrading police technology across this fragmented system.
How do we develop more consistent standards across the fragmented system? How do we do a better job of spreading innovation and best practice? Some of that best practice is frankly brilliant, but it exists in pockets. How do we ensure that it is spread across the system? How do we ensure that the fragmented system takes a more systemic approach to tackling some of the perennial problems that it faces? How do we ensure that we allocate resources in the fairest possible way? Those are challenges that we know we have to address, and we are working together with the police to do so. I simply am not persuaded that a royal commission will help those things in the immediate specific context, but I will come back to the point. First, I will give way to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is a great supporter of the police.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for eloquently setting out the challenges facing the police. Will the Minister give us a little more information on the points he was making? I am aware of the work Tom Winsor is undertaking with forces as they go through their assessments of what crime demand will look like in the coming years, with a view then to look at the resources required to match that. What might the timeline and the process be? However we approach having to meet resources in the future, that information and analysis will be important.
Mr Hurd
The hon. Lady is superbly informed and passionate about policing. She makes a good point and illustrates something I was trying to capture: the degree to which the police are changing and responding to challenge. The challenge to police leadership from Her Majesty’s independent inspectorate was, “You don’t do a good enough job of anticipating and managing future demand.” That sounds critical, but we know the reality. Police leadership is stretched in dealing with the demand in front of it.
The challenge from the inspectorate is that we need to do a better job of anticipating future demand, and the instrument was the force management statement. There were some grumblings and criticism at the start of that process, but every force complied with it. The inspectorate handled that process very well. We have all our first force management statements in, and we are now into a second iteration of that process. That is a good example of where the police have recognised the need for change, prodded by external eyes and external challenge. The system is now working together to improve on the first iteration, and I am encouraged by that.
I recognise the clarity of the argument made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and I understand its drivers. I have tried to explain why I am not persuaded in the short term that a royal commission is the answer to some of the challenges we have to work through with the police in the immediate context, which is the critical spending review. We have to get that right, because it will shape the future of policing for the next three to five years.
I want to close on a more constructive and positive note. Looking at the history of police reform in this country going back centuries, it is striking that the same questions are always asked. They tend to come back to, “What is the right balance between the centre and the local?”, “Who are the police accountable to?”, and, “How do we strike the right balance between law and order and the protection of individual liberties?” Then there is the fundamental question of, “Have we got the right structure of policing?” That tends to come back, as it has over the years, to the question of, “What is the right structure in terms of the number of police forces?” If we look at the length of history, we have come down from 200-odd forces to 43, and the question whether it is the right structure is still being asked.
The reality is this: the system has real strengths in local accountability and ensuring that local police forces are attuned to local need and accountable to the residents and citizens they serve. The hon. Gentleman spoke about piecemeal reform, but I would argue that the reforms to the police system since 2010 have not been piecemeal. They have been extremely significant, not least the introduction of police and crime commissioners to further sharpen local accountability. That is a real strength in the system that the public understand and respect, but the reality—it is heard from every police audience—is that the system is extremely challenged by the current environment of policing, not least because more and more crime simply does not respect borders, because it is either online or physically runs across borders, such as county lines. The fragmented police system struggles with this environment of rapid change. Although a lot of change is going on, it is driven at a slow and unsteady pace across the system, and the police recognise that.
As it has been over time, the whole question of whether this is the right policing structure continues to be valid, and it will continue to be asked. I happen to think that we can do a great deal to make the system work smarter, and that is one of my major priorities, but the political reality is that no party—Conservative, Labour or any other—has a mandate from the British people to take a big-bang approach to restructuring policing, even if it wanted to. I have no doubt that whoever is in power, we will come back to the question whether we have the right structure to combat modern crime and modern demand on the police as the police evolve, as we understand it through the police’s own understanding and as we build capability in the system to look ahead a bit further, which is one of my priorities. In that context, there may well be merits to and an argument for an independent look at that.
Stephen Lloyd
I have to intervene otherwise the debate will run out of time. All I will say in answer to the Minister is that the fundamental thing the police royal commission would give, which we lack, is trust for the public.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Personal Independence Payments: Merseyside
(5 years 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
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the administration of personal independence payments on Merseyside.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I welcome the Minister, who has been, though is not at present, the Minister for Disabled People. As a former Minister for Disabled People myself—I served for an entire Parliament, in fact—I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight a worrying deterioration that I have noticed in the administration of disability benefits in my constituency.
Personal independence payment is meant to help people with the extra costs of disability, and is payable regardless of income. None the less, many sick and disabled people who apply for it and receive it are often unable to work, tend to be poor and find it difficult to make ends meet. Many have chronic fluctuating conditions, and are very ill or very disabled. PIP is therefore usually, in my experience, an essential component of enabling people in such situations to live a decent and dignified life. It is a crucial benefit, which is all the more reason to get it swiftly and correctly to those who are entitled to it.
According to the House of Commons Library, since 2010 some £4.8 billion has been cut from disability benefit. Indeed, the introduction of PIP and the replacement of disability living allowance, its predecessor benefit, was intended from the start to cut entitlement to make it less generous, and to create monetary savings in the escalating cost of DLA. The expected savings of £3 billion a year have not materialised, but the Tory Minister in the Lib Dem-Tory coalition who introduced the benefit in 2013 said that PIP would be
“easier to understand and administer, financially sustainable and more objective.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 463.]
“Financially sustainable” means, in this context, cheaper in terms of the overall spend. That means cutting entitlement and awards when we get down to the circumstances of individuals.
Since PIP’s inception, administrative problems have been to the fore. In its first seven months, only 16% of the targets for resolving claims were met. The National Audit Office was critical, suggesting that the Department for Work and Pensions should
“set out a clear plan for informing claimants about the likely delays they will experience”.
I wish it had, because my constituents are increasingly experiencing delays, and I do not see any plan to stop them. Ever since PIP was introduced, constituents have complained to me about the way in which they have been treated when being assessed, the delays in the process of administering it, and subsequent reconsiderations and appeals. Whatever the outcome of the original assessment, it is hard to find people who are satisfied with the administration of the benefit.
Recently I have noticed that things are worsening. For the previous two years, until last December, I had a stable, steady number of cases coming through, spread over the months. I have been able to help with some cases and not others, but the flow has been pretty steady. However, during the first three months of this year my office has faced a threefold increase in complaints about PIP, and some of the circumstances my constituents relate to me are simply horrendous.
There are a set of different problems. For example, I hear about inappropriate questions at assessment, so that when people are disqualified from the benefit they consider the process completely unfair. Asking somebody who is debilitated by mental illness whether they can pick something up off the floor just does not seem relevant to that individual. In my experience, home assessments are rarely allowed, and when people cannot attend, usually for genuine reasons, they are simply disallowed the benefit.
I have one constituent who has been trying since December 2017 to be assessed. He has been refused, despite many debilitating conditions, including severe schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There are physical and mental reasons why he cannot attend an assessment centre, but PIP administrators simply will not attend him at home. He has been unable to get to the 11 face-to-face interview assessments he has been set. Consequently, his last DLA payment, which was received in the middle of last year, has long since expired.
My constituent has lost employment and support allowance as a consequence. He has now lost almost £5,000 of income, and is financially reliant on his extremely elderly and disabled mother for the basics—all because he cannot get to an assessment. Why on earth can they not assess him at home? It is ridiculous that he has been asked to attend 11 times when he clearly has problems doing so. Why can we not have some common sense?
In addition, there are poor assessments and a poor attitude from assessors. My constituents report that they are often simply not believed. Some feel sneered at, and some are right to feel that way, from the accounts that I have heard. Inaccuracies in medical assessments mean that sometimes the reports that are produced end up bearing no resemblance whatever to what has been said at the face-to-face interview, and my constituents tell me that they feel as if a completely different case and person has been reported on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I reflect on the hon. Lady’s opinions regarding PIP? I am very involved in this matter in my constituency back home, with the changes that there have been. Does the hon. Lady feel, as I always have, that it is important that the assessor or officer who comes out to visit the person in their home, or takes them to an office for interview, has knowledge of the medical circumstances of that person? Also, when it comes to mental and emotional issues, does she agree that it is important to have someone there to support the person being assessed—perhaps as a witness as much as anything?
Maria Eagle
I agree with both those points. A lack of understanding and basic common decency sometimes seems to creep into these assessments.
I also have vulnerable constituents who are being prevented from getting help in explaining their situation to assessors. For example, I have a constituent who has a brain stem tumour, among other physical conditions. Perhaps not surprisingly, her mother was with her at the assessment. However, she was told that her mother could not answer any questions for her, despite the fact that my constituent has significant difficulty in processing information because of her condition. That goes completely against the PIP assessment guidance, which says that
“companions may play an active role in helping claimants answer questions”.
I have constituents who were prevented from having that kind of help and, perhaps not surprisingly, thereafter had their PIP stopped because it was felt that they had not answered the questions appropriately.
There are extremely long delays in assessments, reconsiderations and particularly tribunal dates for appeals. It is hard to justify the fact that the average waiting time for PIP is now 15 weeks. That is almost four months. It is completely unacceptable to make disabled people, who rely on that money to make their lives a little easier, wait so long for a first payment.
Reconsiderations are a necessary step to be gone through, but they almost never overturn the original decision. In my recent experience, I have not come across a single case in which that has happened, even when it is blindingly obvious that that is the point at which what has gone wrong can be put right with the least possible damage. Surely the purpose of the reconsideration stage is to apply a little common sense, but these days it just seems to be a way of wasting another two or three months, during which the individual does not get their benefit.
The wait for a tribunal is the killer. On Merseyside, the average wait is more than nine months, but I know of people who have waited for 12. It is an absolute scandal. How can the Government or the Minister possibly justify treating vulnerable, sick and disabled people in such a callous and horrendous manner?
I have also come across many reports of compassion fatigue among bureaucratic and indifferent contractors who are paid to assess vulnerable and desperate people. Compassion fatigue is not a new phenomenon, but it seems to be rife these days. It was reported in the newspapers recently that a DWP official had submitted papers to an appeal tribunal in which they referred to the appellant, a disabled person, as a “lying bitch”. How revealing of their attitude is that? Yet there is not much evidence of fraud in claims for these benefits: according to DWP figures, it represents only 1.5% of the total expenditure. That figure is put into context by the heftier 4.2% of total expenditure on making up underpayments to people who have not claimed their full entitlement—one can hardly argue that there is a huge problem of fraud that we need to crack down on.
Let me give a few examples of cases in my constituency that illustrate my concerns. Some people’s benefits have been stopped, quite unfairly, when they have fallen foul of overly bureaucratic practices that take no notice of plain common sense and that apparently cannot be put right without the lengthiest process imaginable, causing extreme hardship and pain. I have a constituent with kidney disease who attends hospital weekly for dialysis. She was diagnosed with a very painful and severe complication of her condition and was treated for it as an in-patient. When she got home after being discharged last July, she was exhausted, disoriented and in severe pain. She was expecting a district nurse to attend her at home to change a dressing, but her carer was confronted at the door by someone who claimed to be a health professional, but who—sure enough—seems in hindsight to have been sent by the DWP.
The “medical professional”, who was turned away by the carer because my constituent was in no fit state to be seen, appears to have had a compassion bypass. Instead of being given another appointment at a more convenient and sensible time, my constituent had her benefit stopped last August because she was said to have refused to be interviewed. Not only was she in no fit state to be interviewed, but she had received no letter. Even if such a letter had been sent, she had been in hospital for weeks and was very poorly, so she certainly would not have seen it. Why on earth was another appointment not made as a matter of plain common sense? Her request for a reconsideration last October was refused. What is the point of having reconsiderations if we cannot reconsider a case like that?
My constituent applied for a tribunal hearing in December—given her very poor health, it took her that long to navigate the process of filling in all the required forms. For three months, she tried to make the best of things, but she came to see me last week asking how long she would have to wait for an appeal. As I have said, and as the Minister may know, the average wait on Merseyside is 38 to 42 weeks, so I had to tell my constituent that she might have to wait another six months before the matter could be resolved. I have no doubt that the decision would be overturned at a hearing, as happens in 75% of the cases that get that far.
When I asked my constituent how she was doing, she told me that she had no money for food. Her weight had reduced to just 6½ stone. On the day she came to see me, she had eaten two slices of toast—one for breakfast and one for lunch—and was planning a main meal of a bowl of soup. I would normally offer food bank vouchers to a woman in that condition, but my constituent has a special diet because of her dialysis, so she could not have eaten what a food bank would have given her. She was able to take advantage of Can Cook, a charity in my constituency that stepped in at my request to provide some fresh food commensurate with her dietary requirements—but most people do not have Can Cook in their constituency.
I happened to bump into the Secretary of State, so I asked her who I should write to about this scandalous case, given that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has resigned as Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and has not been replaced. The Secretary of State got her officials to sort it out within two days, which is excellent, and I thank her for it. My constituent has been reassessed on higher rates of care and mobility than those from which she was disqualified, and she will receive full back payments this week. Thank goodness she came to see me, but she did not see me for 10 weeks—and what about those constituents who have not come to see me and who are suffering in silence and despair at home? What about those who are too vulnerable to get out to see me, particularly those who are debilitated by mental ill health and are struggling on with no money and no food?
Jim Shannon
I am quite moved by what the hon. Lady says. Many of us know of people in similar circumstances. At my constituency office, three people in 10 days came to see us who had fallen off the radar—no one knew about them. Their issues were clearly mental and emotional. Does the hon. Lady feel that someone in the benefits system should be following up on people who have been refused benefits? That would be a method of finding out what is happening to those people.
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is correct. One would have thought that the reconsideration would introduce an element of plain good sense, but it does not seem to be working in that way at present. There is a general issue with how the debility caused by mental ill health is not well recognised or sympathetically dealt with in the system. People who are debilitated with mental ill health often find it even harder than people who have physical disabilities to face up to filling in the forms and getting themselves organised to get some help, so they are even more vulnerable.
PIP has less generous criteria for its mobility component than DLA, because it is designed to save money: people are required to be less able to walk than under the older benefit system. Because PIP is the gateway to one of the world’s most innovative and practical disability entitlements —the world-leading Motability scheme, one of the best things that makes disabled people’s lives easier—problems in its administration hit recipients particularly hard. For many of my disabled constituents, access to a Motability car is a lifeline—it makes their lives liveable—yet in the last two years, the DWP’s own figures show that 44% of people who were getting the higher rate mobility component under DLA lost their entitlement under PIP. Of those who are being reassessed from the DLA higher rate mobility component to PIP, only 53% got the equivalent of the enhanced rate. The other half either got the lower rate, and therefore lost their car, or got no mobility component at all.
People naturally appeal when they lose so much, and they are entitled to do so. PIP appeals accounted for 52% of all social security and child support tribunal receipts, and 73% of PIP appeals succeeded. Too many people who should appeal do not; they put up with the loss of income and the hardship because they cannot cope with the process. For people who first joined the Motability scheme before 2012, the car has to go back once the benefit has been gone for 26 weeks. However, the average wait for a tribunal on Merseyside is nine months, which means that people’s cars have to go back even if they win the tribunal, as 75% of them do. What is the point of taking away a disabled person’s car only to give it back again? Is it any wonder that people feel messed around? They have been messed around. I have a number of cases where people have quite wrongly lost their Motability car. When they finally get to appeal, they get it back. Why mess them around in the first place?
One constituent has lost her car and is awaiting a tribunal hearing—she will have waited almost a year by the time she gets one. I tried to have her case expedited with the Courts and Tribunals Service, as I have with a number of others, as this young woman has to make three or four journeys to hospital, in different directions, to different hospitals every week. She and her parents, who are fairly low-paid workers, used the car to get her to those hospital appointments. Her journeys cost £17 per journey in a taxi, multiplied three or four times a week. When her mother came to see me, they were starting to decide which hospital appointments to go to and which not to go to. I asked the Courts and Tribunals Service to expedite the hearing, and it was put in front of the judge—that is the first time I have got that far—but he said no, so she will have to wait until this summer.
The Mayor of Liverpool has a mayoral hardship fund, with millions of pounds that were raised through the invest-to-save arrangements, which was supposed to be about improving the Merseyside economy. He now spends all of that fund supporting poor people, and the young woman now has her taxi journeys paid for. That is the only reason she is still able to attend her hospital appointments.
The Minister must recognise that there is a severe problem here, at the very least in the length of time it is taking to get appeal hearings, and in the way in which people are being messed around in the interim. The people who benefit from PIP are some of the poorest, most vulnerable and most disabled people in our society. They should not be being put through the mill to get their basic entitlement to an extra benefit. I hope the Minister will be able to show us that the situation is going to improve in future.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on a powerful and passionate opening speech. She has addressed the injustices and spoken up on behalf of her constituents. We know that disabled people and those with long-term health conditions are much more likely to live in income poverty and significantly less likely to be in employment, and that they face barriers to participating in wider society and therefore to being able to lead active and independent lives. Personal independent payments and their predecessor, the disability living allowance, can be a lifeline for disabled people and their families, but, as my hon. Friend set out, all too often our constituents come to us in a state of great distress, having encountered an array of difficulties during both the application and assessment process for PIP.
The feedback from my constituents and from organisations working in my constituency is much the same as that set out so fully by my hon. Friend. Claimants say they have little trust in the application process; they find it unfriendly, distressing and opaque. They experience difficulties completing the application forms and understanding the basis on which they are being assessed. Many say that the staff conducting the assessments for Atos and Capita frequently lack the expertise to make accurate decisions on claims involving a wide range of mental and physical health conditions. Claimants often find that their assessment reports include basic factual errors and omit relevant details, and they are therefore ultimately a misrepresentation of the assessment.
I want to highlight the case of a constituent who has schizophrenia and a personality disorder. She struggles with every aspect of daily life, including maintaining her tenancy and her home, paying essential bills and maintaining a relationship with her son, who is in care. Because of paranoia and panic attacks, she is not able to use public transport, but she is physically healthy. In her assessment, she was able to perform activities such as standing up from a chair and touching her toes, and she also told the assessor that she occasionally went jogging to support her mental health. As a result, she was awarded nil points. She was also refused PIP at the mandatory reconsideration stage. My experience of reconsideration is much the same as that of my hon. Friend—very few receive a reconsideration that results in a different decision.
On appeal, my constituent was represented by my fantastic constituency caseworker at the tribunal. She was awarded the standard mobility rate and the enhanced daily living rate of approximately £400 a month, which is a life-changing amount of money for her. However, during the period when she was not entitled to PIP, she was forced to use food banks on several occasions. She was unable to visit her son because she could not afford to pay the taxi fares. As my hon. Friend set out so clearly, it simply takes too long for appeal decisions to be made.
As we have already heard, the latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that the average time to appeal a PIP decision successfully has more than doubled since 2014-15, to a national average of 31 weeks, while the average time is longer for the Liverpool tribunal venue, at 38 weeks. Those delays force some of our most vulnerable constituents into isolation and destitution. They are left struggling to pay for food, rent and bills. Indeed, benefit delays and changes are the main reason why people are referred to food banks on Merseyside, and the Trussell Trust has warned repeatedly that benefit changes are forcing people to turn to food banks, as I know from my own experience volunteering at the North Liverpool food bank at St John’s church in Tuebrook. I pay tribute to the selfless and dedicated individuals who work at food banks across the city, and across the country.
My constituency of West Derby has a PIP claimant rate of 8.6%, which is the 13th highest PIP recipient rate of all the constituencies in Great Britain. The case of my constituent is by no means unique; we have heard the cases cited by my hon. Friend. I am struck by two observations—first, the high proportion of claimants who are eventually successful in winning their PIP appeal and, secondly, the particular difficulties faced by individuals with mental health issues.
As my hon. Friend said, around three quarters of all PIP refusals that go to appeal in Liverpool are successful. That appeal rate comes as no surprise to me, my casework team or charities in Merseyside, who have worked tirelessly to help local people receive the support they are entitled to. I thank the numerous organisations across Merseyside that support our most vulnerable constituents to navigate the complex benefit system. I mention in particular St Andrew’s Community Network in north Liverpool, and Merseyside Welfare Rights, now known as the Merseyside Law Centre.
I anticipate that the Minister will say that decisions are overturned because claimants submit more evidence at appeal stage than they did earlier. I appreciate that that is a factor, but surely something is fundamentally wrong in the system when the figure for successful appeals is so high. We need to look at both the assessment and reconsideration processes for reform.
I finish by saying something about the disadvantage and challenges faced by people who are struggling with mental ill health when navigating the PIP process. For those who have mental health issues, the assessment process can be a doubly challenging experience, with the stress of undergoing an assessment exacerbating existing health conditions. Research by academics at York University released earlier this year found:
“Overall, claimants with a psychiatric condition were 2.4 times more likely than a claimant with a non-psychiatric condition to have their existing DLA entitlement removed following a PIP eligibility assessment.”
Mental health conditions are very common among PIP applicants, but our benefit system appears to continue to discriminate against people with mental ill health. We have a long way to go to achieve parity of esteem in the social security system for physical and mental health.
Today I received an example from one of the charities working on behalf of my constituents. It has
“been supporting a gentleman who is coming to us for life coaching. He had previously been awarded High rate DLA for life due to his injuries from an accident in work, his mental health & Type 1 diabetes. He had to go to an assessment for PIP and…made to walk the whole length of the building to the assessment room even though he asked her if there was a closer room as he was struggling only to be told no and to hurry up!!! He said the interview was very rushed…he felt really uncomfortable and made to feel like he was making his illness’s up. He wears a monitor on his arm”—
because of his diabetes—
“so his blood sugar’s can be read constantly and when the report was sent it stated he had a gadget on his arm but not sure what it was,”
even though he had explained that during his interview. The charity’s letter continues:
“He then received a letter stating that he was going to be getting a drastically reduced rate as he didn’t need special care and that his mobility was fine so he would also be losing his mobility car. The report also stated his pain medication was moderate!! Did the examiner have the medical knowledge & Qualification to make that assumption?
He has since slipped into a total depression and on our last coaching session he just sat and cried and said he didn’t know why he was even bothering. He hasn’t had the enthusiasm to see his 3 young boys, which he used to see daily on the school run. He is terrified that once the car is repossessed he won’t be able to see them at all as they have recently moved.
He has sent off a mandatory reconsideration with the help of us and PSS however some people don’t have this support and wouldn’t know where to go for this kind of help. This process has totally turned his already unhappy life totally on it’s head and his self harming is more apparent than I have seen in the last 12 months.”
The letter finishes with the rhetorical question:
“Why when a person was awarded DLA for life should they have to be reassessed???”
As the local charity said to me today in an email, this story has a number of policy implications. They include the question of reassessment when an award had previously been made for life; the way that interviews are conducted and how that leaves claimants feeling; the perceived lack of appropriate medical qualification, especially in complex circumstances such as the example that I have described; and the eventual reconsideration on appeal, which, in the words of the local organisation,
“will end up costing a fortune and is likely to reverse the original decision.”
Time and again, the PIP process lets down some of our most vulnerable constituents. As a result, trust in its administration is in desperately short supply. I hope the Minister will listen to these concerns and the example cases we raise through our speeches, so that we can work together to ensure that in the future we have a PIP system that really works for all disabled people.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here, although I wish we did not have to discuss this extremely difficult issue. I pay tribute to my sister and hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and other colleagues who are here to talk about this important issue. I want to spend a bit of time relating what is happening with personal independence payments on the other side of the River Mersey, on the Wirral. For the Minister’s interest, I will mention five cases. I will give him a letter with the more important details, and I hope that he will help me to deal with the three that are outstanding.
Wallasey is 25th in the table of PIP cases and our authority, Wirral Council, is 22nd out of 380 local authorities for volume of such cases. Within Wallasey, what are known as psychiatric disorders were the most common reason for claiming PIP, which is why I associate myself with all the points made so far by my hon. Friends on how cruel and disruptive the stress people are put through when making claims is. Psychiatric disorders include anxiety and depression, learning disabilities and autism, and 36% of people who make claims for PIP in Wallasey belong to that group. The system should take much more account of the effects that the process is likely to have on those who are already suffering from mental illness or depression, or who have learning disabilities that mean they cannot—even with the best will in the world—operate effectively in the kind of system that the Government’s PIP reforms have placed them in.
The second most common reason for awards was musculoskeletal disease in general, which includes osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis and chronic pain syndrome. In Wallasey, waits at the Birkenhead tribunal were 33 weeks, but as of two weeks ago that had risen to 38 weeks—that is nearly 10 months, on average, to get a re-assessment and an appeal. Some 73% of appeals found in favour of the claimant by the end of last year. That is what the statistics say. Once more, we see the same pattern of extremely and unacceptably high, and increasing, waits for access to tribunals. It is close to a three-quarters success rate for people who appeal. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) in saying that we worry about those who do not make claims, do not come to see us at our advice surgeries, and are suffering an often catastrophic loss of income in silence when we can see that they might well be entitled to support from the PIP benefit.
There are some general themes about how Atos Healthcare runs the contract for PIP assessments. I will go through some cases—I will not use names—and then spend a bit of time pointing out the themes that worry me the most. Constituent one has a benign brain tumour, epilepsy, short-term memory loss, anxiety, mild depression and an adjustment disorder. He has had brain surgery and will need to have it again in the future. He has regular seizures, which cause loss of awareness, perception and consciousness.
On 10 January he had a reassessment, which was carried out at his house, although, funnily enough, it was not requested that it should be. He has received DLA, carer’s allowance and mobility for the past 15 years, but in this assessment he scored only six points, despite medical evidence stating that he needs help at home. There were also discrepancies between the points scored and the information in the report. Medical evidence states that he cannot prepare food or clean himself without supervision, but his PIP assessment report states that he can do both unaided. He was recorded as being able to carry out complex budgeting calculations because he recognised a £5 note. The assessor recorded him as having good eye contact and focus, despite the fact that he was crying and shaking throughout the interview. There is no mention in the report of this man hurting himself and other people in the middle of the seizures that he has regularly. It was emphasised that he is not safe alone either inside or outside the home because he is a risk to himself and others. Despite my constituent showing the assessor some of his injury marks from seizures, which were not mentioned in the report, and his doctor’s letter that references them, he had reductions in his benefit that leave him and his wife £578.20 a month worse off.
Constituent two has 95% hearing loss, agoraphobia and anxiety and has been on DLA for 17 years. Because of her severe anxiety she asked for a home assessment, having previously had severe panic attacks when she attended the jobcentre. It was initially refused, but I intervened and a home assessment was granted. At the assessment in September last year, a sign language interpreter was not provided. Her father sat in the interview and asked if he could write the questions down for my constituent so that she would know what was going on, because she has 95% hearing loss. The assessor refused to allow that, claiming my constituent was making it up and could hear the questions. The assessor terminated the interview early, and the DWP claimed it had no knowledge of my constituent being deaf, despite the fact that she had been claiming DLA for her disability for 17 years. The Department must surely have known that. In February this year my constituent received a letter stating that her PIP claim was terminated because the interview ended early. It was the assessor who terminated the interview and the DWP did not think the fact that she could not hear was a good enough reason. She has now been without benefits for almost a year.
Constituent three received a wheelchair from the local NHS service because her mobility and health was declining. She was advised to apply for PIP as the wheelchair she was fitted with does not fit in her car and she is unable to get around independently as a result. In the assessment she stated that she could walk for only 10 to 15 metres, but the assessor recorded her as having the ability to walk for 50 metres. The assessor also failed to record other issues with mobility and health that my constituent mentioned. The incorrect information meant she did not score highly in the assessment and as a result was not awarded PIP. The case has gone for mandatory reconsideration and she is waiting to hear back.
A couple of issues have been resolved now. Constituent four has had multiple sclerosis for 30 years. He was diagnosed with secondary progressive MS in 2003. He received DLA and qualified for higher rate mobility. Yet at his most recent assessment for PIP in November last year he lost the higher rate mobility component and was worried that he would lose his Motability car, which has been specifically adjusted to allow him to drive to work. He has an electrical stimulator in his leg to help him move, and he uses crutches, which means he has tennis elbow and carpal tunnel syndrome, and he has lost fine motor skills in his right hand. Despite that, the assessor said that he could use crutches and so his hands were fine.
Despite not seeing my constituent walk more than 15 metres at his assessment, the assessor claimed he could walk between 20 and 50 metres with aids. My constituent provided 13 letters of support from medical professionals, including neurologists and consultants, but despite all that and despite having multiple sclerosis, which is a deteriorating condition, it was decided he needed less support, not more. After I wrote to the DWP and raised his case with the jobcentre, his mobility component was reinstated last month, but it took four months. Just think of all the anxiety that my constituent suffered as a result, none of which helped his condition.
Constituent five was on PIP enhanced daily living from 2005 and received the mobility element because he has epilepsy. He has depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and cancer in the pituitary gland. He asked in advance of the assessment if it could be recorded because he has problems with his concentration and memory. He was told by the DWP that it would not provide a recorder and it would accept only a double tape machine, such as the police use. At interview the assessor wrote that he was relaxed and coped well when he was actually anxious and upset, and he was crying because he had to attend the assessment on his own as his family live in Northern Ireland. The assessor listed medicines that my constituent does not take and omitted medicines that he does take. He was also not warned that as a result of his claim being reduced he would lose the enhanced daily living component and the ESA enhanced disability premium. Consequently, he struggled to manage to live and feed himself. A reconsideration took place relatively quickly, thanks to my intervention, and the benefit was reinstated. Having heard about such cases, the Minister must surely see what is going on.
Assessors are not adequately prepared for the assessments that they must do. For example, sign language interpreters are not provided, but the assessor carries on with the interview regardless. The DWP claims it is not aware of someone’s major hearing loss when it has been paying DLA for hearing loss for 17 years. It takes no extra care to ensure that the constituent involved can have a fair assessment.
Over and again, the process is demeaning and dehumanising. It is a grossly unfair system. It is flawed and uncaring and puts people through the mill. Recently the Disability News Service put in a freedom of information request and although the DWP said it would be too expensive to produce figures for all the claims, it did produce figures for a sample of 100 cases. In 97 cases decisions were made without the DWP making any attempt to seek further advice or clarification from Atos, despite ongoing complaints about assessors’ inaccuracy and omissions since PIP was introduced in 2013. That must be why so many appeals are successful. All the relevant evidence is considered a second time around, and it is hard not to come to the conclusion that claimants are assumed to be lying if assessors do not record things accurately. Are targets set by the DWP or by the organisations that have the contracts for knocking people off disability benefits such as PIP?
There seems to be a pattern of behaviour not being caught by how the system runs, and it causes some of the most vulnerable people in our society massive amounts of distress. It deprives them of the money that is not only their entitlement, but which they rely on to live and to afford the basics. It does not give them any chance to appeal until an average of 10 months have gone by, often leaving them destitute. We ought to be able to change the system to take account of the very important and special needs that some of the most vulnerable have. I hope the Minister will accept the envelope containing the three outstanding cases that I mentioned in my speech and I very much hope we can get a resolution for them sooner rather than later.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this important debate, and I agree with all the comments that she made. The situations recounted by my hon. Friends who have spoken today echo the experience of my constituents.
My constituents’ experience of PIP is marked by gross unfairness and sometimes blatant deception. The assessment system itself is not fit for purpose, and there are too many examples of clear disregard for claimants. Sometimes, reports do not reflect the interviews that have taken place. I want to highlight the experience of my constituent, Mr A, a highly intelligent man who has undertaken skilled work over many years, despite a long-term and permanent disability caused by serious illness in early childhood. He has faced many operations. His Motability car makes it possible for him to work. It is his lifeline.
My constituent’s PIP assessment sought to remove his enhanced mobility benefit, which meant that his Motability car would be withdrawn, resulting in the loss of his employment. The decision was reached five years after his previous award, although he had been informed that it would not be revisited for 10 years, in view of the ongoing nature of his disability. He was distraught. At his mandatory reconsideration he was unsuccessful, and I supported him in pursuing his case to a tribunal. In preparing for that, my constituent uncovered evidence that the report submitted by Atos for the mandatory reconsideration was not an accurate record. Indeed, it was fabricated. It was simply an exercise in cutting and pasting from the earlier failed assessment. No separate examination had taken place.
Confronted with that clear evidence, the DWP withdrew its threat to remove Mr A’s car, reinstated his enhanced mobility award and restored the original commitment to a 10-year assessment period, in view of the ongoing permanent nature of his disability. The tribunal was cancelled. I was delighted with that result, but I was, and remain, appalled by my constituent’s experience and by the knowledge that he was put under such stress. I was outraged to hear that the report that was to decide about his future and his health was simply made up. It is disgraceful that that could have happened, and it was only my constituent’s diligence that unearthed it.
There are wider questions, however. How many similar injustices have taken place, and how many of those went unchallenged by people without the knowledge or resilience to pursue the matter? My experience suggests that there are many such instances. It is not good enough. The questions for PIP eligibility are not framed to elicit the correct information to describe the claimant’s condition effectively. Sometimes the reports that are drawn up do not reflect the assessments that were done, and sometimes, as in my constituent’s case, they are simply made up.
I see many constituents who make representations about the withdrawal of benefit. I see injustices too often, and I see too much suffering. Sometimes people pursue their claims to a tribunal and often they win, but as we have heard this afternoon it can take nine to 12 months for a tribunal to take place, and by that time many of my constituents have become destitute—and what of those who do not appeal? It is time that there was an investigation of the assessment procedure for PIP. That investigation should include the reliability of the assessors. The DWP appoints Atos and Capita, which act in its name. It is the Government who are ultimately responsible.
I know that the Minister will be concerned to hear the example that I have cited, and those given by my hon. Friends. I call on him to act, and to investigate the whole process. It is a matter of justice.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing the debate, and on her speech.
Personal independence payment has been debated in this House on many occasions. Members have highlighted their constituents’ experiences and the failings of the system in their constituencies. The fact that we are here today yet again highlighting the failures of the PIP system and the resulting impact on our constituents speaks volumes about the Government’s inaction on the issue. We already know that there are too many people being denied the support that they need. We need only look at the figure of 28,000 mandatory reconsiderations of benefit decisions taken by the DWP, or the fact that the Ministry of Justice cleared nearly 21,000 benefit appeals in the quarter leading to December 2018. The figures for mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are even more staggering when we consider the rates of success: 89% of mandatory reconsiderations in January 2019 led to a change in the DWP’s original decision, and 73% of appeals were decided in favour of the claimant in the quarter leading to December 2018. It is clear that people are being denied the support that they need, not because of their own actions but because of a systematic failure at the heart of the Government’s welfare reforms. The success of claimants in challenging the decisions taken by the DWP highlights that clearly.
As I have said, the Government’s inaction is shameful and impacts negatively on the lives of ordinary people every day. There have been repeated calls for action, from charities, third sector organisations, parliamentarians, claimants and even the United Nations. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions made some key recommendations in its 2018 report on PIP and employment and support allowance assessments, including that face-to-face assessments should be recorded, and that claimants should be provided with a copy of the assessor’s report. Another recommendation related to using contractual levers to improve contractor performance. Yet claimants are still being denied access to assessors’ reports and most assessments pass with no record of the proceedings. Private companies such as Atos that hold contracts for PIP and ESA assessments in both Scotland and Merseyside continue to make profits while denying vital support to claimants.
I am pleased that there is now a commitment that the next Labour Government will ban the outsourcing of public services for vulnerable people to companies such as Atos. We should be looking after the vulnerable, not penalising them so that private companies can turn a profit. In preparation for the debate, I looked at the statistics produced by the Library about the administration of PIP on Merseyside. I was struck by how much the Merseyside situation resembles that in my constituency. Liverpool Walton, Birkenhead and Knowsley all have higher PIP claimant rates than most constituencies and the overall rate for Merseyside is higher at 7.1% than the UK rate of 4.4%. The figure of 5,040 PIP claimants in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill contrasts sharply to the 3,700 average per Scottish constituency. A majority of PIP claimants in Merseyside were reassessed from disability living allowance, as were a significant proportion of claimants—46%—in my constituency. In Merseyside, the percentage of awards decreased following reassessment is higher than the national average, and that is also true of the rate in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, compared with the Scottish average. We are twin towns. It is clear that the people of Merseyside are, just like my constituents, being let down by the Government. The next Labour Government will end unfair PIP assessments and invest in proper support for vulnerable people across the country.
To conclude, I would briefly like to refer to the situation in Scotland. Members will be aware that the Scottish Parliament is due to take responsibility for 11 benefits, including PIP. The Scottish Government have established a new agency, Social Security Scotland, which will be responsible for the administration of those benefits.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. We must relate the debate to Merseyside at all times.
Hugh Gaffney
It is still related to Merseyside, Sir Edward. The point I am trying to make is that the Merseyside connection is the same as the Scottish connection. We can see that there are no Tory or Scottish National party MPs here to stand up for their constituents as I am doing. There is a twin connection between Scotland and Merseyside. In 2024 the SNP will get that administration of benefits—but they have rejected it just now.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this important debate. As a former Minister for Disabled People, she is well aware of many of the issues and barriers that disabled people face. I mean no offence to the Under-Secretary of State, but it is appalling that to date we still do not have a Minister for Disabled People, given that it is nearly two weeks since the former Minister resigned. However, given that the Under-Secretary is, himself, a former Minister for Disabled People, I am sure he will address some of the concerns that have been so eloquently raised by many of my colleagues.
My hon. Friend raised some important points, and highlighted the dire situation in her constituency. She started by mentioning the increase in complaints about the personal independence payment, and said that in the last three months alone, there has been a threefold increase in appeals. There are multiple issues and problems with the assessment framework, beginning with the lack of provision that means that people who require a home assessment are not given one. Inaccurate assessment reports are provided by assessment providers, and many individuals who are assessed do not even recognise what has been written. Some providers do not comply with guidance that allows supporters to be in the room to contribute to the assessment or support the person they are with.
The most important point, which was highlighted by many hon. Members, was the delay in PIP award decisions, and the long time that people have to wait for appeals. One person had to wait more than 12 months for an appeal, and the average is more than 36 weeks, which is not acceptable. There are a high number of mandatory reconsideration cases where decisions are not overturned. That stage was introduced by the Department to help get the decisions right, but that is not happening, as demonstrated by the number of assessments that are overturned when they arrive at tribunal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) referred to a culture of indifference among assessment providers, and other Merseyside MPs made strong cases and represented their constituents well. Frankly, however, they should not have to come here, plead, and bring forward their cases. It is great that we can do that, but the Department should be getting those decisions right in the first place. The problem is that that is not happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) highlighted the experiences of his constituents who have been turned down for PIP. Those decisions are often overturned at tribunal, but in the meantime people are left destitute and have to turn to foodbanks, which cannot be acceptable. We also heard about the experiences of those living with mental health distress, which we know causes untold problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) highlighted the experiences of her constituents; in her area people wait an average of 33 weeks for an appeal, and more than 70% of those decisions are overturned at tribunal. She highlighted five cases, and in each one the decisions made were wrong, and people were left financially worse off. The personal independence payment is supposed to help meet people’s extra costs, but if those costs are not being met, what happens to the lives of those individuals? We should be supporting ill and disabled people.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is deeply moving and troubling that so many people’s lives are affected in this way by what appears to be poor quality administration by some staff in the Department. I realise that civil servants are under intense pressure, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is perhaps a need for much greater training to try to avoid the terrible problems of delays and people having to resort to foodbanks?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. If one is going to intervene, it is normal courtesy to be present for most of the debate beforehand.
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend makes a valid contribution to the debate, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside spoke about the assessment frameworks and providers, such as Atos, with which there are countless issues.
When PIP was first introduced, make no mistake, it was a cost-cutting exercise. The Government wanted to cut expenditure and the disability living allowance case load. However, that has not happened, and the Government have spent £4 billion more than anticipated, despite thousands of disabled people losing out on vital support. I frequently hear from disabled people from Merseyside to Merton who have been pushed into destitution by the poor administration of PIP.
Earlier this month, the Liverpool Echo covered a case of a lady whose epileptic mother had been left penniless after her PIP was suddenly withdrawn. In Merseyside, as in the rest of the country, disabled people are suffering because of the fundamentally flawed PIP assessment framework. Thousands of disabled people on DLA have been denied vital support when reassessed for PIP as a result of the assessment criteria.
There is no better example of that than the changed criteria for those who claimed the enhanced mobility component. Under the DLA, a person qualified for that component if they were unable to walk 50 metres, but under PIP that has reduced to 20 metres. That has impacted on many people who received the higher rate mobility component and who had access to the Motability scheme. Indeed, 51,000 disabled people have lost their Motability vehicles, as have those who challenged decisions, and who then had to get their vehicle back when the decision was overturned in their favour. One lady who wrote to me said that having her car taken away was like “losing her independence”, which is unacceptable. Why will the Government not take note of such experiences, and understand that the criteria must change?
We know that 72% of PIP decisions brought to tribunal are overturned, which demonstrates the appalling inaccuracy of the assessment framework and the poor decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey highlighted, in her constituency 76% of appeals are overturned, and disabled people are forced to wait on average for nine months, or 36 weeks, for cases to be heard.
In the past year, the Ministry of Justice has spent £104 million administering social security and child support tribunals. The Government have spent more than £1 billion on outsourced contracts to assessment providers such as Atos and Capita, which have repeatedly failed to meet the Department’s own quality standards. A survey by the Disability Benefits Consortium found that almost two thirds of people claiming PIP felt that their evidence was not taken into account by their assessor. Recent figures released by the DWP show that more than 3,500 people died within three months of being denied PIP. Does the Minister agree that there is no stronger indictment of a failing system than thousands dying after being deprived of social security? When will he finally recognise that it is time to bring those assessments back in house and end the outsourcing?
The DWP is currently carrying out seven reviews into disabled people being wrongly deprived of social security, and four of those are due to the unfit-for-purpose PIP assessment. Most recently, we learned that the DWP is conducting a review into 4,500 people who were on DLA but wrongly denied PIP. In 2017, the tightening of the criteria for those experiencing psychological distress was ruled by the High Court as “unlawfully discriminatory”. That led to a review of 1.6 million people’s PIP cases.
We have heard that Liverpool City Council is introducing a support scheme, but it should not have to do that. I urge the Minister to think about overhauling the assessment framework for PIP, rather than merging the assessment frameworks for PIP and ESA. It is time for a radical overhaul of the system, because PIP has created a hostile environment for disabled people—the very people we should be supporting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I understand that we are waiting for a permanent Minister for Disabled People, but in the meantime—I am sure it will not be long—it is a great honour to be here. I formerly served as the Under-Secretary with responsibility for disabled people, but the role has been significantly enhanced. It is an extra pleasure to be here in the enhanced role, albeit temporarily.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). We met just last week about a separate case, and we had a debate earlier this year, I think, on a similar topic. As a former Minister, she has genuine feeling and passion for supporting the most vulnerable people in her constituency, backed up by her genuine knowledge about this issue. I am happy to look at the cases that hon. Members have raised. I will take that envelope—I can see that it is ready. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). There was a common theme: it is clear that they all genuinely care about vulnerable people who rely on people like us—the decision makers—to get it right. Although I did not necessarily agree with everything they said, I understand why they made those comments.
The PIP assessment is meant to be high quality, objective, fair and accurate, and it should focus on the fundamentals of living an independent life. Today we spend somewhere in the region of £55 billion supporting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. In real terms, that is about £10 billion higher than when we first came to office in 2010. That is about 2.5% of GDP and 6% of all Government spending. It is an incredibly important area of Government expenditure. There are just over 2 million claimants on PIP, and many more are coming into the system or are due to do so.
Currently, 31% of PIP claimants access the highest rate of support. That contrasts with just 15% under DLA. I do not wish to diminish any of the points that hon. Members made—I will cover many issues about which we still need to do more—but we must remember that the system has come a long way from the old legacy benefit. One thing that is consistent among all stakeholders and charities that I speak to in my current role, and that I spoke to formerly when I was the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, is that nobody advocates going back to the old DLA system.
Under PIP, 45% of people with autism spectrum disorder will have the highest rate of support. For motor neurone disease, the figure is 85%. For multiple sclerosis, it is 53%, and for Parkinson’s, it is 55%. Many hon. Members rightly spoke about mental health. Under PIP, 31% will get the highest rate of support. Under DLA, only 6% did, so under PIP five times as many claimants with a mental health condition will access the higher rate. That does not mean that we are getting it right all the time, but there has clearly been a significant and much-needed improvement. In cash terms, the average claimant is getting £15.04 a week more on PIP, compared with DLA.
Justin Tomlinson
Yes, it is an average, and we are highlighting cases. I will come on to that.
The old DLA system relied solely on self-assessment. For many claimants, the very complex DLA forms were a barrier too far, and people who were in genuine need of support were missing out. Although the lifetime awards were seemingly attractive, they missed the point that many people enter the benefit on a lower rate of support, because conditions can get progressively worse. People on a lifetime award were often told, “If things deteriorate, please contact us for reassessment.” People often did not, either because they did not want to risk losing their benefit or because they did not appreciate that getting a reassessment could work to their advantage financially. Bear in mind that one in three claimants’ conditions changed so significantly within a year that they could be due a change in those circumstances, and the majority would be higher.
Ms Angela Eagle
The Minister is making a case for the benefit, but nobody is arguing that it is fatally flawed. We are asking for the assessments to be more accurate, because they are causing problems. He is making a case about conditions that deteriorate, but I have brought to his notice cases of people with deteriorating conditions whose awards have been lowered.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. May I just make one point? This debate is about the administration of personal independence payments on Merseyside, so we want from the Minister talk about administration and Merseyside.
Justin Tomlinson
It is important to set out the overview of where we are. That is why it was so important to highlight those cases in Liverpool and Merseyside, which shape how we do the administration. All our work is done in conjunction with stakeholders that have frontline experience. Hon. Members highlighted the excellent charities and support groups in Liverpool and Merseyside, which are feeding in. They are right to challenge, shape and help us implement the changes. I have seen many cases in which their frontline experience has brought to our attention common sense that should be applied. That has been done, but that work is not complete. I do not know all the details of the examples that hon. Members highlighted—sometimes there are two sides to a story—but presumably their offices have looked into the cases extensively. There are clearly issues that need to be looked at. Hon. Members have my commitment that we will look at those cases very carefully.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister says that he will look at those cases, of which there are many, but does he recognise that there is a significant problem? We have had a snapshot from just one part of the country—Merseyside—but we know that there is a wider issue with the administration of PIP. Does he recognise that?
Justin Tomlinson
We always recognise that there is a need for improvement, and we continue to review all the processes—not just PIP, but all parts of Government activity. It is right to do that, and I am sure any party in government would make the same commitment.
Some 92% of claimants complete the forms, but that still leaves 8% who have challenges with them. We have already tried to make improvements by changing the language, tone and style, and shortening the paragraphs. We commissioned further independent research to support further changes. For those 8%, ahead of further changes, we can grant an additional two-week extension. We try to identify vulnerable claimants whom we may have to help with the initial application. With the support of charities and stakeholders, we have produced videos to explain the process. We are trying to make it clearer and remove claimants’ understandable anxiety. For claimants who have severe mental or behavioural conditions, learning disabilities, development disorder or cognitive problems and who cannot engage with the claims process, we will try to offer what support we can, beyond the excellent work of local organisations, which has been highlighted.
Many of the concerns that hon. Members raised were about the assessment process. We encourage help from carers, family friends, social workers or local support workers. I am really disappointed to hear the two examples from Liverpool and Merseyside of people who were trying to provide that support, which would have resulted in a better quality assessment. That should not be happening, and we should look into it. That is an incredibly important part of the process—not just because people are anxious or because demonstrating all their individual challenges is a complex process, but because for some people, particularly those with long-term health conditions, their issues have become a given. They no longer see those issues as a challenge and do not raise them, so they do not get the support that they should be getting. It sometimes takes having someone with them to say, “Actually, that isn’t right. We need to do something.”
Maria Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way—it is a bit hard with twins. He said he was disappointed to hear the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and I gave of that going wrong, but can he explain what he is going to do to stop it happening? It is a fundamental problem with administration.
Justin Tomlinson
I will come to that. Fear not; I have woven in as many of the answers as I could.
The average length of time for assessments is now 15 weeks, and it has actually fallen. Initially, in July 2014, when it was at its worst, it stood at 42 weeks, so it has fallen by two thirds to 15 weeks. We got it down to about 13 weeks, but feedback from stakeholders and charities suggested that it was better for assessments to take a bit longer, to help people—particularly the most vulnerable claimants—to gather evidence.
The assessors must be health professionals—occupational therapists, nurses, physiotherapists, paramedics or doctors—who have had at least two years’ experience since they became fully registered. Although there has been understandable criticism of some important cases, the vast majority of the staff on our frontline are well-trained and exceptionally hardworking, and they have claimants’ interests at heart. I think that we all recognise that. In the skills that assessors must have there is an emphasis on assessing people with conditions affecting mental health, intellectual or cognitive functions. There is comprehensive training on how health conditions and impairments affect claimants’ day-to-day lives.
Justin Tomlinson
Hang on; I will address the previous intervention. What are we doing to ensure that cases such as those that hon. Members have mentioned do not happen? First, there is the independent audit for quality assurance, which is separate from the Department. It is important that we look at that. Our own DWP clinicians will also observe cases, and we get a considerable amount of helpful feedback from stakeholders.
Such examples are part of the reason behind the call for video recording. We agreed to pilot that in the autumn of last year, and it has progressed encouragingly. If there is no backlash from stakeholders, we will look at making that a given by the end of the summer. Video recording would make a huge difference, particularly in cases where something clearly is not going right. We would be able to look back at recordings, which would hasten our addressing of problems, and recordings could be used for appeals.
Satisfaction in 2015-16 was at 76%, and it is now at 82%. It still has some way to go, but the direction of travel is improving.
Ms Angela Eagle
I raised a case of someone who was 95% deaf. Her father was not allowed to write the questions out so that she could see them. The interview was terminated early, and the assessor was of the opinion that my constituent could hear but was pretending that she could not. How on earth is that allowed to happen if the system is as good as the Minister claims?
Justin Tomlinson
It is difficult to comment without having seen the details. I am not saying that what the hon. Lady says is not true, but if that case is exactly as she describes, that should not be happening and needs to be looked at, which is why I have committed to doing so. In general—as in the case about which I met the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood last week—common sense is not being applied. We must make sure that the rules and guidance that are in place are consistent across the board.
A number of hon. Members highlighted that in Liverpool and Merseyside, home visits are not offered. Between 15% and 20% of claimants in Liverpool and Merseyside have actually been offered home visits, as they should be. If, for a variety of medical reasons, travelling to the assessment is a barrier to accessing the benefit, that should be taken into account. Certainly, when I was the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, we improved the communication by making it more proactive to encourage that. We want the assessment process to work for the claimant.
I also welcome our introduction of the video relay service for those who are deaf and use British Sign Language. That is important not just for PIP, but across all frontline services.
Maria Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way when he has only a little bit of time left. The delay to tribunal hearings is a severe problem. Can he address that before he concludes his remarks?
Justin Tomlinson
That is the key thing that I will address, but I will cover one last matter first.
Some 600,000 claimants currently access the Motability scheme. I echo the comments about what a wonderful scheme it is. I think it is the second-largest purchaser of motor vehicles after the Chinese army, so it has significant buying power and is very important. I visited a car salesroom that dealt with Motability and that said it was the dream customer. Some 144,000 people who were formerly on DLA and did not access the higher rate of mobility now do, following re-assessment, and they can therefore access the scheme. That goes back to the point about the 31% against the 15%.
Those who were on DLA on a higher rate, and who could therefore lose their car, will get to keep the car through the £175 million transitional fund that was set up. They keep the car for eight weeks, and then they can either take £2,000 or keep the car for up to six further months, but with a lower payment at the end if their appeal is unsuccessful. That provision was brought in because of a recognition that the appeal process, which I will come to in a moment, often took longer than the time for which the claimant could keep the car. That meant that a car could be taken away, only to be given back two weeks later. When the difference is very close, Motability Operations can exercise some discretion. Fundamentally, the challenge is the length of time of appeals, and that is probably the most tangible concern that has been raised by all who have spoken. I emphasise that the absolute priority is getting it right first time. If we could get every decision right first time, we would not have to worry about mandatory reconsiderations and the appeal process. We all agree on that.
The MR process was introduced to try to intercept cases in which mistakes are made and stop them having to go through the appeals process, which is a real challenge and reduces capacity, and thus bring down the time for other cases. Although I accept that very few decisions appear to change, about 22% of cases are actually picked up by MR. It is absolutely right to focus on that, however, and I think we all recognise that more decisions could be changed. Often, a lot of the MR process is just checking the current processes. The nub of the matter is that the appeals process often considers late, additional evidence. The common-sense point is that we should be doing a lot more, and we are testing that concept by asking whether there are any obvious gaps that we can pick up. Has there not been a GP note? Has supporting evidence that we suspect will be presented not been submitted?
Maria Eagle
The case that I mentioned, which has now been fixed, involved a woman who should really just have had another appointment at home. That was not picked up on a mandatory reconsideration. There is surely a point at which some common sense should be injected.
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely. That is what we are testing, so that we can assist claimants by strengthening areas where there are obvious gaps. It would be quicker for the claimant, and we would benefit, because those gaps reduce capacity in the process. We are working with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to try to address the capacity issue, in terms of both the new digital service and recruiting additional judges and tribunal panel members. That cannot come quickly enough.
It is true that the majority of successful appeals are successful thanks to late evidence. We should see that as an opportunity to look at how we can do more to get such evidence in the first place. We are committed to learning those lessons to improve the process for everyone.
It has been a pleasure to respond to this debate. The group of hon. Members who have spoken are passionate about this matter, and they are real champions for their constituents. I have listened to all the points that have been raised, and I will look at the individual pieces of casework. We have a collective duty to keep applying common sense to improve the situation, and we are heading in the right direction. That is welcomed by stakeholder groups, but there is still more to do, and I am committed to doing what I can to support that work.
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive approach to the points that have been raised, and I am glad that he and the Department seek to improve the administration of the benefit. From our experience on Merseyside, there is still some way to go. Some simple things can be done, such as getting the assessments right and doing more to ensure that those who conduct them are properly trained and conduct them correctly.
For goodness’ sake, let us cut the amount of time that it takes to get through the process and restore some basic common sense, so that our constituents, many of whom are the most vulnerable people in our communities, are not put through the mill to obtain a benefit that should be theirs by right and is intended to make their lives easier. Instead, because of the way that the benefit is administered and the mistakes that are made, it ends up making their lives much harder.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the administration of personal independence payments on Merseyside.
Housing Need: Shropshire, and Telford and Wrekin
(5 years 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
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered housing needs in Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin.
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me this important debate. I also thank the Minister for attending—the Minister of State, no less, rather than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which outlines the importance of this housing issue in Shropshire and the borough of Telford and Wrekin.
For context, the debate highlights the development plans of two local planning authorities: Shropshire Council, and Telford and Wrekin Council. I will start with Telford and Wrekin, a council that states in the foreword to its local plan for 2011 to 2031 that
“it seeks to preserve the borough’s heritage and protect the many green spaces that our residents value”—
fine words, and words that I agree with and that many of the residents and my constituents would agree with. In reality, however, it seems that nothing could be further from the truth, sadly.
That council has proven that it does not regard the borough’s ecological heritage, that it has total disregard for the environment and that it is complicit in what I call environmental vandalism, on a scale unprecedented in the borough’s relatively short history. I am sorry to say that, but it happens to be the case. Let me be clear with the Minister present that my constituents are not saying that they object to all housing—they are not nimbys—which would be an unreasonable position and not one that I would support. They are saying that the number of new homes proposed—indeed, already built, but that is past now—needs to be proportionate and sustainable, and such homes need to be built in the right places and not the wrong ones.
A current example is the area of Shawbirch. It is not appropriate to build a major industrial unit on farmland, and farmland approximate to an ancient iron-age settlement, one of the earliest recorded in the borough. It is not appropriate to put such a facility only metres away from quiet residential homes. There are question marks about the lack of consultation, of which I hope the Minister will take note.
I have been told that only 15 homes were consulted ahead of that major development application. That is fundamentally wrong and not genuine public consultation. In my view, that is trying to pull a fast one on the local residents of Shawbirch. That has been repeated time and again by the borough council. It is completely unacceptable and I hope that the Minister, too, will make that clear.
Such a facility will have a huge and detrimental environmental impact, as well as a cumulative effect on the local road infrastructure, which is already very busy at peak times. Moreover, the timing of the marketing of the proposal was driven by the borough council, which I will touch on later, even though the land belongs to Homes England.
Through this debate, I will call on the Telford and Wrekin Council to support the Conservative group, who are committed to removing that particular piece of land from the development plan altogether, which would be good news for local residents. I pay tribute to Councillor Anthony Lowe, who has worked very hard to ensure that the voice of local residents in Shawbirch is heard. It is good news that we have people such as him and Gemma Everson, a local resident, working hard on behalf of local people.
I hope the Minister agrees that the council needs to bring forward and prioritise brownfield sites for development in the borough. There are many such sites, and so there is no excuse for building on farmland. However, the Shawbirch example is not a one-off; the same applies in Apley and the beautiful market town of Newport in Shropshire. As an aside, that is where the Leader of the Opposition attended school—a fee-paying school, but let us not go there. He is there regularly, and we welcome him.
The green-belt land around Newport, Apley and Shawbirch, and in other wards, has been under huge pressure, but an abundance of brownfield options are available as an alternative. I pay tribute to Councillors Tim Nelson and Eric Carter in Newport, who are also trying to ensure that the voices of local residents are heard.
As I said, housing and affordable housing are needed, but the council must avoid turning a semi-rural borough—a relatively new town, of course, but getting rid of the few open green spaces that remain—into one giant housing estate. We need to protect green spaces and the green belt. Also, fairer distribution of the new homes bonus is needed—something on which the Minister might want to comment. Communities that have to accept new housing should have the material and financial benefit from having that new housing put in but, unfortunately, that is often not the case.
Section 106 agreements, too, need far greater transparency, scrutiny and independent oversight of how funds are spent in local communities. This is one for the Government, a Conservative Government: there is much room for improvement in how such agreements are managed by local authorities and distributed to local communities.
Another ongoing problem is that of land banking. I hope the Government will soon come forward with new initiatives to stop new home builders sitting on the planning consents without developing the sites in a timely manner. The Minister, who has a local government background, will agree that land banking causes uncertainty for local authorities and skews the local development plan process and the overall gross housing figures.
I hope the Minister will tell the Chamber today that Homes England, which owns a significant amount of land in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, will not be dictated to by the borough council and, unlike the council, will ensure, first, the prioritisation of brownfield sites and, secondly, full, orderly and genuine public consultation. There has to be public confidence in the housing system and in the strategy that councils put before their publics, and that is done through genuine consultation, which I fear is not always the case with Telford and Wrekin Council.
It is also not appropriate for Homes England to allow the borough council or other councils—this has to be on a case-by-case basis—to market Homes England sites. It is for Homes England to market those sites, as is the timing of marketing them, rather than particular local planning authorities that may or may not have a conflict of interest. Sometimes tin-eared councils do not listen to the public and are not genuine about feedback from local communities.
The Government’s national planning policy framework of July 2018 prioritised developing brownfield land. I hope the Minister might think about what sanctions there are for those councils that ignore national planning policies. If they are ignoring them, there appears to be very little sanction. I hope that might change. Before I move on, I would like to pay tribute to Shawbirch Action Group for shining a torchlight on Telford and Wrekin Council’s unpreparedness to engage genuinely with communities.
Let me move on to Shropshire Council and the Shropshire local planning authority. The council wants to concrete over huge amounts of green belt in east Shropshire, yet it has the 12th worst housing density rate in the country. We need more densely populated residential development in the right places. It is not good that it is approximately 18 units per hectare—that is very low and it needs to increase.
The Minister may not know that the council wants to build up to 3,000 houses on prime green-belt land near the historic village of Tong, which is one of the most beautiful in the diocese of Lichfield and, I would argue—surely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne)—has the most beautiful church in Shropshire. That is part of its so-called strategic sites initiative, effectively equating to a brand-new settlement. As the Minister will know better than me, strategic sites is a parallel system alongside the local development plan. That speculative, aspirational but nevertheless concerning document is a genuine attempt to bring that amount of housing to an inappropriate location.
It is significant that the plans have no local support at Shifnal Town Council or Tong parish council. The Minister has said in this place that developments of that size, whether they be called garden villages or new settlements, must have public support, meaning through their locally elected representatives and at town and parish council level, whether they are statutory consultees or not.
In addition to the gross imposition on the pristine green belt and farmland, Shropshire Council, adding insult to injury, wants to put 50 hectares of employment land on the green belt and farmland, even though plenty of other brownfield sites are available. Apparently, the housing and employment land allocation in the strategic sites initiative is needed because, unbelievably, the west midlands does not have enough employment land of its own—so much so that it has to come over the border into Shropshire in an attempt to gobble up all our green belt. That is not satisfactory at all—frankly, it is unbelievable and rather fanciful.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. As he has identified, our constituencies are adjacent. On development on the green belt in the Shropshire Council area, there are proposals under the Shropshire Council plan for significant development on green belt immediately to the east of Bridgnorth, which is on the western extremity of the green belt coming out from the Birmingham metropolitan area.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to sanction development on green belt, the local authority needs to be clear about the exceptional circumstances in which, under the planning guidance, green-belt development is allowed? Will he join me in pressing the Minister to provide some clue about how a council can demonstrate exceptional circumstances? What are the criteria by which that is judged? Without that, presumably, any such development would not proceed.
Mark Pritchard
I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interventions—he has huge experience, having been a Member of Parliament representing Ludlow and that beautiful other part of Shropshire for 14 years. Bridgnorth, for which he is the Member of Parliament, has taken quite a lot of housing in recent years. Again, I think Bridgnorth residents have been very good: they have not been nimbys; they have just said that the housing needs to be sustainable and proportionate. The exceptional circumstances for the green belt are very narrow—they have to be exceptional. I think that test is right, but whether Shropshire Council has met it is a matter for others, such as my right hon. Friend and the Minister. In my constituency, my view is that the council has not met that test to date. Whether in Bridgnorth, Shifnal, Albrighton, Tong, Shawbirch or Apley, we should avoid at all times building on farmland and greenfield sites.
The Minister of State heard me mention the west midlands and the so-called lack of employment land, which I do not accept—it is inaccurate—but even if that were the case, there are plenty of vacancies for both heavy and light industrial employment uses in Telford itself, on the industrial parks of Stafford Park, Halesfield or even down the road in Wolverhampton. I do not accept that Tong, Shifnal or Albrighton should become the dumping ground for west midlands housing and employment, with employment being the gateway for the housing and the revenue stream.
There are questions to be asked about the relationship between the west midlands combined authority and Shropshire Council. It is in the public interest and my constituents have a right to know the financial and commercial relationship between those two authorities, and the commercial and financial relationship between the borough of Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire Council. I hope it does not take freedom of information requests to elicit that material from those authorities. The public have a right to know why employment land, with residential housing on the back of it, is coming to green belt when it is pretty clear to anybody that there is plenty of employment land in the west midlands. That raises serious issues.
I would like to touch on Shifnal, if I may, which is a beautiful market town. For years, Shropshire Council has agreed to an integrated transport scheme, but it has never come forward. We have to see benefits in local communities. Shifnal has taken a lot of housing in recent years but has seen none of the benefits of the new homes bonus. It has seen no major infrastructure benefits. We still have issues with drainage that have not been dealt with by Shropshire Council, yet it expects the town to take more.
The Minister will know that if the housing is unsustainable, there will be issues with sustainability socially, with physical infrastructure, schools, GP services, roads, drainage as I have touched on, and flooding and displacement of water tables. Shropshire needs to bring forward its plans for the power station in Buildwas and its plans for a major site in the barracks at Tern Hill, and encourage the Ministry of Defence to bring that site forward more quickly than currently planned. We need to ensure that RAF Cosford, outside the wire, develops as much MOD land as possible brownfield land in order to safeguard the green belt.
Finally, I refer to the Government’s national planning policy framework document 2018, on the purpose of the green belt. It serves five purposes:
“to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
As the proposals currently stand, around 2,500 homes are planned for Shifnal, 3,000 planned for Tong and over 600 planned for Albrighton. If these plans go ahead, the current distance of 3.7 km between Shifnal and Tong will be reduced to about 1.2 km to 1.4 km, which goes against the very spirit and letter of what the green belt is supposed to be about.
In conclusion, my constituents are not saying no to housing. They are saying yes to housing, but to sustainable —not unsustainable—housing. I will allow the Minister to respond.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you for the first time, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate. Having felt the breeze on my face and heard the skylarks atop the Wrekin, and sung in Ludlow church as a boy chorister, I can appreciate why my hon. Friend and his county colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), are quite so assiduous in seeking to curate that beautiful part of the country as carefully as possible.
As Members will know, the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, so I am sure they understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of individual decisions or plans. However, I can talk more broadly about the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Like him, the Government fully recognise the need to plan for and build more homes. We are committed to enabling the housing market to deliver at least 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s. We need to make sure that homes are supplied that meet the diverse needs of our communities, such as homes for first-time buyers, homes suitable and accessible for older people, high-quality rental properties and well-designed social housing.
Each and every part of the country has its role to play in ensuring that these homes are delivered. The vital first step in the process is to bring forward local plans that give communities certainty about where development will take place. The planning system should be genuinely plan-led, with up-to-date plans providing a framework for addressing environmental, social and economic priorities for every area, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Local plans should be prepared in consultation with communities. I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says about consultation and I urge all local authorities to ensure the public are fully involved in the planning process at every level. Local authorities play a key role in delivering the development and infrastructure that is needed in the right places, and community participation is a vital part of that.
The best plans are those that have been developed through effective engagement with communities throughout the process. Having an up-to-date plan in place is essential to planning for housing, providing clarity to communities and developers about where homes and supporting development should be built—and where it should not—so that development is planned for, rather than the result of speculative planning applications. The two local authority areas over which my hon. Friend’s constituency spans should have regard to that. I am aware that Telford and Wrekin Council adopted its local plan last year, for which it should be congratulated. I understand that Shropshire Council is undertaking a partial review of its site allocations and management of development plan at present—I emphasise how important that is for the communities those councils serve.
Through the revised national planning policy framework, we have made significant reforms to make it easier and quicker to get a plan in place. We have introduced flexibility in how plan-making happens, with a new, more flexible plan-making framework and an expectation that plans are kept up to date and reviewed at least once every five years. We have also introduced a standardised approach to assessing housing need locally. When it was published last year, the revised NPPF introduced a standard method for assessing local housing need. After extensive consultation, it was introduced to speed up and reduce the cost of the plan-making process and to make the process more transparent and accessible. It was introduced to help ensure that we meet our commitment to deliver more homes, which have been better designed, faster.
In practice, all councils should make a realistic assessment of the number of homes their communities need, and they should use the standard method as the starting point, not the end point, in the process. The starting point is used to identify the minimum number of homes needed every year. What the standard method does not do, however, is provide a maximum number of homes needed, nor does it provide a target that must be planned for. It would be wrong to think that this is just a numbers game; we need to make sure that communities are fully on board through local plans. We need to make sure that constraints, such as green belt, are considered and that we find the right places for homes, within those constraints. We also need to ensure that the right infrastructure is in place and that we underpin all development with good design principles.
Development should not be progressed at any cost and local circumstances should be taken into account. Local authorities are best placed to do that and should plan how to meet the housing needs of their communities, considering land availability and relevant constraints, including green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and whether need is more appropriately met in neighbouring areas.
Mark Pritchard
Does the Minister agree that the relationship first between the West Midlands combined authority and Shropshire Council, and secondly between Shropshire Council and Telford and Wrekin Council, whether it be commercial and/or financial, should be transparent? It is in the public interest that documentation relating to those relationships should be published.
Kit Malthouse
I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, under the plan-making process, all local authorities have a duty to co-operate with their neighbours in seeking to allocate housing need most appropriately in their region or area. Where those plans are put in place and there is co-operation about the allocation of housing, of course it should be completely transparent for local communities to see how their democratically elected representatives are disposing of the required housing need in their area.
I want to talk about environmental protection. The NPPF carries forward into planning the basic principle of the 25-year environment plan that we must leave our environment in a better condition than when we inherited it, and plan and design developments accordingly. The area which both my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow represent is particularly sensitive in environmental terms, and should be protected as much as possible.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the green belt is a key feature of our natural heritage and fundamentally aims to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It is a national policy, but applied locally with green-belt land defined and protected by local planning authorities. By providing strong protection for the openness of green-belt land the NPPF prevents inappropriate development. He is right that local authorities have a duty to look at brownfield land first before they consider green-belt sites.
Mark Pritchard
Does the Minister share my surprise that my constituents were informed in the last few weeks by Shropshire Council that the west midlands appears to have run out of employment land?
Kit Malthouse
I cannot comment on specific dispositions towards plans, but it sounds surprising to me that the west midlands, which is such a large area, might be short of employment land. Nevertheless, dispersed employment, even in my hon. Friend’s constituency, should be welcomed. As he says, it is for local authorities to decide exactly which area is right to use for their employment and housing land. He is right that there should be a close relationship between Homes England and local authorities. That relationship should be transparent, with plans and decisions on display, subject to commercial confidentiality, giving local communities confidence that what is being done in their name and in their area has both involved them in its production and can be justified.
On transparency, I want to say a word about section 106 agreements, which my hon. Friend raised. To improve the section 106 process, we have recently mandated local authorities to publish viability assessments of particular developments. Local people can now see what the section 106 gain for their area will be, and can compare it against their neighbours, because we see different patterns of performance on section 106 agreements. All of that, allied with other changes we have made in the planning process, such as producing neighbourhood plans and pushing neighbourhood plans forward, is designed to make local people, including my hon. Friend’s constituents, feel that they are more the masters of the planning system and less its victims.
If we are going to raise acceptability for vital housing so that young people are able to live in beautiful areas of the country such as the one my hon. Friend represents, we need to ensure local people are in charge of where housing goes, what it looks like, how it is disposed and what kind of housing it is. Local people need to be an integral part of the process of producing new homes, having accepted that a significant number of homes need to be built for the next generation, as a moral obligation to be passed from one generation to the next. I will work closely with my hon. Friend and his county colleagues to make that happen sensitively in his constituency, as I will across the rest of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: Legacy Cases
(5 years 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
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Before we start the debate, I will issue a reminder to hon. Members that under the terms of the House resolution on the matter of sub judice, they should not refer to specific cases that are currently subject to legal proceedings. Hon. Members may, of course, speak on general issues. The Clerk will be advising and prompting me and I will rule accordingly.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in legacy cases.
I welcome the opportunity for this debate this afternoon. I thank the Minister, the shadow Secretary of State and other colleagues for their presence and participation today.
I will say at the outset that this is a matter that rightly requires the attention of this Parliament, not a parochial issue for Northern Ireland MPs alone. Although the appointment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the finance is overseen by the Department of Justice, a devolved Department in Northern Ireland, legacy matters form a significant part of the work of the police ombudsman’s office, a significant part of which relates to national security, which of course is not a devolved issue. Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate that we consider these matters.
Hon. Members will be aware that there is currently an ongoing judicial review of one particular case investigated by the police ombudsman, which relates to a report on killings in 1994 in Loughinisland. I will not go into the detail of the judicial review, but I will refer to the case in general terms and give my view, as a public representative, on where I think the police ombudsman’s report was deficient in the context of the debate. This is not about the legal issues that are the subject of the judicial review, but if you feel I am straying at any stage, Mr Owen, you will of course bring me back into line.
It is worth recalling that the primary role of the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland is to investigate complaints by the public against police officers. That includes complaints linked to cases that are part of the legacy of our troubled past. Unlike most, if not all, types of—
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. If I may just help the right hon. Member, this is a live case and there is a sense that this might prejudice it in some way, so I would be very careful in how he proceeds on this one. That is the advice I have been given and I ask him to take that on board now.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Of course, Mr Owen, but since the ombudsman’s report is a matter of public record, it is entirely appropriate that public representatives comment on that report and its findings, and that is what I intend to do. I will of course be open to advice on this subject.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Just for clarification, it is important that we do not stray, and if hon. Members go further than discussing principles and policies, I will have to ask them to resume their seat.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Thank you, Mr Owen.
As I was saying, unlike most, if not all, other types of ombudsman in the UK, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has significant powers that include powers of arrest, detention, interview and conducting searches on property. Indeed, the powers are similar to those of the police. Those functions must be carried out under both the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the police ombudsman must comply with the requirements of that legislation. Nevertheless, I think many people would be of the view that using “ombudsman” to describe the work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland might be a misnomer, given the wide, sweeping police powers that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has—unlike, I believe, any other ombudsman.
My comments today will focus on the making of section 62 public statements on findings arising from reports by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on legacy cases involving complaints that have been subjected to an investigation by the police ombudsman. Although I note that the police ombudsman has the right in principle to make such statements, I have significant concerns about the content of some of those statements and that the ombudsman may be exceeding their remit in that regard.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I had no idea that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland had such great powers. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether those powers include actually saying to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, “I require these officers, of this rank, to come and give me assistance.”? Is that what happens?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
In relation to current or contemporary investigations regarding complaints against police officers that are post the troubles, yes, the police ombudsman may require serving police officers to be interviewed and has the powers of arrest and detention of serving police officers. My focus today, nevertheless, is on—
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Before the Division, I was about to speak about a couple of cases that have given rise to concerns on my part and the part of others about the manner in which the police ombudsman’s office conducts its investigations.
I was going to talk about Loughinisland in a little detail, from the perspective of a public representative, but I will not now go into the detail, because of your advice, Mr Owen, that we may stray into areas covered by the judicial review. I shall merely say that, to date, the findings of court proceedings have not eased my concern about the manner of the report, the findings that arise from the report and, in particular, how evidence was gathered and those conclusions were drawn. I will not go into any further detail about the Loughinisland case, save to say, of course, that we must not lose sight of the fact that in each of these cases there are human tragedies.
In relation to Loughinisland, the murder of six Catholics by the Ulster Volunteer Force in 1994, in the Heights Bar, while they were watching a World cup game, is to be condemned without reservation. The issue for me is not that justice should be done for those six men—because it should—and that the perpetrators should be brought to justice; the issue for me is the police ombudsman’s findings in relation to the case.
I shall focus, perhaps a little more than I had expected to, on another case. It involved the killing of two people in the Creggan estate in Londonderry on 31 August 1988. It is sometimes referred to as the “Good Neighbour” bombing. It is a very tragic story, which in a way epitomises the tragedy of the Northern Ireland troubles. The resident of a flat at 38 Kildrum Gardens on the Creggan estate had been kidnapped by the Provisional IRA. They had planted in the property a booby-trap bomb that was permanently affixed and was designed to be triggered when someone entered the property—at any time. In that sense, it was an indiscriminate device: it would kill whoever walked into the property.
The Provisional IRA held the resident for a number of days, and the police in Northern Ireland became aware, through intelligence, that there was going to be an attempt to kill police officers. Although they were not given a precise location, the Creggan estate was identified as the general area. The police immediately introduced an exclusion zone for members of the security forces, because the intelligence that they had suggested that the device was aimed at the security forces, but they did not have any more detail than that.
As the days went by, other elements occurred that were linked to this incident. The IRA, becoming increasingly desperate because the security forces had not entered the area, never mind the property, tried a number of ruses to attract the police into the area so that they might trigger the device. That did not happen, and sadly, on the morning of 31 August—some six days after the kidnapping of the householder, I think—three of his neighbours went to investigate, because they had not seen the resident for a number of days. As good neighbours, they did the right thing and went to check on their neighbour. Sadly, on entering the property through a window, Sean Dalton, one of the neighbours, was killed instantly, along with Sheila Lewis. The other neighbour, Thomas Curran, was seriously injured.
Of course the IRA apologised for the killings, admitting that they had been a mistake, but to his credit, Dr Edward Daly, the then Bishop of Derry, presiding at the funeral mass of the two victims, said that the explosion did not go tragically wrong; it did what it was designed to do—kill people who went to the flat out of concern for the missing occupant.
Six years later, the relatives of Sean Dalton, one of the deceased, made a complaint to the police ombudsman’s office. They claimed that the police in Londonderry had been negligent in allowing civilians to approach the flat, and alleged that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was aware that the flat had been booby-trapped and therefore had failed in its duty, under article 2 of the European convention on human rights, to uphold the right to life of Mr Dalton.
The police ombudsman took eight years to investigate the case and, at the end of the investigation, concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the police had been negligent and had failed to uphold Mr Dalton’s right to life. However, when we examine the police ombudsman’s report, we see that that conclusion is not based on hard evidence or facts; it is based on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this very timely debate. Does he agree that in relation to this case, like so many others, we and the police ombudsman’s office have to ensure that, however intensive and comprehensive its investigations are, it must never allow the emphasis to depart from those who carried out the atrocity by allowing an investigation to stray into areas where more criticism is made of those whose job it is to try to deal with the aftermath than the people who perpetrated the act in the first place?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his assertion. Of course the appalling deaths of Sean Dalton and Sheila Lewis are to be condemned by us all. As has so often been the case in Northern Ireland, the actions of terrorists resulted in the tragic death—murder—of innocent people. The IRA cannot escape the disapprobation, the condemnation, of all of us for that heinous crime.
Bob Stewart
May I make one comment? I bet the police had no idea that the gentleman was missing. And may I ask one question? I know the area under discussion. How can the police, who always do what they can to save lives, be blamed in any way for what happened? As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, it is definitely something to be laid at the door of the Provisional IRA and the people who actually did it. Have they been brought to trial?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Any reasonable person who read the police ombudsman’s report would conclude that the police did not know the precise location where the explosive device had been left by the Provisional IRA, did not know all the circumstances surrounding the incident—the kidnapping and so on—and had only broad general intelligence about an imminent attack on the security forces. However, the ombudsman concluded that the police failed to uphold Mr Dalton’s right to life. His death is tragic, and our hearts go out to his family; I understand their anger and their concern, but in the end it is the Provisional IRA who are to blame for that death, not the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I do not believe that the RUC had information available to it that could have prevented Mr Dalton’s death. There is no evidence in the police ombudsman’s report to support any other conclusion, yet he is able to say that, on the balance of probabilities, the police failed in their duty to uphold Mr Dalton’s right to life. And he says that against a background where he has the power to arrest, detain, interview and search.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
This is an opportunity that is being used by those who want to rewrite history and try to imply that there is collusion in incidents that have happened. There might well be in a small number, but to try to paint it on every incident that ever happened in which someone was killed is to try to rewrite history. It is an attempt by republicanism to influence a Government-run body to bring forward those sorts of messages.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend makes a broad point that is of concern to many of us regarding how the legacy process is addressing the totality of what happened in Northern Ireland during those tragic 30 years and more. The Osman test, which is often used in such cases, is very clear about what matters need to be considered when coming to conclusions about article 2—about the failure of the state to uphold the right to life. I do not believe that a conclusion reached on the balance of probabilities meets the threshold set out in the Osman test, and consequently I believe that the decision of the ombudsman is wrong.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I know that my right hon. Friend has met with many of the families —as I have—including those who have been going through and are on the list to go through investigations by the ombudsman and the coroner’s court.
Due to the stalling of the Historical Enquiries Team process—the investigations into criminal offences by the police—and because many families are not happy with the result of that HET process, and because there is no funding for those criminal investigations, many genuine families who recognise that the perpetrator was the terrorist organisation do not have any options for an investigation or further investigation other than what is available, which tends to be either an ombudsman’s investigation or an inquest through the coroner’s court.
That means that we are ending up in a situation with a disproportionate push between those two aspects, where allegations of collusion are the grounds to try to get that re-investigation. That is not doing anybody any justice, not least by letting those who actually perpetrated the crimes get away with their criminal acts.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will add nothing to what my hon. Friend has said, because she said it very eloquently and summarises the concern for us. I know the Minister will talk about the proposals to bring a more balanced, fair and proportionate system for dealing with the legacy of our troubled past. I am dealing with one aspect of that today.
To be clear, my concern is that, even though the police ombudsman has the power to arrest, detain, interview and search properties, in this report on the “Good Neighbour” bombing not a single police officer has been recommended for discipline or criminal prosecution, and no claim of wrongdoing has been brought against any police officers, yet the conclusion remains that the police failed in their duty to protect the life of Mr Dalton. I think that is unfair, unreasonable and irrational, and it is an example of the ombudsman exceeding his remit and powers, despite the fact that he has many powers available to him, to go after the evidence and bring forward that evidence. The evidence is not there to support the conclusion. Therefore, with all the powers available to him, to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, in his opinion—not on an opinion based on evidence—that the police breached their article 2 obligations, shows that there is something seriously wrong when this is the outcome in such a case.
This case is not alone—I could give other examples. The main example I wanted to bring today, apart from this case, was Loughinisland. In light of your concern, Mr Owen, I will not pursue the matter further, but I encourage hon. Members to read some of the commentary and findings in court in relation to the report by the police ombudsman on the Loughinisland case. I think they will find that those conclusions support the contentions I am making today about the ombudsman and how he approaches investigations of this nature.
I am also concerned about the manner in which the police ombudsman’s office treats those who have served our country in the police—retired police officers who stood on the frontline in Northern Ireland. The Royal Ulster Constabulary lost over 300 officers and countless hundreds more were seriously injured in the conduct of their duty. They held the line and protected the entire community in Northern Ireland, yet at times one is left wondering whether there is an understanding of the contribution that the police in Northern Ireland made towards bringing peace. We would not have the peace that we enjoy today in Northern Ireland if it had not been for the courage and bravery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Her Majesty the Queen recognised that with the award of the George Cross to that fine police service. In her citation, she spoke of the courage and outstanding bravery of the RUC.
When it comes to the ombudsman and how it deals with those retired police officers, the Salmon principles are very important. The Salmon principles were introduced some years ago, after the inquiry into the Profumo affair. They were designed to protect participants in such public tribunals of inquiry. The police ombudsman for Northern Ireland ought to be complying with the Salmon principles.
There are six Salmon principles—they were devised by Lord Justice Salmon—of fair procedure under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Those principles require that any person who is the subject of an inquiry
“must be satisfied that there are circumstances which affect them and which the tribunal proposes to investigate.”
I guess that the ombudsman would argue that it complies, but I am concerned the ombudsman is not complying fully with other elements. For example, a retired officer who is the subject of an investigation should be given an adequate opportunity to prepare their case, and of being assessed by legal advisers, and their legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds. They should be informed of any allegations made against them and the substance of the evidence in support of those allegations. They should be able to call material witnesses. They should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by their own solicitor any evidence which may affect them.
Retired police officers who are the subject of investigations by the police ombudsman’s office are not afforded the opportunity of doing that. Indeed, often they are not even interviewed by the police ombudsman, yet they read a report concerning an investigation in which they were involved when they served, which criticises their conduct, and they have not even been afforded the opportunity to present their side of the story and put their point of view across to the ombudsman. That is simply unfair, and it is not compliant with the Salmon principles. It needs to be given closer examination.
Another major deficit in relation to the police ombudsman and how it operates is that there is no independent complaints procedure, whereby someone who is the subject of an investigation by the ombudsman may make a complaint about the manner of that investigation. Again, it is highly unfair that there is no recourse to complaint. People must either complain to the ombudsman himself or, I guess, raise the matter with the Secretary of State, but that does not constitute a proper independent process for dealing with a complaint. I believe that that is in breach of article 13 of the European convention on human rights, which the ombudsman seems to be quite keen on.
I do not believe that what the ombudsman, as currently constituted, offers is compliant with article 13, which requires an independent complaints mechanism for those who are the subject of investigations by the ombudsman’s office. The Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association has pressed the Secretary of State and others to make provision for such an independent complaints procedure, and it has not been done. That is most unfair —there is no recourse for people who feel they have been treated unjustly by the police ombudsman, which is a public body.
The schedule of bodies that are required to be subject to independent scrutiny and investigation of complaints made against them excludes the ombudsman, despite the fact that the offices of other ombudsmen are subject to independent complaints processes. That is another area where there is a deficiency in the manner in which the police ombudsman’s office operates. There ought to be an independent complaints procedure, so that those who are subjected to investigations by the ombudsman have the right to make a complaint if they feel they have been treated unfairly, and so that that complaint is properly examined and investigated.
For some time, my hon. Friends and I have been raising concerns about the operation of the police ombudsman’s office and about its reports’ findings, which are often the subject of banner headlines. Behind those headlines, however, there is little or no evidence to support the conclusions that have been reached. That is simply untenable, because, as some of my hon. Friends have said, it lends itself to the efforts of others who are seeking to denigrate the forces of the state, to paint them as the bad guys in the troubles, and to somehow justify the actions of those whose actions are completely unjustifiable.
We welcome the Government’s proposals to remove the role of investigating legacy complaint cases from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and to transfer that role to a new independent investigative body. In supporting that, I say to the Minister that, when the legislation is being drawn up, and when the terms of reference and the remit for the new investigative body are being set, we need to address those concerns. We need to ensure that the manner in which the police ombudsman’s office has acted in dealing with legacy cases is not repeated in the future; that there is fairness; that there is a balanced and proportionate approach; that people are afforded the opportunity, if they feel aggrieved, to pursue a complaint against the ombudsman, or in this case, the new investigative body, to an independent body; and that the investigative body complies with the requirements of the Salmon principles in relation to the rights of those who are the subject of an inquiry.
I say to the Minister that it is important to right those wrongs. It is important that police officers, or retired police officers, who are the subject of investigations, are treated fairly and properly, and that the investigative body is restricted in its remit to what ought to have been the remit of the police ombudsman’s office, which is to send its findings to the Chief Constable if there is evidence of disciplinary malpractice, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That is what the police ombudsman is required to do.
The police ombudsman should not make statements that imply guilt and wrongdoing when the evidence is not there to support them, and when he is not bringing any charges against any police officers in those cases on matters of discipline or of criminal wrongdoing. That is unfair. The system is unjust and needs to change. I hope that in the new independent investigative body that will be established, those steps and wrongdoings will not be revisited on retired police officers. It is simply wrong.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was tempted not to speak, but I will be short. I want to say two things.
I served with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I watched how it worked for three and a half years. I know 38 Kildrum Gardens in the Creggan. I was the intelligence officer in Londonderry in 1978. I watched Royal Ulster Constabulary officers go forward, while we gave them cover, to knock on doors and investigate suspicious activity. I find it absolutely appalling if there is any suspicion that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is not fair in dealing with those incredibly gallant men and women. The whole service thoroughly deserved the George Cross, but most of them actually deserved additional decorations. I am absolutely dismayed by what I have heard. I did not realise it was as bad as that. I will take an increased interest in the matter from now on as part of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
I am personally indebted to the way the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its officers protected my soldiers and acted when we were out there with them. It was not them and us, and “them” were not Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Buddhists. The Royal Ulster Constabulary did not give a damn who it was going to help—all it wanted to do was help. It is absolutely tragic if there is suspicion that the ombudsman is not giving credit to those extremely gallant men and women.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I inform hon. Members that I will call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 5.26 pm. The Minister will then have 10 minutes and the right hon. Gentleman who sponsored the debate will have two minutes to wind up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I treasure the thought of being able to speak until five to six—I know you did not say that, Mr Owen—but I am not going to do that today. I will be careful with my comments in the light of that advice.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) for presenting a good case, as he always does, and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for putting the case as well. I also thank the Speaker’s Office for giving us the opportunity to highlight the issues in Westminster Hall. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and I are not just colleagues but good friends, and I also have an interest in the issues that he talks about. We always listen to his comments, which are well put.
My comments come from a personal perspective. In recognition of my role as an elected representative of the people of Strangford, I fully support what my right hon. Friend has put forward. As well as being the most beautiful constituency in the world—I have to say that, but I say it honestly—Strangford is home to a large number of veterans of the armed forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as well as prison officers and other service personnel.
My constituency has a tradition of service and I am always pleased to represent it. It is a wonderful place to retire, and historically, it has been viewed as a safe place in terms of the troubles for serving and retired personnel to live. For that reason, I am confident that I speak on my constituents’ behalf when I say that the role that has been played by the police ombudsman when it comes to legacy issues is simply not acceptable, and that the direction of his office must be quickly and completely changed. My right hon. Friend outlined that in an exceptional way.
Just over 17 months ago, I joined my hon. Friends and other right-thinking people in calling for the reconsideration of Dr Maguire’s position as the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. That is on record. I also join my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley in condemning the despicable murders that took place at Loughinisland. Those responsible, whoever and wherever, need to be held accountable for their actions.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend knows that some of us in this House had loved ones and families who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and were butchered by the provos. Those families have never had justice. The people who committed the murders have never been brought to justice. It is disgraceful and totally wrong that the ombudsman is treating certain cases in a certain way—he should be impartial. Everybody is equal under the law. It is hurtful for those of us who have lost family members who served, and it is hurtful for those families who have to relive it.
Jim Shannon
Along with my hon. Friend and others, I would be concerned if any landmark reports that are available to the general public, or in the public domain, should in any way throw any slight on the determination of police. I believe that would exceed the ombudsman’s statutory powers.
Emma Little Pengelly
Very often whenever these issues are reported, there is some suggestion that in some way those who have done wrong should get away with it because they are in a particular category. May I put on the record—I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with this—and echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that any murder was wrong, and that any criminal act, by terrorists or others, or wrongful murder, must be condemned and fully investigated? We absolutely agree with our right hon. Friend on that.
However, there must also be fairness within that system and the concerns that are being articulated are very much about the lack of consistency, and the apparent absence of guidelines in terms of the adjudication and reporting of these cases. That is leading to inequality and to concern for many.
Jim Shannon
With my hon. Friend’s legal mind, she obviously succinctly focuses on the issues that we need to be aware of.
I believe that police officers involved in any case, wherever that may be, and who have not been afforded the protection of due process, should not be subjected to destructive and withering condemnations by any person who has a position of power. I believe that the ombudsman’s office has lost credibility and respectability, not simply among those who designate themselves as Unionists but among all who are right-thinking.
When I was sitting here and listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I thought the release of a report that gave no right of reply, and that was ambiguous and condemning of officers at any time, was an indication of the intent of the ombudsman, as we sit by and see more and more focus on alleged state collusion. The allegations are made willy-nilly and without proof or evidence.
I can think of many atrocities during my lifetime. My right hon. Friend referred to atrocities, but not specifically. I can remember them from when I was a young man to the age that I am now. I think of Bloody Friday, when the IRA murdered innocent men, women and children across the whole of Belfast. In the Abercorn restaurant, where I used to eat as a young man, people were murdered while they were there having a meal—children and women butchered and destroyed.
There was the La Mon Hotel in my constituency, where again those who were in high positions of IRA leadership and who are now in positions of political leadership seem to have got away with what they have done. There are also the murders at Kingsmill. We all know the story about Kingsmill and the massacre there, and we know that there have been clear allegations of collusion by some members of the Garda Síochána in relation to that massacre—that is well-known. When we look to an ombudsman to investigate issues, those are the sorts of issues that they should investigate.
There was the Darkley massacre of men and women who were worshipping their God in their church. In my own family, there was the murder of my cousin, Kenneth Smyth, outside of Clady. Lexie Cummings was murdered outside Strabane. Four Ulster Defence Regiment men, three of whom I knew personally, were murdered in Ballydugan: John Birch; Steven Smart; Michael Adams; and Lance Corporal John Bradley. They were four young men who were murdered in the prime of their life.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he has two minutes to conclude his remarks?
Jim Shannon
I am coming to the end of them.
The last case that I will refer to is the murder of Louis Robinson, a detective constable who was kidnapped in South Armagh and murdered.
All of these things tell me that the ombudsman’s time could be better spent. I see constituents referring deserving issues to the police ombudsman regularly. All experience a refusal due to a lack of resources to investigate every complaint. Perhaps if the ombudsman was more determined to leave legacy issues to the designated body and if it investigated what was needed today, my constituents, who I represent, might find resolution and justice.
The time has passed for the Secretary of State, or for the Minister of State, who will respond to this debate, to intervene and appoint someone who has knowledge of Northern Ireland and of what the ombudsman’s role is—someone who at least has the grace to admit what that role is—and someone who will forgo what has been described as personal ambition of retribution. Instead of retraumatising officers who have seen what we cannot imagine, who have paid their dues to this country and who do not deserve to be accused of collusion at any stage to satisfy a republican rewrite of history, that individual should do his job as it is understood by all right-thinking people.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
This has been most certainly an interesting debate, although possibly not the one that either the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) or I thought it might turn out to be.
Let me say this: the role of the ombudsman is vital. The problem is that it has been constructed in the wrong way. The ombudsman has responsibility for the investigation of contemporary irregularities by the police service, mirroring what I had some responsibility for as the police and crime commissioner in Greater Manchester, although more generally they were dealt with by the then Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is now under a different guise. There is no doubt that there needs to be that contemporary role, but the problem has come because that role has been mixed with the role of historic investigators. Quite honestly, neither the ombudsman nor the victims nor the Police Service of Northern Ireland nor politicians think that is a satisfactory process.
I will begin by asking the Minister whether he can throw any light on an issue. One of the things that I welcome is the recent announcement from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland of a further £55 million for coronial investigations. However, that will put pressure on both the PSNI and whoever is the investigating authority, whether that is the ombudsman or another body; I will come on to that later. Can the Minister tell us whether there will be extra resources for those other investigatory bodies and of course for the prosecuting bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, because it is important that we see resourcing for them within the package?
I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, who said that we are talking about human tragedies, and about victims. Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned a number of particular atrocities. Let me make it clear that victims, whether they are victims of republican terror, of loyalist terror or of state actors, are entitled to have resolution of their cases, as their loved ones are loved ones, their mothers and their children are the same, whatever the background of the perpetrator. We must establish that because there cannot be some sense in which there is differential justice, but at the moment we have differential justice, particularly when we have different agencies involved at different times. We have ad-hockery.
In the case of Pat Finucane, it was only because of the intervention of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, that there was an inquiry. For 30 years, the family had been fighting for a process of justice. They have had a partial victory recently at the Supreme Court, but there now needs to be a continuation with proper investigation of the murder of Pat Finucane.
That brings me on to another case—that of Edgar Graham, the Ulster Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly at Stormont. He was a young man who was murdered in the most public of ways on the campus of Queen’s University of Belfast, when he stood next to one of his Ulster Unionist colleagues. That brutal murder has not been brought to any satisfactory conclusion. In fact, when the then Historical Enquiries Team process took it up, all that the family got was a letter saying why there would be no report into that particular atrocity.
Let us make it clear that we now have to move to a situation where there is proper and uniform treatment, whatever the authorship of a crime, and I say this advisedly: whether it be republican or loyalist paramilitaries or state actors —
Tony Lloyd
Of course my point brings us to the very important role of the Historical Investigations Unit. I have to say to the Minister that it is now five years since the Stormont House agreement concluded that that was needed. It is now more than six months since the consultation on that body finished. We need to see that body up and running, because, and I say this to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), if we are to see equity the ombudsman cannot investigate things other than where the police are involved. In the future, he or she will have no locus beyond that. If we are to see equity, we have to see the HIU in operation, investigating across the piece whatever the authorship, whatever the body. Minister, we need progress on that. We need to see the HIU’s terms of reference, and see it established, so that it can begin that vital work, which is so long overdue.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
It is good to be under your capable hand, Mr Owen, because it ensures that we stay just on the right side of any court case rules and do not prejudice anything. You have been carefully doing that and steering us aright.
I start, as others have, by congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) not only on securing the debate but on setting out such a properly considered and careful exposition of his concerns, which are shared, I think, by many of the other Members from whom we have heard. Although the right hon. Gentleman had to steer a careful course around the sub judice rules, he was right to make the central point that behind every single one of the legacy cases that have been cited in the debate and mentioned elsewhere, there is invariably a human tragedy. We have heard some examples today, but it is essential to remember that there are many, many others that could be mentioned, on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, and they all deserve justice and to be treated equally and fairly.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the Salmon principles—I will not try to do a legal job on them, but broadly speaking they are the central points that many people would naturally reach for—of fairness, due process and equality before the law. It is essential, no matter what processes and institutions we apply, that those central principles are front and centre and are adhered to, otherwise the family and friends of the victims of the troubles will never get the justice that everyone here has called for.
Other Members contributed strongly to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has personal experience, as he rightly pointed out, of operating during the troubles in Northern Ireland. We also had cogent input from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The only remark of his with which I disagree was his description of his constituency as the most beautiful in the world, when clearly that applies to my own constituency of Weston-super-Mare. Beyond that, I suspect everyone agreed with many of the points he made. It was also good to hear from the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), a high degree of cross-party unanimity and consensus.
Bob Stewart
I commend the Opposition spokesman, because I took from what he said that this job is too big for one person, and more resources are required to do it properly.
John Penrose
That brings me neatly on to a point that I think everyone agrees on: it is essential that we all mark our support for the principle behind the office of the police ombudsman. If there is to be confidence in the operation of the police on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, it is essential to have an ombudsman with the powers necessary to investigate current concerns and cases regarding the operation of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without that office, it would be much more difficult to maintain confidence across communities in the working of the PSNI. I am sure that everyone here supports the operation of that office, its continued existence, and its ability, where necessary, to investigate fearlessly and even-handedly.
However, the point has been made on both sides of the debate that in Northern Ireland that role is much broader, applying also to some of the most difficult and sensitive issues surrounding legacy cases from the troubles. That is a very unusual position. It is, inevitably, unique, because the position in Northern Ireland is, for many understandable but tragic reasons, also unique. That is one of the most important reasons why people have said that the current arrangements for dealing with legacy cases from the troubles are not passing the test for many people, on all sides of the community and the debate in Northern Ireland. The arrangements clearly need to be upgraded and improved. It is not just about the operation of the police ombudsman’s breadth of current responsibilities; it is also to do with something that I think the Labour spokesman mentioned: the coronial system, some of the legacy cases going through the courts and the inquest process. There are many other examples, too, which is why we are currently working through the 17,000 responses to the public inquiry into how to take forward the proposals for upgrading and improving the legacy process.
The hon. Member for Rochdale rightly mentioned the historical investigations unit, but there are other proposals to round out a potential solution for the legacy process, including proposals for an independent commission on information retrieval, an oral history archive, and implementation and reconciliation groups. There are many different possible elements to getting this right and doing it better for all sides. However, it is essential that we listen to the 17,000 proposals because, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley pointed out, behind many of them is a grieving family, a victim and a case of personal tragedy.
I recently looked around the door of the team who are going through the 17,000 responses to the legacy consultation. On one side of the room, against the wall, was a very large pile of boxes of submissions that they had already gone through. They had to do so with enormous care and respect, because of the tragedies that lie behind many of the proposals. On the other side of the room, I am happy to say, was a much smaller pile of boxes of submissions that the team had not yet gone through. They are working through the submissions as fast as they reasonably and decently can, given the sensitivity and importance of the material.
Once the team are through, we will not simply be able to issue the Government’s response. We will be able to say that the proposals for the historical investigations unit and the other new institutions are a starting point that we need to overlay with the results from the 17,000 proposals and ask, “What is the final answer? What will allow a settlement, a conclusion and, perhaps, peace and justice, and what will allow us to draw a line under an awful moment in Northern Ireland’s history in a way that provides justice for all sides?” Only then will Northern Ireland be able, perhaps, to begin to put this awful moment of its history a little further behind it and continue the process of healing.
At that point, it will be fairly straightforward for many of us to say that the role of the Northern Ireland police ombudsman will, sensibly, become rather more normal. The responsibility for the legacy cases will rightly be passed to the new institutions and processes, and the ombudsman role will become much more akin to ones that we see elsewhere in the United Kingdom, dealing mainly with current cases.
To leave a little time for the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley to respond, I finish by saying that I am very reassured to have heard that everyone here understands, salutes and agrees with the principle that justice must be done, that fairness must be achieved—no matter who, and no matter what—and that everyone should be equal before the law. The difficulty, of course, is that these legacy cases are incredibly difficult and sensitive—perhaps more difficult than many other kinds of justice that we have to administer in the UK. I therefore hope that when we have finished with the 17,000 submissions to the consultation, we will come up with a set of proposals for which there is cross-party and cross-community support, which will allow us to move forward at long last and make progress in this incredibly important and sensitive area.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank all who took part in this afternoon’s debate, including the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I thank him on behalf of my colleagues for his service to the people of Northern Ireland, and the enormous courage that he displayed in leading his men and women at that very difficult time. There are many in Northern Ireland today—the great majority—who truly appreciate that service and the sacrifice that accompanies it, and will not forget what was done for our country and for the people of Northern Ireland.
I thank my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for the beautiful constituency of Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions and interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) summed it up well when she said that often, because of the lack of a proper process to deal with the legacy of a troubled past, people go to the police ombudsman as a means of pursuing a grievance. As I have already referred to, I wonder about the extent to which that puts pressure on the ombudsman to come to conclusions and make findings that should not normally be part of its remit, and lead to the ombudsman exceeding that remit. I continue to be concerned about the conduct of the ombudsman’s office in dealing with these investigations.
I refer to the case of R (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) v. Independent Police Complaints Commission, which found that it is the job of a police ombudsman to gather evidence and report breaches of discipline to the relevant chief constable, and breaches of the criminal law to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Court of Appeal in London confirmed that only a properly constituted court can find guilt. The difficulty I have is that, in report after report, the police ombudsman is inferring guilt, implying guilt, and in some cases openly stating that police are guilty. However, it does not bring forward evidence to substantiate those claims or go after police officers for disciplinary or criminal wrongdoing, because the evidence to support the claims is not there. I therefore think there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. We welcome the prospect of new legacy institutions replacing the work of the police ombudsman in respect of legacy cases, but we must be mindful of the need to ensure that the new arrangements take care of the concerns I have referred to.
Written Statements
Adrian Smith Review
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I am pleased to announce that I have commissioned Professor Sir Adrian Smith, Director and Chief Executive of the Alan Turing Institute, to provide independent advice on the design of UK funding schemes for international collaboration, innovation and curiosity-driven blue-skies research.
The UK is a world-leading research nation with a globally connected research base. Collaboration with European and wider international partners is key to our strength in science and research: more than half of the UK’s research output involves such collaboration. The UK is in the top four of global innovation nations and we draw in more internationally mobile research and development (R&D) than other large countries, with a total of 16% of UK R&D investment financed from abroad.
This Government are bringing forward the largest investment in R&D on record. As outlined in our modern industrial strategy, we are committed to reaching 2.4% of GDP invested in R&D by 2027, and 3% in the longer term. International partnerships and collaboration will play an important part in helping to achieve our ambitions, including in supporting the industrial strategy’s grand challenges to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future. Professor Sir Adrian Smith’s advice will help set the direction for the implementation of the Government’s ambition to ensure the UK continues to be a global leader in science, research and innovation, and an attractive country for individuals to study and work. Furthermore, Sir Adrian’s advice will help inform the upcoming spending review.
The terms of reference, outlining the scope, timescale and reporting of this work are below.
Terms of reference for the Commission of Professor Sir Adrian Smith
General
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has commissioned Professor Sir Adrian Smith to provide independent advice on the design of potential future UK funding schemes for international, innovation and curiosity-driven blue-skies research, in the context of the UK’s future ambitions for international collaboration on research and innovation. This document outlines the terms of reference for this work.
The global landscape for science and innovation is changing, and access to knowledge, markets, skills and partners now takes place on a global basis. Global research and development (R&D) capacity is expanding and non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries account for a growing share of global R&D, both in terms of researchers and investment. Better understanding is needed on whether the UK’s current funding mechanisms, resources and bilateral and multilateral partnerships will be fit for purpose when set against the projected trends in international research and innovation, and against new technology and industry roadmaps and the forecast social, economic and environmental trends.
The UK’s participation in Horizon 2020, the current European Union (EU) framework programme for research and innovation, has benefited the UK’s science, research and innovation landscape. It provides opportunities for UK entities to collaborate with EU and international counterparts and funding for multiple elements including innovation, international collaborations and partnerships, and curiosity-driven ‘excellence’ based research. Horizon Europe is the successor to Horizon 2020 and will run from 2021 to 2027. The UK remains committed to ongoing collaboration in research and innovation with partners across Europe. To this end the UK would like the option to associate to Horizon Europe and is continuing to actively shape the development of that programme. However, we are also exploring in parallel credible and ambitious alternatives to deliver positive outcomes for science, research and innovation in the event that the UK chooses not to associate.
Purpose
Professor Sir Adrian Smith has been invited to provide independent advice on how funding future international collaboration, from curiosity-driven ‘discovery’ funding through to innovation, can best be designed to positively impact science, research and innovation in the UK, and to support the Government’s strategic objectives, including the industrial strategy and its commitment to 2.4% of GDP invested in R&D by 2027.
In the immediate term, Professor Sir Adrian will be asked to advise on the design and delivery of elements of the potential alternatives to Horizon Europe association. This will include the Discovery Fund, which aims to provide a UK alternative to the curiosity-driven and excellence-focused elements of Horizon Europe.
On the Discovery Fund Professor Sir Adrian Smith will be asked to consider:
The design of UK alternative funds i.e. the scale, scope and any international elements of proposed funds, and how they could complement the current UK funding landscape;
The delivery of UK alternative funds i.e. how strategic direction could be determined, how proposals could be reviewed.
On international collaboration, Professor Sir Adrian Smith will be asked to consider:
How funding mechanisms, resources, and international partnerships can remain fit for purpose for our global ambition to support the international research and innovation strategy, which will be published in the coming months.
How international collaboration can best support the Government’s industrial strategy and 2.4% target.
Professor Sir Adrian’s advice will help inform the upcoming spending review (as announced in the spring statement) and longer-term value-for-money considerations on international collaboration for research and innovation.
Professor Sir Adrian will have the independence to engage with relevant stakeholders and seek expert advice as he sees fit.
Timescale
It is anticipated interim findings will be presented to BEIS Ministers in the summer of 2019.
Reporting
Professor Sir Adrian Smith will report to me as Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. Professor Sir Adrian will provide an update on progress on a regular (monthly) basis, to BEIS officials. A summary of his interim findings will be published by BEIS.
[HCWS1449]
Young Entrepreneurs: Independent Review
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The UK consistently ranks as one of the most entrepreneurial nations in the world, but there is more we can do to break down the barriers that stop some of our best and brightest young people from all backgrounds starting their own business.
Our modern industrial strategy sets out our plan to make the UK the best place to start and grow a business. We want to ensure we are driving forward a thriving entrepreneurial culture across all corners of society. Harnessing untapped talent will be key to achieving this.
To help us realise this ambition, my Department has this month launched an independent review into how best to tackle the barriers facing aspiring young entrepreneurs, aged 18-30, in England. The review will look at issues including access to finance, access to advice, support and business networks so that we can close the gap between entrepreneurial ambition and reality.
It will also look at the support on offer to young entrepreneurs from disadvantaged and low-income backgrounds and adds to efforts by the Government to improve diversity in the business community, following the Rose review into female entrepreneurship published earlier this month.
The review will be led by Nick Stace, chief executive of the Prince’s Trust. To support the review, Government and the Prince’s Trust are bringing together a steering group comprised of entrepreneurs with experience and insight. Details of this group will be set out in the coming weeks.
The review will make recommendations to Ministers later this year about what can be done to ensure young entrepreneurs are properly supported as they start building the businesses of the future.
[HCWS1453]
EU Exit: EEA and Swiss Nationals
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Today the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for Work and Pensions are announcing that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, there will be no immediate changes to entitlements to access public funds for EEA and Swiss nationals coming to live in the UK after free movement ends and before the new immigration system is introduced in 2021.
“Public funds” is defined in immigration rules and includes a range of services and benefits that are provided by a number of Government Departments, local authorities and service providers. This announcement is pertinent to all spending and service Departments.
On 28 January 2019 the Home Secretary set out the immigration provisions for EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK after EU exit in the event of a no deal. The provisions will enable the Government to end freedom of movement but recognise the need for transitional arrangements.
In the event of no deal EEA and Swiss nationals arriving after free movement ends and wishing to stay longer than three months would need to apply for temporary leave to remain which, if granted, would be valid for 36 months.
Our announcement today provides details of the transitional arrangements for access to public funds for this group.
These arrangements will provide certainty to individuals arriving in the UK following the ending of free movement, will minimise disruption, and will ensure that changes are made in a sensible and sustainable way over a period of time.
It is important that, in a no-deal scenario, EEA and Swiss nationals who come to the UK after free movement ends know what their eligibility to access public funds will be. This will be on the same basis as for EEA and Swiss nationals now. They will continue to need to meet any eligibility criteria, for example demonstrating that they are exercising an EU qualifying right to reside, such as a worker or self-employed person. As now, those not exercising a qualifying right will not be able to access certain publicly funded services and benefits.
When an individual’s 36 months temporary non-extendable leave expires, a person wishing to remain in the UK will need to apply and qualify for leave under the new immigration system that will be introduced from 2021 onwards. When individuals move into the new immigration system, or if they otherwise change immigration status, their access to public funds may change. The details on the entitlements that will apply in these circumstances will be subject to further consideration. This may mean that some benefits will cease and that entitlements to some services may end. However, the Government are considering their options and announcements will be made in due course.
We are today publishing a paper entitled access to public funds for EEA and Swiss nationals arriving in the UK after EU exit in a no deal scenario, and I will be depositing copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1451]
Planning Applications: Call-in
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
As Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I have the power to “call in” planning applications, rather than them being left to local planning authorities to determine.
Parliament has entrusted local planning authorities with the responsibility for day-to-day planning decisions in their areas and they should, in general, be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference and delay. For this reason, successive Governments have been very selective about calling in planning applications. While the call-in power under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives me a wide discretion, it is clear that, in practice, call-in is the exception rather than the rule. Over the past 10 years, called-in planning applications have averaged just 21 per year from the annual average of 480,000 applications received by local councils—that is around one in every 23,000.
On 12 December 2001, the then Government announced that they would, from that date, give reasons for decisions not to call in planning applications. Following a review of the call-in process in 2010, a subsequent statement made on 26 October 2012 reconfirmed that the Secretary of State would continue to be very selective about calling in planning applications and would only consider the use of his call-in power if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. However, the statement of 12 December 2001 about giving reasons for not calling in planning applications was not formally withdrawn.
Having regard to the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Save Britain’s Heritage v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I have concluded that I need to address directly whether this Government should be bound by a commitment given by a previous Government. This Government fully support the need to be transparent and open in their decision making, and acknowledge the rationale behind the 2001 statement, but a decision on whether to call in a planning application, or not to do so, is inherently about process and not the merits of the application. I am concerned that to give reasons in either eventuality risks blurring this distinction and, as there is no duty in this respect, I will call in those applications where I conclude that such a decision needs to be taken by me and I will not call in applications where I conclude that the decision is best left with the local planning authority.
Therefore, so that my position is clear, I am announcing today that the policy set out in the statement of 12 December 2001 is hereby withdrawn and that, from today, I will not give reasons for calling in or declining to call in planning applications. The call-in policy set out in the statement of 26 October 2012 remains in place.
[HCWS1452]
Cyclone Idai
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Cyclone Idai, one of the most severe cyclones ever to hit southern Africa, has devastated parts of Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, including many areas that were already affected by severe flooding. The UN estimates that over 2.6 million people have been affected across the three countries. The majority of them are in Mozambique—the country hardest hit by the disaster—where approximately 129,000 people are sheltering in accommodation centres, and where the UN estimates that 1.85 million people are in need of assistance. In Malawi, 87,000 people have been displaced. In Zimbabwe, initial UN figures estimate that 80,000 people have lost their homes entirely. On 25 March, the UN launched a $281.7 million funding appeal for the response in Mozambique.
The UK Government have made £22 million in aid available for the response to date, which is being led by the Governments of the affected countries and the UN. Some £18 million of this is in direct support to the response in the three affected countries and up to £4 million will be used to match the public’s generous contributions to the disaster emergency committee’s cyclone Idai appeal.
In expectation of the extreme weather, DFID-funded partner organisations pre-positioned essential supplies such as hygiene kits and medical supplies. UK aid funding is being used to send life-saving relief supplies and equipment, including 7,550 shelter kits and 100 family tents which are now in use in Mozambique. Following an assessment of need, further supplies are being flown into Mozambique on a charter aircraft from Doncaster Sheffield airport and an RAF A400M Atlas aircraft, which arrived in Mozambique on 26 March.
UK aid is also supporting the World Food Programme (WFP) to feed 400,000 people in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone through the distribution of emergency food and food vouchers. DFID has deployed 12 humanitarian experts to Mozambique, where they are assisting with the co-ordination of the international response. In addition, specialists in food security, nutrition, and water, sanitation, and hygiene from DFID’s Mozambique office are travelling to the affected area. A five-person UK medical assessment and co-ordination team also arrived in Mozambique on 25 March. The team will conduct a scoping visit to Beira and Chimoio this week to assess how the UK can assist in supporting emergency medical and health needs in affected areas. Four further logisticians, in addition to the three already on the ground, are due to arrive in Mozambique on 27 March, and DFID have contracted two airport handling operations experts to provide training to staff at Beira airport.
In Malawi, the UK’s package of emergency support is funding shelter, food assistance, health, and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). These will be delivered through the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the Red Cross. The funding will target the most affected areas of Phalombe, Nsanje, and Chikwawa. Some 65,000 people will be provided with emergency shelter, 150,000 people will receive food assistance for two months, 250,000 people will be provided with WASH support and 130,000 people will be helped to access health services.
In Zimbabwe, UK aid funding has been provided for health, WASH, and child protection assistance in the worst-affected areas, including Chimanimani. DFID is also supporting the immediate provision of emergency latrines and sanitation equipment. DFID is working with leading flooding experts at the Universities of Bristol and Reading, as well as the European centre for medium-range weather forecasts, to forecast how the extent and impact of the floods might change up to 10 days in advance. With more heavy rains forecast over the coming days, and bad weather and access already posing challenges for those on the ground, this allows aid workers to plan ahead and prioritise their resources.
The UK is currently the largest bilateral donor to the response. The UN has allocated $20 million in funding from its central emergency response fund (CERF), to which the UK was the largest donor last year. In addition, the European Commission is providing €3.5 million in support, and a number of other donors have also made contributions. I am in touch with international counterparts to encourage others to contribute and ensure that sufficient funding is made available. Last week, I spoke with both Sir Mark Lowcock, the UN’s emergency relief co-ordinator, and Dr Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus of the World Health Organisation and called on them to ensure that the UN mobilises quickly and effectively. Along with the Minister of State for Africa, I will be speaking with other senior figures and ministers from other donor countries in the coming days to encourage them to contribute to the international response.
Her Majesty the Queen, the Prince of Wales, and I have written to the Heads of State and Foreign Ministers of the affected countries to express condolences and to offer our support and expertise in disaster response.
The UK’s response to the cyclone is a whole-of-government effort both in the affected countries and in the UK. My Department has the overall lead on the response, with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Health and Social Care, and Public Health England. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided consular assistance to the small number of British nationals in the affected area and has updated its travel advice to advise against all but essential travel to the affected areas in Mozambique. We continue to monitor the situation closely and stand ready to deploy further support should it be required.
[HCWS1450]
Stillbirths: Coronial Investigations
(5 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
I am pleased to announce the publication of a consultation on introducing the coronial investigation of stillbirths in England and Wales (CP 16), which has been laid before the House today.
Under current legislation coroners cannot investigate a death when it is known that the baby was not born alive. If there is doubt whether a baby was born alive, a coroner can investigate—which could include holding an inquest—but must halt that investigation if they determine that the baby was stillborn. Our consultation considers the case for coroners investigating stillbirths and sets out proposals for how these investigations could be undertaken. The proposals seek to deliver three objectives:
to bring greater independence to the way stillbirths are investigated;
to ensure transparency and enhance the involvement of bereaved parents in stillbirth investigation processes, including in the development of recommendations aimed at improving maternity care;
and to effectively disseminate learning from investigations across the health system to help prevent future avoidable stillbirths.
The consultation delivers the Government commitment to consider enabling coroners to investigate stillbirths, made in November 2017, when the then Secretary of State for Health launched a suite of maternity safety strategy initiatives and committed to halve stillbirth rates by 2025.
It is thus a joint undertaking between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price) are grateful to the many people and organisations that have worked with officials in both Departments as we have developed our proposals.
Since the November 2017 announcement, meetings have been held with a wide range of interested parties including bereaved parents and supporting charities, the chief coroner and a number of senior coroners, NHS representatives, healthcare safety investigation branch officials, officials in the Welsh Government, academics and the Royal Colleges of Pathologists, Midwives, and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their insight and expertise have been invaluable in helping us develop our thinking.
The consultation seeks views on the merits of coroners inquiring into the causes of stillbirths and contains proposals as to when and how those investigations should take place, reflecting existing processes and arrangements for coronial investigations into child and adult deaths.
We propose that all stillbirths that occur at or after the 37 week of gestation should be in scope of an inquest and our proposals cover such matters as access to documents and medical examination of the stillborn baby.
A coronial investigation would provide greater transparency in stillbirth cases. Under our proposals evidence would be available to all interested persons, including the bereaved parents, who may not otherwise have the opportunity to hear or read everything that is presented when a stillbirth is reviewed. The coroner would bring judicial independence which would help build confidence in the conclusions of the investigation.
We propose that coroners should identify where lessons can be learnt from individual stillbirths in ways that will deliver system-wide improvements to the delivery of maternity services and the general care and safety of expectant mothers.
Whilst we have been developing our proposals, the private Members’ Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, has been progressing through Parliament. The Bill, which is supported by the Government, seeks among other things to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether, and if so how, the law ought to be changed to enable or require coroners to investigate stillbirths. The consultation document takes account of the views expressed by members of both Houses during the debates on the Bill.
The consultation document and an impact assessment have been placed in the Library of the House and are available online at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/coronial-investigations-of-stillbirths/. Copies of the consultation document and the impact assessment are being sent to the stakeholders listed at annex A of the consultation document.
We look forward to hearing from anyone with experience of, or an interest in, this important and sensitive area.
The consultation closes on 18 June and the Government will publish their response later this year.
[HCWS1448]
Property Guardians
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that property guardians are legally protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, property guardians have some legal protections and we are working to ensure that local authorities enforce their rights. However, depending on the arrangements in place, these protections are often fewer than those of tenants. Therefore, we are improving our guidance for property guardians so that they fully understand their rights and the difference between a licence and a tenancy. We are planning a programme of research better to understand the sector and to inform further work.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for a meeting with him about this last week. Will he use this opportunity to reassure the growing number of property guardians that the full force of the current law will be applied and new regulations considered? Will he also make clear that the clauses that these people sign, which include no talking to the media or local authorities, mean nothing if they live with mould, rats, electrical hazards, fire doors screwed shut and more? They can and should report it, even when, as is often the case, the property is owned by a local authority.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for her interest in this. As far as we can tell, there are 5,000 to 7,000 property guardians—the figure is in that area. It is the case that some protections apply. Under the housing health and safety rating system, certain key rights apply, as do rights relating to electrical safety, gas safety and so on. I agree with the noble Baroness that those rights cannot be overridden by non-disclosure agreements. As I said, we are keen to ensure that existing rights are enforced and are planning work to look at the current position and inform possible further action.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Does the Minister think it acceptable that most property guardians must provide their own fire safety equipment when staying in a place as a guardian? Does he agree with the London Fire Brigade, which has raised safety concerns about these dangerous and inadequate arrangements?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I should be grateful to the noble Lord if we could arrange a meeting at which he can raise some of the matters he has just disclosed. As I said, under the housing health and safety rating system, as both tenants and licensees, property guardians have rights in relation to fire and hazards of the first category, which include fire protection. As I said, we are very keen to look at this situation. Some property guardianships are perfectly legitimate but they are not tenancies. For example, if a student looks after a house for a family member or friend in their summer break, that is perfectly acceptable. What is of concern is where the rights of people who are there on a much more permanent basis are overridden; that is what we are looking at.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, what is the definition of a property guardian? Can these situations just be produced by simple means or does there need to be a full legal definition? I do not know, and I think many in the House would like clarification.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, thinking on my feet, it is not a straightforward matter. Rights attach to people as tenants; more limited rights attach to people as licensees. I do not think there is a statutory definition of a property guardian. We are looking at how to ensure that property guardians have a bedrock of rights in all situations so that people are properly protected. That is the key.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Netherlands has a regulator for guardianship properties, which has introduced a kitemarking scheme. Will the Government consider introducing a similar scheme here? I remind the House of my declaration of interest.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I met the Property Guardian Providers Association, which might be the organisation to carry this forward. Some 80% of the market are members of that association. The remainder of the market is principally from Dot Dot Dot; a few others may well join that association. We are looking at that measure; it is certainly one possible way forward, similar to the Short Term Accommodation Association that applies in relation to Airbnb-type associations.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, standing between the occupiers, the property guardians in these empty properties, and the owners—local authorities or people who own an office block—are the property guardian providers, the companies that set up these operations. The Minister knows that MHCLG has a working group on the regulation of property agents, which I have the pleasure of chairing. Will he relay back to the Secretary of State that my working group would be very happy to look at the regulation of property guardian providers, just as we look at estate agents, letting agents and managers of leasehold properties?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly relay that message to the Secretary of State. I know he will be extremely pleased; we were hoping that the noble Lord would look at those.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work he has taken forward since I introduced this issue in a Question for Short Debate in your Lordships’ House. Does he have any advice for local authorities, which use property guardian companies to get income from their empty properties, particularly on enforcing the law on decent conditions, which sometimes includes rogue landlord conditions?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this issue. How right she was to raise it in the way she did in October. I am grateful to her for that and our subsequent meetings. She is right about that problem, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also referred. There is a question about who polices local authorities and the other public authorities in this area. We will want to look at that too, as the noble Baroness said. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Best, will want to comment on it as well.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to add to his shopping list the lack of recognition of residents’ associations in this context? At present, there is no way in which the law can be invoked to ensure that residents’ associations are party to these discussions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord raises a somewhat different but important point. I quite agree. If I may, I will drop him a line on what we are doing in that general area, copy in noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. There are certainly concerns there, which I have shared on previous occasions with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Honours System
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to review the honours system.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the honours system is independent of the Government. In recent years, significant progress has been made to ensure that the system is more open and representative, but there is always more that can be done. A number of changes have been made over the past year to review the operation of the system. That work is continuing.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but in 1917 the introduction of a system to recognise service to your country that included the word “Empire” was appropriate—it is not so today. For this reason, many people, often from within the black and minority ethnic community, refuse to accept—or even to apply on behalf of others for—an honour. Can my noble friend the Minister please outline whether consideration could be given to the introduction of an additional honour to the existing system that does not include the word “Empire”, so that all parties can be satisfied that those who have a conscientious objection for good reason can accept an honour that might be the Order of British Excellence—keeping the same letters—but so that the existing system could be respected as well?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with my noble friend that we should do more to ensure that those from ethnic minority communities who have made a significant contribution to society should see their achievements get public recognition, and we should remove any obstacles in that path. In 2016, 6% of the New Year Honours went to those from black and ethnic minority communities. In the New Year Honours this year it was 12%, and we are averaging around 10%, but none the less more can be done. There are relatively few refusals of honours; the latest figure I have seen is around 2%. The reasons for refusal are not given, but I understand that it is very rare for a refusal to be on the grounds that my noble friend suggested. On her final point, that would require a new order of chivalry. The structure of the honours system is a matter for the monarch; this is well above my pay grade and, indeed, my rank.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, given that there are good grounds for renaming the Order of the British Empire now that we no longer have a British Empire, does the Minister accept that the range of acceptable titles is presumably rather large, since two of our most distinguished orders of chivalry are named after the garter and the bath?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand that the order cannot be renamed. The statute makes it quite clear that it must be known by that name and no other, so we would have to close it and start another. In response to the general issue that has been raised, it is noteworthy that 10 Commonwealth countries, many of them in the Caribbean, continue to nominate people for Orders of the British Empire and other ranks, so I am not sure that the reservations expressed by my noble friend are necessarily widely shared.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, while accepting the point about not using the term “Empire”, I put a further comment to the Minister. Does he accept that one of the criticisms is that there is a hierarchy of honours and that the top honours go to senior people in this country who get them because of their jobs, whereas at the bottom of the scale are the most worthy people who do voluntary work for fellow members of their community? Is it not those people, who work for nothing for their community, who ought to be given pride of place in our honours system?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree: no one should get an honour simply for carrying out the job they are paid to do. As I said right at the beginning, the operation of the honours system is independent of government; there is a Main Honours Committee and nine or 10 sub-committees below it, with civil servants and Members of your Lordships’ House on them. I am sure they will take on board the comments made by the noble Lord that there should be a fairer distribution of the ranks of Orders of the British Empire between those who at the moment are the main beneficiaries and others who perhaps get some of the lower orders.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that our now Commonwealth allies are part of our proud heritage and shared great hardship on our behalf? Decisions of this sort should not be taken in isolation as, more than ever, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder.
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with the noble Viscount. As I said a few moments ago, the order remains in use in other countries: Antigua, the Bahamas, Belize, Grenada and many other countries continue to nominate. Any change would have implications for those Commonwealth countries.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Why are so many places left unfilled in the Order of the Companions of Honour, which is particularly well suited to recognising conspicuous service in the worlds of arts and culture?
Lord Young of Cookham
As a beneficiary of the Order of the Companions of Honour myself, I understand the reservations. If my noble friend looks at the some 60 recipients of the Companionship of Honour, he will find that there is a fairly broad representation. We had a photograph taken a year ago to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the installation of the Companions of Honour. I found myself standing next to one of the smallest actresses I have ever come across, and it looks very odd in the picture.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister’s Answer to the original Question from the noble Baroness was entirely convincing. There is careful screening to check whether somebody might be willing to consider accepting an honour before an application is ever made. That is done by talking to their family, their friends and others involved with them. Therefore, the figure of 2% refusals is entirely unconvincing, and there needs to be a much more careful analysis of what is going on behind the Question in order to deal with the real issue, as is recognised by the questions asked by the House.
Lord Young of Cookham
I take seriously the point made by the right reverend Prelate. People do give reasons for turning down honours; those reasons are not made public. In the letter which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to my noble friend last year, when this issue was raised, she said that it was “rare” for an honour to be turned down for this reason. But we will try to dig further, in the light of the comments of the right reverend Prelate, and see to what extent this is a real disincentive.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the New Year Honours List of 1969 contained a life peerage for Sir Learie Constantine, who took his seat in this House 50 years ago today. On the House of Lords website, there is a very fetching photograph of the bust of Lord Constantine, with the Lord Speaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Lord Constantine’s bust, borrowed from the National Portrait Gallery, is in the Royal Gallery from today. Will the Minister encourage all Members of your Lordships’ House to attend the event on 1 May, when this iconic figure will be celebrated in a seminar and lecture in the Robing Room? There, Members can pay their own tribute to the first Afro-Caribbean Member of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Young of Cookham
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said. As he was speaking, I could see noble Lords writing in their diaries the date he referred to.
Special Educational Needs
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average time without appropriate special educational needs support spent by students who have successfully appealed a decision to have an education, health and care plan.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I remind the House of my declared interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, local authorities are required to carry out any tribunal orders within specified time periods. Data is not collected to demonstrate compliance. However, all local authorities are subject to local area inspections. Children and young people continue to receive support during tribunal appeals. A local authority cannot cease an EHC plan for any young person under 18 unless it determines that it is no longer necessary for special educational provision to be made in accordance with an EHC plan.
Lord Addington
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, often it takes people years to get to the process of making an appeal. According to the British Dyslexia Association, if you do not have a lawyer it can then take up to three years to get through, but much less time if you have a lawyer supporting you. How have we got to the situation where the basic government support is available for those who have lawyers and are capable of handling the system? What chance does a dyslexic child with a dyslexic parent stand?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, it is important to stress that about only 1.5% of all EHC plans are appealed to tribunal. Of those who decide to appeal, 60% fall away and do not go to tribunal, because their issues are resolved. The other important point is that if a local authority loses a tribunal case, it is not because it has lost the whole case; it is just that the tribunal has taken against one element of the case. That is not commonly understood.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, there is no doubt that there is a serious problem across the country. Has the Minister had a chance to talk to the Secretary of State and his colleagues about holding a round table with local authorities and other stakeholders to try to get to the bottom of the disparity between areas of the country where this is working well and those where it is working extraordinarily badly?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I certainly take the noble Lord’s suggestion on board and will recommend that to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, because we are in a learning period. This is a new and fundamental change to the way that the process is handled. Again, I reassure noble Lords that the process is not dramatically worse than it used to be. It is a huge change. One reason for increasing the number of appeals was that in April last year we extended the scope of tribunals to include health—until then, only education was covered. Before the new regime came into place, between 2008 and 2014 the number of tribunal cases went up every year, except for one year when it dipped by just five.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government seem to be taking comfort from the fact that the majority of appeals are dealt with, but the Question was about the minority who wait up to three years. Should we not address that straightaway?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said in my Answer, the local authority cannot withdraw support during an appeal period.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that compliance data is not collected. Why? Nothing will improve unless the data is collected.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, when these reforms came in, we initiated local area inspections. The noble Lord may be aware that we carried out a number of these in combination with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. They are shining a light on both good and bad practice in the sector and, where a poor inspection result comes up, they are asked to provide a written plan for correction. That is how we are gradually improving the system.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that we are also seeing a rise in legal services offering a no-win no-fee system for parents wishing to appeal. That is likely to add further pressure to already hard-pressed local authority budgets. Actually, when all the costs of one case are taken into account, it can cost up to £80,000. Given that it costs only about £3,500 to train a specialist teacher, does the Minister agree that we should try to prevent this no-win no-fee system from taking off?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I certainly support the noble Lord’s suggestion and will take that back to the department. I see no benefit in ambulance chasers benefiting from these cases. It is also worth pointing out that we support the charity Independent Parental Special Education Advice, which provides advice to parents going through the tribunal process. There is no absolute need to use lawyers, which is why IPSEA is an important path for parents to consider.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, I understand that the purpose of the 2014 set of reforms was to ensure a holistic approach by health, education and social care services in the support of children with special needs and of their families. But when appeals take place, I understand that it is not uncommon for social care services to say that they do not know the child. Are the Government ensuring proactive co-operation between health, social care and education services in supporting such children and their parents?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
To reassure the right reverend Prelate, I can say that we are learning from the process. I mentioned earlier the area inspections being carried out. Indeed, a number of inspection reports have required improvements. I shall give a recent example: Rochdale was inspected and asked to provide a written statement of action only in January. An update report showed improvements including educational outcomes, timeliness of response to children and young people, and promotion of understanding of services provided by the LA to those with SEN.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I have a grandson affected by this. Will my noble friend take account of what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said? I think that I am reasonably sophisticated in dealing with complicated issues, but what is going on here is a rationing of resources. It takes ages for people to get an assessment. If you can afford to pay, you can get a private assessment. If you can work your way through the system, you eventually get a result, which I am pleased to say we got. But people who do not have the resources or the experience and ability to work the system are completely shut out. That is what my noble friend needs to look at.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we have consistently increased funding to the high-needs block and in December last year announced an additional £250 million for high-needs funding. I understand and accept that there is demand here, but we are listening and improving the system all the time.
Brexit: Petition to Revoke Article 50 Notification
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the petition created by Margaret Anne Georgiadou to revoke their notification of 29 March 2017 in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and to remain in the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will respond to the e-petition on revoking Article 50 in due course and within the required 21 days for a government response. It remains government policy that we will not revoke our Article 50 notice.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I have seen the response that the Government have already posted on the website. It is rather dismissive, simply repeats earlier responses and keeps the date of 29 March as a possibility for leaving. May I suggest an amended response to the Minister? It is: “Recognising that a petition which now has the support of pushing towards 6 million signatures cannot simply be dismissed as coming from an out-of-touch elite but represents an impressive swathe of opinion from right across the country, the Government from now on will ensure that the UK does not leave the EU without a deal and that any deal agreed by the Government and Parliament, however long that takes, will be put to the public in a public vote so that they can judge it alongside the option of staying a full member of the European Union”.
Lord Callanan
Of course we respect everybody who signed the petition. It is indeed an impressive number of people, but the noble Baroness was a member of the Blair Government when 750,000 people marched against the Iraq war. We know the result of that. In this country, we have government by the ballot box and by Act of Parliament.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, how can the Government keep parroting that the will of the people is the same as it was three years ago when the electorate has changed, nearly 7 million people expressed themselves on the march, the petition wants to stop Brexit and polls consistently show a remain majority? If the Government really respected the people, would they not ask them for an update on their views?
Lord Callanan
We have explored this issue many times in response to the noble Baroness. We respect the result of the referendum, which was the largest participatory democratic exercise ever carried out in this country, and we are committed to implementing that result.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend have any idea of how many of the signatories are British subjects and how many are foreigners?
Lord Callanan
No doubt my noble friend is an avid follower of social media and will therefore have seen some doubt being cast on some of the signatories, but I do not doubt that the vast majority were indeed British citizens.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Does the Minister realise that there is more than one online petition? The one to revoke has brought in nearly 6 million signatures, but the one to leave has brought in 570,000 signatures. Should we not now respond to the recent will of the people?
Lord Callanan
As I said earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, in this country we do not have government by online poll; we have government by the ballot box and by this Parliament, and that is what we will be following.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in seeking to make a party-political point earlier he rather undermined the force of his argument? It might be thought by a number of people in this House and elsewhere that had the Labour Government at the time taken more notice of what was brought to their attention by that march, very bad consequences might have been avoided, and that might be true in this case as well, might it not?
Lord Callanan
I was merely making the point that there have been large expressions of public opinion—demonstrations, internet polls and so on—during previous Governments. At the end of the day, we do not have government by internet opinion poll; we have government by participatory democracy, by the ballot box and by this Parliament.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall the Prime Minister saying at the opening of the referendum campaign,
“It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’, not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’ … Just you”?
Does he recall any of the leaders of the remain campaign dissociating themselves from those remarks?
Lord Lilley
I recall them being endorsed by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and others. Would it not be an enormous betrayal of trust and undermine confidence in our Parliament and our system if we were to ignore the result and simply revoke Article 50?
Lord Callanan
As usual, my noble friend makes a powerful point. We need to respect the votes of 17.4 million people, which is a bigger number than the 5 million who signed the online petition.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is there not a contradiction between the Government’s expressed intention to put the deal before the House of Commons again and again but not to give the British people a chance to have second thoughts?
Lord Callanan
We remain committed to trying to convince the House of Commons that it is a good deal. It is of course a compromise—nobody gets exactly what they want—but we think that it is the best deal on the table. In fact, it is the only deal on the table, and it will deliver a smooth and orderly departure.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Leader of the House of Commons who introduced the parliamentary e-petition system. It is of course a petition to Parliament, not to the Government. In that respect, does my noble friend agree that the necessary response is that, as the House of Commons is taking some control of this process, it should incorporate a debate on the merits or otherwise of revoking Article 50 as part of its discussions in the coming days?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a good point, and that is exactly what will happen. There will be a debate in Westminster Hall and the Government will respond appropriately.
Business of the House
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Wednesday 27 March to enable a Motion to approve a draft affirmative instrument laid before the House under Section 20(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be moved on that day whether or not the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Motion standing in my name will allow us to dispense with Standing Order 72 tomorrow so that we can take the SI that will amend the definition of exit day in UK law before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on it.
Whether or not we approve the SI, we will now not be leaving on 29 March. As noble Lords will know, the Article 50 period has been extended. Exit day has already been changed and it is important that domestic law is aligned with that. Without the SI coming into force, the domestic definition will remain set at 29 March —this Friday—and our statute book will not function correctly. We need to suspend the Standing Order because the JCSI has not yet had the opportunity to formally consider the SI, which was laid yesterday. The committee meets on a Wednesday afternoon and its reports are not normally available until the following Friday. The Government take the scrutiny of their secondary legislation very seriously and I do not move this Motion lightly.
I can tell the House that the extension SI was sent in draft to the JCSI’s lawyers at the end of last week to undergo pre-laying scrutiny, which is one of the highly valuable functions that the committee and its staff perform on behalf of both Houses. It is my understanding that the full Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will, outside of its current working pattern, meet this afternoon to consider the SI and will make a report available to the House ahead of the debate tomorrow. I am grateful to both committees. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord True
To leave out from first “that” to the end and to insert “this House declines to consider the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 until a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft Regulations has been laid before the House, as it is not in accordance with the practice and traditions of the House to consider significant affirmative instruments laid by Her Majesty’s Government without prior consideration by that Committee.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for what she has said and, if I may, I will respond to that in my opening remarks, rather than at the end. For the avoidance of doubt, I must make it clear that I do not have any intention of using this amendment to either extend or not extend our stay in the European Union. Noble Lords who have followed our debates know my view. I deplore the fact that we are not leaving on Friday, but I recognise the circumstances that the Leader of the House has referred to; I personally will not make, recommend or participate in any attempt to talk out that statutory instrument, and I know of no proposal to do so. Therefore, any such suspicion is completely unfounded and it is no pretext for the Executive to evade the normal procedures of Parliament on these highly significant regulations that we will debate tomorrow.
Having set that aside, perhaps I may get on to the fundamental point that I want to make. I speak as someone who spent 13 years in the usual channels of this House and who has been a Member in the nine years that have followed. I have come to understand that there is no greater protection of this House, or indeed of Parliament as a whole, than the freedoms that your Lordships enjoy in procedure and the duties that are laid on the Executive. It is the flexible freedom that we have, and the demands that we are able to make of the Executive, that have enabled this House to become the undoubted master of scrutiny.
In these troubling constitutional times I submit that, wherever we stand, it is more important than ever that the House should protect its working procedures. If the Executive is incoherent and not consulting Parliament soon enough—or not consulting it enough—and if the other place now collectively purports to act as the Executive, then who provides the scrutiny if not this House and its committees?
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not a committee of this House but of both Houses. It exists to protect both Houses against the inappropriate exercise of powers by the Executive. We have in our Standing Orders something the other House does not: a requirement that a report is laid before Parliament by that committee before an important matter is debated. This Standing Order is a protection not only for this House but for the other.
The Joint Committee does a remarkable job. Over the last 18 months it has almost invariably met weekly on Wednesdays; we have heard my noble friend the Minister confirm that it will be meeting again tomorrow—I imagine at 3.45 pm, as always. Since November 2017, it has produced 56 reports, drawing 163 statutory instruments to your Lordships’ attention. Anyone who follows its work knows its importance.
I will not concern myself with the merits of the statutory instruments that might—and will—be considered by the Joint Committee. Neither will I consider this particular statutory instrument, which is not before us today. What is before us is an exceptional Motion from the Executive to set aside our Standing Orders and potentially defeat the need for a report on this very important SI by your Lordships’ Joint Committee before we debate this momentous matter.
In the Explanatory Memorandum just one reason is given. Paragraph 3.1 says that,
“there will be insufficient time for the Committee to report on this instrument in the normal manner”.
I ask your Lordships to hold that phrase, “in the normal manner”, in mind. The Leader of the House says that we have to vacate Standing Order 72. I will come back to the question of time, but let me draw your Lordships’ attention to the exceptional nature of the Leader’s Motion before us: to bypass the requirement for a report from this key parliamentary committee for both Houses. The clerks have told me—I am grateful for their advice—that there have been four such Motions this century—just four. One of those was last October when the Joint Committee was not even in existence.
This underlines the exceptional nature of a Motion to set aside our Standing Orders requiring the Joint Committee report to be laid before the statutory instrument is moved. I do not believe that this vacation of the duty of the Joint Committee to report can be justified, particularly as my noble friend the Minister has confirmed that the Joint Committee is meeting tomorrow to consider the matter. I do not accept the plea that there was no time. My noble friend the Minister has told us that the Joint Committee was informed last Friday. Its guidelines say that it is normal for the Joint Committee to take five working days to consider a matter, but equally the guidelines make provisions for it be done more expeditiously. I have no doubt—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am having some difficulty in following the noble Lord’s line of argument. I would have thought that his remarks would be better directed at the Prime Minister. After all, it is she who has prevaricated about letting the House of Commons make the decision in this regard and then twice ignored its views. With the greatest respect to him, given the dire situation that we are in, what alternative do we have but to take this SI as soon as possible?
Lord True
I was seeking to make a procedural point on behalf of your Lordships’ House. Our normal procedures are not there to protect the Government, let alone to protect them from any criticism, but to protect Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place to allow them to make representations and for us to hear a considered report. I believe that that is the procedure that we should follow.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is a particular pleasure for me, and people behind me will understand why: I was brought up on Citrine’s ABC of Chairmanship, and we are dealing a lot with Standing Orders and when it is appropriate for them to be suspended. I never thought I would revert to that book in your Lordships’ House.
Standing Orders, by their nature, are not laws of the country. The fact is that they can be suspended exactly because the times are exceptional. I agree with what I think was the implication of my noble friend behind me: the situation that we are in is not of this House’s making but is because of a failure of negotiation by someone else. In fact, the SI we are discussing still does not have one date on it but two, though no doubt we will make those comments when we debate it.
For today, though, there is a different issue before us: the certainty that is necessary, particularly for lawyers and courts but also for businesses, citizens and everyone else. The situation at the moment, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, is that the agreement reached with the EU may not be exactly what the Prime Minister wanted but it does move the date on which we will leave the EU. It was made with agreement because, under Article 50 of the treaty, the change of date can be made only with the agreement of the member state. So it was our Government who agreed to the change of exit date; it is not something that has been imposed on us but something that our Government accepted. The date to which the exit will move will be in either April or May, as is allowed for.
The important issue is that we will not leave this Friday, but at the moment we have an Act of Parliament that will come into effect then. All the statutory instruments we have passed and all the other changes come into effect at 11 pm our time on Friday. If we fail to deal with this, we could have a situation where we will still be in the European Union till at least 12 April and completely controlled by all the rules we have been part of, but the Act and all the statutory instruments would also be in force. We would have two lots of laws on our statute book at the same time, which would cause a lot of confusion for business, citizens and anyone needing to act by those laws. They could be laws on the environment, the health and safety of animals, consumer rights, workers’ rights, or all sorts of other things. This raises an issue about the importance of bringing absolute clarity to domestic law. The case being made is that it would be impossible to do this if one particular committee had not looked at it. This is a committee whose members have not been addressing us—they have certainly not addressed anyone on our side of the House—to say that you cannot meet without our committee’s views. We have not been inundated with views from those committee members, which I think is significant.
The committee may meet tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, gave a look which asked whether it could alter its meeting. Maybe it could, but it has its rules. It knows the situation and the seriousness of it. The point is, it does not publish until Friday morning. The alternative is that we do not take this tomorrow, but reassemble on Friday, after we get the report, and do it then. That seems one way that we could have input from the committee. If your Lordships’ House really wants to come back on Friday and do it then, it should obviously support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. If the committee, of which he speaks so highly, is content and has not brought representations, it would be completely in order. Our other committee will have done its work this afternoon and we should suspend Standing Orders, as has been recommended. We will not support the noble Lord, Lord True, should he push to a Division.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I seem to remember that we had quite a lot of debate in this House about the inclusion of the date of 29 March in the legislation. It astonishes me greatly to find that the Prime Minister can go to a meeting in Brussels and, suddenly, what is in statue is completely irrelevant. However, I do not propose to say anything about that because I strongly support my noble friend Lord True. Unlike the noble Baroness, he did not address whether we needed to change the date, and the reasons for changing it, but rather the procedure of our Standing Orders, which requires a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for whom I have enormous regard, has suggested that perhaps we should sit on Friday to see the committee’s report. That sounds a bit like the tail wagging the dog. There is an issue under our Standing Orders that we should receive a report from the committee. Reading the Explanatory Memorandum, I note that the United Kingdom sent a letter dated 22 March from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the EU. If he could write a letter to the EU, why could a letter not have been sent to the chairman of the joint committee, inviting it to meet to discuss the matter and report to this House? This may sound like a rather pedantic point—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That comes from the author of Article 50; he has a brass neck. It may sound like a pedantic point, but at the other end of this building, the House of Commons has now become the Executive—or, at least, it will be tomorrow. If the House of Commons is now the Executive, how does Parliament hold the Executive to account? The responsibility lies in this unelected House if the House of Commons has now become the Executive.
Although we have no written constitution and I have never been in favour of our having one, I am beginning to change my view. Our constitution consists of all these little rules and conventions. If we no longer have collective responsibility in Cabinet or people respecting the Standing Orders of this place and the other place, and we have a Speaker who behaves in a way that is unconventional by the traditions of the other place, our constitution itself is being undermined. My noble friend Lord True makes a really important point: we have to respect our Standing Orders because that is what lies between us and tyranny. It is absolutely essential that we take account of that.
I cannot resist making one point. I put down a Written Question, which was answered by my right honourable and noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, asking how many times the Prime Minister had told the House of Commons that we would be leaving the European Union on 29 March. Like every other Question, it is best to know the answer before you ask it, but I was not sure of the answer. I knew it was more than 100 times. The reply I got back was that this information is not collected centrally. I do not blame my right honourable and noble friend for that Answer—I suspect it was written elsewhere—but it is very important that the Executive remain accountable to Parliament. My noble friend Lord True makes a very convincing case. While we have such disorder at the other end of the building, it would be very good if we could maintain our traditions, respect our Standing Orders and operate in a civilised manner that sets an example to the other place.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, over recent months a number of quite extraordinary claims have been made about the consequences of actions relating to Brexit. The claim of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that all that separates us from tyranny is whether we take this statutory instrument before or after a committee has expressed a view on it seems up there with the most extraordinary.
This House has been considering statutory instruments that are some 650 pages long. In this case, we are looking at a statutory instrument that is of minuscule length, the meaning of which is absolutely clear and the purpose of which is not disputed by anybody. Therefore, it seems that if ever there were a case where we could do without the normal rules with no jeopardy to the future of the state, this is it. Who in this House thinks we will not pass this statutory instrument? Who thinks that there is any ambiguity in its wording? The sooner we have certainty on a whole raft of Brexit issues, the better. This is one straightforward, easy bit. I suggest we deal with the easy bit tomorrow and then start worrying a bit more about the harder bits.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House, but when she moves the Motion tomorrow relating to the substance of this statutory instrument, could she address a question not of tyranny, but of legality? A number of lawyers have expressed concern about the legality of this statutory instrument. The concern is that it sets out two alternative exit days: 12 April or 22 May. The power of Ministers to vary exit day is contained in Section 20(4)(a) of the EU withdrawal Act 2018, which says that a Minister may by regulations,
“amend the definition of ‘exit day’ … to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”.
The legal concern which some lawyers have expressed is that a power to specify the day and time when the treaties are to cease to apply is not satisfied by identifying two possibilities; it is not possible, if this SI is enacted, to identify exit day simply by reading it.
I emphasise that I am not adopting this argument but simply drawing attention to it. I ask the Leader, before tomorrow, to consider this point; to consult, if necessary, with the law officers; and to give an assurance to this House that the Government have considered the point and are satisfied that this statutory instrument is a valid one. Whatever one’s views on the politics of this difficult situation, I hope we can all agree that it would be complete disaster to adopt an invalid statutory instrument on such an important point.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Is that not another reason why we should have the report from the Joint Committee?
Lord Pannick
No, because for my part I will be quite satisfied if the Government consider this point. Other noble Lords, including members of the committee, now have notice of this question, and if anyone thinks the point is worth discussing tomorrow, they can have a proper opportunity to do so.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The noble Lord has much greater experience of the law than I and most of the people in this House do. Therefore, could he explain whether there would be any possibility of a challenge to the statutory instrument—which he and I would not wish—if we have not followed the correct procedures, as my noble friend Lord True wishes?
Lord Pannick
There could be the possibility of a challenge if this point had any substance to it. I am concerned that we do not adopt or approve a statutory instrument without consideration of this point. The alternative would be to have a statutory instrument that specifies 12 April as exit day and if, as we approach that day, it appears that the date for us leaving the EU will be later than that, a further amending statutory instrument is brought forward.
I emphasise that I am not telling the House that this is, in my view, a fatal amendment to this statutory instrument. I am raising a concern that has been expressed by some lawyers about this point. I would welcome it if the Leader were to consider the point—with the law officers if appropriate—and address it tomorrow.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
It is not just a question of alternatives, is it? If you look at the text of the first alternative, you cannot determine what the date is by looking at the words in the instrument. Is that the point that the noble Lord is seeking to make?
Lord Pannick
There are two points. You cannot tell the date on which we are to leave simply by reading the statutory instrument, and that date, on the drafting of the statutory instrument, depends on an external event which is certainly not within our control.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for having spelled out that this is not, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, a frightfully straightforward, simple little exercise. It is actually a very complex issue which raises serious legal questions. Therefore, the Joint Committee should look at it very closely. It should not be bypassed by the Motion that the Leader of the House put in front of us. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that we should be questioning the Prime Minister on this. I only wish we could. Unfortunately, she does not sit in this House, although I am sure my noble friend the Leader will answer for her.
The fact remains that we are trying to bypass our systems. We are upholders of the constitution of this country, and we should seriously question whether this should happen. The opening remarks of my noble friend revealed that the Joint Committee has been asked to look at this and that it could report earlier. Surely, therefore, she can accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord True. If she does, we can go ahead with it quite straightforwardly. There could be an accelerated process of reporting to the House, and we could then get it all done tomorrow, could we not?
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has raised. There is an indication which has been referred to today—I think in the Financial Times—that extreme people who wish to leave were raising a legal challenge to the fact that we are not leaving at the end of the month.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, made the interesting point that he was rather surprised by the assertion made by the Lord Privy Seal that the decisions of the EU Council trumped UK law. She was asked repeatedly about that, so can she clarify what has changed since yesterday so that she comes forward indicating that it raises some really big issues if we do not deal with that? If that is the case, is it therefore suggested that all these statutory instruments which people have been sweating over in the last few months do not in practice replicate EU law and move it into UK law? If there is a distinction between them, that is precisely what we were trying to establish during many of those debates. I would be grateful for that clarification.
The noble Baroness also said in her remarks a few minutes ago that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments usually meets at a certain time and reports on a certain date. Presumably there have been plenty of instances in the past when it has not met on those dates. Why was that not put to the Joint Committee?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, my noble friends Lord True and Lord Forsyth are of course correct to say that it is not usual practice for the House not to consider SIs until the JCSI has both considered and reported on them. This is indeed an unusual request but I remind noble Lords that the House of Commons asked the Government to seek an extension last week. We have done that and laid an SI on the first sitting day that we could after a decision was made. I accept that noble Lords may not like that, but it is the position we are in, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for recognising that we are in exceptional circumstances. I have recognised that.
That being said, the practice has in the past been set aside where there is a clear case for an SI to be considered urgently. In this Session we have set it aside twice before, each time making a case on its merits, as I hope I have done today. The first instance was to ensure the continuation of the non-jury trial provisions in Northern Ireland; and the second was to control a substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I reiterate to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that while the JCSI has not looked at this in detail, the extension SI was sent in draft to its lawyers at the end of last week to undergo pre-laying scrutiny.
I am surprised that noble Lords are now asking me to dictate the terms of how a committee meets. I do not think that in normal circumstances they would want me, as the Leader of the House, to start dictating what our independent committees do. I just ask that that is considered. The JCSI is entirely entitled to decide when, how and why it meets. I genuinely do not believe that it is for me to say that. If the JCSI reported in the usual way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, we would have to meet on Friday to consider it. I believe that noble Lords would like us to get this SI through, so that as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, we can have certainty, which is what we deserve to deliver for the country.
As noble Lords know, the terms of our exit from the EU are governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. On 22 March, last Friday, the UK agreed to EU Council decision 2019/476 to extend the period provided for in Article 50. The EU Council decision and the UK’s agreement to it constitute a binding agreement in EU and international law. It is important that the definition of “exit date” in UK law is changed before Friday because, as the noble Baroness said, that is when a significant amount of our EU exit legislation, including hundreds of SIs, is due to enter into force. Unless the date is changed, our statute book will not function properly. There will be clashes between UK and EU law, contradictory provisions will apply and, in some cases, new UK laws will permanently replace EU ones. Our domestic law would be left in a state of confusion and this could have serious consequences, which we all want to avoid, for businesses and the public.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments: we are confident that the instrument is legally correct, but we will of course look in more detail at his comments today and respond to them in detail tomorrow, when, no doubt, we will have a further discussion.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked a very interesting question to which I would genuinely like to know the answer. My expectation was that the Government would lay a statutory instrument that would change exit day to 12 April and, if it were necessary to move to 22 May, would lay a further SI. I simply do not understand the motivation or rationale for putting both dates into the SI.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The rationale is that we have two dates agreed with the EU, both now set out in one SI. That means that both situations are covered, which seemed a sensible approach. Again, we will obviously discuss the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and any others that noble Lords wish to raise now that the SI has been tabled, and we look forward to that further discussion tomorrow.
I personally share the frustrations of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Forsyth that we are not leaving the EU on Friday—I know that a number of noble Lords do not—but it is our responsibility to provide legal certainty for the people of this country, and given that the date of our exit from the EU has already been changed I believe it is our duty to take, discuss and, I hope, pass this SI.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
What does my noble friend suppose the effect will be on all the businesses that have prepared to leave on 29 March?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I think that what businesses and citizens want is certainty. We have now had a decision between the UK Government and the EU that we will extend the date past 29 March. What we owe the country is to ensure that our legal system and statute book reflect that. We will have a further discussion about this tomorrow, but I believe that we as a House should discuss this SI and, I hope, pass it tomorrow to ensure that we have a functioning—
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My noble friend has comprehensively addressed the issue of this statutory instrument, but I do not feel she is addressing the point my noble friend Lord True made about the constitutional precedent that this sets.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have said that this is an unusual situation: that is why I am here asking the House to agree that we can do this. It is only right to do that. This has been done on a number of occasions. I am not saying in any way that this is a usual situation; I have tried to set out the timeline that has led us to this and I say again that I believe that, for the country, our discussing this SI tomorrow and—I hope—passing it will mean that this House has played an important part in providing certainty to our citizens and businesses so that we can move forward and leave in an orderly fashion. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, before I respond, will my noble friend comment on one thing? She said that it is not for her to ask a committee to sit on a certain day. The guidance from the JCSI to government departments states at paragraph 3:
“If, in exceptional circumstances, a Department wishes an affirmative instrument … later than the normal deadline to be considered at a particular meeting, a letter from the relevant Minister to the Chairman of the JCSI will be required setting out the reasons why expedited consideration is thought necessary and why the instrument was not laid sooner”.
Did the Government send such a letter to the chairman of the JCSI?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I understand that my noble friend has written to the JCSI, but I repeat that it is for that committee to decide when it sits and to decide its programme of business. As I said, we have given a preview of the SI to the committee. I trust its judgment and I fear that, no matter what the pushing, I am not going to dictate what that committee does.
Lord True
I am afraid that that means that the Government have refused to accept an open offer from this committee to all government departments for expedited procedures—an extraordinary decision in the case of one of the most significant statutory instruments ever to be laid before Parliament, whichever side of the argument you are on.
The logic of what we have heard from my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, is this. Tomorrow, your Lordships’ House will be asked to meet and start considering this statutory instrument. A few minutes later, somewhere in this House, the Joint Committee will start deliberating, as we have heard, on its significance and potential impact. Your Lordships will be invited to take a decision; the poor old Joint Committee will reach some conclusions and your Lordships and the other place will never be advised of them before the decision is made. This is an absurd position. In any sense, it cannot be right.
We are talking here of printing. We live in the 21st century. Are we really saying that a committee that deliberates tomorrow afternoon cannot print a report and have it before your Lordships’ House by Friday? It could be put on pieces of paper like those in my hand.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
I apologise for not having been present for all of this consideration. I have to tell my noble friend Lord True that the Select Committee on statutory instruments of your Lordships’ House has met and prepared a report that will be available to your Lordships tonight.
Lord True
I am grateful for the intervention from my noble friend. However, the position in our Standing Orders and constitutionally is that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—a Joint Committee of both Houses, not just your Lordships’ House—considers important affirmative instruments and presents a report. My noble friend’s committee’s report will be immensely valuable but it cannot have the authority of a Joint Committee, which will have authority and distinction in both Houses.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I want to say something about the intervention we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He is chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House, which has to be distinguished from the JCSI. I thought it would be helpful to have that acknowledged.
Lord True
I am so grateful; that was a procedural point from the noble Lord, not a political one.
This is a sensible, grown-up House; we do not need to deal with these things by Division. Is not the sensible thing for the usual channels to take this away and for my noble friend not to press her Motion, which creates a precedent for the future? If this type of Motion becomes normal, it will have a chilling effect on future Oppositions and Governments as time goes by.
The sensible thing would be for the usual channels, in discussion with the Joint Committee, to take this away, have some discussions, not press this measure and report to the House tomorrow, before we can lay a document. In fact, they can lay a document while the House is still sitting this evening, or let us know by making a Statement. Then, we can decide whether it is necessary to go ahead with the farce of considering this tomorrow, while the Joint Committee is meeting down the Corridor. We could still then take the business later tomorrow or on Thursday. I do not accept the argument about printing. Will my noble friend consider having consultations with the usual channels and Cross-Benchers?
I was going to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. I am not a lawyer and I said I would not go into the merits of the statutory instrument. As a lay man, it seems to me astounding that it was not the date—that it must be open to challenge. The other thing is the potential effect of a charge on public funds which might arise from staying in the European Union, which the Joint Committee also looks at.
It would be safer for this House and the other place to have the benefit of a considered report to which representations can be made. I urge my noble friend to take it away, consider it in the usual channels with interested parties and bring it back later tonight or tomorrow. If she will do that, I will reflect on what she said and decide whether I wish to divide the House, which I would rather not do. It is not my intention to do so in any circumstances and is not conditional on what she says. Will she consider that proposal?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend that assurance. We have discussed this through the usual channels. This is an important SI that we need to see through and I hope I have explained the reasons why. I acknowledge that these are unusual circumstances—I have accepted that and said so quite readily at the Dispatch Box—but for the sake of the country we need to look at and discuss this SI tomorrow, as the House of Commons will. I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, but I am afraid I cannot accede to his request.
Lord True
My Lords, I regret to say I find that a highly unsatisfactory response and not in the spirit of co-operation across the House. But I see no point in dividing if my Front Bench and the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches are not interested in debating with the benefit of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. There is very little a mere Back-Bencher can do, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:51 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 202 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 15th and 17th Reports 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, these regulations concern the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, otherwise known as REACH. These regulations apply to the whole of the UK, with the exception of paragraph 1 of Schedule 11, which makes technical amendments to the England and Wales regulations that transposed the EU directive on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument and, where it relates to devolved matters, they have given their consent.
Our chemicals sector is world leading and one of the UK’s largest manufacturing exporters by value. We fully realise the sector’s economic importance and its importance to the way we all live our lives. At the same time, we also recognise the risks to human health and the environment if chemicals are not used properly. The UK is strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals to protect both the public and the environment. That will not change when we leave. This is why we clearly set out our negotiating position in the White Paper published in July last year.
We want frictionless trade which maintains strong chemicals regulation through a common rulebook for sectors such as chemicals that would be supported by arrangements that cover all relevant compliance activity such as REACH, and continued active participation in the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, so that UK businesses can continue to register chemical substances directly, rather than working through an EU-based representative.
However, we must also be ready should we leave without a withdrawal deal. The building blocks of REACH will all remain, and we are keeping the fundamental approach of REACH, with its aims of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, as well as enhancing innovation and competitiveness. This is why we seek a smooth transition and an outcome which minimises friction, disruption and delay at our borders and supports the continued chemical supply chains with the EU.
Delivering day one functionality has been a key priority since 2016. To achieve this, we have been working with both industry and the UK regulators. Since 2016, Defra, in partnership with BEIS and HSE, has run an extensive programme of stakeholder engagement with the chemicals industry with the aim of reaching as wide an audience as possible, particularly targeting SMEs and downstream users of chemicals. This programme included regular ministerial meetings with Ministers from Defra, BEIS and DExEU.
Last summer, we held a series of informal briefings for the chemicals sectors, NGOs and other stakeholders on the proposals contained in the instrument. We followed this up with detailed guidance. Since October, this effort has been even more intense. We have engaged directly with more than 1,700 stakeholders. Building on this, we launched the ongoing business readiness campaign in January to spread coverage to as many businesses as possible. We have used online adverts to promote stakeholder events and both social and traditional media outlets for increased stakeholder engagement. In the last week, my officials have also been in Frankfurt and Brussels to spread the message to EU business.
Concurrently, we have been building the UK REACH IT systems. We have tested this system with more than 100 industry users from UK and international chemicals manufacturers and distributors, the energy sector, aerospace, biotechnology and the automotive sector, agriculture and the cosmetics industry. The system stood up well and we received positive feedback, with industry generally finding it straightforward to use. The positive assessment and feedback from attendees during this exercise means that UK REACH IT will be ready to go live for exit day. It will have the critical functionality to enable industry to register new chemicals and for holders of existing REACH registrations to provide the UK agency with details to verify those registrations.
UK REACH provides for the functions of ECHA to be carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE will receive industry’s registrations of chemicals and make technical decisions, for example in dossier and substance evaluations, as well as scrutinising authorisation applications and making scientific recommendations on whether to introduce new restrictions. This builds on the HSE’s activities as the competent authority for REACH. The Environment Agency and the devolved environmental regulators will have the role of providing the advice that the HSE will need on environmental matters.
The HSE is ready to act. We are increasing the resources available to it with extra money and extra people. We have done the same for the Environment Agency and for Defra. We have also provided extra resources to both the HSE and the EA to prepare, and we will continue to scale up their resources to £13 million a year at full operation. Appeals against the HSE’s decisions will be heard by the First-tier Tribunal, which is fully independent of the HSE. The tribunal can bring in expert advice so that it can assess the merits of the case.
The SI contains a range of transitional provisions to provide legal certainty to business and to protect supply chains. There will be automatic transfer of existing UK registrations into the UK REACH system. This means that industry needs to do nothing on exit day to be reassured that its registrations will be valid in UK law and there will be no break in its access to the UK market.
Companies will need to provide HSE with the information supporting their registrations in two phases: initial information within 120 days and the full information within two years. No fee will be attached to these requirements. As I have said, industry has tested the IT systems and given them its support.
Lord Fox
To leave out from “that” to the end and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations because Her Majesty’s Government has provided insufficient information on the impact of the proposed changes, in particular in relation to (1) the additional responsibilities being transferred to the Health and Safety Executive and its readiness to act as the national regulator, (2) the potential costs for the chemical and advanced manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom, (3) the potential duplication of testing on animals, and (4) the need to uphold environmental protections; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to lay new regulations following full consultation with the chemical, manufacturing and consumer goods industries, and the environmental sector, with the aim of delivering a regulatory regime of the highest standard”.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register, but everybody in this Chamber has an interest because chemicals touch every part of everybody’s lives in this country. That is why the Minister is completely correct that it is vital for this country to have a safe and effective management regime for chemicals. Safety should be the primary concern, alongside environmental sustainability.
Along with other Peers, I worked on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which the Government rightfully decided deserved primary legislation, not least because it involved an international treaty but also because it is a complex and important safety regime. During the proceedings on that legislation, which the Government brought to this House and the other place, it was improved and full debate was had. The chemicals and chemical regulation regime is just as complex and important, if not more so, than nuclear safeguarding, and this should have been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place as primary legislation. It is regrettable that this was not the case.
It is also extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that the Government have left it so late to bring this statutory instrument in front of your Lordships. When this was tabled it was anticipated that this could be three days before the measures in this statutory instrument would be required. Given its importance and complexity, that is beyond remiss and looks like brinkmanship. Despite the fulsome description of consultation, roadshows and so on, the response I have had from industry and civic society—a broad range of stakeholders—has been that this is not a satisfactory statutory instrument, which is why I have tabled this fatal amendment.
I will try to highlight some of the flaws. I am afraid to say it will not be a short speech, because there are quite a lot of flaws. I apologise—but not much, because this issue has to be laid before your Lordships and these issues need to put on the public record. I will ask a number of questions. As the Minister has set out, this regime is effectively ready to roll, so I am sure he will not have trouble answering these questions.
In the months and years to come, it is important people understand what the Government think they have laid before your Lordships in the regrettable event that we have to use this statutory instrument. However, there is another reason why this debate is important. The instrument clearly indicates the direction of travel. In his preamble, the Minister talked about the objective of having a common rule book, frictionless trade and co-operation—I am not sure that is the word the Minister used—with the ECHA. In the event that we leave the European Union, these are all ambitions I would share. However, none of them is a done deal, and this statutory instrument sets a direction of travel for what regime might follow in any case.
The Government have succeeded in unifying one part of the country: those involved in the manufacturing and use of chemicals in the industry are pretty united in their concerns about this statutory instrument. As the Minister set out, much time and effort has been invested in creating and delivering REACH—over more than a decade. Many in the industry and civil society feel that, just when this regime is beginning to deliver, we are walking away from it and potentially creating another parallel exercise. And those who have been involved in this will know what a big exercise it is. As we have said, the political agreement points to co-operation, but we cannot be certain we will get that.
Can the Minister confirm to your Lordships’ House that, as well as the process of discussion with the chemicals industry and green organisations, the concerns put forward by these bodies have been represented to Her Majesty’s Government? Can he confirm that those consultations have happened?
The economic impact on the UK of the development of an equivalent national chemicals regulation is considerable, and the Minister set out some of the complexities that will be taken on board by the United Kingdom. Furthermore, REACH substance evaluations and authorisations are not small affairs. The Minister mentioned substances of very high concern, or SVHCs. My understanding is that around 488 of those are being re-evaluated by REACH. At the moment, that process is shared across member states, and it is a long and complex process. If the United Kingdom is going to take on board that process individually and separately from the EU, it will take a great deal of time and money, and, frankly, it will require more tests, whether the Minister is seeking to avoid that or not. It is quite clear that, in taking this course, the United Kingdom will face a significant burden, taking on the duplication of a previously shared workload.
The Minister talked about preparation. I understand there is an IT framework, which cost around £5.8 million to create. In July 2018, in a parliamentary committee, a civil servant confirmed that it would not be fully functional on exit day, and I noticed that the language from the Minister was slightly hedged on that issue. The official said that some of the fuller functionalities would not necessarily be required on day one and are on a slower timescale. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what functionality will be available on exit day and what will not.
As the Minister said, Defra has confirmed that the HSE will run this database and lead the overall process. He set out, as Minister Coffey did when presenting this SI in the other place, that the Government anticipate a future budget increased by £13 million—I believe that was the figure. That equates to around 40 to 50 additional staff. Given that the number of chemicals used in the UK will not be drastically lower than the number used at EU level, the HSE will deal with a similar number of chemicals—the Minister talked about grandfathering, and we will come to that—to those under the jurisdiction of the ECHA. I should point out that its annual budget is €100 million and it has nearly 600 members of staff. Consulting with people in the industry, I am told that around 300 to 400 people would be a reasonable assumption of what the HSE would need in order to deliver the very complex tasks that the Minister has set before your Lordships. So I challenge the idea that £13 million would be sufficient resources to deliver this programme. Can the Minister comment on that particular supposition but also, within the framework of his own constraints, tell us how many people have been recruited already by the HSE in order to deliver this, because we could have been delivering this within a few days? I imagine that a recruitment process is already under way. Will the Minister update us on that?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call either of the other amendments to the Motion on the Order Paper by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of that, I should like to speak to my amendment and to the contributions made so far. It is some time since I have found myself on the Front Bench, so I had better observe the niceties.
First, I thank the Minister for spelling out these complex regulations. No one denies the need, post Brexit, for robust regulation in this field. However, I contend that the way in which the Government are going about it is causing excessive bureaucracy and cost. The Minister rightly referred to the work that his department has done in talking to the industry, and the industry appreciates that, but he must be aware that there are still grave concerns among large sectors of the industry and firms, as well as downstream firms, about the situation post Brexit. I thank his department for all that work and I thank him for producing the latest UK REACH guidance yesterday, bringing together previous technical notes and updating them, but it is a little late given that these regulations were laid when we thought that by Friday we might be out of the EU.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. I agreed with pretty much every word he said and I will try not to repeat his points—at least not at great length—but I disagree with the purport of his amendment. The regrettable fact is that we are in an unenviable position here. These regulations could have come into effect on Friday and might still come into effect in two and a half weeks’ time. As is the case with so many of the no-deal contingency regulations that we have been through, whatever we might think and whatever the ideal outcome might have been, industry, consumers and the workforce need some degree of certainty about what happens on Brexit day and the day after. If we do not have these regulations, as is the intention of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we will be in a legal vacuum. Given the complexity of this area, the potential danger and the hazardous nature of many of the chemicals covered by the regulations, as well as the legal and insurance situations, I suspect that a lot of trade will grind to a halt. That would be very dangerous for the environment and very expensive to the sector.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled an amendment to this Motion, and speak very much as the chair of your Lordships’ EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. We deal with Defra issues. We issued a report on Brexit and the chemicals industry which has not yet been debated on the Floor of the House, so that is why I want to bring up some of these issues here.
I will give a little background about the chemicals industry, because it is key to this debate. It is the second-largest manufacturing industry in the UK, after food processing. It has a total gross value added of something like £12 billion. It is extremely dependent on trade: some 60% of its output goes to the EU and some 80% of our chemicals imports come from there. It employs half a million people. Not just the chemicals industry but a huge proportion of industries in this country use chemicals in their supply chains. Therefore, it is not just the chemicals industry that is affected by this but all those other businesses that use chemicals in their processes, particularly those that are downstream in the manufacturing process. They do not import, export or manufacture chemicals themselves but they use them, so they are affected by the REACH regulations.
I will be more critical than I usually am, as chair of the committee. The committee found—and felt very strongly, if I am honest—that Defra was not on the front foot on this issue. Understandably, Defra focuses on agriculture, fisheries, flooding and stuff looked at by the Environment Agency; the EA obviously has a role in this. When we had Ministers and senior department officials in front of us, we felt very strongly that they did not understand the gravity, timescale and effect on industry of coming out of REACH. That is not the case now, but perhaps this SI is an example of trying to catch up and lay a statutory instrument that is sufficient for the industry’s needs, but not being able to do that quickly enough.
I will talk a little about the European Chemicals Agency. To give your Lordships an idea, it has 500 staff, a budget of around £100 million, and 21,000 registered substances, of which only about 5,000 are registered by UK companies and organisations. That is a serious operation. What I want to come back to is that all of its functions will now have to be replicated in the United Kingdom. That is essential after Brexit. There will still be 21,000 chemicals that the UK will want to use, which will have to be authorised, recorded and checked up on, to make sure that the regulations are applied.
The committee very much welcomed the Prime Minister’s view that we should remain part of the European Chemicals Agency. We agreed with that very strongly. But of course that is not possible if we are not in the single market or a member of the EU or EEA. That is just not on offer. We asked many times what the Government have managed to negotiate further with the EU on this. They are not able to, because the EU will not do that. It is not in the Government’s power to arrange that pre-Brexit, unfortunately. That is the situation: we cannot be part of the chemicals agency and the REACH regime if we are not part of the single market.
The committee was also struck by the absolute unanimity of the whole industry, NGOs and the scientific community—far more than on any other subject we have looked at, whether fisheries, biosecurity or food supplies—that we should try still to be part of the European Chemicals Agency; or, if not, we should have total alignment with its decisions, however we manage to do that.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has just spoken. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that we have heard expressed so eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Whitty, but I want to ask a question which follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said. I have assumed all along that there must be some secret benefit of establishing a separate parallel UK system which duplicates the European system. I have yet to find anybody who can explain to me what this benefit is. Therefore my first question to the Minister is: what is the benefit? Do tell us. Reveal all, so that we can all enjoy the warm glow of appreciation.
I move quickly from that very general point to a much more specific point, which has been alluded to already by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Whitty, concerning scientific evidence to support risk assessment. To me, it would be really dangerous in the future, for confidence, for UK consumers and for the viability of our chemical industry and all the products that depend on chemicals, if we had a divergence in risk assessment between the European system—run by the European Chemicals Agency—and the UK system. Think what that would mean if, on one hand, we were told by the other 27 countries that chemical X is not safe to use but, on the other, we were told by our own national system not to worry about it and that it is safe. That leads us to the key question: how will these risk assessments be carried out? The SI does not provide for the replication of an independent standing committee of experts to carry out risk assessment.
We have asked Minister Coffey about this on more than one occasion. Just last week, on 19 March, in response to the question of why we cannot replicate the committee structure, she replied—if I can read her writing—that we want to ensure that,
“the HSE will have access to the best advice and would not be limited to the UK or even the EU—setting up a statutory committee is likely to reduce that freedom”.
Why does having a statutory committee reduce the freedom to seek advice from other experts? At one stage, I had the pleasure of serving as the chairman of the Food Standards Agency. We had numerous statutory committees advising us on novel foods, on microbiological safety, on nutrition and so on. But that did not prevent us seeking other expert advice, where necessary, from people who were not on those statutory committees. I simply fail to understand the logic.
Furthermore, whatever system the HSE has for providing risk assessment, what is key to public confidence is transparency. There is no point in the HSE coming up with a risk assessment that says “This is safe” or “That is not safe” if the public, NGOs or scientists in the academic community and elsewhere cannot understand in a fully transparent way how that decision was reached. One thing that has happened in many of the statutory advisory committees elsewhere in government—led, I believe, by the Food Standards Agency back in the early part of this century—is that these committees meet in public. People can actually see what the evidence was, what the arguments were and how the decision was reached. Can the Minister assure this House that whatever mechanism the HSE uses—and I certainly think it should have an independent statutory committee—its decisions will be fully transparent, and that the decision-making group will meet in public so that people can see how the decision is made?
I have focused on one minor detail, although I think it quite an important one, of the many concerns raised by the Select Committee that I sit on, as well as by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Whitty. Finally, I remind the House how pervasive chemicals are in our lives. It has already been pointed out that this is about not just the chemical industry but all the industries that depend on chemicals, whether for motor manufacturing, toiletries or furniture and so on. There is a food chain in this country—many noble Lords may even have bought food from this outlet—which claims that its food contains no obscure chemicals. There is a risk that it contains nothing at all because food is nothing but chemicals, and some of them are obscure. This is fundamental to everything in our lives and how we regulate the safety of chemicals is of absolute paramount importance to everything we do, including the food we consume.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I can speak only for myself, as I find that I am not on a committee so I have no expert knowledge in this regard. However, I pay tribute to the work done by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 15th report, which I will refer to.
I know why this statutory instrument is being prepared; my noble friend the Minister set that out clearly in his opening remarks. In the impact assessment, the policy objective in paragraph 14 sets out the terms of the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Perhaps my noble friend can put your Lordships’ minds at rest this afternoon by showing that we will seek more than just a UK-EU free trade area for goods. The difficulty of our meeting to consider this two days before we were due to leave the European Union is that as we do not yet know the circumstances of our leaving, until the House of Commons has taken a view in this regard, we do not know whether we are leaving with no deal or whether there will be a transitional arrangement. In the event of the Prime Minister’s deal being agreed by Parliament, can my noble friend say how Defra and the Government intend to use a possible transition period to ensure continued co-operation between the UK authorities and EU agencies such as the European Chemicals Agency?
I agree with all those who have spoken on the questions raised in this 15th report about additional admin and the potential costs, and I have one request of my noble friend: since the report is strongly worded, and since neither the Expansion Memorandum nor the impact assessment have set out the costs and financial implications, it would be very helpful if he would set those out this afternoon.
Lord Teverson
I absolutely endorse that: we often think of this industry as dominated by large corporates and internationals; it is not. There is a huge SME sector which is just as important in this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful.
In paragraph 17 of the 15th report the department is recorded as replying to one of the concerns thus:
“Should it become clear that we are in a ‘no deal’ scenario, staffing levels will be scaled up as required over a period of several years, allowing time for recruitment and training”.
The question has to be asked: as we are on the eve of a potential no deal, what is the position now and how far advanced are we with the scaling up? Are the officials coming from the industry and from other departments? What certainty can we have that the officials who are being asked to prepare for exit day under no deal are in place and have the knowledge in this regard?
My heart sank when my noble friend said that the dedicated IT system had been tried and tested and was ready to go. Successive Governments have found themselves in an embarrassing situation where we have a new, swanky IT system in place, it has been tried and tested and is ready to go, but it has proved to fail. I think the two examples I am going to choose actually reflect badly on my own Government. One relates to the Rural Payments Agency, where we not only introduced a new system of farm payments but, at exactly the same time, introduced a new IT system which had been tried and tested—and failed. The other IT system that caused great distress throughout the country was rolled out by the Child Support Agency. Again, we had a new IT system that had been tried and tested and proceeded to fail, with devastating consequences for families across the country. I hope that my noble friend will be proved right that this IT system is indeed ready to go.
At paragraph 27 of its 15th report, the committee raises concern about the possibility of failure and disruption:
“We remain concerned … that there may be disruption to the UK chemical industry, supply chains and wider economy as a result of new requirements to register chemicals from the EU after exit”.
That is certainly something noble Lords would wish to be satisfied on this afternoon.
My final point is that the House is incredibly grateful to Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee B for its work in preparing us for this debate on a very important SI.
I am rather concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, might be at my dinner. We were at breakfast together this morning, as indeed was my noble friend Lady Byford and a number of others. We are now together—almost—post-lunch. I pray that we might be at dinner together this evening, but perhaps we might both have a reprieve. He mentioned the need for reassurance about ongoing consultation, and that all the groups are united. It is quite a challenge to unite such disparate groups as the Green Alliance and the broader environmental groups, the health companies, the animal rights charities and indeed the chemical industry. I conclude by asking my noble friend to give the House an assurance that the consultations are indeed ongoing and will continue throughout any transitional period.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, much of what I intended to say has already been said, and said very well. Nevertheless, I will add further testimony that reaffirms the comments of my committee colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
The experience of serving on the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has highlighted a crisis in government that affects both politics and administration. Modern government is highly complex. Mundane matters of daily life and of trade are surrounded, as they must be, by regulations and legislation, and it can take a great intellectual effort to understand all the circumstances. Minor incremental changes to legislation can usually accommodated. If a small mistake is recognised, the matter can be amended. The changes proposed by the Brexit agenda are of a very different order. In this connection, Ministers and their civil servants have often had only a tenuous grasp of the matters at hand, and they have sometimes demonstrated before our committee an astonishing oversight.
The EU REACH regulations have proved to be a case in point. Here, we face some of the perplexities and absurdities of the Brexit agenda. It has been unclear whether under any circumstances the UK could continue after Brexit to remain a member of the REACH organisation, albeit that this has never been clear until recently.
The initial proposal put to our committee by the Minister in charge, who was flanked by a Civil Service adviser, was that the establishment of a UK REACH system—or a “BREACH” system, as we have heard it called—could be achieved easily by cutting and pasting the contents of the REACH database, which is owned by the European Chemicals Agency, into our own national database. It was pointed out to them that this was not generally possible. The information in the REACH database is also owned by commercial enterprises that have contributed to it. Some of it is subject to commercial secrecy. The data would have to be acquired via negotiations. Moreover, given that the data is often subject to joint ownership, such negotiations would be difficult and protracted.
In effect, the ambition of the Brexit agenda has been to acquire the fruits of a co-operative enterprise without having to co-operate with others. It has become clear that, in order to remain in business, UK companies will have to transfer their registrations to European Union-based companies, or parties, at least. They will have to bear the cost of registering with both the UK and the European Union. Moreover, unless they already have a presence in the European Union—other than in the UK—they will be depending for such registrations on the good will of rival enterprises. This is hardly a case of regaining national control.
The preponderance of the output of our chemical industry is exported. Some 61% of our chemical exports went to the European Union in 2017, and 73% of our chemical imports came from the European Union. If the Brexit agenda is fulfilled, we shall be looking at the likely demise of a significant British industry.
The chairman of our committee wrote to the Minister expressing our anxiety at the lack of preparation for these eventualities. In reply, the Minister told us that there has recently been a flurry of activity aimed at alerting industry to the need to prepare for Brexit. It is difficult to measure the extent of these activities, but it is clear that Defra has had other things on its mind.
This brings us back to a point that has already been made. The Conservative Party is in favour of small government and light-touch regulation, yet it has proposed changes far beyond the capacity of politicians and civil servants to accommodate. Its maladministration of the nation’s affairs amounts to an utter dereliction of duty.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and will address the issue of animal testing, which has already been referred to by several noble Lords.
The amendment calls on Her Majesty’s Government to seek continued participation in REACH as a priority in negotiations with the EU. This is particularly important with respect to the use of animals for the safety assessment of chemicals. As was referred to earlier, animal welfare is of great concern to the public, but I believe that the vast majority understand the need, under strict regulation, to use some animals to ensure human safety.
However, all interested parties—the public, the scientists involved and the welfare organisations—expect observance of what are called the three Rs in experimentation. That is, to refine, to replace and to reduce the number of animals used. That concept has been pioneered in the United Kingdom. The REACH guidelines explicitly require minimal use of animals, and permit it only after all other alternatives are exhausted. Most importantly, having a single registration and regulatory portal for the EU avoids any repetition of animal testing.
The instrument under debate today will require an independent UK chemical regulatory process centred on the HSE and the Environment Agency. Notwithstanding the terrific logistical challenges that that presents, which have been well articulated by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Fox, this is essential in the event of no deal, and indeed in the event that the EU will not accept the UK’s continued participation in REACH. I should point out that, to date, no third-party membership has been admitted to the REACH system.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he reassure us that the UK systems replacing REACH will harmonise with it as much as possible and will take all measures to avoid the need to generate separate data for registration? The Minister has told us that current registrations will continue to be accepted, but that all UK registrants will have to resubmit their registration dossier to the UK competent authorities within two years. So will the current animal safety testing data be accepted at that time without the need for further testing? Conversely, for UK firms importing products from the EEA that are currently registered by an EU member state, will the existing data for animal testing suffice when they are required to register within two years of Brexit?
Bearing in mind the problems of intellectual property, what assessment has Defra made of the problem of intellectual property and the ownership of data in the context of its transferability? Finally on future registrations of new products, will Her Majesty’s Government negotiate with the EU the mutual recognition of animal testing data so as to avoid the need to duplicate animal testing, whether for EU registrants to export to the UK or for UK registrants to export to the EU?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for setting out in such detail the issues around the statutory instrument. I also thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials for the briefing that we had at the beginning of the month.
I have read the Explanatory Memorandum three times and each time I have become more concerned. I have dealt with a number of SIs during this exit process, but the EM on REACH is the longest I have dealt with. It is an extremely complex subject. The stated purpose of the SI is to correct deficiencies in retained EU law. I remain unconvinced that this will happen.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. This has been a remarkably good debate, and I strongly congratulate the sub-committee Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Lords, Professor Lord Krebs and Professor Lord Trees, and the noble Viscount, Professor Lord Hanworth, each of whom made extremely relevant and important points. While we were considering this, I was struck by how many are employed in the chemical industry; I understand the figure is far above 50,000. I hope it will be strongly borne in mind that their expertise is absolutely essential for our country, especially when there is the possibility of wide-scale duplication.
The other point I make is that a restriction on the availability of medicines would cause grave concern. I hope that the Minister will exercise a watching brief and that an independent statutory committee will be created, as called for by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. This will take no more than a lot of hard work, understanding and, if I may say so, openness and transparency.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in this debate noble Lords with considerable experience have made extremely valuable contributions, certainly for me. I also found it immensely valuable having meetings earlier to get abreast of some of the key, essential points that noble Lords have made today.
I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, when talking about Aston Chemicals. I feel confident mentioning the name, as the noble Baroness mentioned it. So many of these businesses are in the small business sector, and how essential it is. I acknowledge the importance of the chemical industry and its contribution. I think we all agree how essential it is to have a regime—we can discuss what would be the optimum regime—where we can all have confidence in the use of chemicals. There have been strong expressions on matters that I entirely respect and understand, but I have a responsibility to your Lordships to say—and these are not just my riding instructions from the other place—that we need this statutory instrument if we are to have an operable system, which the chemical industry acknowledges.
I have counted and I think I may have had 45 to 50 questions. It would be impossible to indulge your Lordships and answer every one in great detail, but I will endeavour to answer as many as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, opened by asking if Her Majesty’s Government—Defra and other departments—are concerned about these matters. I say emphatically yes, for the two reasons I opened with that noble Lords raised. This is a major commercial interest of this country. We also have the great responsibility of ensuring that our country is safe, and indeed that products from our country are safe for others to use.
On IT, the first thing to say is that I could never have invented any of it—so I can safely say that I would not have been in any positon to say whether this will work—but I am assured that for day-one functionality we are ensuring that industry will be able to register new and imported chemicals and to provide authorities with information required for maintaining the validity of existing registrations. Post day one, we will enable joint registrations for industry and build back-end functions for the HSE. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said about IT, but this has been tested with industry and I can only report what I have heard on the success of that testing.
Lord Fox
I was not implying that there was something wrong with the trade association. My point was that it is wrong to hide behind that statement and not acknowledge that there are serious copyright and confidentiality issues around this data which make the whole cut-and-paste exercise much more complex and expensive than the Minister seemed to present.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand the point from the noble Lord. However, as I said in my opening remarks, it is the case that Cefic and other bodies are working extremely constructively, as there is a mutual benefit.
As a prelude to today, I read last Thursday’s Hansard—my noble friend Lady Buscombe was very helpful in taking me through that interesting debate. To be pedantic, let me be clear that the 488 approvals mentioned are part of a programme under the biocidal products regulation and not REACH. All of government is looking in great detail at what needs to be done and what resources are necessary to make sure it happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the benefits of a UK system. I have said already—and will say again, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised it—that our preference is obviously to maintain participation in the European Chemicals Agency. That is the Government’s aim, and I will go into further detail on it. However, we are here because we have to consider all eventualities. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made it very clear that although sometimes we do not wish to be in a certain place, we have to do the responsible thing. Indeed, his committee considered how we deal with all scenarios.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked how many UK companies have taken advantage of the Brexit window. I do not have any details from the ECHA on that, but if I receive any further information, I will make sure it is passed to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the duplication of costs. It is the case that, unfortunately, if there is no deal and we have to set up a UK REACH system, or if at the end of the negotiations participation is not possible, we would, as other countries do, have to have a regulatory system. However, I emphasise that, through our transitional measures, we are seeking to minimise the costs; for companies registering new chemicals, the requirements will be the same.
I understand the concerns of business and civil society. That is why we have had such a considerable number of discussions, as I referred to in my opening remarks, with business, all representatives who have an interest and Ministers in BEIS.
I was struck by last Thursday’s intervention from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. He described the Health and Safety Executive as,
“one of the jewels in the crown of our regulatory firmament”,—[Official Report, 21/3/19; col. 1602.]
and said he had no doubt about its intellectual capability. I agree with the noble Lord and with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty: no other organisation is better placed than the HSE to act as the UK agency.
As I said, we intend to scale-up resources to £13 million at full operation. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that this funding is primarily for human resourcing in Defra, the HSE and the Environment Agency, to make sure that: we have the necessary levels of technical specialist input into risk and socioeconomic assessments of chemicals for the UK; first-rate policy advice can be provided; we can increase engagement with UK businesses and appropriate international fora; and we can take forward legislation as we seek to become a global leader in promoting the sound management of chemicals. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly identified, the HSE will at this stage take on about 35 to 40 people. We will have a strong and effective regulator by building on the expertise of the HSE and the Environment Agency to operate REACH in the UK. As for the estimated number of staff, we think we will need 135 full-time equivalents across the three organisations of Defra, the EA and the HSE for the work I have outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the matter of independence. As the UK agency, the HSE must also draw on independent expert scientific advice when developing its opinions on restrictions and authorisations. This will add to the robust evidence and analysis underpinning its opinions. If there are reasons the HSE does not commission independent advice—for example, where ECHA has already published a robust opinion on a chemical—it must publish its justification.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, raised the potential costs to industry. The instrument puts in place transitional arrangements to provide business continuity. We are bringing all UK registrations automatically into UK REACH, so there is no break in market access. We are making sure that companies can continue to buy chemicals from the EU from day one. Grandfathering means that there will be no break in industry’s duty to identify and apply the appropriate risk management measures in businesses. We will not weaken the “no data, no market” principle because that is fundamental to REACH. But we have engaged closely with industry stakeholders about costs and how to mitigate them. As I said, the UK Chemical Industries Association and Cefic have published their joint recommendation that data used to register under REACH should be available for UK REACH at no extra charge.
On grandfathering, we acknowledge the existing ECHA registrations. That is why we have the grandfathering system and will accept reduced information for the first two years. But that is not a tenable position in the long term if we want to have an effective regulatory system that protects human health and the environment.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned animal testing. This instrument preserves the built-in mechanisms to reduce the amount of animal testing. This is the last-resort principle that means that companies and the regulator can turn to animal tests only if they have exhausted all other ways of getting the information they need to complete the understanding of the chemical. There is also the testing proposal mechanism, which means that in many cases industry cannot proceed with animal testing unless it gets the regulator’s agreement first. The UK’s regulations preserve these provisions. Without this instrument, we would not have those powers to stop animal testing.
The UK’s record on these matters is acknowledged internationally, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The UK has been the forefront in ECHA in opposing animal tests where alternative approaches are available. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that we will aim to harmonise as much as possible. We will accept existing animal tests produced for EU REACH. We will not ask for new ones. Looking forward, we will work on the basis of mutual acceptance of data and the EU follows the same principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the important issue of environmental protections. The Government have repeatedly made clear their commitment to environmental standards. The policy paper that we published alongside the environment Bill in December last year reinforces the regulatory provisions throughout REACH that are fully preserved in the instrument today.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that we will continue to need robust scientific evidence to make sure that we are properly protecting human health and the environment. That is why we have put in place strong arrangements for scientific advice. The HSE must seek external knowledge and advice when forming its opinions or otherwise justify why it has decided not to. It must act in a way that ensures a high level of transparency and it must publish its opinions. The HSE will have access to the best advice and will not be limited to the UK or even the EU. Indeed, we think by contrast that a UK statutory committee runs the risk of rather narrower membership and limiting our access to expertise. We are also committed to transparent processes. We will have arrangements in place in UK REACH to allow stakeholders to observe discussions and considerations where independent scientific advice is provided and to read publicly available minutes of these meetings.
The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Fox, raised divergence. It is the case that industry and NGOs have expressed views on that matter. First, the UK will not diverge from EU regulatory standards, at least not if that means reducing our standards. In other words, that we will retain the highest possible standards is the whole basis of this regulation. We will look very closely at what the EU does, but it is right that our regulators should apply their own judgment based on independent, expert advice on individual chemicals.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He should not apologise for going to length. This is an important issue and it could shape the future regulation of a very important part of our national life. My noble friend Lord Teverson said that his committee had the impression that Defra did not grasp the scale of the undertaking of chemical regulation. After noble Lords’ contributions today, that will not be the case with the Minister or with Defra. All noble Lords contributed something different in setting out the problems with this statutory instrument. There are problems with cost duplication. There is a likelihood that the number of animal tests will increase. There is no assurance that the HSE has the resources or systems to deliver this.
Tied to all this is that it has been left too late. This statutory instrument is not fit for purpose, yet by running it down to the wire, by literally leaving it to the last possible moment, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell said, there is not time to replace it with something that is fit for purpose. The purpose of this debate is to set out the big issues that face this statutory instrument. This is Defra’s statutory instrument, the Government’s statutory instrument and, frankly, the Minister’s statutory instrument. I hope we never have to see it in action because I believe it to be deeply flawed and that the country would suffer. I shall not press this amendment to a vote today because I think the Minister can live with this statutory instrument in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if he presses his amendment.
Lord Whitty
At the end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to fulfil the Prime Minister’s intention to maintain the United Kingdom’s participation in the European Chemicals Agency, which would have avoided (1) the duplication of registrations and the consequential increased costs to United Kingdom manufacturers, downstream users and importers, (2) the duplication of testing procedures, including animal testing, and (3) the pressure on the resources and expertise of the Health and Safety Executive and the environment agencies, which could increase the risks to United Kingdom citizens’ health, and to our environment; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to make continued United Kingdom participation in the European Chemicals Agency and REACH an objective in negotiations with the European Union”.
Lord Whitty
In view of the widespread concern around the House, I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
At the end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not address concerns raised by the European Union Committee in their report Brexit: chemical regulation, published on 7 November 2018, about Her Majesty’s Government’s plans for chemical regulation after the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.”
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the European Union Committee
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion, as amended, agreed.
Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 15th and 19th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, these grouped instruments will ensure that all the applicable parts of the common fisheries policy have effect in UK law, should the UK leave the EU without a deal. The technical amendments that they make 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 made to the effect of the retained EU law and no change is expected in the way that the fishing industry conducts its activities as a result of the instruments.
These three instruments are closely related. Two of them amend some of the same regulations—one making simple fixes and the other transferring powers to exercise functions contained in those regulations. The third instrument amends late-emerging regulations that came into force in late December 2018 and January 2019. Together, they amend retained EU law in order to provide legal continuity for UK fisheries management post EU exit.
The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instruments have been developed and drafted in close co-operation with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent, ensuring a common approach which respects the existing devolution settlements and maintains the existing system of fisheries management. For the future, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are working together to develop a new UK framework made up of both legislative and non-legislative elements in order to maintain a common approach in a number of areas.
Where provisions place obligations or confer functions or powers on member states, the references to member states are, generally speaking, changed to “a fisheries administration” to maintain the existing system of fisheries management. In addition, EU-specific terms, such as “Union vessels” or “Union waters”, have been replaced with an equivalent term—for example, “United Kingdom vessels” and “United Kingdom waters”—to apply them to the UK only.
I shall deal briefly with each SI in turn. The first one, the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amends the majority of retained EU legislation. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which sets out the regulations that are amended by this instrument. These regulations include the following: the basic regulation; the control regulations; regulations on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; multiannual plans and effort regimes; the data collection frameworks, and many more. Other provisions—for example, those defining characteristics for vessels, the fishing fleet register and measures for the conservation of resources and ecosystems—will also be amended.
The instrument was presented to the sifting committee on 27 November 2018 and it recommended that it be subject to the affirmative procedure. Since then, additional detail has been added to the Explanatory Memorandum, including an annexe that more fully describes the nature of the amendments made by the instrument. It has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which reported the instrument due to the public and political importance of fisheries. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report it.
The second SI, the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amends regulations concerned with regional fisheries management organisations—RFMOs. 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 SI 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 non-UK vessels in UK waters.
Furthermore, amendments are made to the North Sea multiannual 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 previously conferred upon EU entities to make legislation or exercise legislative decisions. These 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. There are also minor consequential changes to domestic legislation. The instrument has been considered by the SLSC and the JCSI, neither of which reported it.
Thirdly and finally, the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 amend 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. This will ensure that the UK continues to abide by the same conservation measures.
The SI also amends two regulations that set fishing opportunities. One sets total allowable catch—TAC—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 these two regulations, the prohibitions on the fishing of certain species in certain areas will be amended so that 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 these to apply to the UK when we become an independent coastal state. Again, the instrument has been considered by the SLSC and the JCSI, neither of which reported it.
Because these instruments make only necessary technical amendments to retained EU law that, prior to exit day, already applies in the form of directly applicable EU law, the impact is expected to be minimal and therefore a full impact assessment was not carried out. While there was no formal duty to consult, a 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy as well as the general legislative approach taken by these SIs.
Alongside that, meetings have taken place with key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, including the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation; the wider industry, including producer organisations; and environmental non-government bodies such as the World Wildlife Fund. Stakeholders, including the Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, were supportive of the approach. We have also been happy to receive questions and comments from environmental non-governmental organisations, including ClientEarth and the Green Alliance, which we have addressed in the Explanatory Memorandum and made publicly available.
These instruments make retained EU law effective in UK law. The legislation is essential to ensure that we retain an effective system of fisheries management from day one of EU exit, so that our fishing continues to be well regulated and sustainable. This legislation is complemented by the Fisheries Bill, which creates the powers to allow us, over time, to build UK policy for a sustainable and profitable fishing industry. A previous instrument, the Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amended domestic fisheries legislation to make it effective in UK law after EU exit; some of those amendments arose as a consequence of changes made by these instruments. That instrument was taken through this House by my noble friend Lord Gardiner on 6 February 2019. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for moving these rather meaty statutory instruments. I would like to place on record my admiration for the then fisheries Minister in the other place, my honourable friend Richard Benyon, for the fisheries policy that he negotiated. It has been revolutionary and has changed the way that fisheries policy is decided and conservation measures are taken. It set the scene by allowing coastal states to agree what the conservation measures would be.
Under the new provisions that we are adopting this evening, with retained EU law and making sure, as she said, that there is a smooth transition to our becoming a third country, if one cares about conservation of fisheries going forward, how will we agree conservation measures with the nearest coastal state? The way that the map is drawn means that we virtually share waters with our nearest neighbour, France. The Scottish fisheries situation is slightly different in that Scotland does not have a near neighbour in the sense of backing up to a coastal state.
Having said that, I think that Scottish fishermen will be deeply interested in one of the few—three, in fact—rollover agreements that has been agreed: that with the Faroe Islands, where we take £200 million mostly in fish products each year. Obviously, that will compete directly with the Scottish fisheries. I understand that the agreements with Norway and Iceland are not yet available to view, but I would imagine that most of the imported products from Norway and Iceland will also be in fisheries. I have two questions on that. First, what discussions have there been in the Joint Ministerial Council on the rollover agreements to date, the future rollover agreements and the implications, particularly for Scottish fishermen? Secondly, how will we agree going forward to conserve those fish? I have always maintained that fish do not wear a union jack; they swim between the various waters and it is very difficult to control them. We need a conservation policy that will be shared on an ongoing basis with our near neighbours, the French and others, with whom we currently share a common fisheries policy. Going forward, I am sure that it will be the Government’s intention to do this.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments, which I welcome. As she said, it will enable us to have a smooth transition from the current arrangements with the EU, and I am pleased to know that the international agreements are well in place. I personally look forward to our taking responsibility for our own fisheries in future years, and I am delighted that work has continued with the regional and devolved bodies to make sure that this will happen.
I have three questions, but I would first like to make one or two other comments. The most important thing, which has been worrying many of us who have spoken in fishing debates before, is the question of our responsibility towards having sustainable stocks in the future and looking at total allowable catches. It is very important that science continues to work with the industry, because that is the best way forward.
The landing obligations are referred to in the statutory instruments, but I wonder whether my noble friend has more details that she would like to share with us. On the EU quota set, which was 69% in 2018, I was somewhat disturbed to learn that it has dropped to a minimum 59% in 2019. I wonder what the reason is for that.
Like other noble Lords, I have received briefing papers from the Marine Conservation Society, Greener UK and Wildlife, to name just a few. They have a series of questions, which I would like to put. The first is about enforcement when we come away from the EU. Is the Minister quite content that we will have enforcement systems in situ when we leave?
Secondly, I believe that a governance gap is possible in the way in which we currently have to report to the EU. At the moment we are slightly in limbo, because the Fisheries Bill in the House of Commons is not moving. We have also been promised a draft environment Bill, but that is still on hold; we do not have it. So the question is: if we move away and this comes into being sooner rather than later, who will actually act to hold the Government to account? At the moment, it is not clear from the statutory instruments.
I turn to the landing obligations, particularly regarding discards. This issue has troubled us over many years and I do not think that there is enough about it in these two statutory instruments. The Minister may say that it is not necessary, but it would be good to have some form of words about landing obligations, and discards in particular. I will also refer to a practice that I think is totally unacceptable: the trawling that has occurred on some sea beds around the country. Over the last few weeks I have been asking Questions on this matter and getting Answers from Ministers. The issue is not featured in these SIs but it is of huge interest and importance.
On the reporting requirements, there is no detail. I wonder therefore whether the proposed office for environmental protection is the Government’s choice. As that will not be in being to start with, have they considered using the Marine Management Organisation as a possible office to hold in the in-between time? Scientific research is hugely important, and we need to look at that in future.
There are many other areas on which I could talk with great passion about the fishing industry. I personally look forward to us gaining control over the waters around our country. I know that the negotiations will not be very easy. Some of the organisations that I have mentioned have concerns about what is in these statutory instruments, what is coming in the Fisheries Bill and the gap between the two. If my contribution tonight has slightly reflected those concerns, I think it has been worth while.
I accept the statutory instruments as they stand. I am grateful to the secondary legislation committees that have done a lot of work on this. We have a great opportunity in front of us—a way in which we can work together for the benefit of the whole. In the meantime, though, there are some practical questions that I think need answering.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the way in which these statutory instruments have been introduced to the House and welcome their gist, particularly in relation to inshore fishing. However, I will press the Minister on the question of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Once more we are reminded that the land border that has been between Northern Ireland and the Republic is soon to become the border between the EU and the UK. Because of that, there are special sensitivities, stretching into fishing among other industries, of which we must be aware.
I ask the Minister to address the issue of the relationship between fishing in what will then be the EU but is today the Republic of Ireland, and fishing from County Down and County Antrim in Northern Ireland. The reason I raise this is that recently there was an incident where two vessels from Northern Ireland ended up in police custody in the EU/Republic of Ireland. That was a misunderstanding, but it shows how easily the sensitivities over the way in which our waters are controlled and policed can boil over into actual incidents.
What consultation has there been, particularly with the Irish Republic, on the question of policing the Irish Sea waters? This issue is particularly concerning the fishing industry in Northern Ireland at the moment as we move towards Brexit. The detailed information that the SI contains can encourage confidence, but it indicates that there can be a great difference between the written word and practice. That applies equally to the fishing industry in Scotland so far as the Irish Sea is concerned.
I ask the Minister: can we expect real sensitivity on the question of the Northern Irish fishing industry after Brexit under the terms of this SI, given the proximity of the EU to the Irish Sea situation? This is not just an academic issue; it is one of deep concern to an industry that is already under great pressure.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I am the longest-serving Fisheries Minister. I am therefore very concerned to intervene in this debate.
I have always been surprised by the degree to which people talk about the common fisheries policy as if there were no need for a common policy. The policy may not be the best one that we could have, but the truth is that even after these SIs are passed the idea that we can take control of what we call “our” waters is just not true. Many of those waters, irrespective of the common fisheries policy, are shared. If you are only 22 miles from France, it is not surprising that many of these waters are shared and you need a common policy. These SIs fly in the face of any sense because we are not going to have a national policy except in the areas where, largely, we have already had one. The noble and right reverend Lord talked about inshore fishermen. We have been able to deal with the inshore fishermen for a very long time, even though many of them blame their situation on the common fisheries policy when it should be blamed on the British Government under various different parties.
A common policy is essential because, first, we have shared fishing grounds and, secondly, we have shared stock. Even if the fish happen to be in our waters at a particular time, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh pointed out, they may well have come from other waters. They do not carry flags. The fact is that unless you have a common policy about fish conservation, you find yourself in a very dangerous position, because one lot of fishermen can say, “Well, I’m not going to conserve if the other lot aren’t”—and of course all fishermen believe that other fishermen are not. Let us be perfectly clear about that point: if you have been Fisheries Minister for as long as I was, you discover that that is the case. I remember a man in my own constituency, in a small fishing village of about seven or eight boats in all, to whom, after a meeting when they were complaining about everything, I said: “I thought you were going to complain about that Belgian trawler”. “Ah”, he said, “them Belgian trawlers I can put up with. It’s Lowestoft men I can’t stand”.
The truth is that there is an ability between different fishing communities to find their neighbours not terribly helpful, so if the Government think they are going to have an easy time, I have to warn my noble friend that they are not. They can no longer blame the common fisheries policy; they will have to accept responsibility. However, they will not have the power because they will not be able to control the stocks; nor will they control the areas in which we have joint arrangements.
Historically, we dealt with that. There were a lot of fish and, if someone got in your way, a marlinspike was no doubt used. We then had a more sensible policy and we are now trying to move ourselves towards some way of relating to our neighbours. The noble and right reverend Lord from the north of Ireland made a very important point about the closeness, the lines and how you organise this. I am unhappy about this statutory instrument because it is another example of us trying to do something which is manifestly worse than what we had before.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, not to worry too much because the fishing industry will have already assumed that it will be sold out. It always does. I suspect that it hears all the expectations, but is very cynical about them. That certainly seems to be the case in Cornwall, where I come from.
I do not wish this debate to be a Richard Benyon love-in, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I was very critical of the common fisheries policy. I was on the fisheries committee of the European Parliament. We said that there had to be regionalisation of this policy. We also said that the way international agreements, which I will come on to, are implemented has to change so that there is some conservation of the stocks of African or Mediterranean states, rather than them being completely pillaged. We also covered areas such as discard, which I will come on to as well.
The fact is that Britain took on that agenda. Whichever DG it was, I think DG14, the Fisheries Commission, was one of the most conservative and backward-looking directorates that I found in Brussels, yet we changed that. The irony is that we are leaving the common fisheries policy when we actually had significant regionalisation for a couple of years—that is still being implemented—a landing obligation, although I will come back to its effectiveness, and many other reforms.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, brought up control of our waters. We have absolutely no control over the fish. In fact, the spawning grounds are often in a different EEZ from where they are caught. We have negotiation over quotas, with relative stability being the problem where we can maybe negotiate, but we should never forget that we have total control of enforcement over our own EEZs, whatever nation is flagged on a vessel. If we are not controlling them that is our problem.
I can now talk a little about that, because I ceased to be a board member of the MMO at the end of January after six years of the privilege of being in that position. The MMO, like most Defra organisations, suffered budget cut after budget cut. Its main concern, which comes back to environmental protection, is that it was to do the minimum—I exaggerate slightly; it wanted to do the most it could—to avoid infraction. It did a great job with reducing resources—much better than most private industry could do. That was its challenge.
I come back to the SIs. As we have said, we are waiting for the Fisheries Bill, which is not here, but one of the most important preparations for day one of a no-deal Brexit—which is of course not in the SI and I am not asking the Minister to respond on it—is how we cope on the high seas with the very high emotions of fishermen and fisherwomen who will be excluded from their traditional fishing grounds. We saw last year at the Baie de la Seine how tempers rose very strongly over a completely different issue. There was actual conflict and physical abuse, not of people, but of vessels, and danger to individuals because emotions understandably run very high in the industry, where there is high danger to individuals considering the conditions it has to operate in. If we get it wrong on day one and there is conflict on the high seas because of it, it will be the first area where there will be physical conflict because of Brexit. It is a real issue. Both sides have to be very clear on enforcement and how they will respond to provocations. If there is one area where there will be conflict it will be this one. I very much hope that there will not be, as we all do, because there is danger on the high seas. Anyway, I am not asking the Minister to respond to that. I am sure the authorities are making sure that will be the case.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to these three SIs, and for the courtesy of meeting us, with her officials, beforehand. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As has been said, these SIs are of vital importance to the future of the UK fishing industry. We need something of this kind because we need to understand the arrangements that will be in place on day one. If we do have a no-deal exit—I echo the view of noble Lords who have said that it is very much to be avoided and regretted—then we cannot afford to be in a situation where people on the high seas are allowed to do their own things and are not regulated at all, which may otherwise be the point. Therefore, we do need some rules about all of this.
The EU withdrawal Act set out that, in SIs of this kind, there should be only the technical details that are necessary to ensure continuity with the previous EU rules and requirements. At this point, we should just be trying to mirror, as far as we can, the existing EU rules, accepting that more fundamental changes should be matters for another day, when we are able to give the proposals deeper scrutiny and talk about the wider issues that noble Lords have, quite rightly, raised today. We have a major concern that these proposed SIs go way beyond the withdrawal Act remit—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others. In a number of areas, the SIs anticipate further changes that the Government expect to make to fisheries legislation, based on the fisheries White Paper and the Fisheries Bill currently being considered in the Commons. They also anticipate that the oversight and enforcement functions will be absorbed by the new environmental watchdog, proposals for which are set out in the draft environment Bill, which is not even expected to be published in its final form until the next parliamentary Session. These assumptions were confirmed in the letter sent by Defra to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which had raised issues about these points.
This really is not good enough. While I understand that the drafters of these SIs do not always have UK institutions comparable to those of the EU, they have an obligation in these EU exit SIs to match the existing powers, functions and responsibilities in the relevant EU legislation, and to match, as far as they can, the powers that exist in EU institutions. These SIs fail to do that. It cannot simply be assumed that the Fisheries Bill, which we have never considered in your Lordships’ House, and the outcome of which we do not know, will provide the answers. It may also be that, when we get to the Fisheries Bill, we will have the opportunity to debate discards, the trawling of the seas and so on. Those are, quite rightly, issues for another day. What we have before us now should not be a precursor to the Fisheries Bill but, as far as possible, what we have under the current EU arrangements. That is not what we have in this SI. I hope the Minister can address these concerns in her response.
On the specifics contained in these SIs, the SIs remove the functions in the common fisheries policy that are currently overseen by the European Commission—for example, obligations to provide assessments and reports to the European Commission, including the provision of data on stock quantities and the reporting of certain catches against gear type. They also fail to replicate the Commission’s enforcement functions, which will limit the powers of the future office for environmental protection, since the functions would already have been removed from these SIs and would no longer exist in UK law. This would make it very difficult for a future office for environmental protection to take those powers on, as those would be powers that it was not already expected to enforce. As currently drafted, there is a real problem in these SIs concerning the lack of oversight and enforcement. Does the Minister accept that they fail to replicate the European Commission's functions in full? Can she explain how the department intends to rectify that omission?
The regulations in the first SI also remove the obligation on member states to carry out certain inspections and take action on certain infringements—including the establishment of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. The regulations in the second SI remove the requirement to update the list of illegal fishing vessels every three months. I just give those as examples. Is the Minister concerned that these omissions send the wrong signal to fishers who—occasionally—seek to flout the rules, and that more steps need to be taken to emphasise to those fishers that they will be dealt with under an enforcement regime on a par with that of the EU from day one? It is important that the noble Baroness clarifies the position on that matter.
I now turn to the issue of the replacements for the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. There is no apparent substitute for the important role that the EFCA plays in the co-ordination of inspection facilities at European and international levels. This whole issue of co-ordination was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who quite rightly made the point that, whatever we do, there will be a need for a continuing common policy. He is absolutely right on that. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was also right in saying that if we do not get that right from day one, if there is any room for misinterpretation or obfuscation on that whole issue, then there will be a real danger of conflicts on the high seas. We need to have a continuing liaison with our European counterparts to ensure that we know where we are from day one, and to ensure that everybody understands the rules. What arrangements have been made to retain third-party status and to continue to share information about the implementation of rules and standards at UK level? We need to ensure that we have some security and clarity for the fishers as well as continued conservation, which a number of noble Lords quite rightly raised as an important priority.
The regulations in the first SI also remove the ability of member states to share vessel monitoring system data with other member states when a vessel is fishing in that other member state’s waters. This could lead to overfishing, so sharing access to that data is crucial. What arrangements are being made to maintain the maximum co-operation on data sharing with other countries, and indeed with the EU?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this evening’s debate. It has certainly been a debate of great passion. I encourage all noble Lords to bring that passion to the discussions on the Fisheries Bill, during which I hope many of these issues will once again be aired in greater detail and by which we can put them in a legislative framework.
I am confident that these SIs mirror the existing EU rules, with the caveat that the rules must of course be operable. It would be pointless if we brought over rules which simply could not be operated once they reached our rulebook, so it is necessary for these SIs to look as they do. I accept that they are part of a suite of legislation. However, I would caveat that by saying that we are already fairly well down the road in the debate and discussions on the sort of national fisheries policy that we want to see in the future. As noble Lords will know, we have already had the fisheries White Paper. It went into quite some detail on what the Government feel is an appropriate national fishing policy. There was a 10-week consultation and we had a lot of feedback from various stakeholders.
What is also true is that we are leaving the European Union and, as such, we become an independent coastal state. Again, that comes with various obligations, many of which are about engaging with neighbouring coastal states and encouraging co-operation and the sharing of data. It includes encouraging the sustainability of the seas in which the fish live; when they travel across those borders, they definitely do not have a union Jack on them. I am not as pessimistic as my noble friend Lord Deben about it all being terrible and dreadful, with us being stuck out on our own. There are countries far smaller than us which have very successful negotiating strategies, are able to deal internationally and able to operate their own independent fishing policy.
I accept that we are on a journey and I hope that we get to the next stop on that journey very soon. I think all noble Lords would welcome the opportunity to have a go at the Fisheries Bill—I certainly would—but it is important that the SIs we have tabled for debate today are a temporary measure. They will put a line in the sand and say: “This is where we were at this point”. These measures will all make sense and enable us to operate the fishing policy that we currently have.
Lord Deben
All that my noble friend said in that last paragraph is true, except that there is a series of things which operate now and will be put into the Fisheries Bill. There are two problems with this. First, we do not know what or how those provisions will be, so we have to take it on her word—I am perfectly prepared to do so—that it will all be at least as good as the present arrangements. Has it occurred to Defra that it is a peculiar constitutional concept if the Minister asks the House to accept these laws on the basis that there will be laws, rather than having within these provisions an interim arrangement?
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made a point about something which I do not understand: that all these things could have been included as an interim arrangement, and that would remain or be changed when we come to the Fisheries Bill. For me, the difficulty is that I am being asked to support something which could have been complete—under the withdrawal Act, it should have been complete—but is not. It is just a promise that it will be completed in the future. I do not understand why that is.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I think my noble friend is slightly misconstruing my words: certainly, there are elements within the legislation that could not be brought over because of the withdrawal Act, because it would have made a change in policy or would have gone beyond the powers we have within the withdrawal Act. It was simply not possible to do so, so I am asking noble Lords to consider today that we are on a journey. We have already had a huge number of comments from Ministers in both Houses about where we feel our fisheries policy is going and where we would like it to go, but we would obviously like the support and input of noble Lords as we develop that policy. Even taken by themselves, we do not feel that there are significant omissions that cannot be explained by reasons other than that we are trying to put EU legislation into UK law and it has to work. It has to stand up for itself.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am sorry to push the noble Baroness—she knows that I do not do this very often—but I have to concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I listened very carefully to what she said, but to go back to the example of maximum sustainable yield, Defra wrote to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee saying that the commitment was omitted because it was going to be dealt with in the Fisheries Bill. Maximum sustainable yield could have been put into this SI even though it was going to be corrected, updated, or however the noble Baroness wants to reword it, in a future fisheries Bill. I give that as just one example: we could say the same thing about the advisory councils. There could have been an interim arrangement for advisory councils in this SI, understanding that in the future we might want to restructure them. Those are just a couple of examples. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is very convincing on this. We all want to have a wider discussion on the Fisheries Bill, but that is not what these pieces of secondary legislation are about.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and will certainly consider them in more detail. If I can get any more information on this, I will send it to her. I repeat, however, that some of the articles were not amended because they are not operable; they are conditional upon mutual access to EU waters. We will be an independent coastal state when we leave, and that will be put in sharper relief if we leave the EU without a deal in days or weeks. We are facing this from the perspective that we will be an independent coastal state and therefore, where there are issues that rely on reciprocity and on the actions of others, we cannot put those, in all good faith, into UK law and expect them to be able to stand up.
I do not want to dwell too much on this because a number of noble Lords asked questions, but I will reflect on it and try to provide the noble Baroness with a bit more clarity. I shall get the legal team on to it to make sure that we cover it. I will say, because a number of noble Lords mentioned it, that sustainable fishing is at the heart of our 25-year environment plan. It underlined the fisheries White Paper and negotiations will be essential, whether that be with our nearest neighbours or countries further away.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised maximum sustainable yield. We have always been a strong advocate of maximum sustainable yield, both in international agreements and in negotiations over catch limits for shared stocks that we have an interest in, and this is not going to change. For example, Article 6 of the TAC and quota regulation is concerned with TACs to be determined by member states and has been omitted because the Secretary of State will be determining TACs under the power in the forthcoming Fisheries Bill and current common law powers, along with the criteria for setting the quota.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned quota management and how that might exist between the different countries of the United Kingdom. Of course, we will be reviewing quota management as we leave the European Union. We described in the fisheries White Paper how we will approach this, including the possibility of moving to a new basis for allocation of any additional quota we gain through negotiation. A number of noble Lords mentioned the very important issue of the landing obligation. Again, as we set out in the fisheries White Paper, the UK Government remain fully committed to ending this wasteful and atrocious discarding of fish and we continue to work with the industry. Once we have left the EU and the CFP we will have the flexibility to do this in a way that reflects the nature of UK waters and fisheries. While we can continue to use retained CFP measures, we will also have the opportunity to adopt new measures that will reduce discarding while also preventing choke. Some examples were set out in the fisheries White Paper.
There has been much discussion today about scientific evidence; I agree that it is critical. Perhaps for fisheries more than for some other sectors, a truly international perspective is hugely beneficial, and the UK has immense strength in this area. The Government are working with the devolved Administrations to develop a replacement fisheries advisory framework for the UK that is fit for purpose and can deliver world-class scientific advice to meet our commitments. We intend to continue to collect the marine and fisheries data, as is currently happening, to inform the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea of research and stock assessments. We are currently in the process of establishing an agreement with ICES for when we leave the EU. We will continue to use its research outputs and advice as well as our own, very well respected national labs—for example, Cefas.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My noble friend mentioned Cefas. I visited the International Council for Exploration of the Seas in Copenhagen about two years ago. It has a number of leading British scientists and other nationalities who will be concerned about their status, but it is an international organisation. Have the Government formed a view as to whether we will still be a party to ICES post Brexit?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I believe that we will be and I shall write if that is not the case—it is indeed the case.
Enforcement is an incredibly important issue. Defra is working very closely with the Marine Management Organisation, the Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, the Royal Navy, Border Force and other organisations to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place for day one. The UK will maintain its scheme of monitoring, control and surveillance through vessel monitoring systems, electronic logbooks and other reporting requirements. Over time, as we develop our fisheries regime, we will use the new powers in the Bill to create the offence of vicarious liability against, for example, owners and charterers of fishing vessels.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was very clear that we should make sure that all those operating on the front line of control and enforcement are briefed on what they should do on day one: this is critical, because we have seen what has happened when things have gone wrong. People can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and doing the wrong things; tempers can get very frayed indeed and it can escalate extremely quickly. So, following approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Ministers, we are implementing our full control and enforcement preferred approach and putting in place a significant uplift in our control and enforcement capability for day one. In addition, the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre—JMOCC—has been established to enhance joint working between law enforcement agencies and the Royal Navy to improve patrol capabilities and increase information sharing across government.
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for drawing our attention to the issue of the Irish border. Many people think that that is a land border, but it is a sea border too, and I know of concerns about the suspension of the agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland due to a verdict of the Supreme Court of Ireland several years ago. This agreement allows for fishing in the inshore 0-6 nautical miles zone of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland waters. The Government are pleased that the Irish Government have committed to resolve the issue and to restore the agreement on the Irish side. We will certainly continue to discuss this with the Irish Government. Furthermore, we are working very closely with the Irish Government to patrol the seas in that area. It is absolutely critical that in all these circumstances, we work very closely with our neighbours to make sure that there are no misunderstandings, while recognising that, for example, control of seas around Northern Ireland is the responsibility of DAERA in Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the replacement of penalties. I should point out that fisheries administrations already have the power to adopt appropriate measures for ensuring control, inspection and enforcement activities under domestic legislation, so it is not necessary to bring the powers across. Where we already have the powers, obviously, we have not brought them across. The current and proposed future UK system of control and enforcement delivers effective penalties. We have no intention of weakening what we already have in place. Section 24 in Part III of the Fisheries Act 1981, for example, sets out penalties for offences, and Chapter 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sets out the civil sanctions to be imposed by the appropriate licensing authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the cost of joining RFMOs. I am afraid I cannot remember what each of the initials stands for, so the noble Lord will have to forgive me, but for the IOTC—I am guessing that the T might stand for tuna; I cannot remember.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Yes. The cost of joining the IOTC is £150,000 to £200,000; for ICCAT it is £100,000 to £150,000; for the NAFO it is £45,000 to £80,000; and for the NEAFC it is £400,000 to £600,000. That is the cost of our participation when we sign up as a member in our own right.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also spoke about sustainable fisheries partnership agreements, which are agreements with nations that tend to be much further away. As an independent coastal state, the UK will set its own fishing opportunities in agreement with third countries, and we are considering whether and how we should replace existing agreements. The UK has not fished in Morocco since 2011 and it has not fished in Mauritania since 2012, so the only active fishing interest we currently have is an agreement with Greenland, with one vessel fishing there. That has been active in eight of the last 10 years. But certainly, we can go back and look at this in due course, once we have left the EU.
On the issue of quota and the figures, we have revoked provisions that relate to the setting of UK total allowable catch and quota for the UK. These provisions could not be made operable because it would be inappropriate for the EU to set the UK’s quota once it is no longer a member state. International quota swaps have already happened in 2019, so the fishing opportunities available to the UK as stated in the regulations are already out of date. The Secretary of State will therefore replace the current EU figures with the UK fishing opportunities, using common law or prerogative power. The 2019 figures will be published as an annexe to the UK quota management rules, which will be updated in time for exit day.
If the noble Lord will oblige me, I would like to come back to him on the legal side of the North Sea multiannual plan. I have a response here but I am not satisfied with it and I would rather write to him.
This SI brings across provisions that already exist for fees and charges. This does not in any way represent a change to the status quo, as the fisheries administrations already have this power.
Sharing of the MS data is of course a very important issue. A number of provisions in the CFP oblige member states to co-ordinate with or assist other member states, often in close co-operation. The UK absolutely intends to co-operate with the EU and our other neighbours, but of course is unable to legislate for co-operation with member states in the absence of international agreements, which I hope we will get in the future. Data for scientific purposes will continue to be collected and shared with international organisations such as ICES and the RFMOs. The data will also be published, as it currently is.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Perhaps I might press the Minister on that a little. It sounds like that is all a project for the future. However, it would have been nice to have been reassured that, notwithstanding that we will not be part of the current arrangements, discussions are already taking place with our European counterparts to make sure that a mechanism, however informal, for that continuity of data sharing will be in place from day one, rather than starting the discussions after we have left, when there is bound to be a gap in data sharing. Perhaps she could reassure us that this is already being actively discussed with the European Union.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am not able to comment on the meetings that have happened to date on this issue, but I am very happy to find out for the noble Baroness and to write to her with that information.
Finally, I want to address the issue of amending the powers from “requires” to “allows”. I completely understand why this may have looked a little odd. However, powers of the European Commission are often drafted into EU law as obligations for the Commission to legislate. This is essentially an instruction—from the European Parliament, for example—for the Commission to legislate to fill in the technical gaps, which, obviously, the Commission goes off and does itself. But in the majority of cases the Commission will already have legislated in relation to these powers, and many of the Commission’s delegated and implementing Acts which resulted from the exercise of these powers are of course being rolled over into UK law. In these cases, there is therefore no longer a requirement for these powers to be drafted as obligations, as the obligation has already been discharged. However, the Secretary of State and/or the devolved Administrations might want to make those changes, as appropriate, in the future, and therefore “requires” becomes “allows”.
Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 February be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 18th and 19th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
The matters in these instruments are closely interrelated, and I hope that noble Lords might find it helpful if I speak to them together. These instruments amend retained EU law and domestic legislation on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products—also known as the Common Market Organisation or CMO —to ensure their smooth transition into a domestic regime. They also amend retained EU law and domestic legislation covering a limited number of miscellaneous rules and functions within the wider common agricultural policy.
The CMO is part of Pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy, alongside direct payments. It comprises a number of schemes and standards designed to support, directly or indirectly, farmers and the prices they receive for their goods.
The technical and operability amendments made in these regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of this legislation, which would otherwise be inoperable following exit. They will ensure that we can continue to operate schemes under these regulations for our vital farming sector and maintain the standards they set, which support confidence in our farmed goods in domestic and international markets.
This legislation makes appropriate corrections to ensure that these standards and processes continue to operate in a UK context. Where changes are required, we have endeavoured to ensure that these will have limited impact on businesses and other stakeholders. We have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on these instruments to ensure that the legislation that they amend continues to work, while also respecting the devolution agreements.
For six of the instruments, most of the areas they cover are devolved, with powers transferring to 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 this does not apply to Wales, due to certain provisions that are specific to the Welsh devolution settlement. 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 reflects that. Only one relates exclusively to reserved matters: the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The majority of the instruments under debate concern the common organisation of agricultural markets. The CMO sits in Pillar 1 of the CAP and was set up as a means of meeting the latter’s objectives, in particular by stabilising markets, ensuring a fair standard of living for agricultural producers and increasing agricultural productivity. It has over time broadened to provide a range of measures that enable the EU to manage market volatility, incentivise collaboration between and the competitiveness of agricultural producers and facilitate trade.
The first statutory instrument in this group, draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amends retained EU legislation with the purpose of making operable the overarching framework of the CMO, rather than the detailed rules of each of the constituent policies. These amendments are all appropriate to ensure the continued operability of this framework, and include such amendments as those replacing tonnage ceilings for market intervention schemes that apply across the whole EU with a level that is suitable for the UK’s domestic market.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the seven sets of regulations. At this time of night, having sat here from about 3 pm, other Members will be delighted that I will not repeat everything I have written down, because he clearly introduced the regulations in the correct manner.
I am very grateful to Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee A for its 18th report, which looked at the regulations and which it followed up in its 19th report with some extra questions. My noble friend may want to pick up on some of them when he responds. I should declare the family farming interest, in particular the fact that we receive payments, including for environmental matters.
This is a very important group of statutory instruments which cover matters such as aid for private storage, aid schemes, marketing standards—which are particularly important—labelling, packaging, production methods, conservation and storage and transport certification, to name but a few in the first instrument. The Explanatory Memorandum on the third instrument, on marketing measures, states that our retained EU law is being kept as close as we can to the current system. Paragraph 7.2 refers particularly to public intervention and aid for storage, aid schemes generally, marketing standards, producer organisations, import and export rules—which are extremely important—and crisis measures, which my noble friend did not mention but which he might also want to pick up when he responds.
On the fourth SI, on marketing measures payment schemes, managing market volatility is again particularly important. Perhaps my noble friend can say a little more about that when he responds. The collaboration and competitiveness of agricultural producers is hugely important: bringing producers together so that we can gain competitiveness in the international trade in which we shall be competing. Promotion and high standards are particularly important, as are the production methods to which they refer. Awareness and recognition of EU quality schemes is increasingly important, and the statutory instruments allow us to achieve that. My noble friend did not mention—but there is so much for him to mention in these statutory instruments, it is probably just as well for us tonight that he did not go through the whole lot—the safety proposed to farmers by removing surplus products. Again, perhaps he would pick up on that. I shall not comment on the fifth statutory instrument at all.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for briefing us and arranging meetings letting us know the intention behind the regulations. He has a deserved reputation for civility and courtesy in this House, and he has very much earned it in my case, as I am not a great expert in this field.
I gather that this is an attempt to enact a degree of continuity and certainty for the farming industry in the immediate case. If we are going to go through these radical changes, that is to be applauded. However, can the Minister indicate the limitation of the certainty that can be given? For instance, how far in the future are we thinking: is it merely to the end of this Parliament? According to the newspapers, that could be a month away or about three years; we do not know. What are the limitations? What is the ongoing philosophy, because the philosophy is also important? If the Government continue in power, what will they think of doing? That thinking and control will matter. That is the guiding light for what will go on. Some idea of what is happening there would be helpful.
I have a few other questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, touched on a few of the things I was going to say, and one or two of the others seem to disappear into the middle distance given the lateness of the night and the importance of what is going on. If there is to be no great change, that is fine, but if change is unavoidable I encourage him to describe where he thinks there will be the greatest change, because the people involved will need as much warning as possible. If the Government have identified those areas, that would be helpful to know.
The regulations are not welcome but seem unavoidable in the current situation, so I thank the Government for at least getting a hard hat ready for the fall.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction to the batch of regulations before the House and declare my interest, as in the register, as a recipient of EU funds. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their contributions tonight.
The regulations complete the framework of agricultural mechanisms needed to be transferred to the UK from the EU to maintain certainty and continuity on food. The House dealt with further tidying-up amendments yesterday to update the position from the alterations agreed at the EU level in January. The Minister, his team and his department can be congratulated on their achievements, perhaps with certain exceptions in other areas. Nevertheless, they have brought across many technical and policy areas of EU law into UK law through these instruments to maintain the necessary legal frameworks.
The Minister made other remarks signifying that further technical updates could continue. Can he go further and state whether all future developments in the EU will continue to be implemented in UK law until measures under the Agriculture Bill come into force, which would allow certainty of continuation until the end of this Parliament, and whether those developments will maintain full parity with what is happening in the EU?
As we discussed last week, these regulations need to be introduced to maintain continuity and consistency on the EU’s regime to bring about a smooth transfer to the UK’s new regime, proposed under the forthcoming Agriculture Bill. I am sure that, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Minister can confirm that nothing will change from a regulatory standpoint in the entire food chain, from the farmer to the consumer, to the benefit of both and the food supply chain. I am certainly grateful to the Government for that clarity. To credit the Treasury for its guarantee, the food industry has a certain amount of certainty until the end of this Parliament—that is still believed to be in 2022, whether the UK has a transition period or not—when the new provisions under the Agriculture Bill are expected to take effect. Until that landscape, producers and consumers are protected. There are no guarantees after that.
As Parliament nears the end of the process to leave the EU with a fully functioning statute book, what consideration have the Government given to communicating these solutions, especially regarding the farming industry? I understand that the Minister’s department has already gone live with the online system for this year’s BPS, and that the guidance notes are not materially different; that is, they are essentially the same as last year’s. Do the Government have any plans? More pertinently, when does the Minister think his department will issue guidance to provide clarity for the industry?
We have dealt with rural development programmes and the common agricultural policy in recent weeks, but these regulations deal with CMOs, the common organisations for market structures, market measures, legislative functions and livestock regulation, as the Minister explained. Again, the Explanatory Memorandums do not provide enough clarity, or reveal with details enough of the consultations that have occurred throughout industry, including on the devolved Administrations and their separate industry structures. Can he outline the full scope of those consultations by naming the various food sector bodies that have been consulted on these CMO instruments? I recognise that, necessarily, the CMA will be involved as far as competition law is concerned, but how will specific industry issues be dealt with on a sector-by-sector basis?
For example, in yesterday’s debate, PDOs and geographical indictors were discussed in relation to the transfer of functions to the Secretary of State, but no mention was made of the UK policy and decision-making process, nor of what guidance there may be on future recognitions. Can the Minister outline the plans for that once the UK has transferred the various brands across from the EU list, including the ones discussed yesterday dealing with wine and US liquor?
My next general comment concerns the lack of impact assessments across the regulations. As these regulations merely bring existing schemes into being on a UK statutory basis, the Government say that nothing has changed, as the saying goes. I understand that, but there are often sufficient amendments to justify examination and explanation. I ask the Minister to clarify two situations. First, what is the position across the statutory instruments we have been discussing in the past few weeks on the various end-dates of differing programmes, new applications and their funding? I have discussed that with him and his team.
Although these regulations come under Pillar 1, the Minister will nevertheless recall the provisions on the interaction of farmers between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 regarding these schemes. The RDP measures will continue for new applications until the end of the scheme in 2020, in contrast to the annual reopenings of environmental and countryside stewardship schemes, with all their lifespans running for many years into the future. Can he clarify the provisions and assure us that the overall framework will apply uniformly across the various regimes, whereby all new applications will close on the same date in 2020? If there are to be any changes, I contend that they would merit appraisal under the impact assessment, as they would breach the Treasury’s guarantee to continue its funding until the end of this Parliament.
The second area that may merit an impact assessment regards the policy changes to end the multi-programmes that operate across more than one member state, as the UK will no longer be a member state after exit. These multi-programmes are often important in recognising cross-border collaboration and value-adding marketing schemes. Although the schemes may end, will the Treasury continue its funding in all, only certain or no circumstances? What is its position regarding pertinent databanks and information under these programmes? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. Will agreement with the EU be necessary to continue with, or possibly untangle, the provisions satisfactorily? An impact assessment on the effects of this change would have been helpful.
Regarding the complex nature of interactions with the devolved Administrations, can the Minister confirm that how these operate at present will be entirely consistent and continue with these regulations as well? In particular, can he clarify on which areas all four nations need to agree?
Paragraph 4.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum on legislative functions asks about the interaction of these SI arrangements with ongoing trade negotiations, provisions under the Trade Bill and the publication of the temporary tariffs announced recently. It needs to be recognised that these SIs, as was discussed in yesterday’s updates, transfer only EU functions and its latest position to the UK. I recognise that the Minister’s department was not the lead department in settling these possible temporary tariff quotas and levels, which could have a fundamental impact on industry, but I hope that he will be able to discuss the implications in due course. The role of Parliament and full industry consultation is paramount in determining tariff levels. Can he outline how such consultation will be undertaken in future?
Finally, it needs to be recognised that although the EU powers under certain provisions are being transferred into UK law, they are not necessarily being implemented —indeed, they may never be implemented. I refer in this regard to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the powers to charge fees in relation to the livestock regulations. I know that the industry is grateful that fees are not currently enforced. Can the Minister confirm that this position will continue and that the Government will not commence with this provision, so that the status quo will continue?
I am grateful to the Minister and all his staff at the department for the constructive way they have engaged in discussions with all Benches in your Lordships’ House. In the new world of life outside the EU, it must be recognised that all trading blocs give support to their food and agricultural sectors, and that careful consideration therefore needs to be exercised regarding this fundamental and strategically important industry. I am pleased to approve the regulations today.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have the disadvantage of being before my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who farm in a much more extensive manner than I do. I reiterate my commitment to the farming world as a farmer.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for acknowledging government support. I think I have been clear in previous debates—we have had a number of debates on this—about the government commitment to maintain the same level of support until the end of this Parliament, expected in 2022. This is certainly unique. In the European Union, for instance, no other member state’s farming sector has had that level of guarantee. This commitment includes all funding provided for farm support under both pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the current CAP. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, may recall from the debate that the point about the RDPE funding is that any agreements under pillar 2 that have already started will continue to be funded by the Treasury under that guarantee, even if they go beyond 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about change. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, because at a time of change there is always much concern. Sometimes it is not quite as bad as we all imagine. I emphasise that there are no immediate changes for farmers and consumers due to the statutory instruments before us. Indeed, these instruments maintain the status quo, with amendments made to ensure that the existing regulatory regime continues to work properly and to provide a consistent regulatory framework.
I raise two areas where changes have been made. In both cases we have worked to ensure that the impact on farmers, businesses and consumers is minimised. The first is in the labelling of farmed goods, where minor changes are necessary to some labels as UK goods will no longer be able to be identified as EU goods. To allow producers and traders time to adapt and to use up their existing labelling stock and reduce waste, we have pragmatically introduced transition periods for these labelling changes until the end of 2020. Another pragmatic point I mentioned earlier was in the tagging of live bovine animals. Here EU legislation requires the retagging of all live bovine animals imported from third countries. We have exempted animals from the EU from this definition so as not to introduce a new requirement of retagging EU animals when we leave. As I said before, this is because the tags are fully compliant with our IT systems, and we thought that that would prevent unnecessary additional costs. These statutory instruments are absolutely designed to ensure continuity and stability for farmers by maintaining the current CMO and livestock frameworks. I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington, meant the complete range of regulations. On livestock movement, again I assure the noble Lord that there will be no changes on the ground. I reiterate that this livestock movements SI does not introduce new rules or new policies. The rules that livestock keepers and businesses must comply with will be unchanged by this SI.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked a number of questions. If I get all the answers, I will of course report on them. If I do not, it would be much better if I wrote in some detail. My noble friend asked about livestock fee charging and what this entails. There is a power in the retained regulation on cattle ID registration, regulation 1760/2000, to charge for controls in this area. It is not Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to charge for these controls and we have no plans to do so.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about agricultural promotions and the specific questions raised by the SLSC about funding for agricultural promotions laid out in the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The department provided a response and we confirmed to the committee that there is no funding from the Government for the continuation of these multi-programmes after exit until their completion in 2020 and that stakeholders have been informed.
On the question of livestock, the ESIC and SLSC’s sifting committees made similar points suggesting that the changes made by the SI conferred significant new powers on Ministers and provided for charging for cattle ID. As I say, they disagreed with the department’s original Explanatory Memorandum, which described the changes being made by this instrument as minor and technical. They took the view that 20 or so amendments being made by it had the effect of conferring functions on a Minister in their domestic ministerial capacity that EU regulations confer on the UK as a member state. As I said, we have no intention of charging.
My noble friend asked about price reporting. We have made operable the provisions to set up a system for price reporting in the sugar sector. If I have any further information on that, I shall write to my noble friend and provide a copy to all noble Lords who have spoken.
My noble friend asked a question on public intervention and crisis measures. We are retaining these measures, as it is not appropriate to revoke them under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, the economic case for market intervention is weak. In a global trading environment it can achieve its aim of increasing prices only in very specific circumstances. Where it does, there is a cost not only to the taxpayer but to consumers. The Government—I think this is the case across parties—have not historically supported the general use of public intervention and private storage aid in the EU, and the medium-term intention would be to phase out this policy.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about a safety net and what assistance would be available if there were a crisis. We have already carried out significant no-deal preparations and have contingency plans in place to minimise disruption as much as possible. As part of this, we are in close contact with the devolved Administrations, all farming sectors and farming unions, including the livestock sector, and are looking at a range of possible options if we were to leave without a trade deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of matters on consultation and assessment. As I think the noble Lord is expecting me to say, there are no changes in policy except in the really limited areas I have described, which are all pragmatic. Where there are changes, they are largely minor and reflect the domestic context. I can say that Defra carried out targeted stakeholder engagement on these policy changes and, as I say, consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations. Where there is a possible impact on businesses, such as with labelling changes, a transition period will be implemented.
I want to take noble Lords back and embellish what I said about multi-programmes. The term refers to programmes that involve multiple member states. I think we all have to accept that there is no reasonable way in which we could make these schemes work domestically, given that they engage a number of other member states. I do not think that the UK’s share of the work and funding is variable. For simple programmes that require the participation of only one member state, as I have said, we have given a Treasury guarantee that they will be fulfilled. However, it would not be possible to operate programmes with multiple member states and so we will not be continuing with those.
Lord Grantchester
Can the Minister provide clarity on these multi-programmes? There are obviously implications for UK businesses that partake in those, and I understand the Minister’s remarks on that. However, will he clarify that none of these schemes has implications for government commitments and obligations to fulfil EU schemes as part of the £39 billion transfer of funds? Do they all fall outwith those obligations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It is only reasonable that I answer the noble Lord precisely in writing to provide clarity. I would not want to assume the configuration of the £39 billion and whether schemes in this area may be implicated.
On consultation, the approach we have taken to engagement has been proportionate and fair, particularly given that the changes made by the statutory instruments are technical and operable in so many cases. We have worked closely with the farming world.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the legislative functions SI. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to require export licences for the export of farmed goods. They are necessary to allow the UK to manage any new third-country export quotas that the UK may need to manage. Examples of current export quotas that the EU manages, and that the UK will therefore need to manage, include export quotas for cheese to Canada and the United States and for skimmed milk powder to the Dominican Republic. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the administration of import tariff quotas will be subject to separate regulations made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act.
As I have said, Defra has consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on all aspects of the SIs, and consent was sought and given for those that relate to devolved matters. In so far as the regulations make amendments to food law, we consulted in accordance with our legal obligations through representative bodies such as Dairy UK, the NFU and local councils. We received replies from numerous public bodies and organisations in England, and in all four constituent nations, expressing support for our proposed operability changes.
Where industry bodies requested longer transition periods for labelling, we took that into consideration and increased the length of transition to the end of December 2020.
On the livestock SI, my noble friend Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, with his long-term dairy interest, will be pleased to hear that stakeholders—and I have been part of this—have played a leading role in helping Defra develop the principles and approaches that will underpin the delivery of its planned new livestock tracing services over the next few years, through its traceability design user group. Again, this is really important, and there is enormous buy-in from industry.
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Livestock (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved.
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, I will speak to the three 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 instruments are related to safety and security, cash controls and the Economic Operators Registration and Identification scheme—EORI.
EU law provides the legal framework for implementing these policies across the EU. By virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, this law will form part of our domestic law on exit day and will continue to apply as retained EU law.
The relevant EU legislation was drafted to apply to EU member states. Therefore, it will not work as effective legislation for the UK without amendments. These instruments ensure that the UK has a functioning legislative rulebook by replacing references and terminology that will no longer be valid in the event of no deal. This ensures that the UK will have effective safety and security, cash controls and EORI regimes after the UK leaves the EU.
First, allow me to set out the context of the provision we wish to introduce for managing the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the UK. The Union Customs Code sets out that the movement of goods into and out of the EU requires entry and exit summary declarations, also known as safety and security declarations. So, for example, shipments from the US or China require a safety and security declaration before entering the EU. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, UK importers and exporters will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods moving to and from the EU, as well as the rest of the world.
As well as making required changes to retained EU law, this instrument introduces a provision to phase-in the legal requirement for entry summary declarations on goods imported from the EU. The legal requirement to submit entry summary declarations for goods imported from the EU will apply from 1 October 2019.
HMRC has listened to industry concerns about ongoing uncertainty and the readiness of businesses to comply with safety and security requirements on UK-EU trade from day one. Therefore, we are taking this approach to give businesses more time to prepare to submit declarations to HMRC. This does not remove the requirement for declarations for goods imported from the rest of the world. Goods entering the UK from the rest of the world will still have to make entry summary declarations as they do now.
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. This instrument includes a provision to support the operation of the UK and the Crown dependencies, namely that the movement of goods between the UK and the Crown dependencies will not require safety and security declarations. This instrument does not apply to the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
The second statutory instrument we are talking about today relates to cash controls. The EU monitors the international movement of cash by requiring individuals who are entering or leaving the EU, and who are carrying €10,000 or more in cash, to make a cash control declaration. This declaration must be made to the customs authority of the member state into which they are arriving or leaving.
The UK is committed to continuing this practice. The declarations provide information about the international movement of cash and are one measure that assists in the fight against money laundering, the proceeds of crime and the funding of terrorism. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, this instrument will require cash control declarations at the UK border, including the border between the UK and the EU. It does not apply to the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
The current practice, which requires these declarations between the UK and non-EU countries, will continue. This instrument extends those requirements to movements between the UK and EU. It makes the small change that we will require declarations on amounts of £10,000 or more, rather than €10,000.
The final change as a result of this instrument that I should draw to your Lordships’ attention relates to information sharing. Currently, details of the movement of cash are automatically shared between member states. This instrument removes the requirement to share information but permits sharing of information where it is in the UK’s interests so to do.
The third and final instrument we are discussing today is for the Economic Operators Registration and Identification scheme, EORI. An EORI is a unique registration number given to businesses that interact with customs authorities so that HMRC can identify them effectively. EORIs are necessary when applying for customs simplifications or facilitations, when making declarations or in other interactions with the customs authority.
All EORIs issued by the UK, known as UK EORIs, will 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 or other territories outside the EU and do not already have a UK EORI will need to obtain one. Persons who are not established in the UK but who wish to lodge a UK declaration will also require a UK EORI. This instrument ensures that the UK has a functioning EORI scheme by replacing references and terminology in retained EU law that will no longer be valid in the event of no deal. Traders whose only international trade is between Northern Ireland and Ireland will not be required to register for a UK EORI.
These instruments will ensure that the UK has independent customs processes that work after we have left the EU and will maintain the security of our borders while ensuring that traders are faced with as little change as possible and are given time to prepare for the new customs requirements after EU exit. I commend—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House how many businesses currently have an EORI? The last published information from the Government suggested that only one-sixth of businesses which trade exclusively with the EU and would require an EORI have one. What is the current position?
Lord Bates
The current position is that the largest number of businesses affected would be UK businesses. There are an estimated 245,000 traders who will need to register for an EORI. That figure comprises 145,000 VAT-registered businesses and 100,000 businesses below the VAT threshold. Overseas businesses will also require a UK EORI to make customs declarations for goods being imported into the UK after we leave the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful to the Minister for indicating how many businesses would be required to have one. How many businesses are registered for and have secured an EORI?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the Minister for the explanation of these three statutory instruments and for the detail he provided. I trust that when he winds up he will stress that this is continuity rather than anything new. To the extent that this is continuity, I do not wish to dwell at this hour on things that are replacing what already exists, but I shall deal with some of the things that might be slightly different.
The customs safety and security procedures SI refers to exempting risks during a six-months transition period. Will the Minister tell the House whether this exemption will cause any risk? There must be a risk in giving a six-month exemption. If this were an insurance company, there would be a risk assessment for giving that six-month exemption. I am sure the Minister and his team have worked that out.
This SI also places requirements on small firms in the transitional period. I agree that there have to be requirements for small firms, but I question why businesses are included as small firms if they employ up to the rather arbitrary figure of 50 people and therefore have this exemption. Has the Minister considered how many companies employing 100 people would divide their company in two and thus be exempted? One could use any multiple of 50, but it seems to be an easy way to avoid the requirement and I wonder whether the Minister and his team have thought about that. Should this be done according to the number of people employed or the size of the enterprise? A massive enterprise with millions and millions of pounds does not have to bother because it can be classified as a small company, but if the opposite applies, you are not exempted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, when the Trade Bill first came to this Chamber in September, out of interest I registered with HMRC as a small business trading with the European Union to find out what information the Government would be providing to businesses. One of the core elements was the EORI component. A business that trades either exclusively or predominantly, or indeed at all, with the European Union was told that it would be required to have an EORI number in the event of no deal. The Government have taken that position consistently over a number of months in indicating that preparations for a no-deal Brexit need to be made.
It has been fascinating to observe both the information that the Government have received and how businesses have responded. As I indicated to the Minister, the last time the Government published information about how many businesses were prepared and in a position to trade with their European counterparts the day after a no-deal Brexit, only one-sixth of British businesses were in a position to do so. That meant that five-sixths would not be able to trade legally with their counterparts in the EU 27 countries. Now, a fortnight before the revised exit day if we leave on a no-deal basis, only one-fifth of businesses can do so. Therefore, if we leave with no deal on 12 April, one-fifth of all British businesses that trade with customers in EU 27 countries are in a position to do so legally. In addition, if, as the Minister said, they are in the category of the 145,000 VAT-registered businesses, they are required to be registered with an EU 27-equivalent of HMRC in those countries.
The Government have not published data on that information. It would be very interesting to know whether they are collecting data themselves. Not only do businesses have to be registered with our regulatory body, the HMRC, but for those 145,000 businesses to pay the correct level of VAT, tariffs and customs duties, they have to be registered with the customs or VAT body of the member state concerned. This is the advice that the Government have been giving, so it would be interesting to know how many companies are in that position.
Even if we crash out on a delayed basis in a fortnight’s time, the vast majority of British businesses will not be in a position to trade legally with their European counterparts. Regardless of what the Government have been saying about the need for preparedness for a no-deal Brexit, British businesses are simply not prepared. That may be because they do not believe the Government would be so cavalier with the interests of the British economy or that, in the words of the business Minister who resigned overnight, the Government are,
“playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority of people in this country who are employed by or otherwise depend on businesses for their livelihood”.
Or perhaps they do not believe that the advice provided by the Government has been of a sufficient standard.
I am open-minded about which category they might be in but sympathetic to the latter because, last week, on the day the Government indicated they were open to extending Brexit day, I received an email, as a business, indicating that exit day would still be 29 March. This afternoon, as I listened to the Leader of the House speaking about the statutory instrument for extending Brexit day, I received an HMRC email indicating that the policy of the British Government was still to leave the European Union with a deal; but there was no indication of an exit day at all.
How on earth can British businesses be expected to prepare now with the Government not even indicating a firm basis on which they need to prepare? Given that having an EORI number is only one of a number of requirements on British businesses, the Government—not Parliament—are asking them to make impossible business decisions. They are asking them to take risks to plan for an eventuality that even the Government are not confident will happen. It would be helpful if the Minister, in responding to this short debate, gave an estimate of when the Government expect all British businesses to be in a position of readiness for exiting the European Union. If at the moment, a fortnight out, only a fifth of British businesses that trade with their counterparts in the European Union are prepared, when do the Government estimate that all British businesses will be in that position?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I too thank the Minister for presenting these SIs. Taking them in the same order as on the Order Paper, the first one concerns customs safety and security procedures. The impact assessment says:
“The main purpose of this regulation is to enable the UK to continue to meet its safety and security obligations under the World Customs Organisation … Framework of Standards by introducing a new UK regime”.
This is the new UK regime. It introduces a safety and security declaration—in a sense, at the UK-EU border—after a six-month transition period. It also introduces an authorised economic operator programme. I could not understand whether this was an asymmetrical situation or a symmetrical one. For the six months while the UK firms do not have to make these declarations, is it possible that EU member states may require declarations from what was to have been this Friday and is now a fortnight on Friday, or do we have a reciprocal deal? The impact assessment gives a feel for the real world. It says:
“In the event of a no deal scenario, the UK will no longer be part of the EU security zone and carriers and operators will need to make safety and security declarations for goods moving between the UK and the EU. Whilst many carriers, specifically large economic operators, are experienced in transporting goods to both the EU and non-EU countries, HMRC anticipates that this will present a significant ongoing administrative burden for them, especially when submitting an ENS as it will be a new legal obligation and an additional cost to submitting a customs declaration for import purposes”.
The intention of this programme is no doubt to smooth the effects of a no-deal scenario but at best it will only reduce the chaos, and chaos there will be—at least, that is what it seems to me. However, let us look at the reason why these instruments are in front of us. Paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says the reason is that the European Statutory Instruments Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee both recommended that the instruments should be moved from the negative procedure,
“to the affirmative resolution procedure, as they believe the House may wish to debate the implications the safety and security requirements may have for trade across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border”.
The reference to this in the Explanatory Memorandum is:
“The amendments to the retained EU law contained in this instrument will not have effect in relation to trade in goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Further details on the arrangements for trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland will be published as soon as possible”.
I looked at the instrument to see how that retained law was disapplied. Almost hiding in plain sight in regulation 1(3) is this simple statement:
“They do not have effect in relation to the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or the reverse”.
That has a charming, heroic simplicity about it. In one line it says that a problem that completely destroyed the Prime Minister’s agreement—that is, the backstop—can be ended by that simple statement. What are the plans for the border under these circumstances? The regulation says they will be published “as soon as possible”. One would have assumed that there was a target to publish them before this Friday because it is the 29th, although we now know that exit day is possibly a fortnight later.
The question posed is the question that the best minds of Her Majesty’s Government and the EU have failed to solve: what will actually happen at that border? My understanding is that if we fall back on WTO rules, there is an obligation to impose tariffs and for these sorts of safety and security rules to be enforced. We will in fact end up with a border down the Irish Sea. Are the two parties in Northern Ireland simply going to ignore all their obligations under these various international treaties? If we have here tonight, at this late hour, a solution to the Irish border question, I would be delighted to hear it from the Minister.
Lord Bates
I am afraid that I will probably disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. In this context, I should say that this is certainly not an objective or outcome that we are hoping will occur; we want to leave with a deal, ideally the withdrawal agreement that has been set out. I will deal with the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Palmer and Lord Tunnicliffe, as best I can. There will be some gaps, so I give notice that I will have to write on a couple of points.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, began by asking me to stress the continuity element. I am very happy to say that that is what we are seeking to do. We are simply following the same process as with the onshoring exercise to ensure that we replicate what is there at present. Continuity is the objective. I suspect that the answer to the noble Lord’s subset of questions on number, amount or size of firm is that we are providing continuity of the existing arrangements. I will not be able to answer this evening the point about the innovative idea of firms with 100 employees dividing into two to somehow get around the requirements; I will write on that point if I may.
Let me deal with the noble Lord’s other point. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, this instrument will remove the requirement for safety and security declarations for six months. He rightly questioned what assessment we had made of this. Taking this approach, the risk to safety and security will not increase after EU exit, given that goods from the EU are not currently subject to safety and security declarations. The transitional period does not apply to non-EU traders that already comply with the current safety and security regulations. After the six-month transition, businesses will be obliged to submit safety and security declarations.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what information the Government will provide to businesses on EORI and how to register. I take his point about the level of registrations; of course, we wish it were higher. We have tried to make it as easy as possible to register. He has had the experience of doing it. Our belief is that doing it online takes five to 10 minutes. I do not know whether that corresponds with the noble Lord’s practical experience. I have not done it, but our feeling is that it can be done relatively easily. Businesses need to be aware that it will be important for them to do that in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the Minister flesh out the word “important”? Can businesses trade if they do not have—I cannot pronounce the damn thing—this unique identification number?
Lord Bates
That is the whole point. We are saying that, in the event of no deal, they would require that to trade. It is a very serious commitment. If they are above the relevant threshold, that will be a requirement.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
If there are a lot of businesses which have not registered, through negligence or misinformation, how much of a risk is that?
Lord Bates
Clearly, that is a risk. We have put out technical notices and engaged quite significantly with industry bodies on this. We have listened to the industry, which is one of the reasons why we have taken this approach on safety and security, with the six-month transitional period. We have tried to get the information out there as much as possible. However, we are concerned about that as an eventuality and encourage businesses to register, even at this late hour.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I hope the Minister will forgive me for pressing this point, but there is a world of difference between being concerned, with perhaps some irritation, minor penalty or whatever, and whatever proportion you want to take—say four-fifths—of the firms that would want to trade across this border not being able to in a fortnight’s time.
Lord Bates
Once they became aware of that situation, if that eventuality occurred, the remedy—to get the registration—is a fairly simple and straightforward process. We would like them to do it before then. That is why we have been encouraging them to do that—but we cannot force them to at this stage.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Businesses cannot do it afterwards if they want to trade on day one of exit if there is no deal. A post-fact situation is irrelevant if they wish to trade without any obstruction on day one of a no-deal exit. Will the Minister confirm this or get information from the Box before he sits down? The information I have received is that HMRC can only process a maximum of 11,000 a day. I hear what the Minister is saying about the Government encouraging businesses to register and that it may take only a short period of time, but that depends on the complexity of the business they do. That is for them to have an EORI. Even if all the businesses wish to register, there is only a certain capacity at HMRC, as I understand. I would be delighted if the Minister can say that that is incorrect and that before exit day—on 12 April if there is no deal—all the businesses that can trade can conceivably be in a position where they can trade. If he is not able to give that reassurance, we are in a very difficult position.
Lord Bates
Let me clarify that, because I think we can be more helpful on that point. There is a lighter-touch element to this: businesses can trade but they need to give a name and address. That is the requirement. They need an EORI number when interacting with customers and HMRC. So when they are doing that part of the exercise, rather than the trading element—completing their VAT return et cetera—they will need that number when they interact, but to trade they would need simply to give their name and address. I hope that offers some reassurance.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am not sure that it offered the clarity we need. Is it the Government’s position that, in the absence of having an economic operator number to trade with others in the EU 27, businesses have only to state that they have a British-registered trading address? That is absolutely not the advice that HMRC has been providing British businesses that trade with those in the European Union.
Lord Bates
The reality is that we would prefer them to have an EORI registration number. It is a fairly straightforward process that takes five to 10 minutes. But we are talking about extraordinary circumstances. The advice I am given and that I am presenting is that they need to give just their name and address to be able to continue to do that.
The noble Lord asked about the limit on processing of 11,000 per day and whether HMRC had the capacity. The customs declaration service has the capacity to process significantly higher numbers than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether we would end up with a border down the Irish Sea. These non-fiscal statutory instruments will not create an east-west border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This will be a temporary measure until a permanent solution is in place. We will seek to discuss this at the first opportunity with the Irish Government and the European Union. However, until this point, this policy is necessary to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and to uphold the Belfast Good Friday agreement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful for the Minister’s patience on this. It is important. He said at the Dispatch Box that HMRC has a capacity much greater than for providing 11,000 registrations a day. On GOV.UK on 28 February 2019, HMRC announced:
“HMRC has the capacity to sign up 11,000 businesses per day for EORI numbers”.
What have the Government done since then to provide that extra capacity? Am I wrong in believing the Government on 28 February? What extra capacity is provided to offer this, other than what the Government themselves have said in their own statement?
Lord Bates
I am advised that the customs declarations service does have the capacity to process significantly more. I do not have a number. When I write on the other issues, I will include an update.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Just to clarify once more, there has been legal advice over the years that, when something is in Hansard, it proves to be something people can rely upon. The Minister is saying that a name and address being given will suffice. As that has, presumably, now been recorded in Hansard, has the law now been clarified?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord may not have been present for a rather fascinating debate on Pepper v Hart, which took place on another Bill recently—the Trade Bill, I think—and my noble friend Lady Fairhead is here. I and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, are not going to rehearse that argument again, but a degree of clarity came through that. I do not wish to make light of a very serious point which the noble Lord is raising, that this is impacting on real businesses, real lives and real trading opportunities. What I am trying to do is give as much information as I can from the Dispatch Box in a fast-moving situation, and provide more information in writing. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in good spirit.
The noble Lord raised the point about £10,000. I share his surprise. Like him, I am not used to carrying anywhere near that sum across borders. The Financial Action Task Force, an international government body, has identified this as a key risk. This requirement of declaration is set by each of the members; the EU sets the limit at €10,000; the USA sets it at $10,000. The Government chose their own limit, using a memorable round number. They did not want to use another state’s currency or alter the figure to reflect changes in the exchange rate.
The noble Lord also asked about existing risk profiles. In a no-deal scenario, we will continue to use the current risk profiles, updating them as needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked if we had asked the EU for a transitional period. After the UK’s exit from the UK, we will seek to negotiate a safety and security agreement with the EU, so that safety and security declarations are not required on imports between EU countries and the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for the Government’s estimate of when all businesses would have an EORI number. We are committed to making it easier for businesses to be ready. Information is clearly laid out on GOV.UK. I have said all that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful again to the Minister because this is a very important point. My question is a simple one. On 28 February, the Government released the information that 40,973 businesses have registered. On the same day, they said that up to 11,000 businesses a day could be registered because of the capacity. The Minister has said at the Dispatch Box that that capacity is now considerably higher, without explaining what has been done in the meantime to provide that extra capacity. Can he provide something simple? Is there sufficient capacity for all British businesses which trade with the European Union to be in a position, if they so choose, to be registered before 12 April?
Lord Bates
I am afraid that I cannot go further than what I have in front of me, but I will happily put an assessment of that question in writing. Of course the situation as it stands today is that, without the statutory instrument which may receive the agreement of your Lordships’ House tomorrow, we would leave on 29 March. This is one element where there is a real sense of urgency and a need for businesses to prepare for that.
I can save writing a bit of a letter here. The answer is yes; we can do that. Let me take the time over the next few days, before April 12, to go into a little more detail and set that out. I will write to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and, as usual, place a copy in the Library. I hope that will be helpful to noble Lords.
I again thank your Lordships for their contributions and scrutiny. I think we have benefited from that process.
Customs (Economic Operators Registration and Identification) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Cash Controls (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Protecting Against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fairhead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 March be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, EU Council regulation 2271/96, which protects,
“against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom”,
is commonly known as the EU blocking regulation. It seeks to protect UK and EU businesses from the harmful effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by another country.
Extraterritorial application of legislation refers to a situation where a country has enacted certain laws, regulations and other legislative instruments which purport to regulate activities of natural and legal persons outside its jurisdiction who are not its citizens or legal persons incorporated in that jurisdiction. This could, for example, result in penalties against a UK citizen for carrying out activities in the UK which we consider to be fully legitimate under our law. The UK and EU have long opposed the extraterritorial effect of sanctions legislation on our businesses and the dissuasive impact that this can have on legitimate trade. In fact, the UK’s opposition to such actions predates the blocking regulation. We have had regulations on our statute book since 1980.
The blocking regulation seeks to protect UK businesses in two key ways. First, Article 4 of that regulation guarantees that courts in EU member states will not recognise or allow the enforcement of judgments against EU businesses for fines that they incur in a third country for breaching sanctions with extraterritorial effect. Secondly, its Article 6 enables businesses to seek damages through the courts in any member states, should they be negatively impacted by the application of extraterritorial legislation in scope of the regulation.
Of course, there may be occasions where compliance with third-country sanctions regimes is necessary. Where these instances arise, the EU has the power to issue authorisations for businesses to comply with third-party sanctions regimes. Such compliance can include seeking permission from a third country to continue doing business with countries affected by that third country’s sanctions, such as approaching OFAC for a licence to continue operating in Iran. This form of compliance preserves and increases trade, although without such authorisation it is technically illegal under the blocking regulation. For this reason, compliance authorisations may need to be issued by Her Majesty’s Government after Brexit. Currently, requests for such authorisations are considered by the EU Commission in accordance with the process and criteria set out in Commission implementing regulation 2018/1101 of 3 August 2018, referred to as the implementing regulation.
This SI amends the blocking regulation and the implementing regulation as retained in UK law, using powers under Section 8 of, and paragraph 21(b) of Schedule 7 to, the EU withdrawal Act 2018, and fixes it for the UK-only context. It ensures that the UK statute book on leaving day remains equivalent to that on the day before we leave. The SI, generally speaking, transfers the functions of the European Commission to the Secretary of State, as would be expected of SIs made under the EU withdrawal Act 2018. For instance, once the SI enters into force, UK businesses will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to comply with extraterritorial sanctions, and the Secretary of State will be able to grant this permission if he or she judges the application to be consistent with the criteria set out in legislation.
Currently, the Commission defines the scope of the blocking regulation—which specific pieces of legislation it applies to—through tertiary legislation amending and updating the annexe to the blocking regulation. The SI transfers this power to the Secretary of State through the mechanism of laying of a negative SI. As we leave the EU we must ensure that we continue to protect UK businesses from the effect of extraterritorial legislation. We firmly believe that our operators should be able to continue legitimate trade free from the harmful effects of the extraterritoriality that we consider illegal under international law. This statutory instrument is a key part of this policy stance and is particularly relevant given our foreign and trade policy stances on Cuba and Iran. I welcome the opportunity for scrutiny of it and I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I do not think there will be any difficulty on these Benches about ensuring the continuity we will require in order that there is certainty for British businesses that they can operate on the correct side of international law. The only areas that I hope the Minister will clarify—her introductory remarks were quite helpful—concern, first, the application process that will be required if we are to have a stand-alone position outside European regulations. The applications for authorisations will have to be made to the Secretary of State, as the regulations state. Will the Minister indicate what process such applications will involve?
The second area, which the noble Baroness will not be surprised that I raise, concerns the matter of another judiciary within the United Kingdom. While, as part of Scottish criminal law, this will be a reserved power, nevertheless the criminal penalties that may well apply on the potential breach of some of these things by Scottish businesses would have to be prosecuted by the Scottish courts. One of the examples the Minister raised, that of Iran, is very relevant for the very large Scottish oil and gas industry that trades across the whole region, including within Iran. It is a relevant point, given the not-so-subtle threats from the United States that it will consider breach of its sanctions policy by those British businesses that continue to trade with Iran under a perfectly legal framework. If we are to have a stand-alone approach, absolute certainty, clarity and reassurance would be very helpful. The Government indicated that no consultation was necessary in bringing forward the statutory instrument. I was slightly surprised about that, given that we have two distinct judicial systems in the UK.
The Government also indicated that before the UK leaves the EU, guidance on how a blocking regulation would apply to the UK would be published. Given that when this instrument was drafted the intention was that, potentially, we would leave on Friday without an agreement, can the Minister say whether this guidance has been published? If it has not, when will it be, to offer that reassurance?
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Blocking Regulation currently provides that the Commission is to regularly report on the effects of the extraterritorial third country legislation. This will become a requirement on the part of the Secretary of State in the retained version”.
Through what mechanism do the Government intend to do that? Will it be through Written Statements to Parliament, or will a public document be laid before Parliament to provide that transparency? I hope that the Minister can clarify all those aspects.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I, too, am very grateful to the Minister for her very full introduction to this SI. It took us into areas new to me, such as the intersection between foreign policy and trade policy. That is an interesting issue and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right to focus his remarks on how these things will work in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
When the Minister introduced the SI, she pointed out that much of the regulation that has been transposed was originally introduced in 1996 in response to the extraterritorial reach of certain sanctions imposed by the US in relation to Cuba in the 1990s. Obviously, it has been updated since then, particularly with reference to Iran. It set a train of thought in my mind about how exactly our current foreign policy meshes with these regulations. With particular reference to Iran, the commentary I have been reading seems to suggest that the package of measures that is being transferred across would encourage the European Investment Bank and banks in the UK—possibly even the Bank of England—to finance activities in Iran and to strengthen ongoing sectoral co-operation and assistance to Iran. That would include financial assistance through development corporation or partnership instruments, and encouraging the UK to explore the possibility of one-off bank transfers to Iran’s central bank, which would allow Iranian authorities to receive oil-related revenues.
I suppose this is all right—I do not really understand very much of this; it is way above my head—but when the Minister responds perhaps she could explain exactly how that meshes with our current policy towards Iran, which I understand is not as sympathetic or supportive as might be suggested by the rather large cash transfer opportunities which were being discussed.
This statutory instrument follows on from activities that have been going on in Europe for a number of years in relation not just to Cuba but to the other countries that were mentioned. It requires companies to notify the Commission within 30 days whenever renewed US extraterritorial sanctions directly or indirectly affect the economic or financial interests of the company in question. Various other things apply. EU companies can recover damages in EU courts from persons causing damage as a result of the sanctions, and it nullifies the effect of any court judgments or decisions of administrative bodies that are based on the reinstated US sanctions. My question here is: has anything happened in that regard? Do we have details on the number of companies that have notified the Commission within 30 days, as required? How much money has been recovered, and how many times have the courts been subject to recovery requests? I am sure that it will not affect the way in which we respond to the SI, but it would be interesting to have on the record whether this has been an active process or one that is more observed in the absence of activity than in the reality.
My attention was drawn to a quote from what is in some senses a rather unusual source, since I do not often quote this person. The UK Foreign Secretary at the time that this instrument was brought in, Boris Johnson, said that he thought it was rather difficult to protect European businesses due to the extraterritorial effect of US sanctions and the difficulties companies have when they touch the live wire of the American financial network—they find themselves sanctioned almost immediately. So my third request for more information is to ask whether the former Foreign Secretary is right that this has been rather difficult for companies to access and use.
I suppose I am leading to this question: what rationale do the Government give for continuing this transfer? It would clearly be inappropriate to have a situation in which an EU regulation had legal effect in the UK when we had not properly transferred it. If the ends do not justify the means, I am rather surprised that the Government are taking this step forward, so could the Minister reassure me when she comes to respond that this is a necessary instrument, that it fits with our current foreign policy operations and thoughts and that there is no concern in that respect?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this short but useful debate. I hope I have been clear about the Government’s commitment to the continuation of these regulations. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, about why we are doing this, we believe that if we do not retain and amend this legislation, we will no longer be able to offer protection to UK businesses from the harmful effects we consider to be illegal under international law. We would in effect be acknowledging the superiority of the sanctions regime of a third country relative to our own. Successive Governments since the 1980s have agreed that this is unacceptable and our Government is no exception.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also highlighted some of the real challenges of these regulations. Yes, they provide protection, but there is also a challenge for companies who find themselves in that spot between being blocked from complying and failing to comply, and therefore being in breach of sanctions. This instrument is not a perfect solution. In application it is probably to be used more as a tool to dissuade companies and individuals from complying with extraterritorial sanctions. In terms of usage, only about 14 applications have been received by the Commission. I hope that answers the hard point of the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked some questions about the application process for the exemptions. At the moment businesses apply to the European Commission for exemptions; we will try to make that a bit more straightforward by providing a dedicated mailbox for our businesses to apply for exemptions once the SI enters into force. We hope that that will be a much more readily accessible approach.
On the question of when guidance will be published, over the coming months we will start with the EU guidance and update it to make sure that it complies with the UK context.
In terms of the devolved Administrations, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, acknowledged that this is a reserved power. We have kept the devolved Administrations informed of the policy on this matter and have sent them the Explanatory Memorandum. In terms of criminal proceedings in Scotland, this has been permitted under the 1996 order, so I hope that that is relatively straightforward.
My final response is to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. He asked how this fits in with current foreign policy with regard to Iran in particular. There are sanctions that we support against Iran. However, as I have said before to the House, we believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best plan to make sure that we prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. We believe that protecting trade with Iran, supported by this blocking regulation, is important to show that we are committed to legitimate trading with Iran. We are firm believers in the importance of the JCPOA.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow and I am grateful to her for giving way. I was trying to make a slightly different point, which is not the broader case about the JCPOA but on the British national currently held in detention in Iran for whom diplomatic efforts have been made to create a major issue with Iran. I do not see how this instrument helps. The point I was trying to make is that other issues are at play here.
Baroness Fairhead
I do not deny that other issues are at play. For the purpose of this debate, the question is whether the blocking regulation supports our approach to the JCPOA, and I think it absolutely does.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the JCPOA, the core members of the EU, including the UK, have established a financial mechanism which will effectively protect British businesses conducting business with Iran. If we are moving to having a distinct system outside that mechanism, which is protected through the European process, if the SI is passed and we leave without a deal, where will British businesses be with regard to that mechanism set up through the aegis of the European Union? If British businesses cannot have the reassurance that they will have that European Union protection, they will feel vulnerable and be in a weaker position than they are now.
Baroness Fairhead
Let me address that head-on. We are absolutely clear that we want certainty and protection for businesses. It is a difficult issue: support comes through banks, many of which choose not to engage given their dependence on their licence to operate in the US or for other commercial reasons. That is their choice to make.
Protection is not actually an EU event, it is an E3 activity—the UK, France and Germany. We have created a special purpose vehicle, the official name of which is INSTEX. It is designed to help businesses conclude legitimate trade. We believe that it has the potential to support the delivery of the sanctions relief that we committed to under the JCPOA and will facilitate trade under European and international law. It is part of the E3, and I think that that will be maintained. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect situation, but we are trying to make sure that we are clear that we are protecting businesses as much as we can in a difficult situation.
To conclude, I thank noble Lords who have participated for their constructive and challenging input to the debate. I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and I commend the regulations.
Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fairhead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are necessary to maintain the ban on trade in cat and dog fur following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. We recognise the strength of feeling in the UK against a trade that could encourage killing cats and dogs to make money out of their fur. The regulations are most certainly needed to continue to meet the public’s expectations. Without them, the legislation imposing the ban would be inoperable.
The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 March. They are made under powers in the EU withdrawal Act 2018. Noble Lords will know that, given the context, those powers are limited and allow only the correction of technical deficiencies in existing EU law that, by the operation of the Act, will be retained in UK law following withdrawal. The regulations correct such deficiencies, for example by replacing references to the EU and its institutions with the appropriate UK references.
To be clear, such powers cannot make policy changes. I add that it is beyond the scope of the regulations and today’s debate to consider wider changes to the ways in which animals with fur, and indeed other creatures, are protected. This is about ensuring continuity and making sure that the legislation is operable. To ensure that the ban on trade in cat or dog fur is maintained, I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, if we are to leave the European Union and crash out in a way I consider disastrous, a degree of legal certainty is necessary for some of the areas where protection for animals is provided. Indeed, the Minister will recall that this specific example was raised in the Trade Bill.
I welcome putting this mechanism in place to ensure that there are no gaps in this heinous trade, which British criminal proceedings established as a crime more than a decade ago. I also welcome the high penalties for this crime being maintained. In doing so, I wonder whether the Minister can address a few points of clarification. It is important to note that the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum highlighted the fact that the European Commission found little evidence of trade in this area. Nevertheless, regrettably, if those in the criminal fraternity see an opportunity or an opening, they are likely to exploit it.
With that caveat, I ask for further explanation on the instrument. Its existing power to derogate, contained in the EC regulation, will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The Minister said that this measure would not be a vehicle for making new policy, but this power would provide Ministers with the ability to derogate. Where will potential derogations occur? If they have already been highlighted for educational or taxidermy purposes, are those purposes defined in current legislation? I know through my links with the textile and fashion industry in Scotland and across the UK that, regrettably, companies could set themselves up as taxidermy companies to exploit a loophole. Clarification from the Government on that point would be very welcome.
The second area was that the current approach, as the Explanatory Memorandum states,
“allows the European Commission to adopt an analytical method to identify different species of fur”,
and, if necessary, to amend on that basis. This will now be a power of the Secretary of State, so how will the Government consider this analytical method for considering which species are covered by this regulation?
My final point relates to the devolved Administrations, which I am sure the Minister will not be surprised about. While this will be considered as part of a reserved power—I have no dispute about that—inevitably there has been an interaction with devolved Administrations. When I served in the Scottish Parliament there were proposals for legislation to ban puppy farming and the consequential element of what would potentially become a product from that puppy farming. Indeed, legislation exists in Scotland on other wild animals and the pelts derived from them. If the Minister were able to clarify what discussions the Government have had—primarily in Scotland, which has some complementary areas of primary legislation in this area—it would be most welcome.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister brought forward a well-argued and brief case, and there is no need for us to go over much of the ground here. This is a very straightforward translation across of an existing power, and it is obviously necessary. These bans are only there because of public indignation and moral outcry about the trade in fur products, with particular reference to cats and dogs in this case.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there is a wider context, and it would be helpful to have some sense of where this lies in the thinking on the broader trade in live puppies—and presumably cats—which are brought in to the great distress of the animals concerned, with poor standards of veterinary care and often with misleading information about what breeds they are and their likely state of health. There is also the broader question about how these issues are to be policed.
Mention is made in the commentary around this statutory instrument that determining the quality of the fur is complicated by the fact that it is sometimes quite difficult to track exactly what it is and where it has come from. More work needs to be done on that, and I wonder whether more effort will be placed on this now that the matter is being brought into direct control from the UK. That broader question also leads to the point about whether resources are available to make sure that it is properly policed. Presumably this is a trading standards issue. Trading standards is often asked to take on additional burdens and rarely given additional resources, since its funding comes from local authorities. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there will be adequate resources for this work to be carried out.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I will try to address a number of the concerns raised. The noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed, both mentioned a broader, more extensive ban. There may be time another day to talk about extending the ban. There have been no challenges to this ban under WTO rules. Our position is that that is beyond the scope of this statutory instrument, and therefore it is not a subject for discussion today.
There is a power to derogate in the current regulations. Because we are required only to correct technical deficiencies and because it exists, removing it would amount to more than correcting a technical deficiency. The power is there so that it is appropriate to bestow it on the UK. But let me be absolutely clear here on the Floor of the House—and this is why I am not going to address the other detailed questions of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—that the Government have no plans to use that power. As the noble Lord said, the derogation is for education and taxidermy. We have no plans to make use of that power.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the use of specific analytical methods. The requirement to report was to the Commission. We no longer need to do that, because we can determine what analytical methods we use. As the UK uses DNA-based methodology, we consider that to be the most appropriate overall and expect to continue to use it.
On the agreement of the devolved Administrations, it is recorded in the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2008 regulations on this subject that this is a reserved matter. The international trade regulation falls within the general reservation for international affairs set out in the Scotland Act 1998. We have shared these regulations with the devolved Administrations in draft, and, in practical terms, we are confident that there is consensus across the UK on the desirability of maintaining the ban.
I can confirm to both noble Lords who have spoken that we expect these regulations to continue to be rigorously enforced. HMRC will continue its role. It inspects consignments of fur at the point of entry into or exit from the UK, and on retail premises, to ensure they do not contain any cat or dog fur. It will retain its existing power to seize goods it considers to be in breach. It can also bring criminal proceedings against any persons found to have breached the prohibitions.
With that, I hope I have addressed the noble Lords’ questions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
One might assume that this is an area where, if the border with the European Union is in Northern Ireland, capacity will have to be in place to ensure there is no opportunity for the importation of illegal goods through that border. How do the Government intend to ensure that the checks that the Minister said will be required, and that it is the Government’s intention to carry out, will take place at the Northern Ireland border?
Baroness Fairhead
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that point; I do not have the specifics of how it will be managed. It is important we maintain these prohibitions, and the country believes that too. I commend the regulations to the House.
Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fairhead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate on the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations do a very serious job. Without them, existing European Union law will not be effective in UK domestic law on the day we exit the EU, a vital part of our long-term planning since Royal Assent of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
The regulations include amendments that will allow the UK to maintain those EU laws that control exports of items with both military and civil uses. They will control the export of civilian firearms of the type used by hunters and sports shooters. If we do not retain and amend this legislation, we will no longer control the export of such potentially dangerous items. This will put the United Kingdom in breach of international agreements which require we impose these controls and which prevent military equipment falling into the hands of those who intend this country harm. They also prevent or disrupt the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and play a key part in promoting global security by controlling the strategic goods that leave our shores.
The exit-related legislation provides the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure readiness on exit day. The EU withdrawal Act enables a functioning statute book on exit day by providing Ministers with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law arising as a result of our exit from the EU, so it is right and proper that we use it for matters such as export controls.
By making this regulation and the associated Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the department will have completed much of the legislative part of controlling the export of strategic goods in preparation for a no-deal Brexit. If this regulation is no longer required on exit day, we would expect to revoke or end it. Alternatively, commencement could be deferred to the end of an implementation period.
Broadly, all the provisions applying to exports from the EU customs territory today will instead apply to exports from the UK. However, leaving the EU will mean that the rules will have to change, and we cannot guarantee that all the export licensing requirements that UK exporters are familiar with will remain the same. For this reason, the Government have made every effort to provide certainty for businesses and the public wherever possible. We have published a new general export licence, which 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, both in the export control training programme and at the annual export control symposium, as well as giving extensive advice to key sector trade associations.
The House 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 were defectively drafted in three respects. On the first point, we provided the 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. This is a consequence of our customs arrangements with the Isle of Man and is consistent with our controls on military goods and technology. On the other three points raised by the Joint Committee, we have acknowledged that these are drafting errors that we will correct in the near future by laying a further SI, which corrects the drafting. We are very grateful for the diligent work of the committee, and I am happy to confirm that none of those errors affects the proper functioning of the regulations.
I hope that this House will work in the interests of our nation to ensure the passage of this legislation, which we believe is essential to ensuring that we are prepared for EU exit. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful that the Government have responded promptly to the committee’s report in indicating that they will correct the drafting errors, which were very basic. If it is the Government’s position that they are preparing for exit day by addressing such an important issue as arms exports and controls, for there to be three glaringly obvious mistakes is very worrying. That said, I am grateful that the Government have indicated that they will bring forward another SI to correct the mistakes in this one. It is symptomatic of where we are in the Brexit process, but it is depressing given the seriousness of this issue.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to this SI. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on a number of points and look forward to the responses to them.
I was puzzled by why the version of the SI that we have is not the corrected version, but I think time has probably defeated us on that. I look forward to seeing the final version when it comes out. Having to rerun this debate so quickly might be a little otiose, but it is always a pleasure to have these debates.
My question is slightly broader, and it may be better answered in a letter. The SI concerns the need to amend domestic and directly applicable EU legislation so that it continues to function in relation to the way in which these types of weapons are exported. I could not pick up from what the Minister said—this is why I suggest she might write to us—where this fits into the broader system we set up in early 2000 to try to make sure that exports of weapons as weapons are properly controlled. At that stage it involved three departments of state, but it presumably now involves four. Who has control of that? Are those systems fully operational, and is there any issue there? In a sense, I am confident that there is not, but there is growing concern about the way in which weapons have been used in certain areas. Rather than being used in genuine defence situations, they appear to have been used in internal conflicts and in other scenarios, which was never intended. Therefore, the problem might be that the dual-use material here might also fall into that category, and I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that the broad structure that is there to protect exporters but also to protect our own systems will apply. If so, exactly how will that work in practice?
Secondly, on the same theme, the Explanatory Memorandum makes relatively light work of the new pro forma licences that will be available in the UK to deal with these goods. I do not need a detailed response tonight but I would be interested to know a little more about how these will work in practice. “Pro forma” can be shorthand for not requesting a very detailed exposition from the exporter. I hope that that is not the case. I assume that pro forma means that the licences will be pre-printed and relatively easy to fill in, but I would be grateful to have confirmation of that. What is the system? Where do they go? What are we looking for here? Are these materials are being created under a very deep cut through the system? Will the system track back over rules of origin? Will we be clear where they originated from and where their final destination is likely to be? Presumably all those things will be in a system at some point. Will they be clearly written up and submitted properly, and, if so, to whom, and will they cover all the points that I have made?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I shall try to address the questions directly. Turning to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I can confirm that controls will apply to cyber capability materials when they are exported to the Isle of Man.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Part of my point was about exports from, rather than to, the Isle of Man. Currently I am unaware of the Isle of Man taking a very aggressive stance against the rest of the United Kingdom on cyber capability. However, I was anxious about any part of the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man being used for exports to other states. Therefore, it is not only a question of exports from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man; it is a question of the Isle of Man being the basis for exports from the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fairhead
There are two points that I would like to raise on cyber capability, and to some extent they will also address the process that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked about. There will be an open pro forma licence for materials going to what we consider to be low-risk territories—that is, the EU. Where there will be a change is if the products go into the EU and are then exported from the EU to another part of the world. Cyber and cryptographic goods are an area that we are taking increasingly seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned some of the open general export licences, but only those absolutely consistent with our consolidated criteria are included. All high-risk capabilities are deliberately excluded. As your Lordships will know, the controls on cryptography come from the Wassenaar agreement. There are various agreements that we comply with. The EU Parliament has suggested removing regulation from dual use, but we believe that we have international obligations to implement the controls and we do not agree with that. To be absolutely clear about cyber surveillance, which I believe is a key concern in the work that the noble Lord is doing, cyber surveillance equipment is not included in the open licence.
Regarding the more general impact of our exit on future co-operation with the EU, we absolutely recognise the importance of maintaining close co-operation and hope it will be a key part of the negotiation on our future partnership with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, raised a subject that is probably for another day. I can just give some reassurance that the Export Control Joint Unit has been created with the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DIT. DIT is essentially the regulator; the other two departments provide their input, advice and challenge. The unit is established and populated. It is a very important subject but, as I said, one for another day.
I think we all agree that it is critically important that we maintain robust strategic export controls, to fulfil our international obligations and to keep the world safe. I hope that I have been clear about the Government’s commitments to this regulation. I finish by reiterating a key point of my opening statement: that if we do not retain and amend this EU legislation, we will no longer control the export of dual-use goods or firearms. We have a responsibility to ensure the security and safety of our people, and this legislation supports that objective. I commend this Motion to the House.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 26th March 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 158-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (27 Feb 2019)