Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
It should be clear to all Members of the House that asking the public to participate in elections for an organisation that we are meant to have left would damage trust in politics. However, there is no guarantee that the UK will not participate in European parliamentary elections if the House refuses to support a deal.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
So no real plans then. Participation in the EU elections will be the death knell for the British public’s waning faith in our democracy. The fact that this week councils were advised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) to prepare for EU elections is yet another example of the dire consequences of the Prime Minister and the Government’s failure to secure a deal that commands the majority of the House. Is that not true?
Stephen Barclay
With respect to the hon. Lady, that is a rather confused question, given that she—as I understand it—voted against the withdrawal agreement, which gave us a legal right to leave on 22 May. It is odd to vote against the means of departure and then criticise the absence of a departure.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Conservative party national convention—the meeting of all local party chairmen—made it clear in February that were Brexit to be delayed so that we took part in the European elections, it would be a betrayal of the referendum result and inflict untold damage on the reputation of the Conservative party. Is that not right and does the Secretary of State agree?
Stephen Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend that to have European parliamentary elections three years after the country voted to leave would be damaging for our politics as a whole, but he will also have seen the vote in the House last night, which sought to take the option of leaving without a deal off the table. He will also be aware that the House has today refused to back any of the options for a deal that have been put to it.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Whether we participate or not depends on the progress of the talks currently taking place between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If those talks do not succeed, the Government have committed to giving the House the opportunity to hold a series of indicative votes. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether the propositions before the House will be drafted and presented solely by the Government, or will Members on that occasion have an opportunity to submit their own motions for discussion and vote?
Stephen Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman, as Chair of the Select Committee, is usually an expert on these matters, but I must, with respect, take issue with the statement within his question. It is not subject to the discussions with the Leader of the Opposition. The vote last Friday in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues opposed the withdrawal agreement means that it is no longer the sovereign right of this Parliament whether we leave: it will be a matter to be agreed at the European Council, because the right is affixed to the withdrawal agreement, not to whatever the House decides in votes in the coming days.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is it not simply the case that for as long as we are members of the European Union we have rights and responsibilities that go with that, and participating in democratic institutions such as the European Parliament is crucial? Can the Secretary of State confirm exactly what process is needed to trigger the elections? Will there be a debate on a statutory instrument, in the House or in Committee, or is it simply a stroke of the pen by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right in terms of the legal position. If we are a member of the European Union, under treaty law we will be required to have European parliamentary elections. Again, there has been some confusion in the House previously, with ideas such as rolling over the existing Members of the European Parliament or having them on a ratio similar to the composition of the House. If we were to still be a member of the European Union, which is not the Government’s intention, we would need to have European parliamentary elections.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
DExEU Ministers and officials hold regular discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care. The safety of everyone who uses the NHS health and care services remains a key priority and is reflected in our planning for all scenarios.
Dr Huq
As if the fact that the NHS is down by 8,000 nurses since December 2016 was not bad enough, 47% of them in a recent survey cited Brexit as the reason. Reports from Ealing show a similar exodus from the social care sector—distinctly unglamorous but important given the demographic time bomb coming down the track and the Government’s obsession with high-skilled migration. What is the Secretary of State doing to head off a crisis in that Cinderella sector?
Stephen Barclay
I think the hon. Lady mischaracterises the position. The number of staff recorded as EU27 nationals working in the NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups in England increased by more than 5,200 between June 2016 and December 2018—there has actually been an increase in EU nationals. She also omits to mention the record investment—£20.5 billion a year extra—that this Government are making in the NHS, the NHS apprenticeships we are bringing through, and the change in tier 2 visas for talent around the world in order to attract more doctors and nurses to the NHS.
Karin Smyth
In my former job, before I came to this place, I was an emergency planner for the NHS locally in Bristol. The NHS has had to put in contingency plans and major incident plans to cope with a no-deal scenario and the future. What compensation will the Government give local NHS bodies for the time and money they have spent and wasted on incident planning that probably will not come into effect because of the Government’s incompetence?
Stephen Barclay
I know from my time as a Health Minister that the hon. Lady always asks very pertinent questions in respect of health matters. She will be well aware of the statement issued by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which said how well prepared the NHS was. It has been our priority to ensure that we maintain the supply of medicines and to ensure that the NHS is a priority in our contingency planning. That is the responsible thing for a Government to do.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Since its formation, our Department has spent £25 million in 2016-17 and £58 million in 2017-18, and it has budgeted £96 million for 2018-19, but of course the Government have also allocated substantial sums to fund departmental preparations and preparations by devolved Administrations for EU exit.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Minister for his answer. Has his Department conducted any analysis of the costs of running a second referendum, and will he confirm that a second referendum is not Government policy?
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the Minister had a chance to discuss with the Transport Secretary the full cost to the taxpayer of Seaborne Freight, given the extension to article 50 and the costs incurred accordingly?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
What estimate have the Government made of the cost to the public purse and the potential damage to the economy if this has prevented them from implementing their manifesto commitment to leave the customs union?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister further outline the essential nature of the work to provide support and guidance to businesses, and the vital nature of support to the business community throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. There has been a huge amount of engagement across Government, particularly from our Department, with businesses, both on a no-deal scenario and the contingency planning that has to continue until we have secured a deal, and on the potential for the future partnership. We will continue that engagement with businesses large and small. Of course, a huge amount of information is now on the gov.uk website, which I encourage businesses to look at to see what steps they might have to take in the event of no deal.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK and the EU have committed to discussing the reciprocal provision of visa-free travel for short-term visits under the future relationship. Both sides have also said that they do not intend to require visas for short-term visits in a no-deal scenario.
Nigel Huddleston
EU countries are some of the biggest contributors to our inbound tourism industry. We had 6 million visitors from the EU in the last three months of 2018 alone, and we are always pleased to welcome hundreds of thousands of them to Worcestershire. Does the Minister agree that the continuation of visa-free travel is vital to our tourism industry, which sustains 3 million jobs in the UK?
Sir Desmond Swayne
They will want us to go there and spend our money, won’t they?
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Why then, have the Government not considered sorting out the problems that they have created with the post-study work visa?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman will know that the recent suggestions from the Migration Advisory Committee included specific recommendations for lengthening the opportunity for people to stay after study. It determined that the best way to do that was to reform the existing system rather than institute a different one.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Short visits are vital for business as well, whether it is for servicing aircraft engines, installing software or so much else. What plans do the Government have for ensuring that those reciprocal arrangements can continue?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. As he will know, we set out to achieve a labour mobility framework that will allow for travel for short-term business visits. This is an important part of the next stage of the negotiations. The absence of a requirement for visas for short-term travel is a useful backdrop to that for both the UK and the EU.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The United Kingdom has a tradition of exceeding EU standards. We do not need to follow EU rules to continue to lead the way. An example of that is that UK maternity entitlements are nearly three times greater than the minimum EU standard.
Mike Amesbury
Does the Minister agree with the TUC that the Government’s proposals on workers’ rights after Brexit are nothing but “flimsy procedural tweaks”? How will they be strengthened during current negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition?
Stephen Barclay
As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) knows, we had discussions yesterday and there will be further discussions today. I am sure that workers’ rights will be among a range of issues that we will discuss. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister has already said that she will bring forward a package of measures to strengthen enforcement of workers’ rights, and that is in part following discussions that we have had with a number of Opposition Members.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about the Government being committed to exceeding EU standards, but practice does not seem to match his words. His Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament voted against the amendment to the posting of workers directive, which strengthens workers’ rights and addresses many of the concerns expressed about freedom of movement during the referendum. He will know that our obligation to transpose it into domestic law continues as long we are EU members and during the transitional period. When are the Government going to do that?
Stephen Barclay
There is a real inconsistency here. Night after night we are told that we should trust the votes of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made a commitment not to lower standards below the current levels for workers’ rights and the environment, and our proposals on immigration go further than the commitments found in standard free trade agreements. It is odd that Opposition Members have so little faith in this House to protect the rights that workers need.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The Prime Minister agreed the terms of a short extension at the March European Council. Were the House to have approved the withdrawal agreement by 29 March, we would have had an extension until 22 May. Given that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that, he will be aware that we do not have that right, and the current right will be terminated on 12 April.
Kevin Brennan
We are moving inevitably towards a situation in which we need an extension in order to have a confirmatory referendum. If a trade union negotiated an exit from a deal, it would go back to its members and ask them to confirm that that was still what they wanted, and to confirm the terms. Is that not a logical, sensible and inevitable outcome of this process?
Stephen Barclay
I would have thought it was logical for the hon. Gentleman to follow his manifesto, which said that he would respect the referendum result. Going back to square one and asking the question again is not consistent with the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood at the last election.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Stephen Barclay
I do not know which selective poll the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from, but in our democracy we address these issues through the ballot box. In 2016 we had in essence the ultimate poll and 17.4 million people cast their vote to leave. The key message we get in our constituencies and very clearly from the business community—I do not need a poll for this—is that people do not want this process to drag on further. They want it to come to a resolution, and they want the House, instead of being against everything, to come to a decision. It is time we moved on and got this delivered.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Last night, the House voted to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit and to exert greater control over the process of extending article 50. The Secretary of State’s views on an extension are well known, but will he confirm that when the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill returns from the other place, he and the Government will comply with the spirit of it and dutifully seek a further extension of article 50 beyond 12 April?
Stephen Barclay
I am very happy to confirm that, as set out in the “Ministerial Code”, Ministers will abide by the law. If the law of the land dictates a certain course of action, Ministers will, under the code, follow the law. The hon. Gentleman gets slightly ahead of himself, because the Bill passed Third Reading with a majority of only one last night, and it was passed in such haste that many of my colleagues had as little as two minutes to speak on Second Reading. I pointed out to the House flaws in the Bill, which I am sure their lordships will wish to explore. We will need to see what consideration takes place in the other House before any further deliberations are necessary in this place.
Matthew Pennycook
The House will have noted—I think with disappointment—the Secretary of State’s attempts to undermine the clear will expressed last night. The Opposition have no doubt that the Lords will discharge their duties quickly and efficiently in the circumstances. Given the clear will of the House as expressed in the Bill’s passage last night, I ask him to set out his view at this stage about what the Government believe the role of this place will be in the event that the European Council proposes a date different from that set out in a motion approved by the House, or if the Council agreed to the proposed date but attached conditions.
Stephen Barclay
That is an odd response, if I may say so. The hon. Gentleman started by saying he was disappointed by my answer, in which I said I will follow the law and the ministerial code—I thought the Opposition would have expected that. He then said that he had “no doubt” that the Lords will pass the Bill, which was carried in the Commons by just one vote. That is pretty condescending to the other place. By having no doubt that their lordships will simply approve the Bill, he takes for granted the scrutiny process in the other place. Given the many constitutional experts there are in the other place, I would have thought that their lordships would want to scrutinise this Bill, which was passed in haste with its constitutional flaws.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a process through which we will seek to agree a plan to leave the EU with a deal. She has asked for a short extension in order to do that. The best way to avoid no deal, as the House well knows, is obviously to agree a deal. While no deal remains the legal default, the Government must go on preparing for this scenario as a contingency.
Marion Fellows
All of the leave campaigns promised that we should leave with a deal. Last week, no deal was rejected by over 71% of MPs, and the Prime Minister’s deal has also been overwhelmingly rejected. Will the Government finally admit that there are alternatives to leaving without a deal that can gain more support from Parliament than the Prime Minister’s deal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If she has followed events this week, she will know that that is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has extended the negotiations to and engaged in conversation with the Leader of the Opposition. It is precisely to find a solution to the impasse.
Martyn Day
No deal did not appear on any ballot paper in 2016 and was ruled out by all the main leave campaign groups. Does the Minister therefore agree that it would be totally unacceptable to crash out without a deal, without first putting it back to the people?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the House has shown no inclination to leave the EU without a deal. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking for a way forward and engaging with the Leader of the Opposition on precisely that issue.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Leaving without a deal would affect everybody, not least our dentists. I hope you will find it in order, Mr Speaker, for me to raise the issue of dentistry in a no-deal situation at this point. A third of the 6,500 European qualified dental registrants intend to leave UK dentistry. The British Dental Association chair, Mick Armstrong, has said:
“Government has failed to even acknowledge the scale of the crisis”.
I know that Ministers have recruitment and retention issues of their own at the moment, but is not the chair of the British Dental Association right, and what are the Government going to do about it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would like to pay tribute to my former colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). He was a wonderful Minister and it is a shame that he has left us.
On the issue of professional qualifications, it is in the withdrawal agreement and it has always been the stated aim of the Government that there will be mutual recognition of qualifications. This is not controversial, and I think that it will assure many EU citizens in our country that they can continue to pursue their professions without any interruption or uncertainty.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Government have had any number of opportunities to take no deal off the table. Last night, Parliament had to start the almost unprecedented step of passing legislation that is fiercely opposed by the Government to put Parliament and these islands where the Government should have put us a while ago. Last week, we had the astonishing spectacle of the Chief Whip going on the record to say that the Prime Minister had got it all wrong. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief Whip?
Kwasi Kwarteng
What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has got right is the fact that we need a solution to the impasse. That is why this week, she has very openly invited the Leader of the Opposition to talks to track a way forward.
Peter Grant
It is very noticeable that the Prime Minister is still refusing to talk to anyone who might say anything she disagrees with, but we will see what comes out of the talks. Given that it is the clear will of this House that no deal must be avoided and that this Parliament is in the process of passing legislation to prevent no deal from happening, is it tenable for any Minister of the Crown to continue actively to promote a no-deal Brexit that has been rejected by Parliament and was never endorsed by the people in the first place?
Kwasi Kwarteng
In respect of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister listening to diverse views, my understanding is that she spoke to the First Minister of Scotland yesterday and has been engaged in conversations with her. The position of the Government has always been the same: we favour a deal. We want to leave the EU with a negotiated deal, but it would be irresponsible of the Government not to prepare for no deal, because that still might happen. Indeed, Michel Barnier said this week that it was likely. It is therefore exactly the right thing for the Government to prepare for the scenario of no deal.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I regularly meet Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. On Monday, I spoke to Graeme Dey MSP and Jeremy Miles from the Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State also meets his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, he met his Scottish and Welsh counterparts on his very first day in the job.
Ronnie Cowan
Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU and to retain free movement of people, which is essential for our economy and social wellbeing. What account has been taken of those facts in developing the UK’s Brexit strategy?
Mr Walker
There has been a huge amount of engagement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments through the Joint Ministerial Committee and the Ministerial Forum, which I co-chair. A number of issues have been raised about Scotland’s place in Europe and our shared policy is to pursue, for instance, co-operation with Europe on universities. However, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Scotland’s share of UK immigration is very low, and it is, as the Migration Advisory Committee has made clear, only really possible to have an immigration policy for the whole UK.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Government have undertaken extensive work to identify the legislation essential to deliver our exit from the EU. In fact, as I speak, almost all the statutory instruments—93% of them—required for a functioning statute book on exit day have been laid before Parliament.
Diana Johnson
The Government have failed to pass the Trade Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the financial services Bill and the environment Bill, and they have even failed to introduce the EU withdrawal Bill. Does that not show those who think we are ready to leave in a no-deal situation on 12 April that the Government are not prepared for that at all?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I reject the assumption behind the question. As I stated, almost all the SIs required—93% of something like 600—have been passed. The hon. Lady is quite right that there are Bills currently in Parliament that are being discussed and that are going through both Houses. All those Bills provide for a range of negotiation outcomes, as she knows, including a no-deal scenario.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Is it not now inconceivable to pass a meaningful vote before the EU Council next Thursday and therefore unavoidable to seek a lengthy Brexit delay and to hold European Parliament elections?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Given what we have seen in the past few weeks, I would never say “inconceivable”; anything can happen, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I am confident that we will get a deal through. I am hopeful of that, because that is the only way that we will get a negotiated and orderly exit from the EU.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have had extensive meetings across the country, and I have seen many companies. We continue to recognise the importance of UK manufacturing and of maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU. As the political declaration sets out, we have already agreed to establish a free trade area for goods. We recognise that manufacturing is an essential part of the economy.
Toby Perkins
That was not really much to do with my question, which was about regulatory standards. Weightron Bilanciai, a Chesterfield-based industrial weighing machine manufacturer, had to spend around £50,000 to have all its products re-certified in the Netherlands, because they will no longer be certified and recognised for sale in the EU after we leave. Are the costs paid by UK manufacturing and the impact on British businesses the most serious example of the Government’s failure to come up with a trade deal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I will tell the hon. Gentleman about failure. What is actually crippling and increasing uncertainty for his manufacturing sector is his repeated rejection of the deal, which would actually have an implementation period and would give certainty and direction to the very companies he seeks to represent in the House.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Minister said that anything can happen. Total Lindsey oil refinery contacted me this week to warn me about the risk, in the event of no deal, of the equivalent of Chinese steel dumping but with US gasoline if we end up with 0% import tariffs. That will result in the loss or downgrading of up to 900 jobs in my area. Does he agree that that would irrevocably damage our local economy?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The question I ask myself—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. Given that she has so much concern for manufacturing interests in her constituency, why on earth has she rejected, on three occasions, the only deal that would provide certainty and a degree of consistency for the companies she seeks to represent?
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK Government have been unequivocal that in any scenario, including no deal, EU citizens and their family members living here by exit day will be able to stay. We want them to stay; they are our friends and our neighbours.
David Duguid
I thank the Minister for his response, but can he specifically reassure EU citizens living in Banff and Buchan and, indeed, across Scotland that, contrary to suggestions and letters being circulated by the Scottish National party, the UK Government value them, want them to stay and are committed to upholding their right to live and work in the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] I have seen the letters.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is hugely irresponsible for people to stir up fear in the way that we have seen. EU citizens are highly valued members of their communities and play an integral part in the economic, cultural and social fabric of the UK. I enjoyed engaging with EU citizens from the Nordic countries on a recent visit to Edinburgh, where we made it very clear that we want them to stay. We have designed the settled status scheme to help them to stay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) wish to speak?
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Sorry, Mr Speaker—I leapt to my feet rather prematurely.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Obviously, manufacturing is vital to everything we do. We remain committed, through our industrial strategy, to making the UK the best place to start and grow a business. There are now 3.5 million more people in work than in 2010. It seems very remiss of Opposition Members to complain about uncertainty when they have rejected the deal not once, not twice, but three times. This deal will provide the certainty that the hon. Gentleman’s manufacturing interests will recognise and appreciate.
Mr Sheerman
We all had a late night last night, but this is a zombie Secretary of State with zombie Ministers. When will they wake up? Yesterday, the all-party parliamentary manufacturing group, which I chair, was told by a leading professor from the business schools of both Sheffield and Birmingham that, however we leave Europe, we will have a 4% to 5% drop in GDP, but that GDP in the constituencies and towns that voted to leave will drop by a crippling 17% to 20%. That may not include Spelthorne, where I grew up, but it will devastate this country’s manufacturing base.
Kwasi Kwarteng
First, I would like to confirm to the House that we are not zombies. Secondly, Spelthorne has manufacturing interests, as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency does. The manufacturing interests in my constituency always tell me, “Back the Prime Minister’s deal—back certainty. Let’s get this thing over the line and move on with our lives.” That is what they want.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The highly integrated supply chains in the motor and aviation industries require convergence and regulatory alignment with product manufacture, both in the EU and in the UK. What guarantees can the Minister give that, in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, we will have a role in shaping the future regulatory framework?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, it has been the Government’s repeated intention not to leave without a deal. The hon. Gentleman will know that part 3 of the withdrawal agreement deals extensively with the kind of regulations that would be in place in the implementation period, which, if the deal goes through, will give us another 20 months to negotiate a free trade agreement.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
My hon. Friend will appreciate that a second referendum would have a very corrosive impact not only on our politics but on trust, which has been mentioned many times. A clear instruction was given in 2016 to withdraw from the EU, and that is what the Government remain absolutely committed to fulfilling.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Beyond that impact, what assessment has he made of the democratic and financial impacts of pursuing such a change in policy?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is quite right: holding a second referendum would create enormous uncertainty that would undermine the strong economic achievement of the Government and of our businesses. It would essentially take us back to square one and result in more delay at a time when the public simply want politicians to deliver what they promised.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
After the talks with the Labour party leader yesterday, the Chancellor said this morning that a second referendum is more likely. Are we seeing the start of yet another U-turn from a Government who have abandoned all their promises on going forward with no deal, having no border down the Irish sea and ensuring that we leave the EU on 29 March?
Kwasi Kwarteng
In respect of the second referendum, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), it is Government policy to honour the 2016 referendum. That is what we have been tasked to do, and that is what we are 100% focused on. The second referendum is a red herring, frankly. It is not something that we countenance. We want to deliver on the 2016 referendum.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
As part of the political declaration, the Government have negotiated an agreement on the future relationship for financial services that would be of greater depth than any other the EU has with a third country, while enabling our financial services sector to take up the global opportunities on offer.
Tim Loughton
Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest Reuters Brexit city tracker index, which revealed that no less than 7.6 million square feet of new leases were signed in the City of London last year, which is a record? The market is currently within 5% of its record high. Fewer than 2,000, or 0.5%, of City jobs have either relocated or been substituted elsewhere on the continent. When is this Armageddon because of Brexit going to happen?
Stephen Barclay
As a former City Minister, I take a close interest in these issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to some of the developments we have seen in recent months in the City. The City has opportunities in growth areas of finance. Green finance is a key opportunity, for example, and FinTech is another. There are very good opportunities for the City in a post-Brexit world.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
There seems to be some confusion about customs unions. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that a customs union would not cover how we regulate our financial services, how we fish, how we farm or freedom of movement? It should be perfectly possible to discuss a customs union without using any F-words.
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is one tweak around fishing and fish, but other than that I absolutely agree with her. I remind the House that financial services alone contribute, from memory, around £71 billion in tax to the UK economy. With an economy that is 80% services, there is an opportunity post Brexit for us to take a more bespoke approach that will enable us to maximise the opportunities on offer.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
After much urging by the UK, we are pleased that all member states have given some public assurance to protect the rights of UK nationals. We will continue to call on member states to fully reciprocate our unilateral offer. The Government supported the amendment from our hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and have sought the EU’s views on ring-fencing the citizens’ rights parts of the withdrawal agreement. Michel Barnier has responded, and we are now considering our response to his letter.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am deeply opposed to the legislation that was passed in this House last night. I strongly favour leaving with no deal if we cannot get a deal with the EU. However, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend updated me on the steps he is taking to protect the rights of our citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK, should we leave with no deal.
Mr Walker
Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that we should absolutely protect the rights of citizens and do everything in our power to do so. We have always been steadfast in our commitment to protecting those rights. Today, we have announced a further series of measures to protect UK nationals in the EU and those who choose to return to the UK after exit. There are important measures on social security co-ordination, a seven-year transition period for UK nationals in the EEA and Switzerland to continue to access student finance and home fee status in England, and a transition period for UK nationals who return to the EU with their non-UK family members for them to apply to the EU settlement scheme.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
It was very welcome news this week that Germany will be unilaterally guaranteeing the rights of UK subjects in Germany. Will my hon. Friend tell us which if any of the EU27 are not known to be guaranteeing the rights of UK nationals?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We welcome some of the steps that have been taken. He mentioned Germany, and the Czech Republic has been clear in reciprocating our unilateral offer. There is a varied playing field within the European Union, it is fair to say. Some member states have not been as generous as we might like them to be. We will continue to urge them to meet the generosity of our unilateral offer and continue to explore what we can do reciprocally to ensure that the best possible protections are in place for our citizens.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Since I last updated the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has left the Government. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his outstanding service as a Minister. He will be greatly missed in the Department and by his colleagues, but I know he will continue to serve his constituents in Daventry in an exemplary way.
Since our last departmental questions, we have not only had a large number of debates with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), but votes, and the House has not yet been able to find something that it is for, as opposed to lots of things that it is against. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out on Tuesday that this division—this lack of conclusion—cannot continue and drag on. We have reached out to the Leader of the Opposition to see whether we can agree on a plan to leave the European Union with a deal. Those discussions will continue later today.
Mohammad Yasin
The public know that the withdrawal agreement is a long way from the Brexit that was promised. Does the Secretary of State agree that the public have been badly let down and that whatever agreement is drawn up by this Parliament should now be subject to a confirmatory public vote—on a real rather than a fantasy Brexit deal?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman seems to confuse the winding-down arrangements—the withdrawal agreement—with a future deal. The EU has been clear: first, that any deal reached will need to include the withdrawal agreement; and secondly, that that withdrawal agreement is not open to renegotiation. Therefore, any deal to move forward in an orderly fashion needs to come with a withdrawal agreement. That is why it is so remarkable that the hon. Gentleman voted against the withdrawal agreement—whatever the deal to leave the EU, it will require a withdrawal agreement. The only conclusion is that perhaps he does not want to honour his own manifesto and perhaps he does not want to leave at all.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Yes, I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that that is our policy. It was good to meet the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in his constituency to hear why it sees that policy as a sea of opportunity.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Normally I complain that in these sessions we do not get any of our questions answered. We have moved on this morning: instead of answering questions, the Ministers are now asking themselves questions, or inventing questions that they would like to answer and then answering them. I had better be careful how I frame this question for the Secretary of State.
Last week, the Prime Minister said:
“unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 25.]
That was a very important commitment, particularly now that we are eight days from 12 April. The simple question for the Secretary of State to ask himself is this: does he agree that, unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen?
Stephen Barclay
What the Prime Minister was referring to, which was played out in the debate in the House yesterday, was that when the House of Commons passes a law—subject to the other place, that is the position of the vote last night—then in law, bound by the ministerial code, Ministers will need to abide by it. At the same time, the Prime Minister has always been clear that the decision by this House not to approve the withdrawal agreement means that any extension will need to be agreed by the EU Council 28, which includes the United Kingdom, but it can be opposed by any member of the European Union. It is not solely within the control of this House whether we leave with or without a deal; it is also now subject to the decision of the EU 27.
Keir Starmer
When we do get a question and answer, it gets interesting. That is a rowing back on what the Prime Minister said. When she said that unless this House agreed to it no deal would not happen, that was not in the context of the Bill last night—that Bill had not even been drafted. She said it as a general proposition in the debate last week. I hope that the Secretary of State is not rowing back, and I would like him to confirm that he is not rowing back. Otherwise, we have elicited something here of some importance.
May I also go on to ask the Secretary of State whether he now regrets voting against an extension of article 50 in this House on 14 March—that was an extension beyond 29 March? Does he now regret voting against the Cooper-Letwin Bill last night? Had the House followed his vote, does he appreciate that it is highly likely that we would be in a no-deal situation right now?
Stephen Barclay
First, we have the oddity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman accusing the ministerial team of not answering the question, then pointing out that indeed we have answered it in an interesting way. Putting that to one side and going to the substance of his question, as I pointed out to the House, one of the defects of the legislation passed last night is the potential for it to increase the risk of an accidental no deal, where the EU Council decides to offer a different extension from the one agreed by this House. Under the terms of that legislation that would have to come back to this House for approval the following day, by which time the EU Council would have concluded. I do not think that was the intention of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but it is a possible outcome. It is subject to their lordships deciding whether they want to correct what I regard as a defect, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s shadow ministerial colleague says that, no doubt, their lordships will just nod it all through without scrutiny and without addressing that defect.
Regarding the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point, I was alluding to a statement of the law. I do not differ at all from the Prime Minister, who has always been clear that Ministers abide by the ministerial code, and I am sure that he would expect no less.
Thirdly, on the extension, we have addressed this issue in previous debates because the three amendments had all been defeated by the time we got on to the fourth vote. A further commitment had been given to an amendable motion for the following week, which was addressed. But the bottom line is that I want to respect the referendum result. I think asking people to vote for Members of the European Parliament three years after they voted to leave the EU is damaging to trust in our democracy. The question for Opposition Members is: why do they keep voting against everything when their own manifesto said they wanted to respect the result?
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The UK’s IP regime does indeed represent a gold standard internationally, and that will not change as we leave the EU.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Stephen Barclay
As the hon. Lady knows, there will be ample opportunity for the House to legislate during the passage of the withdrawal agreement Bill. As she also knows, there is legal wiring—for example, through article 174, which deals with best endeavours and good faith obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and how they connect. If it is one of the matters the House looks at in the future, it will be able to choose to put into legislation negotiating objectives. The point is that the hon. Lady has opposed the withdrawal agreement that the EU says is necessary for any deal, and we cannot get on to the future relationship without a withdrawal agreement.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend, as always, is short and to the point. He correctly identifies the risk of rule taking. We talked earlier about financial services and the tax take from that sector alone. The UK taxpayer, who underwrites the liabilities of a sector such as financial services, will have concerns if the rules are being set in countries in Europe, rather than in this Parliament.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Stephen Barclay
As the Prime Minister has already informed the House, the Department for Exiting the European Union will lead during the next phase of the negations. As the hon. Lady is well aware, we need to get on to those negotiations in order that the Department can undertake them. That is what businesses up and down the country want. They want this uncertainty to be brought to a close and they want us to get on into the implementation period for the certainty that that will bring. It is also what EU citizens living in this country and UK citizens in Europe want to see.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Mr Robin Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question—it is important to make sure the scheme works as effectively and smoothly as possible. The Home Office is providing assisted digital support over the phone from more than 200 centres throughout the UK, and at home with a trained tutor. Applicants can have their identity verified by the identity document checkout at more than 50 locations, one of which I am pleased to see is in my constituency, as well as by post. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirmed recently that Apple has said it will make the identity document check available on its devices by the end of the year.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Mr Walker
I absolutely disagree with the hon. Lady about the Government’s attitude to this group. We want to ensure that all those who are eligible for settled status, particularly children, are given a smooth and orderly process. I am certainly happy to take up her concerns with the Home Office, but I do not agree that the Government do not take their responsibilities in this regard extremely seriously.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Yesterday, in the International Trade Committee, we heard from the Minister for Trade Policy that, should we ever get there, it will not be DIT negotiating our future trading relationship with the EU but, I presume, DExEU. If that is the case, what lessons will be learned from the fundamental strategic flaws in this opening phase of negotiations? What detailed discussion is under way with DIT about the impact of whatever DExEU negotiates on our ability to build future trade agreements?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is right that my Department will lead on the future trade agreement—the future economic partnership with the EU—but she will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade will lead on our trade deals with the rest of the world, and he and I speak regularly. In respect of the lessons from phase 1, as in the corporate world, as in Government: there are always lessons. There are things that have gone well in phase 1 and things on which we can improve. It was a major new endeavour for the Government to undertake and we have had a number of discussions in the Department to ensure we take those lessons on board.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
North-east manufacturers have achieved great success as part of integrated, just-in-time pan-European supply chains, which mean that, as one manufacturer puts it, their stock room is somebody else’s delivery van. These manufacturers are now having to stockpile as a consequence of this Brexit chaos, and that has implications for their cash flow and finances. What help is the Minister looking to provide for them and what hope of future economic integration can he offer them in the case of there being a deal without a customs union?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have travelled in the north-east, although not quite in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I have seen chemicals firms in the petrochemicals industry. They say with one voice that they want a solution to this impasse, just as we do in this House. They want to have a deal, to have the implementation period and to move on from this.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Forcing the UK to take part in European parliamentary elections would show a fundamental lack of respect for our democratic process, wouldn’t it?
Stephen Barclay
I have already addressed this point. Three years after the country voted by record numbers to leave, there is a strong desire to ensure that we get on with it and do so. The Prime Minister has compromised and reached out. We are endeavouring to deliver on the will of the British people as expressed in that referendum vote, and on the manifesto commitments of both main parties.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) appears to be on the receiving end of mentoring from her right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). It will probably be extremely helpful to her—it would be to any Member—and it is a great tribute to the right hon. Gentleman.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State just enlighten the House as to what he thinks has actually gone well during this first phase?
Stephen Barclay
I think what has gone well in this first phase is that we have an agreement with the EU that gives certainty to EU citizens, that respects our legal obligations and that will ensure that there is no hard border on the border of Northern Ireland. In part, one of the achievements of both parties, but particularly of the Labour party, was the Good Friday agreement. It is why those Members in Northern Ireland get so agitated with Members on the hon. Lady’s Benches over their failure on the withdrawal process. We have a deal; it is on the table; and it is the only deal that the EU is willing to offer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The clear and solemn commitment in the Conservative party manifesto, on which the Secretary of State and I were elected, was:
“As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union.”
Will he ensure that the Prime Minister does not renege on that commitment at the European Council next week?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend correctly identifies that commitment in our manifesto. He will also be aware that the manifesto gives a commitment to have a deep and special partnership with the EU. It is that balance that we are trying to seek. That is why the Prime Minister brought forward a deal that delivered on the referendum result—on things such as control of our borders, a skilled immigration system, control of our fisheries, control of our agriculture, and putting an end to sending vast sums of money to the EU—but also respected the fact that 48% of the population did not vote for leave. It is that compromise that has not been pure enough for some Members on the Government Benches to support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Gender Pay Gap
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on Government action to close the gender pay gap.
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
I am delighted that this urgent question has been called today because we are only a few hours away from the deadline landing for private sector employers to publish their gender pay gap results.
Last year, the Government introduced groundbreaking regulations that required large employers to publish, for the first time, the difference between what they pay their male and female staff in average salaries and bonuses. For the first time in this country’s history, the boards of large employers have had to have conversations about how they treat their female staff. By making this information publicly available, we have empowered employees to see the scale of the pay gap where they work, and hold their bosses to account. The vast majority of companies are eager to tackle the gender pay gap themselves. That is why the Government have provided guidance to help employers to develop action plans to close their pay gap.
Reporting is just the start. It is crucial that all employers use this data to identify the barriers that women face and take action to break down those barriers. We are supporting business in doing that by publishing evidence-based guidance on how employers can diagnose the cause of their gap, and the practical actions that they can take to close it. We recognise, though, that overturning structural inequalities in women’s pay cannot be done overnight. Most companies will not see a dramatic reduction this year, but what matters is that they are taking the right action to drive change in the right direction, and progress is being made.
Beyond reporting, this Government are actively working to support women in the workplace and to close the gender pay gap. We are supporting both women and men who have caring responsibilities, through increased childcare entitlements, promoting flexible working and shared parental leave. We are working with business to support and increase women’s progression to senior positions. We are leading by example, and aiming to make the civil service the country’s most equal and inclusive employer by 2020. We are helping women to access every profession, by working to increase the number of women taking qualifications in science, technology, engineering and maths.
Change will not be easy, but we have only to compare where we are now with even 10 years ago to see that a future of fair and equal pay is now within reach. That should be a source of pride for us all.
Dawn Butler
I am not sure whether the Minister has been reading the same statistics as me, but analysis so far has shown that the median pay gap has actually got bigger than it was last year. The companies that have been reporting this morning show that, on average, 78% reported a pay gap that favours men.
The Government and public sector should lead by example. As we know, the public sector deadline was 31 March, and initial analysis of this year’s public sector report shows that the pay gap has not narrowed. Shockingly, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport reported a 22.9% pay gap, compared with just 8.2% in 2017. The gender pay gap in the Department for Exiting the European Union increased from 8.9% to 14.5% in 2018—I could go on to mention the Department for International Development and the health service. Basically, the pay gap is getting worse, and I am sure that once we start looking at the race pay gap, we will find that even more distressing.
The Minister must stand at the Dispatch Box and say not only that improvements must be made, but that we must take the next steps to ensure that companies have action plans as part of their reporting procedures, and that if they do not try to close their gender pay gap, they will face additional fines. That is what a Labour Government would commit to do, because at the moment this is unfortunately just a tick-box exercise. I hope that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be given more funding to issue sanctions.
Victoria Atkins
I am pleased that the hon. Lady asked this urgent question, but she has fallen into the trap of citing figures before the deadline has passed. That deadline passes at midnight, and as she will know—we had the same conversation last year—the last day of reporting is the day on which everybody suddenly realises that the deadline has arrived, and they send in their reports. Overnight we have already seen a 2% increase in private sector employers reporting, so we must not, and I will not, speak about the figures for private sector employers until the deadline has passed.
I am delighted that the hon. Lady mentioned the public sector gender pay gap, and I join her in admonishing those who have not yet reported. It is disgraceful that public sector bodies have not complied with the law in meeting the deadline on Saturday last week, and I am sure that after this urgent question, she will be straight on the phone to the chief executive of Brent Council which, as of this morning, had not reported. The deadline was Saturday and it has had some time to realise that it has passed, but it has not yet reported, so I hope the hon. Lady will communicate to her council the strong message that she communicated at the Dispatch Box.
Let me reassure the hon. Lady that after the deadline has passed I will write to every public sector employer to remind them not only that they must comply with the law, but that I expect them to issue action plans. If we are to tackle the gender pay gap, we must lead by example in the public sector. Once Brent Council has realised that it is acting outside the law, I am sure it will publish its gender pay gap figures and ensure that its action plan is as detailed as the hon. Lady would expect.
In other news, more than 10,500 businesses are having a conversation about the gender pay gap and how they treat their female staff, and it is a delight to see so many hon. Members present today, keen to ensure that women are paid fairly and properly in their employment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Several Members wish to catch my eye, but the Backbench Business Committee debates are heavily subscribed, and there is a business question to follow. There is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, and I want to move to the business question no later than 11 o’clock. People should take their cue from the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), whose succinctness is exemplary. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Which sectors of the economy have the biggest gender pay gap, and which have the smallest?
Victoria Atkins
As I said, at the moment it would not be right for me to comment on the pay gap because the figures are still coming in. We know that half of women are employed in the education, health and retail sectors, so we are concentrating on those sectors when providing employers with guidance on how to address their gender pay gaps. We want action as quickly as possible to ensure that women are paid properly.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Women are key to improving the economy—we already know that. As a member of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, I, along with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and many others across the House, have sought to hold this Government to account.
The women in work index has found that closing the gender pay gap could boost the economy by £2 trillion, yet the UK Government have only shifted from 14th to 13th place on the index. Scotland has been a top performer on the gender pay gap in the UK. However, there is still a great deal more to do, including on greater pay transparency, increasing early years and childcare provision, and representation on public boards. The Scottish National party Government have committed to narrowing the gender pay gap by the end of this Scottish parliamentary term, and to tackling labour market inequalities. That is a bold aim and it must be matched by this Government. I call on the UK Government to go further than just auditing larger companies. Real action needs to be taken to ensure that those larger companies are taking the charge. Will the Minister support the SNP’s aim to lower the threshold to 150 employees and to introduce sanctions for employers who do not comply with the current law? Will she match the commitment made by the Scottish Government?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady knows that last year was the first year for reporting gender pay gap figures and this is the second. Although I am impatient to get the gap closed, we have to acknowledge that it will take time for businesses and employers to close it. I would therefore like the data to settle, perhaps for another year or so, before we start looking at reducing the number of employees at which companies and businesses have to start reporting. We acknowledge that it is an extra bureaucratic responsibility for businesses. We want to make sure that the large employers are doing their best before we move it down, but I look forward to that work.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Labour Members had 13 years to tackle the injustice of the gender pay gap but failed to do so. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the steps that this Government have taken to tackle this historical injustice?
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. At this time in our nation’s great history, where the public expect us to collaborate and get on with our business and to perhaps lower the heat and anger in some of our debates, I very much hope that colleagues across the House will welcome the fact that 10,500 employers are complying with the law and meeting the expectation that they treat their female staff properly. I hope for more joy and collaboration across the House.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
How does the Minister believe the Equality and Human Rights Commission can fulfil its commitment to monitor and act against firms that discriminate at a time when its budget has been so drastically reduced?
Victoria Atkins
I lay on the record my thanks to the EHRC, which did an excellent job last year of pulling in those employers who missed the deadline and ensuring that they reported—some businesses had just made a mistake or did not quite understand what they were supposed to do—and that is how we had 100% compliance by 1 August.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to check the gender pay gap right across the workforce, not just the boardroom? From my 11 years in industry, the biggest gaps often appeared at senior management level, but also among junior managers below boardroom level. We must have a range of information.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not just about board level, although of course that is important; it is also about ensuring that women are paid properly and fairly when they start their career. Work on the gender pay gap will help address that, because it forces employers to look at how they treat women throughout the entire structure of the business.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister talks of a future of equal pay, but she knows that that cannot happen as long as well-paid sectors such as engineering and science are dominated by men and low-paid sectors such as care are dominated by women. Will she therefore adopt Labour’s policy of sector-specific diversity charters, so that we can start to address the structural issues in some sectors?
Victoria Atkins
It starts much earlier than that. We must give girls the confidence to carry on with science, technology, engineering and maths in school. That is why we are doing so much work to ensure that girls are encouraged to continue studying those subjects. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to industries such as engineering. In fairness, many businesses in those very male-dominated industries are beginning to get more women in at the lower end of the pipeline, but this will take time and, as I have said, I want to bring business with us rather than dictate from on high how society should view female employees. This is as much about cultural shift as it is about structures and legislation.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will the Minister look at the situation at Christ Church, Oxford, where the dean has been suspended, allegedly for trying to introduce equal pay for men and women?
Victoria Atkins
I must not comment on individual cases at the Dispatch Box, but I would certainly be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend in due course. The message to academia is that we expect our universities to reflect the society that they serve. We have a wonderful diversity of students now, and one would hope that our universities will reflect that.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
How can we lecture other employers on matters of equality when this place has yet to fully implement the recommendations of the Cox report on bullying and harassment?
Victoria Atkins
Of course, that is a matter for the House, but I make this observation. I spend a great deal of my time persuading women to take the big step of coming into public life. I think the attitude and atmosphere in Parliament at the moment is putting a lot of women off—it is pretty toxic. The predictability, or unpredictability, of Commons hours can also cause problems—my little boy started his holidays this week, and I had a bit of an “about-to” this morning trying to sort out childcare—but we will address this. We have to ensure that the Commons is more flexible in how it works so that we can encourage people from across our society to join us.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Looking back at last year’s publication, what lessons were learned going into this year’s process?
Victoria Atkins
First, I think businesses realise that if they do not do as the public expect them to, they will face a great deal of public scrutiny and reputational damage. One employer, for example, did not include its partnership figures in its return. The public spotted that and called it out; and, in fairness to that employer, it revised its figures to include the partnerships. That sort of transparency and scrutiny will help businesses to comply with the law.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I would have expected universities to show leadership on the gender pay gap, so I was surprised to hear it reported earlier this week that they had the widest gender pay gap. If that is true, what is the Minister going to do about it?
Victoria Atkins
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that. As I say, I will be writing shortly to every public sector employer reminding them of their duty to meet the deadline but also to set out their action plans. I do not think there is any excuse, frankly, for public sector employers, who want to lead the world in the way that we conduct our business, not to have an idea of how they are going to address the sorts of gaps that he has described.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is not just a strong moral case for promoting gender pay equality, but a strong business and economic case for promoting diversity and equality in the work place?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so: drawing on a diverse pool of people for a business or organisational structure makes great business sense. The McKinsey report recently showed that having a diverse workforce can add as much as 15% to a company’s success compared with its competitors.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister might not be aware, but I have a vested interest: I have three daughters and four granddaughters. Progress has been made, but we need to accelerate it. This is a week of celebration: 20 years since the introduction of the minimum wage. Can I encourage the Minister to use the B-word? Tony Blair and the Labour Government introduced the minimum wage and did so much to bring more women into this place, so will she use the “Blair” word when she goes on the media?
Victoria Atkins
I was not expecting that question. I welcome anyone who is committed to the drive to ensure more women and people from different backgrounds and ethnicities in our workplaces, whether political, business or public service.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy looked at the gender pay gap immediately after the first round of reporting last year and drew attention to the improvement in economic performance that could be achieved by fully utilising the talents of women in the workplace. The Minister has already spoken about the challenges that some businesses have faced in calculating the figures. We called for improved guidance for businesses to enable this round to be more easily undertaken by businesses. What progress has been made on that?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. My officials consult businesses regularly to ensure that our guidance is up to date and practical. We review it constantly, but if they are unhappy with any parts of it, I ask them please to let me know. We are very conscious that the calculations can be difficult and confusing, especially for businesses that do not have human resources departments.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last year, 19 NHS trusts had median pay gaps of 20% or more; this year, 24 did. Why has that happened?
Victoria Atkins
This is exactly the challenge that we are facing. We know that healthcare is one of the three sectors that employ 50% of the total number of working women. The NHS trusts themselves should be looking into why those gaps have increased. As I have said, I shall be writing to all public sector employers asking for their action plans. We can help them to draw up those plans to ensure that they make a real difference.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970, yet the gender pay gap is still too large. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommended that employers should have mandatory action plans to show how they were going to close their pay gaps, but the Government refused to adopt its recommendation. Will the Minister say why, and whether she will look at the recommendation again?
Victoria Atkins
Thus far, just under 50% of employers who fall within the gender pay gap reporting regime have issued their own action plans voluntarily. Because we want to bring business with us, I would much prefer employers to ask themselves questions about the way in which they treat their female staff rather than conducting a tick-box exercise, as is alleged to have happened. I will of course keep the position under review, and if we do not think that employers are making enough progress, we will act.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Minister correctly observed that good-quality childcare is essential for women going back to work, but the number of nurseries closing has risen by 66% in the last year, and only just over 50% of local areas have enough childcare services for parents who wish to work full time. Will the Minister speak to the Secretary of State for Education about the impact that the state of our early years sector is having on women who want to work?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. That is why we were so keen to introduce free childcare for children aged three and above. I will happily raise the point about local nurseries with the Secretary of State, but we are trying to encourage businesses and employers to think more imaginatively about how they can retain the talent from which they benefit. They may have spent many years training and developing female employers through schemes such as flexible working and shared parental leave—bold schemes that will make a cultural as well as a practical difference.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Why have 100 health bodies across the United Kingdom increased their gender pay gaps in the last 12 months? If the Minister is writing to those health boards, what does she expect them to do on receipt of her letter?
Victoria Atkins
I expect them to look at the variety of diagnostic tools that are available on the gov.uk website, and to seek advice about how to better diagnose and then deal with their gender pay gaps. This is not an insurmountable problem, and health trusts need to understand that the gender pay gap expectation applies to them just as it applies to any large multinational company.
Jim Shannon
One sentence, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister had any discussions with the devolved regions about the implementation of reviews throughout the public and private sectors to get a clearer picture of how we stand?
Victoria Atkins
Yes, of course. We are very keen to work with all our colleagues throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that businesses and employers are treating their female staff fairly, regardless of where they happen to be in the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities wants to raise a point of order that relates to the exchanges that we have just had, and that point of order, and that point of order only, I am content to take now.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just contacted the chief executive of Brent Council, Carolyn Downs, and she has informed me that Brent Council submitted the gender pay gap report on Friday 29 March via the Government’s own portal. I wonder whether the Minister would like to stand and make an apology to Brent Council.
Victoria Atkins
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the information I had just before I walked into the Chamber. I am advised that it was not on the gender pay gap portal. Of course if Carolyn Downs has done what she should have done and followed the law I am not sure I will congratulate her; I am just pleased that she is following the law.
Business of the House
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 8 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Electronic Communications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 9 April—Motion to approve the Burma (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the Venezuela (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the Iran (Sanctions) (Human Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the Republic Of Guinea-Bissau (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations, followed by general debate on housing.
Wednesday 10 April—Motion to approve the draft Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2019, followed by a general debate on the 50th anniversary of the continuous at sea deterrent.
Thursday 11 April—General debate on the definition of Islamophobia. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
As colleagues will be aware, discussions between the two main parties on the subject of EU exit are ongoing. Subject to the progress of those talks, there is the possibility that business will alter, and I will of course update the House as soon as possible in such an eventuality. We do want to enable all colleagues to have a break during holy week, but I would note that we will need to retain flexibility to potentially sit on Monday and Tuesday of that week—15 and 16 April—and I will, as always, endeavour to update the House about business as early as possible. In the same vein, it is likely that we may need to sit on Friday of next week, and I will update colleagues on this as early as possible next week.
Subject to the agreement of the House, Westminster Hall will not sit during holy week, following a discussion with the Chairman of Ways and Means, in order to make sure that as many House staff as possible get a well-deserved break.
Mr Speaker, yesterday was the third anniversary of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran. We continue to call for her release, and the Foreign Office is doing all it can to make sure that happens as soon as possible.
This week is also Autism Awareness Week, which gives me the opportunity to congratulate all those who have taken part in fundraising events this week, and to thank all those working so hard to support autistic people and their families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Today is not as heavily subscribed as sometimes, but the first of the two Backbench Business Committee debates is very heavily subscribed, and of course there is a ministerial statement to follow, so I think the focus today is on brevity.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I appreciate that it is difficult to have settled business, but this is yet another sign that the Government cannot govern, because again the Prime Minister has run down the clock. However, I have to say that we have not had an Opposition day—there are Backbench Business Committee debates and general debates—so may I ask again for an Opposition day?
Last week, I asked whether we could have a statement from the Government on the timetable for the progress of the key legislation that needs to pass through Parliament before exit day on 12 April, but the Leader of the House responded by just mentioning the progress of secondary legislation. There are important Bills that need to have their next stages, particularly the financial services Bill. There is cross-party support for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) calling for Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to have registers in place by the end of 2020. This is a crucial piece of legislation to tackle tax evasion. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has confirmed that in a clampdown on offshore tax evasion in 2018, it received reports about the offshore financial interests of around 3 million UK residents or the entities that they controlled. Figures from Accountancy Daily show that this involved 5.67 million individual records detailing offshore financial bank accounts. When will the Government find time for the Report stage of this Bill?
Will the Leader of the House update the House on whether she is confident that all the necessary Brexit statutory instruments will go through the House before exit day? The Brexit process has been a shambles. There is no solution, and Ministers are resigning. The Prime Minister has now decided that she wants to stop speaking Klingon—or should I say ERGon—to the European Research Group and start speaking to the Opposition. In her statement—made at No. 10 Downing Street, not to the House—she failed explicitly to rule out leaving the EU with no deal. The Bank of England estimates that the worst case scenario, involving border delays and a loss of market confidence in the UK, could result in the economy contracting by 5%. Nearly 30% of our food comes from the EU, and some imports are particularly high at the moment because they involve foods that we cannot grow ourselves at this time of year, such as lettuce, tomatoes and soft fruit. Academics at Imperial College say that two extra minutes spent checking each vehicle at Dover and Folkestone could lead to traffic queues of 29 miles on nearby roads.
In the meantime, my constituents want to know why spending per pupil has fallen by 8% since 2010. The Leader of the House has mentioned the fact that it is Autism Awareness Week. It was announced today that 17% cuts had been made for those with special needs in the past four years. Just last week, a constituent of mine was in tears because her 11-year-old daughter has to take two buses or have a 40-minute car journey to school because all the local schools are full. May we have a statement on school places?
We had Home Office questions on Monday, but no statement on knife crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) had asked for a statement, but nothing was forthcoming. One question to the Prime Minister is not sufficient. This is more than a public health issue; it is about giving young people facilities and community places where they can find their talents. So could the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement, either from the Prime Minister or from the Home Secretary, on the knife crime summit?
It is the 20th anniversary of the national minimum wage, which was introduced by a Labour Government and opposed by the Conservative party. When will the Government implement the real living wage, which should be our goal?
We celebrate today the 70th anniversary of NATO. That treaty was signed by a Labour Foreign Secretary. The Leader of the House will be interested in the report published today by the Defence Committee entitled “Missile Misdemeanours: Russia and the INF treaty”. The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), says that the continent of Europe is less safe as a result of the Russian decision to develop missiles in contravention of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. We are not a party to the treaty, but the Committee says that the Government need to push NATO for a proportionate response that sends a firm message. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important report?
The Ministry of Defence has instigated an inquiry into the use of a picture of the Leader of the Opposition for target practice. I am sure that the Leader of the House will condemn that activity. While the investigation is ongoing, will she ensure that the following questions are put to the Secretary of State for Defence? First, what action will be taken under section 19 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 against the soldiers on the grounds of good order and service discipline? Secondly, will the commanding officers and officials higher up the chain in the Ministry of Defence take responsibility, and how will they prevent this from happening further? Thirdly, can they confirm who supplied the image, and can they confirm that there are no other such photos circulating among the armed forces? If the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister would like to apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that that would be very welcome. In the meantime, we would like a response to those questions.
Will the Justice Secretary meet my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper)? We rightly paid tribute to her resilience yesterday when she received the House’s appreciation. She may have some suggestions about improvements to the trial process, given the terrible things she was put under while she was waiting for the result.
I do not know whether you are aware of this, Mr Speaker, but BBC Parliament has had excellent ratings. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their great courage in ensuring that the Government do not put our economy at risk with no deal. Once again, I thank the talented and dedicated staff of the House for ensuring that our business was done.
Finally, it is cherry blossom time, so I urge hon. Members to go outside and look at the blossom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do beg the Leader of the House’s pardon. People who came in after the statement was issued cannot expect to be called and should not stand. We really must observe the basic principle of respect. The Leader of the House delivers a statement and it is responded to, but people cannot wander into the Chamber and expect to be called. It is quite wrong.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just going to say to the hon. Lady that I would love to be outside looking at the cherry blossom, as I am sure we all would. Maybe that is what some colleagues were doing before they wandered into the Chamber.
The hon. Lady asked about key legislation and the Brexit Bills, particularly the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill. As she will know, we want to consider the amendments made in the other place carefully. That Bill is relatively straightforward and seeks to deal with in-flight files during the Brexit transition period, but one amendment would have a more significant impact on the rights of the Crown dependencies, so it is right for the Government to take a bit of time to consider that properly. However, we will bring the Bill back in due course.
The hon. Lady asked about other Brexit primary legislation, and she will be aware that, in addition to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, nine other exit-related Bills are in Parliament or have already received Royal Assent. The Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, and the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 are all now law. The Bills still in the Commons or the Lords are the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, as has been mentioned, and the Trade Bill. Progress is being made, and they are all scheduled to receive Royal Assent before they are needed.
The hon. Lady also asked for an update on the secondary legislation. Almost all the Brexit SIs needed for exit day have been laid—around 515 of about 550. The programme of secondary legislation is in hand and is almost complete. The remaining SIs are planned for completion when they need it.
On schools, I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to celebrate, as I do, the fact that 1.9 million more children are being taught in good or outstanding schools. We created 920,000 more school places between 2010 and 2018, and the gap between disadvantaged pupils and others has narrowed. All those things are important to give young people a good start in life.
The hon. Lady asked for a statement on the knife crime summit. I will certainly take that request away, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to update the House.
The hon. Lady mentioned the national living wage, and I am sure that she will share in the delight that it went up on Monday by the highest rate since it was first introduced in 2015, increasing by almost 5% to £8.21 an hour.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position, but it was actually George Osborne as Chancellor under a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage—[Interruption.] No, I am talking about the national living wage. Full-time workers receiving the national living wage will now be more than £2,750 a year better off compared with 2015.
Finally, the hon. Lady raised the serious issue of a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition being used for target practice. That is utterly unacceptable, and I condemn it in the strongest terms, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would. It is vital that anybody with any kind of role in public life is extremely careful about the sort of images and portrayals that they put forward. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written to the shadow Secretary of State to respond to the points made to him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
You missed it, Mr Speaker, because your focus was properly on what was happening in the Chamber, but the prolonged demonstration in the Public Gallery was a function of the fact that, first, the police had to be called and, secondly, the police, frankly, have a different way of operating and different priorities. Our Doorkeepers are trained in the practice but no longer carry it out, because the House will not insure them. Can we have a statement next week on how this is to be remedied?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter and I am tempted to mention the bare cheek of such a demonstration in the Public Gallery. The police certainly had to deal with a very sticky matter. I will be seeing the director general later today to talk about what more we can do.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for what would have been the first week of our Easter recess, which we are giving up for that. I just hope we will see some more substantial business that would justify our giving up time to be available for our constituents. The thing is she has absolutely no idea what will be discussed and considered next week.
Yesterday’s innovation should be commended, and this House should be proud that we delivered a piece of legislation within a few days that will underpin the seeking of an extension to article 50. Of course, most curiously, there are those among the take back controllers who do not want this House actually to take back control and who would prefer the Government to continue in their ways unfettered and to continue ignoring the decisions of this House. It has taken legislation to get this minority Government to do what the majority of this House wants them to do. Maybe now they know we can do this they will start taking the decisions of this House more seriously, but I seriously doubt that will be the case.
The great unelected ones in the House of Lords will now consider the Bill, and the message from this House to the aristocrats, the Church of England bishops, the cronies and the donors is that they should do nothing to thwart the progress of this Bill. We have already seen loads of amendments tabled down there, particularly, and curiously, by some Scottish Conservative Lords. They must do absolutely nothing that would stop the will of this House and the democratic will of this Parliament.
Can we have a debate about modern romance? There was a real Mills & Boon glow yesterday, as the Leader of the Opposition sat down with the Prime Minister so that she could share the blame for her Tory Brexit with him. Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was
“The biggest threat to our standing in the world, to our defence and to our economy”.—[Official Report, 27 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 313.]
He is now the saviour of her Brexit.
We in Scotland are watching very carefully the reinvention of Better Together—Better Together 2.0, the sequel, the latest in the Tory-Labour disaster franchise. This time they have come together to take Scotland out of the EU against its will. Scotland is sick of being ignored. The Scottish people are watching our nation being carved out and disrespected, and we will not sit idly by as the usual Better Together squad play their games with our nation and the European Union.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Better Together did quite well last time. As he will know, the Prime Minister is seeking to find a way to leave the European Union, and it is extraordinarily apparent to everyone that, so far, the House has not agreed a way in which to leave. It is right that the Prime Minister continues to seek a way to deliver on the referendum, which is why she is talking to the Leader of the Opposition, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Can we have a debate on budgeting and the transparency of public projects and their finances, particularly in the light of the delay to the notice to proceed on High Speed 2 and the revelation that it is now spending millions of pounds on consultants tasked with trying to reduce, or even control, the mammoth costs of this project, all of which will be paid for by the taxpayer?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. She will be aware that many of my constituents also have concerns about the cost overruns, and I have written to ask for reassurances on that. The Department for Transport assures us that the project is still working to its budget, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to seek her own reassurances.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The demonstration in the Public Gallery has been referred to. I wondered whether it was a manifestation of a modern-day Rump Parliament—I’m here all week.
The Leader of the House mentioned that the business next week could be subject to rescheduling. I genuinely offer a hand of friendship and, if there is rescheduling, I hope there will be consultation with me and the Clerk of the Backbench Business Committee, so that we can fill any gaps due to business being moved.
I am a member of the Education Committee, and I wonder whether we could have a debate in Government time on school funding. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that school funding in real terms is 8% lighter than it was several years ago. The Minister for School Standards said at the Education Committee on Wednesday that the schools budget has been protected in real terms, like the Department for International Development budget, but the DFID budget is 0.7% of GDP and has been protected at that level—it has grown in financial terms. Education funding has diminished from 5.69% to 4.27% of GDP in only seven years. That is a real-terms cut from both the IFS’s perspective and the GDP perspective. We need to invest in our future if we are going to engage and be successful in the fourth industrial revolution.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took pains to flesh out the matter of the protests, but we now need to crack on a bit with the business of the day.
The hon. Gentleman offered to fill in any blanks in the business next week. Of course, if there are opportunities for Backbench business, we will always take them. He also raised the important matter of school funding. He will appreciate that the achievements in our schools are incredibly positive for improving young people’s education, and I pay great tribute to all our teachers’ professionalism. Nevertheless, he makes an important point about funding, and I encourage him to raise that directly with Ministers on 15 April at Education questions.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the difficulties that converts to Christianity are having in achieving asylum status in the United Kingdom? While I am sure the House understands that the Home Office has to be very careful, I simply do not understand its reluctance to approve those applications, given all the checks and balances.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. All asylum claims made in the UK are carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual merits against a background of relevant case law and up-to-date country information, which covers issues relating to freedom of religion and belief. I can assure him that the Home Office provides protection for all those who genuinely need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have a debate about the challenge we have in our constituencies and in this place in the way we treat one another and the language we use? Could the Leader of the House particularly bear in mind something very offensive that was said last night by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) at this time, when we are in Lent and approaching Easter weekend:
“Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1217.]
As a Christian and former parliamentary churchwarden, I found it deeply offensive for that phrase to be used in the context of a debate on Brexit. I hope we can have a discussion about what is and is not appropriate to say in this House.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have always said, it is vital that everybody in this place and in this Palace of Westminster treats each other with courtesy and respect and I completely uphold that. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, behaviour in the Chamber is a matter for the Chair. On the other hand, I am sure you will also agree, Mr Speaker, that it is vital that everybody is treated with courtesy and respect.
Mr Speaker
Yes, that is absolutely fair and reasonable. I did not intervene at the time, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) felt extremely strongly and expressed himself with force, and I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s sincerity and integrity—I make no bones about that; I do—but moderation in the use of language and the importance of trying to keep the temperature down can hardly be overstated. I think the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has served a useful purpose today, of which we can all take note.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will be aware that I go on and on about the lack of accountability of NHS trusts in my constituency and around the country, and there are often lots of nods when I raise this. As the Leader of the House knows, I raised this before and she suggested that I get a Westminster Hall debate. I have got that, so I am back now—going on and on. May we have a debate in Government time about the lack of accountability of NHS trusts, which seem to ignore not just politicians and elected representatives, but the people they are supposed to be looking after?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is very passionate on this subject and he is absolutely right to be. If he has exhausted all his own means by which to achieve debates on this subject, I encourage him to go to the Backbench Business Committee and seek the support of other Members across the House. I am sure he would find that there were plenty of Members looking to support their own local hospitals.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I heard the Leader of the House’s answer on the knife crime summit and subsequent events, but it really is unacceptable that the Home Secretary has not been here reporting on the knife crime summit, while our constituents—our young constituents—are regularly being murdered. When will he come here and give a report? Further to that, he really should be coming to this Chamber on a regular basis to give those reports.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly serious issue, as he often does, about the appalling nature of the rise in knife crime, the impact it is having on communities and the fear in communities. There are far, far too many examples of young people being stabbed and murdered. It is absolutely appalling. He will be aware that the knife crime summit on Monday was designed to look at what more the Government can do. There are a huge number of plans in place. We have already had two debates recently on serious violence and what the Government can do, as well as a number of urgent questions and statements on the subject. However, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I will certainly go away and see whether we can organise a statement on the same subject.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I hope you will accept that I am willing to call out the Government on occasion when they abuse Parliament—I voted for the contempt motion—but I thought there was a conspiracy to defraud Parliament itself yesterday. On a huge constitutional issue, we rushed the Bill through in a day. There was no time for proper debate. There was not even a Third Reading debate. Amendments were not down. It was a total farce and it was an abuse of Parliament. It seems to me that the solution to this—it was something that both the main political parties agreed to—is a business of the House Committee that is responsible for the timing of debates. The Backbench Business Committee has shown that it works really well. Seriously, will the Government now consider a business of the House Committee? Please, Leader of the House, do not blow this off again.
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely endorse the first part of my hon. Friend’s question. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the article 50 Bill contained 58 words and it went through the entire parliamentary business and legislation Committee process. It was consulted on widely and it had five days of debate in this Chamber, compared with the under one hour on Second Reading for yesterday’s Bill. I therefore agree with him that it was extremely damaging to the way in which we carry out business in this place.
On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, as I have said to him on a number of occasions, I do not believe that a business of the House Committee for determining business would have the necessary flexibility to be able to ensure that, as we are seeing at the moment, swift changes to business can be properly and reliably agreed. From time to time, the House needs to go through the usual channels with a very quick decision when emergency changes are necessary.
Mr Speaker
I do not want to dwell at any length on what the hon. Gentleman said and I completely respect his sincerity, but I think it is fair just to note, reputationally for the House, that many of the Members who are complaining about the paucity of time for the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill did nevertheless seem untroubled by the absorption of three hours on the business of the House motion. It was partly for that reason that there was so little time left for Second Reading. But there is an argument to be had about the matter and I respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view.
I have heard what the Leader has said about a business of the House committee. That is the Government’s position. The hon. Gentleman has been a keen and articulate champion of the cause of such a committee for many years, and, as he knows, I have joined him in that quest. It is a matter of recorded fact that the coalition Government were committed to the introduction of such a committee and Prime Minister Cameron—I say this as a matter of fact—reneged on that commitment. It is unarguable, it is incontestable, it is incontrovertible. That is the reality. He may think that the situation changed, but he promised it and he broke the promise. It is as simple as that.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Last weekend proved to be the perfect tonic when I was joined by over 75 members of my constituency for the Great British Spring Clean. Next week I will be out again, in Mirfield, supporting the indefatigable community champion Ruth Edwards in her spring clean. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the incredible work done by the likes of Ruth and others, and encourage our members to get involved in cleaning up their communities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is to be hugely commended for taking part in the Great British Spring Clean. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is sitting behind me, is a huge fan of it and is yelling in my ear, “Fantastic, fantastic!” I think all Members would agree that it is a superb thing to be involved in a community clean-up. It sends a good message and it cheers us all up to get outside as well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), her constituent Ruth Edwards and all those taking part.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Working parents of children with a disability or serious illness often have to take their entire holiday entitlement off for surgery or hospital appointments. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on what support the Government can give to those working parents and how we can ensure they get the quality holiday time that other working parents enjoy?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Parents often have additional responsibilities to holding down a job, particularly when they are caring for children with disabilities. It is absolutely vital that they get quality time to spend with their families. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate in the first instance, so he can discuss with Ministers what more can be done.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the attitude taken by Departments, particularly the Home Office, when MPs telephone them? I telephoned the hotline seeking very urgent information and was given another telephone number. I was hung up on when I phoned it. When I phoned back later, they were unable to give me any information—I will be careful about what I say—about what I asked for. I have now emailed on two occasions and not received a response. The challenge is that my constituent faces an approaching deadline, and without that information I cannot advise him and he cannot take action.
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely very sorry to hear that. My own experience of the MPs’ hotline has been good with the Home Office, but I totally respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he cannot get through to the right people and they are not responsive, that is absolutely unacceptable. I encourage him to perhaps take this matter up through a parliamentary written question, but if he wants to contact me, I can contact the Home Office on his behalf.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Could we get a bit more clarity on the business for the week after next? The Leader of the House said that it is possible that we will be sitting on Monday 15 and Tuesday 16 April, but for the benefit of Members and staff with Easter holiday and childcare problems to sort out, could she perhaps be a bit more definitive about what might or might not happen on Wednesday 17 and Thursday 18 April?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is tempting me to get my crystal ball out. As all hon. Members appreciate, and I think we can all agree, we and certainly the staff of the House, need a break. We are very conscious of the need to try to ensure that people are able to meet prior commitments. As well as that, many colleagues have commitments in their constituencies that they need to fulfil. There is no doubt that the Government and I are extremely well aware of the need for colleagues to have a break. On the other hand, as we all know, the business is changing very rapidly. We are extremely keen to ensure that we can leave the European Union with a deal, with a majority of the House supporting it. In order to achieve that, it requires the next few days to be quite flexible. I can only repeat that I will keep the House as updated as possible, but certainly at the moment, as I said in my opening remarks, we need to retain flexibility to potentially sit on Monday 15 and Tuesday 16 April during holy week, but I will update the House as soon as I possibly can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On Monday 1 April, the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I have the privilege to chair, hosted a parliamentary briefing investigating the ongoing farmer-herder conflict in Nigeria. Nigeria is awash with weapons. This conflict has claimed tens of thousands of lives since the turn of the century. It is one of the bloodiest in the world at the moment and, as both groups happen to also be divided by religion, with farmers being mainly Christian and the herders being mainly Muslim, it threatens to escalate into a full-blown religious war. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or debate on this very pressing matter?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are concerned by the recurrent clashes involving pastoralists and local farmers. We continue to call for an immediate de-escalation of violence and for the Nigerian Government to demonstrate a clear strategy for resolving the conflict, ending the violence and ensuring that the needs of all the communities are taken into account. There is no doubt that these clashes have a devastating impact on lives and communities, as well as, of course, being a major barrier to Nigeria’s economic development.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am very pleased that the Government are investing £290 million in improving the A1 road north of Newcastle to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Sadly, north of the border, 17 miles of the A1 still remain a single-track road. Transport policy is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and yet the Scottish Government are refusing to take any action to improve this important cross-border route. Could we have a debate about how the UK and Scottish Governments can work together to improve cross-border connectivity?
Andrea Leadsom
As always, my hon. Friend raises an important issue on behalf of his constituents and many others. He is right that under the devolution settlement, roads within Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and it is for them to prioritise and fund any relevant schemes. I hope that they will take the decision to do so. For our part, UK Ministers and officials regularly collaborate with their counterparts in Scotland on issues of mutual interest, including cross-border connections, and they have previously discussed the dualling of the A1.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House can provide us with a date when the Timpson review of exclusions will be produced. If she cannot provide a date, perhaps she can explain why we have had a delay since December last year.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She has raised this on a number of occasions and, as I have said to her, I have chased for a date on which this report will be published. She is absolutely right to keep pursuing it and I am continuing to seek to get an answer for her—[Interruption.] She is asking “Why?” from a sedentary position. As I have tried to explain previously, the review is considering the difference in exclusion rates between areas and why that is taking place. That, therefore, makes the review quite complicated and time-consuming.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Leader of the House will recall that three weeks ago, I raised with her the accountability of Network Rail. That particularly relates to its proposed closure of Suggitt’s Lane level crossing in my constituency. The accountability issue has become more serious, because the Grimsby Telegraph is reporting that when contractors moved in to lock the gates, they hauled away cars parked near the crossing. Surely Network Rail should not have the powers to haul away private vehicles. Could we have a statement from the Department for Transport on this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend’s concerns sound very justified. Of course the safety of our railways is paramount, but as he knows it is a matter for Network Rail, working with the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. I understand that an urgent meeting on the Suggitt’s Lane level crossing closure has been arranged for Monday between the rail Minister, senior representatives from Network Rail and my hon. Friend himself. I hope that there will be some progress as a result of that.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for reminding us that it is the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Washington treaty. I also remind the House that London was the first home of the NATO alliance and that the first shots fired by NATO came during a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in 1996. If the Leader of the House is short of business for next week, may I suggest that we celebrate the NATO alliance, which has kept peace and security across Europe and north America for 70 years?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to pay tribute to the amazing achievements of NATO, which has been the cornerstone of our defence for 70 years, as she rightly points out. I will certainly take away her request for a debate in Government time and see what can be done.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
There is a sense of anticipation in Rugby because the finalists of the “Pride of Rugby” awards, run superbly by our local radio station, Rugby FM, have been announced. They recognise local achievers in businesses and charities and among our volunteers and young people at a time when we hear a lot about the challenges that communities face. May we have a debate to recognise some of the great work going on in our communities?
Andrea Leadsom
It is always welcome that business questions gives colleagues a chance to praise the excellent work that goes on in their communities. I congratulate my hon. Friend and join him in congratulating the finalists in the “Pride of Rugby” awards. I wish them all the best for the event. The UK is undoubtedly a very generous place; I understand that the British public donated £10.3 billion to all causes in 2017. That cements the UK’s place as one of the most generous nations in the world—something that we can all celebrate.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Given BBC Parliament’s success and viewing figures in the past few weeks, are there any plans to broadcast Cabinet meetings live? The details of the meetings are leaked within minutes, so should we not just cut out the middle man? Can the Leader of the House tell us which is true: is there more infighting in a Cabinet meeting or in the next episode of “Game of Thrones”?
Andrea Leadsom
What goes on in Cabinet would not be a great TV show—too often, what gets reported is not correct. It either has to be a documentary or it is a fabrication. Sometimes I sit in Cabinet and hear one thing and read about it in the newspapers but it is not the same at all—it is someone’s interpretation.
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about how Cabinet commentary gets out into the press. There are interpretations on all manner of meetings that take place. What that really says to me, and what I always urge young people to understand when I go to universities and schools to talk to them about democracy, is that people should not believe everything they read—it is definitely not always true. People need to go to the source.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I recently launched a new Saturday bus service in Henley. May we have a debate on buses to show how smaller, more local buses can help?
Andrea Leadsom
Congratulations to my hon. Friend—a number of hon. Members would love to do the same in their areas. He will be aware that the bus market outside London is deregulated and that decisions about service provision are primarily a commercial matter for bus operators. Individual English local authorities will make decisions on whether to subsidise bus services. The Bus Services Act 2017 provides the tools that local authorities need to improve local bus services and increase passenger numbers, but I am sure I am not alone in this place in thinking that we need to do more to provide better bus transportation for all our communities.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
May a debate be held on the urgent need to fund community-based projects to tackle climate change? North Glasgow Housing Association is the biggest community-owned housing association in Glasgow, and with Lambhill Stables it is doing fantastic work in all sorts of fields using climate challenge funding from the Scottish Government, including community swapshops for furniture and even using comics to educate young people. Unfortunately, that funding has not been renewed this year, so the projects cannot continue. May we have an urgent debate on the need to advance funding for community-based climate change initiatives?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituents on their work. It is incredibly important that we do all we can to make people aware of the importance of climate change and the steps we can take to address it. He will be aware that our 25-year environment plan seeks to ensure that ours is the first generation that leaves our environment in a better state than we found it. Within that plan, there are many different initiatives. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about what more they can do to support such initiatives.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It was mentioned earlier that it is cherry blossom time. I encourage every Member of the House to come and see the Japanese garden in Clackmannanshire in my constituency, where recently I joined the Japanese consul-general to plant new cherry trees, whose blossoms we hope everyone can enjoy in the near future. May we have time to debate rural development? We spend a lot of time talking about our towns and cities, but our rural communities are working hard to improve prosperity and employment through schemes such as Can Do Crieff shared workspace, which was recently established in my constituency? Country is just as important as town, so may we have more time to debate rural issues?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree that the countryside is every bit as important as towns, and we need to do everything possible to ensure that our rural communities thrive. We have Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday, and I encourage my hon. Friend to raise with Ministers what more can be done to support rural communities.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Duke of Edinburgh’s volunteering achievement award has been presented to pupils in Coventry to celebrate 9,360 hours of voluntary service by the city’s young people over the past 12 months. We know that such volunteering efforts help young people to develop, build confidence and gain important life skills, while improving the health and wellbeing of the local community around them. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending Coventry’s young volunteers, and will she arrange a debate in Government time on the importance of volunteering and how it can inspire a generation of young people who care about where they live and are willing to make a commitment to improve society?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady always speaks up for Coventry, and she is right to do so. I definitely join her in congratulating all those young people. I think she quoted a figure of 9,360 hours of volunteering in the past 12 months. That is a superb record of which they can be very proud.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House tell me where the Home Secretary is? I asked last week whether he was going to come and make a statement, and she said she would speak to him. We had a knife crime summit, but nobody has a clue what happened there; he has not bothered to come to the House of Commons to explain. We read in the papers about search powers being changed—not a word to the House of Commons about it. We read about extra money for all sorts of groups—not a word to the House of Commons about it. Will the Leader of the House go again to the Home Secretary and tell him to get over here and start making some statements to this House about the national emergency this country faces with knife crime?
Andrea Leadsom
I know the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about this issue, as do the many right hon. and hon. Members who raise it frequently at business questions. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was here yesterday, making a statement on Windrush compensation. He is of course always willing and keen to update the House as soon as some important breakthrough takes place. The hon. Gentleman will know that a tremendous amount of work has gone into our serious violence strategy, the Offensive Weapons Bill, the creation of knife crime prevention orders, the youth endowment fund and the recent discussions about making knife crime a public health matter, so that we can do everything possible to steer young people away from a life of knife crime and violence. I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. I will again raise the issue with the Home Secretary, but he is willing to—indeed, has he done so very regularly—come to update this House whenever there is more to say.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
At his last meeting with the all-party group on steel, the then steel Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), committed to bring together all the key steel stakeholders to look again at how to progress a steel sector deal. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on how we are to bring about this steel summit?
Andrea Leadsom
I was not aware of the commitment that was made, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I can take the matter up with the Department on his behalf.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On my way into Westminster, I walk through the Canary Wharf Crossrail station on most mornings. It is a pristine station that cost £500 million. It was opened in 2015, but no trains will use it until at least 2020. It is a bit like the hospital in “Yes Minister”—the Leader of the House might remember—where there were no patients but it was seen to be a very efficient hospital. The Public Accounts Committee has said that the cost of Crossrail has spiralled out of control, at more than £18 billion and counting, and question marks remain over its completion. We cannot get new signage or the toilets sorted out in the railway station in Hull, let alone electrification of the line, so may we please have a debate on investment in rail in the north and not just in London?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s desire to see more investment in the north. She will be aware that the Government are investing significant sums in new rail infrastructure and in improving the experience of all train users.
With regard to Crossrail, work is now being done to deliver a revised schedule for the project, and the Department for Transport is working closely with the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office to ensure that lessons are learned for the delivery of major projects. Once built, the new Crossrail line will provide a boost to the UK economy of up to £42 billion and enable 200 million journeys across London and the south-east. I absolutely understand that the hon. Lady wants to see more investment in the north, and that is also happening—it is not either/or but both.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
In the past fortnight, households up and down the country have received their council tax bills. Members will be well aware that people have seen significant increases of almost twice the rate of inflation and twice the rate of pay increases. In my constituency, there has been a 5% council tax increase and a 12% increase in the police levy, and residents are concerned that they are getting less for paying more. Against that backdrop, my local authority wishes to build a new council office. May we have a debate on the terrific One Public Estate programme, which was introduced in 2013, so that we can examine where we are with those sorts of programmes?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of council tax rises; he will be aware that council taxes have fallen since 2010 in real terms, under the Conservative and coalition Governments. It has been important to hold down those increases. At the same time, I am sure he will want to celebrate that this week there is more than £1.3 billion extra available for local councils, more than £1 billion extra for schools and of course, really importantly, a rise in the national living wage, which has given a full-time worker a £2,750 annual pay rise since its introduction. There is also another rise in the personal tax-free allowance, leaving a basic-rate taxpayer more than £1,200 a year better off than in 2010. I totally sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point about council taxes rising, but on the other side of the economy, the Government are taking steps to ensure that there are better services, that people get to keep more of their hard-earned income and that people in our economy are better off through job increases, wage increases and increases in their personal tax-free allowance.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Some of my constituents have received letters this week informing them that the owner of their homes—the freeholder—has changed from one company based in Guernsey to another company based in Guernsey. We have had a very powerful Select Committee report and various vacuous pledges about what will be done to tackle leasehold abuses, but the fact remains that these kind of manoeuvres are making it harder and more expensive for my constituents to purchase outright the freehold of their properties. May we have a statement from the Government about what they will do to protect existing leaseholders?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the way in which some properties are being sold as leases and then those who have bought them are being charged additional sums on an increasing basis. That cannot be right. We have Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday. I encourage him to raise the matter there.
Brunei
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about Brunei and sharia law.
I appreciate that this issue has been of widespread concern in the House and was the subject of two requests for an urgent question earlier in the week by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). I apologise, too, that, given how late we sat last night, there are slightly fewer Members in the House today than there might have been, as many of them have an understandable desire to head off. I thought that it was worth making a full statement on this issue. There was no criticism of you, Mr Speaker, that you did not allow the urgent questions, not least because we were able to touch on this matter in the slightly unsatisfactory way that one does during Foreign and Commonwealth questions.
Brunei introduced sharia criminal law in 2014, to operate alongside the common law system in that country. Implementation of the final phases of the associated sharia penal code was delayed from 2014 until yesterday. These final phases now introduce the possibility of hudud corporal and capital punishments, which may include amputation for theft, and execution by stoning for witnessed adultery and anal sex.
The sharia penal code requires four witnesses or a confession from the offender for a conviction to be secured. It is a fairly tall ask, but that does not mean it is impossible to achieve. Under the common law in Brunei, homosexuality is already a criminal offence. Whippings are also quite frequently used as a punishment for a variety of offences, and the death penalty remains on the statute book—although it has not been enforced since 1992.
I want to be absolutely clear about the UK’s position on this: this Government consider it appalling that, in the 21st century, people anywhere are still facing potential persecution and discrimination because of who they are and whom they love. We strongly support and defend the rights of the LGBT+ community here in the UK and all around the world.
We absolutely oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and in all forms, and we do not believe that amputation or stoning are legitimate or acceptable punishments. Indeed, we consider them to be illegal under international human rights laws relating to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.
We also note that, since the introduction of sharia criminal law in Brunei in 2014, the vast majority of crimes have continued to be brought to justice under the existing common law system, which runs in parallel in that country. However, if implemented, we believe that these extreme hudud punishments would contravene Brunei’s international commitments to respect human rights and individual freedoms. That is why we have expressed deep concerns to the Government of Brunei. I personally raised the matter with His Majesty the Sultan, the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Foreign Minister, Dato Erywan, when I visited the country in August 2018.
Last week, I wrote to Dato Erywan to re-emphasise our concern about the use of hudud punishments, which contravene the international standards and values that the UK and Brunei both uphold. Earlier this week, our outstanding high commissioner Richard Lindsay also raised our concerns with senior Bruneian Ministers, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Religious Affairs and Finance. He received assurances that common law would continue to be the primary means of administering justice and that the burden of proof under the sharia penal code has been set to be almost unattainably high, and, obviously, we welcome that. I understand that the Foreign Secretary will speak with the Bruneian Foreign Minister later today and urge the Government of Brunei to take further steps to ensure that those extreme punishments cannot be used, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all their citizens.
Colleagues may be concerned about the potential impact of sharia criminal law in Brunei on British nationals, for whom we have a specific consular responsibility. I assure the House that our travel advice has been updated to ensure that all British citizens are aware of the introduction of the new laws under the sharia penal code. Supporting British nationals remains our No. 1 priority, and we will continue to provide consular support for all British folk in Brunei should it be required. As many Members will be aware, we have a specific responsibility towards British military personnel and their families who are stationed in Brunei, including as part of our long-standing garrison agreement that dates from the coming into existence of Brunei as an independent state in 1962. I assure the House that necessary protections are in place with the Government of Brunei.
For historical and ongoing reasons we have a close friendship with Brunei, and from my experience both in Brunei and with Bruneians in this country, I know that they regard themselves—with good cause—as a generous, friendly and tolerant people, and they are worried to see the tarnishing of that reputation, given recent press in the UK and across the world. We have an important bilateral security relationship with Brunei, of which the garrison agreement is one part, but that has never prevented us from raising difficult issues. Indeed, I believe that the strength and richness of that relationship permits us to share our views and express those concerns—sometimes openly, sometimes more in private, but always frankly—as we seek to work together to address these issues.
I am sure I speak for the entire House when I say that this Government, our high commissioner and I will continue to urge the Government of Brunei to take all necessary steps to reassure their own people, the United Kingdom and the wider international community that they are fully committed to allowing all citizens and residents of Brunei to live with dignity, and free from violence, discrimination or persecution. As an integral part of our foreign policy work around the world, we will continue to oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and promote the rights of LGBT+ people. Nobody should face punishment for who they are or whom they love. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, and for the concern and care that he has brought to this issue, just as he did for other issues including Kashmir and the Rohingya, as well as many other matters covered by his brief. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary spoke the other day about the former Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and said that we would miss both the substance and tone that he brought to our debates. As we have seen today, however, this Minister brings the same substance to our debates, and he knows how to set the tone for his Department.
What we have seen in Brunei in the past week with the proposed new laws has been shocking, shameful and deeply sad. Let me read the words of one staff member from our shadow Foreign Office team. She is a young English woman who grew up in Brunei, and when she heard the news she said:
“It breaks my heart that a country I would credit with opening my mind and my heart in my formative years, and deeply embedding in me a love of the world and the people in it, could now preach such utter hatred against people just because of who they love.”
That is absolutely right. Brunei is a beautiful country with a warm and welcoming people, and for a long time it has been home to a diversity of races and nationalities. For it to take such a backward step into the darkness, with these horrific proposals for people to be stoned and whipped to death just because of their sexuality, is truly heartbreaking and fundamentally evil. It is also a clear breach of Brunei’s obligations under the Commonwealth charter on human rights. If it presses ahead with the proposals, surely there must be immediate consequences for Brunei’s membership of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has stood for human rights when it comes to democratic abuses in countries such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Gambia, but for far too long it has turned a blind eye to LGBT discrimination in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.
It is time for the Commonwealth to draw a line in the sand on LGBT rights, and that line must be drawn now in relation to Brunei. We cannot be in a situation whereby a Commonwealth country announces plans to stone and whip LGBT people to death and the Commonwealth does nothing.
I thank the Minister of State for his words and I hope they will lead to action, whether that means suspending our support for Brunei’s armed forces or other measures. Above all, I hope it will include calling an immediate meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and agreeing that if Brunei does not drop its proposals it will, with great regret but as a matter of urgency, be suspended from the Commonwealth.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words but also his tone. At a time when so many debates in this House have been very fractious—on matters that we dare not discuss now—it is very important that we are able to unite and work constructively on an issue that is close to the hearts of many of us. On the issue of the garrison, we take very seriously the importance of security in the region, and obviously we are negotiating a range of safeguards for British nationals.
The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was to do with the Commonwealth, so I will touch on that. As he alluded to, the Commonwealth charter states specifically that members are
“opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in London last April, the Prime Minister was absolutely clear:
“Nobody should face discrimination or persecution because of who they are or who they love and the UK stands ready to help any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that makes such discrimination possible.”
I think I should put the issue in context. This is not in any way to justify what is happening specifically in relation to Brunei, but it is worth recognising that 30 Commonwealth member states have the death penalty, four have imposed a full or partial moratorium and 19 have abolished it. Obviously, we are working on trying to increase that number. There are 35 member states that still criminalise consensual same-sex relations, primarily as a result of colonial-era legislation, which does not apply in relation to Brunei, obviously. Since CHOGM 2018, two Commonwealth member states have decriminalised same-sex relationships, namely India and Trinidad and Tobago, which together account for well over 1 billion people. Two member states are able, in principle at least, to impose the death penalty for same-sex relationships. Brunei and some 12 states in the north of Nigeria have adopted elements of sharia law through a component of their legal system. That does not mean, of course, that the death penalty will necessarily be enacted.
Clearly, this is an issue on which we and Commonwealth countries have been working and will continue to do so. We would like to think that progress is being made. I very much agree with the sentiment of the House that the imposition of a sharia penal code is a backward step as far as Brunei is concerned, but progress is being made elsewhere and we will continue to work within the broad international community and the Commonwealth to ensure that countries come on board.
The best way to do that, rather than threatening to kick countries out of the Commonwealth, is to try to hold them close and recognise the strong connections. I would refer, at the individual level, to what the hon. Gentleman said about a close member of his Foreign and Commonwealth team staff, whose heart bleeds to see what is happening in Brunei, as it gives a misleading impression of what is a friendly and generous place. Indeed, the Sultan of Brunei has been a great friend of this country over many years. He has, I think, become a little more devout as he has got older, which is one reason why the sharia code—based, of course, on the Saudi Arabian sharia code—has been put in place. However, I am hopeful that we can continue to have a positive and constructive dialogue on this issue, with Brunei and with a number of countries that we would like to see making changes in future.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Looking around the Chamber, I am reminded of some of the transformations that we have seen over generations, which have now become so normal and were so obviously the right decision. I think in particular of the freedom of women to have a say in our public life and in our private life.
One of the things that we have not yet seen is the normalisation of the equality of love. We do not see it totally in the United Kingdom, in cultural senses, and we do not see it around the world, in areas where we should. We are talking about this today because a friend of the United Kingdom has decided to turn in the wrong direction. I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, and I strongly support the words that he has been using. However, I urge him not just to press harder directly, but to use the regional approach, which he has deployed so successfully in many other circumstances, and talk to our partners and friends in other countries in the area.
Brunei is a country that we feel very warmly towards and that, as he knows more than anyone, has a battalion of Gurkhas who do an enormous amount of work in defending the monarchy and the people there. This is a moment when Brunei could step forward, change its mind and become again a bastion for peace and, in this case, an expression of equality and tolerance, as it has been in so many other areas.
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend, who knows that area of the world well, for his wise words, to which there is little that I can add. For those who have not visited, Brunei is a beautiful country, and it is a matter of regret for us all that this penal code has come on to the statute book. Because of the high bar for proof and the fact that Brunei has a common law stream in its legal system, I am fairly confident that little will happen in this regard. That is one reason why there has been such surprise in Brunei at the international abhorrence that has been expressed. However, we will do our level best, remembering that Brunei has been a strong friend. We want to encourage it to protect and promote values that I hope will become universal.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement. I also thank him and the shadow Minister for their robust denunciation of the tactics now being taken up by the Sultan—and also, I suppose, in some ways by the Government of Brunei—on sharia law and its implementation on a range of issues, not just LGBT issues. I admit that, as a gay man, it comes as no surprise to me that we live in a world in which people of my identity are still stoned, hanged and murdered because of their having sex with someone of the same gender, along with lesbian women, who are to be whipped.
But this is not just about LGBT issues; there are also the amputation laws, which are directed at children, who could face amputation. We need to be very much aware of that, so I wonder whether the Minister can say something about that. There are also a range of issues around religious freedom in Brunei, or the reduction of it, so I could not stand here and not call for more robust action, in particular through the Commonwealth. The shadow Minister mentioned the Commonwealth, and the fact that we are now at a moment when Commonwealth 2.0 rhetoric is being deployed by many in this place should not be missed either.
We also need to be clear that Brunei is one of 35 states in the Commonwealth where being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is illegal. Indeed, the states that do not criminalise their LGBT citizens are in the profound minority. Given that the Scottish National party’s Westminster group has the largest number of LGBT Members in this place, I am sure that it will come as no surprise that we will be unbending in our support for the fundamental human rights that are enshrined in European institutions—and this country is, at present, a member of the European Union.
Let me make it clear that while many Members may see a return to the days of laissez-faire economics and mercantilism as some sort of liberation, SNP Members will be looking very carefully at the way in which the Government deal with this issue through the institutions of the Commonwealth, with which they claim to have great influence.
Let me ask the Minister some direct questions. Will the Government ensure that they register their strongest objections through the Secretary General of the Commonwealth? Will they consider asking for Brunei’s suspension from the Commonwealth in line with the suspension of Zimbabwe, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) —not expulsion but suspension, until it gets its act together? Finally, will they protect the rights of members of the armed forces, who, if they are also members of the LGBT community, should not have to go to a place like Brunei and put themselves in direct danger?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. Obviously, we will take this matter up with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth. Let me say a little about the broader Commonwealth position on LGBT rights, given the context that we have both discussed: more than half the members of the Commonwealth have, on their statute books, at least, what we regard as discriminatory legislation.
Using UK funding, the Equality & Justice Alliance is working to create a fairer, more equal and more inclusive Commonwealth for the LGBT community and, more widely, for women and girls. The project involves creating a cross-Commonwealth network and high-level champions, and the alliance is offering technical assistance with the reform of laws that discriminate against, or fail to protect, women and girls and LGBT individuals. We will also take action through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. It is currently chaired by Kenya but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are members by virtue of our having been the Commonwealth Chair-in-Office since last April. That, I think, will provide a space for some very sensitive discussions, which—I hope—will in turn allow discreet engagement through, for instance, the good offices of the Secretary General.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
As the Minister will recall, I raised this issue during Foreign Office questions on Tuesday. What struck me about his reply to my topical question then, and what strikes me now, is the utter paucity of any proposed Government action. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an explanation.
First, when were we aware that this proposal was coming down the track? It is not just about LGBT citizens. A third of the Bruneian population are not Muslim, and plainly the problem of death for apostasy presents a significant threat to anyone who professes a new belief, in a society in which many different belief systems are present. We have heard about the barbaric practices of amputation and the imposition of the death penalty for adultery. I take no comfort from my right hon. Friend’s reference to the requirement for a certain number of witnesses of those crimes, as confessions are obtained rather more easily in such circumstances.
This is an utter affront. We knew that it was coming, so why did we not divert it? What exactly are we going to do to ensure that Brunei at least pays a price that can be paid? It will not be paid through loss of its membership of the Commonwealth, given that two thirds of Commonwealth states still have anti-LGBT laws on their statute books.
Mark Field
The sharia criminal law came into being in 2014, and at that point—and certainly when I was in the country last summer—we were well aware that we were heading down a path towards the sharia penal code. We have tried to warn the Bruneian authorities throughout my time as a Minister, and possibly for some time before that.
I reiterate that the new sharia penal code does not supplant the existing common law, which will apply in most cases, and obviously to non-Muslims in Brunei. The burden of proof for conviction under sharia is incredibly high, and there will be no new intrusive efforts at enforcement. However, I understand the frustrations that my hon. Friend has expressed. I can only say that we have tried to give warnings through the diplomatic network, and that the international outcry caused by the imposition of a penal code has probably come as a surprise to many in Brunei. We will continue to make those diplomatic representations. As I have said, I personally take the view that it would be better to try to keep the country within the Commonwealth, and to make the necessary changes through some of the initiatives that we have in play, than to issue threats of expulsion.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend—who takes a robust view on these and, indeed, many other matters—feels that we have been light and lily-livered. I can only reassure him that, certainly during my time as a Minister, we have been aware of the concerns that were coming down the track, and have done our level best to advise Brunei accordingly.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is important to note that as well as punishing the other so-called crimes that have been mentioned—obviously they are not crimes—the sharia law prohibits women from having abortions, for which they are subjected to violent punishments, even though that is surely a health matter, and adultery, which is surely a private matter.
Article 1 of the United Nations convention against torture prohibits the use of intentionally inflicted pain as a form of punishment inflicted by a state actor. Brunei is a signatory to the convention, but has not implemented it. We have done so, and we are bound by article 3, which prohibits refoulement. That means that we should not return, expel or extradite anyone to another country if there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel punishment. What discussions is the Minister having with his counterparts in other Departments about ensuring that we are abiding by the principle of article 3?
Mark Field
I know that the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this matter in Westminster Hall. Perhaps I will have a second bite of the cherry if, in discussing some of the technical issues, I do not get it right this time round.
This matter is currently being dealt with through the Foreign Office network rather than through other Departments. Clearly, however, in the light of the UK’s international obligations, it will need to be discussed more widely—with the Ministry of Defence in particular, given the number of UK citizens and Gurkhas who are in the garrison.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
ISIS pushes gay people off buildings, and now Brunei is threatening to stone gay people to death. Will the United Kingdom take the lead in the Commonwealth in making it clear that such punishments are simply incompatible with Commonwealth membership?
Mark Field
As I have said, at the Heads of Government meeting in London last April the Prime Minister could not have made clearer where we stood on these issues. As I have also said, we have tried to work constructively to ensure that changes are made to out-of-date legislation, some of which dates from the colonial era. Progress has clearly been made, although perhaps not as rapidly as some Members would like. I believe that trying to utilise the carrot rather than the stick may be the right approach at this stage.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving me prior sight of his statement, and I welcome the tone that he has taken in recognising the inhumanity of these laws. However, I am disappointed by his willingness to accept that the bar may be set high for convictions, and that that might be acceptable. The fact of the law, and the threat of the law to people who are LGBT or young people who might be coping with recognising their own sexuality, are surely unacceptable.
Further to the comments that have already been made, may I plead with the Minister to try to take action through the Commonwealth? We should never forget that it was not an international outcry but action that defeated apartheid, and perhaps action is what we need here now.
Mark Field
I am not sure that the hon. Lady was in the Chamber at the very second when I was praising her. I knew that she had tried twice to secure an urgent question, and I thought that rather than her being disappointed by the Speaker on a third occasion, there should be a statement. I thank her for her kind words, but I too accept that action is needed. I am not trying to belittle the seriousness of the situation, but I am trying to put in context the likelihood of any of these punishments actually being carried out. It is a sharia penal code that has been introduced. But the hon. Lady makes a strong point, and we will try to work closely with the Commonwealth. She drew a comparison with apartheid; I am not saying we should do anything other than have a sense of urgency, but equally sometimes in international affairs there has to be patience. One need only look at the transformation in this country: we are not all the way there, but there has been a transformation in LGBT rights in this country even in my adulthood over the past 30 years. While I understand the frustrations many have in wanting to see all these things achieved immediately, equally sometimes we have to be patient and move in the right direction. I believe we are in a position to do that, but I will make sure the Commonwealth secretary-general is made well aware of the concerns raised in the House today.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The reason, I suggest, why this House cares so much about the introduction of the sharia penal code in Brunei is partly that the kingdom of Brunei is a long-standing ally and Commonwealth partner, and therefore this is a great disappointment to us all, but partly too because Brunei becomes the first country in east or south-east Asia to introduce the sharia penal code. While the trend in the Commonwealth and the world in general is to liberalise—indeed, that is what the Commonwealth charter counts on all members to do—this is a step in the opposite direction. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether he has any concerns that the introduction of this penal code in Brunei could have an effect on other countries with majority Muslim populations in the region?
Mark Field
My hon. Friend makes a good and wise point. There are obviously other countries in that region with majority Muslim populations, but there is possibly also a sense that there is an exception in the case of the Sultanate of Brunei: as my hon. Friend will be well aware, the connections between it and Saudi Arabian and Qatari doctrine are quite profound. But he makes a good point: whereas on related issues we have made significant progress, we should all be very wary of the fact that there could be a backward movement.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman or indeed of Her Majesty’s Government; as he says, nobody should face punishment for who they are or whom they love. However, this situation does set up real difficulties for this country and our relationship with such a country, because of course it is entirely possible that we will have an LGBT member of HMG visiting Brunei on official business; how will we cope with that?
I remember the movement against apartheid, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman remembers it as well from his childhood; it started when the South African regime refused to allow Basil D’Oliveira to play cricket in South Africa. What is our attitude going to be if the Brunei regime starts to make concerns felt about having LGBT members of our armed forces serving in Brunei? We cannot have a sensible relationship with a country that refuses to accept that some people are the way they are, and I feel strongly that the Government need to do more.
May I also add that I believe the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) when she was talking about people seeking asylum in this country? I believe the right hon. Gentleman needs to have a serious conversation with the Home Office—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We still have a lot of business to get through this afternoon, including a heavily subscribed debate coming next, so I urge Members to ask short questions, and hopefully they will receive short answers as well.
Mark Field
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I very much respect the hon. Gentleman’s heartfelt concerns. I hope I did not misunderstand what was said earlier; it was on a Home Office matter, and we have not been able to discuss it at length with that Department. He makes a valid point, however, but anyone who goes to Brunei will recognise what a welcoming and open place it appears to be, and that seems so at odds with the idea of having a sharia penal code with all of the potential punishments in place. However, please be assured that we will not be complacent about this matter and will try to ensure that we get some progress along the lines suggested by Members.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for repeatedly raising concerns regarding these laws with the Government of Brunei. The penal code introduced in Brunei is nothing less than barbaric. What more can the British Government do to put pressure on the Government of Brunei and ensure the strength of opposition from across the world to the introduction of this punishment is felt?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The sheer strength of expression here, both in the press and in Parliament, will I think make a strong impression in itself. We will make sure our counterparts, and in particular our high commissioner Richard Lindsay, are made well aware of the universal strength of opinion on this matter and the desire to ensure that we regularise our relations with Brunei partly by seeing genuine progress amidst the concerns raised here today.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), and wish to express my own grave concerns about these changes to the penal code in respect of both stoning and amputation. As hon. Members have rightly outlined, this affects not only the LGBT community but potentially many young vulnerable children and women in particular. Will the Government continue to exercise their diplomatic and foreign policy efforts in condemning these practices, and at every opportunity call on Brunei to ensure its human rights obligations are upheld? It is shocking and barbaric that in 2019 people can be stoned to death for who they love, so I call on the Minister to simply make every effort possible to bring Brunei into compliance.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for her words, and I agree. It is important to stress that these threats against what seem like minorities are actually threats to us all—threats to the liberty of all of us. That is the single most important message we will endeavour to get across.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and fully endorse the actions he says he will take. Can he advise the House on what he will do to proactively engage with international allies, partners and organisations beyond the Commonwealth to lobby Brunei to reverse this abhorrent decision?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend. In part we will try to work with a number of the countries that have already expressed grave concerns. Brunei has a number of other trading partners in the EU and elsewhere, and we will try to work together with them and within international organisations such as the United Nations. I will leave it at that, but we are trying to put together some sort of plan and may well say a little more at the Westminster Hall debate next Wednesday.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his unqualified condemnation of these actions by the Brunei Government—these appalling new punishments that are an attack on the LBGT+ community and indeed on vulnerable men, women and children—but can we go further than words? We need to put our money where our mouth is. The Minister was on a trade visit to Brunei in August last year, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the British trade envoy to Brunei, was on a trade trip to Brunei at the end of last year. We have open trade talks with the Brunei Government; can we not just bring those to an end as a very clear signal that we will put our support for human rights and our opposition to human rights abuses above trade links, Brexit or no Brexit?
Mark Field
In fairness, my visit last year was more to do with the broader diplomatic relationship, which is extremely strong. It will sadden many people who know Brunei or have Bruneian blood, and who recognise how strong that relationship is, that this outrage has come forth over the last couple of days over this issue. We do not import hydrocarbons from Brunei, although obviously it is a big oil nation, but we believe having open and honest discussions—rather than going down the route of boycotts, for example—is the best way to encourage Brunei to uphold its international human rights obligations and respect individual freedoms. The people-to-people connection is also important. I am very proud of the fact that we have had a good track record of achieving scholarships—getting young Bruneians to come to the UK. Perhaps that is one of the best ways of their understanding the different, but none the less positive, values we have in this country and returning to perhaps a play a role in public life in that country.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am very concerned about the implications for the safety of British nationals who are either in Brunei or planning to visit Brunei, following the shocking introduction of these barbaric and retrograde laws. The Minister has said a little bit about the travel advice that has been provided, but may I press him on that? What is the advice now, and how can he be satisfied that British nationals will indeed be protected?
Mark Field
The travel advice obviously changed when it became evident that the penal code was likely to come into play. It simply explains that there is a penal code and that, under that code, certain behaviours could lead to a variety of punishments. We have raised, and will continue to raise, our specific concerns with the Government of Brunei. Hitherto, we have received reassurances that the common law, rather than sharia law, will continue to be the primary means of administering justice in Brunei. We shall continue to provide consular support to any British nationals, as needed. Some British nationals are working there, some are in the garrison, and others are visiting the country.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
When the right to choose who you love and to be who you are is taken away, other rights, including the right to believe in and follow your own God, quickly follow in being taken away. I welcome the Minister’s statement today. Will he make it clear to the Brunei Government that this is not about being devout, but that it is about being completely misguided?
Mark Field
I think we will try to find slightly more diplomatic language than that. We understand that a sharia code is in play, and that some in Brunei hold that close to their hearts, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point. We obviously want to see the universality of our values, and that is what we in the international community will continue to press for.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell us what can be done to champion the virtues of giving people equal rights? When these rights are denied, it is not just a loss for the individual; it is a loss for society as a whole. We have only to look at our own history to see the denial of the rights of individuals such as Alan Turing, and to see the impact that that had not only on our local communities but on our entire nation. Imagine how much further forward computing would be if we had not sterilised him and pushed him towards the destiny that he ended up fulfilling. How do we champion these rights internationally and pull people towards our vision of a more liberal society, so that individuals and society as a whole can benefit?
Mark Field
Amid all the frenzy of what is going on at the moment in British political life, it is worth remembering that just over 100 years ago, the big issue was the right of women to vote. It now seems absurd to us that there even needed to be a debate about that. Many women are now legislators, and we have had two women Prime Ministers in the past 100 years. Hopefully there will be a few more to come. Equality has to be recognised, whether it is gender equality or equality in many other fields, not just for a country to fulfil its potential economically but for the fulfilment of the potential of all individuals. To be fair, we and many of our partners try to get that message across, and we will continue to do so.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that this has taken a little bit longer than we might all have hoped. I thank everyone for their contribution; it has been wonderful to see such unity across the House. I can see that my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), is in the Chamber, and it is his birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] He must have better things to do than being in the House of Commons on his birthday.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister, my next-door neighbour, for his best wishes, but it is very unkind of him to tell the whole world that it is my birthday—but at 67, I am still here.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you for that point of order.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to tell my fellow West Ham supporting friend that there is nothing wrong with being 67, but I am glad that he has got there a bit before me.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is nice to see an outbreak of good humour in the Chamber.
Loan Charge
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House expresses its serious concern at the 2019 Loan Charge which applies from 5 April 2019; expresses deep concern and regret about the effect of the mental and emotional impact on people facing the Loan Charge; is further concerned about suicides of people facing the Loan Charge and the identified suicide risk, which was reported to HMRC; believes that the Loan Charge is fundamentally unfair and undermines the principle of the rule of law by overriding statutory taxpayer protections; expresses disappointment at the lack of notice served by HMRC and the delays in communication with those now facing the Loan Charge, which has further increased anxiety of individuals and families; is concerned about the nature and accuracy of the information circulated by HMRC with regard to the Loan Charge; further regrets the inadequate impact assessment originally conducted; understands that many individuals have received miscalculated settlement information; calls for an immediate suspension of the Loan Charge for a period of six months and for all related settlements to be put on hold; and further calls for an independent inquiry into the Loan Charge to be conducted by a party that is not connected with either the Government or HMRC.
I want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to bring forward this important debate. I also want to thank the members of the all-party parliamentary loan charge group for all their work and the many colleagues who have added their names to the motion before us today. The urgency of today’s debate cannot be overstated. As of tomorrow, tens of thousands of people and their families will face the huge cost, both physical and emotional, of the loan charge. HMRC has yet to show any regard to the enormous pain that this legislation has already inflicted on thousands of people across the country.
I represent Aberdeen South, which is Europe’s energy hub and the very heart of the UK’s oil and gas industry, and my surgeries have been inundated with people who are concerned about the damage that the loan charge will have on their financial security. Many of my constituents working in the oil and gas industry were actively encouraged by their companies and professional advisers to enter into these schemes, without a single peep from HMRC, and some did so for many years. The oil and gas industry is just one of many that has long relied on the hard work of contractors as a crucial element of its supply chains. These contractors provide a hugely valuable workforce, and concerns over the loan charge have driven away many of those who have worked in the industry and will deter people from contracting in the future. HMRC should be in no doubt this will be bad for business, bad for public finances and bad for the country.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I echo my hon. Friend’s praise for the good work of the all-party parliamentary group on this. I am sure that he will come on to talk about retrospection. When my constituents approach me about this, the strongest point they make is that HMRC allowed these schemes to run for very many years and then disallowed them retrospectively, all the way back to the beginning, which is why the potential losses are so great. Does he agree that that is one of the worst aspects of what is happening?
Ross Thomson
I could not have worded it better myself. Having been part of the all-party parliamentary group’s inquiry, and having looked into the retrospective effect of the legislation, I am even more convinced that what is happening is wrong. People coming into my surgeries are quite happy that the Government legislate to change things if they believe them to be wrong, but they are concerned that the Government are going back in history in this way, as am I.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), is always meticulously courteous in his replies, and the Treasury has consistently taken the view that this is technically not retrospective. However, our constituents do not live in a technical world; they live in the real world, and this is causing them real distress.
Ross Thomson
I endorse what my right hon. Friend says about our Minister and good friend on the Treasury Bench, but he is right to say that our constituents have real concerns about the way in which HMRC has behaved, and about its tone and attitude. I will say more about that in my speech.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has today sent us some warm words about the lengths to which HMRC is going to accommodate those who have fallen foul of these arrangements, but today in The Times there is a report of tax inspectors putting pressure on people to pay up ahead of time, even beyond the arrangements that have been agreed.
Ross Thomson
My right hon. Friend is right. The all-party parliamentary group’s inquiry took a lot of evidence on the impact that the policy will have. The behaviour of some, particularly on the Government side, is making people feel like criminals, and this has driven them to a place where they feel broken, mentally and emotionally. I am glad that this is being reported, and we need to continue to highlight it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Many of my constituents have got in touch and met me personally to express their distress and concern about the impact of the loan charge. Given that the inquiry by the APPG, of which he is a member, found that more than two thirds of those affected feared that their family relationships were breaking down, does he agree that the Minister must assure our constituents today that HMRC will support them with manageable repayments so that no one needs to be made bankrupt? Does he also agree that it is absolutely ridiculous that Her Majesty’s Treasury has downgraded the promised review of the loan charge to a report, as provisionally agreed by the House?
Ross Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his constituents will be grateful to him for raising their concerns in the Chamber. I will refer to some of my constituents later on, because this matter is causing genuine concern, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will be listening to the various cases throughout the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ross Thomson
I will take one more intervention before I make a little more progress.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In normal times, I think it would be considered even more important and taken even more seriously than it is being taken today. Does he share my concern that some of HMRC’s language seems totally tone deaf? Its factsheet says that it has
“no desire to make things difficult for taxpayers, and will always take a fair and even-handed approach to those who genuinely want to settle their affairs.”
That is the opposite of the experience of some of my constituents who, based on good faith and professional advice, are being punished retrospectively and face utter ruin.
Ross Thomson
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend sums the situation up well. This is not just about HMRC being tone deaf, because I have found through my interactions with constituents that it has also been tin eared. I must admit that I am deeply concerned by some of the tactics that have been employed and how some normal people have been made to feel. It is not right at all.
Ross Thomson
I will make a little more progress, but I am keen to take as many interventions as possible.
Nobody should be in any doubt that the loan charge has left people living in genuine fear of losing their homes, being unable to care for their families, and seeing their life’s work reduced to less than nothing. As we debate this matter, it should not be lost on us that many of those affected and their families will be watching this Chamber today, and they will listen closely to the Government’s response.
I want to put it on the record at this point that we live in a time when politics is heated and is becoming more personal than ever before, and we have seen some disturbing consequences for some colleagues in this House as a result. However, I must make it clear that I have found the Financial Secretary to the Treasury incredibly helpful, supportive, engaging, and willing to listen to my concerns.
This debate has come about following the efforts of Members from across the House and the many campaigners fighting this injustice. The all-party parliamentary loan charge group recently launched a report following a long inquiry, and I commend it to Members because it contains truly worrying, emotional and harrowing responses.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some good points, which I do have sympathy with having met people in this situation. However, we must remember that if anyone using one of these schemes had gone to hospital, they would have expected not to wait any longer or less than anybody else who pays their taxes. These schemes were taken up because people wanted to reduce the tax they were paying. We must remember all the other taxpayers who pay their taxes legitimately without this kind of professional advice.
Ross Thomson
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. He talks about the legitimate paying of taxes, and I will touch on that later in my speech. The people who entered into such schemes, whether they were in oil and gas, social care or healthcare, did so legitimately and because they were advised to do so. Some did so because their employers asked them to.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time and is making some excellent points. Something that struck me from the correspondence that I have received from constituents is that they were often advised by accountants to enter into arrangements that would allow them to take home a large proportion of their income, and they were told that that was not illegal, that it was totally above board, and that any tax liabilities would lie with the employer, not the employee. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with people who were acting in good faith and yet feel that they are now being penalised.
Ross Thomson
I cannot add much more to that, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the situation in which some people find themselves is that the advice was given so long ago that the opportunity to seek redress from advisers who gave negligent advice may have gone? Those advisers may now be out of business or otherwise unavailable for litigation.
Ross Thomson
I echo my hon. Friend’s point. He is right that many of those who gave advice seem to have disappeared.
Ross Thomson
I will take an intervention from the other side of the Chamber first.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and is capturing the mood on both sides of the House. Over 200 people in my constituency are affected by the loan charge, and the situation is unfair because the affairs were fully declared on their tax returns. HMRC was aware of what was happening. There was no attempt to hide. To characterise this as tax avoidance retrospectively seems wholly unjust.
Ross Thomson
The hon. Gentleman is right about HMRC being aware, because people even had to fill out disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, or DOTAS, forms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ross Thomson
I will take one more intervention and then make a little more progress.
Mr Robertson
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), not only may advisers have gone out of business, but there is a legal disjoint here. As I understand it, if someone were to seek redress, they can go back only six years, or maybe nine years if they have only just become aware of the problem, whereas HMRC is going back 20 years. There is a big difference between how they are being pursued and how they can obtain redress.
Ross Thomson
My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether he has read today’s Financial Times, which has a good article about the effects of retrospection and how some of the legal safeguards for taxpayers that ensure continuity in tax affairs are being broken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ross Thomson
I will make a little more progress, but I will take some more interventions.
I was talking about the APPG’s report. Of the 1,768 responses received by the APPG, nearly a third of people have received no information whatsoever from HMRC about the loan charge. That flies directly in the face of HMRC’s repeated claims that people were given three years’ notice of the impending changes to legislation. A similar number of respondents also believe that they have no possible means of settling their case with HMRC. The Government are leaving them to face bankruptcy—a fate facing more than half those affected. I receive new stories from constituents every day detailing the pain that they and their families are enduring with the threat of the loan charge hanging over them.
Ross Thomson
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, and I will then take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord).
Joseph Johnson
I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the Minister, who has always been assiduous and diligent in all his dealings with me on this matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in leading the APPG inquiry, but does he agree that the time has come for HMRC to acknowledge that we must now have an independent inquiry led by an experienced tax judge?
Ross Thomson
I wholeheartedly agree. That is what today’s motion calls for, because it is the best way of giving our constituents certainty.
Dr Offord
In Hendon, 170 of my constituents have been affected by the charge, but many of them entered into the scheme in good faith. Just two weeks ago, a constituent came to see me at one of my surgeries, and she had been sent a bill by HMRC for £91,000, but it was revised down to £41,000 when she challenged it. There seems to be some discrepancy between the bills and the discretion that HMRC is showing in withdrawing its request for moneys.
Ross Thomson
My hon. Friend makes a good point that forms part of the evidence that we have gathered from the inquiry. It is deeply concerning that many of the demands sent to constituents have been miscalculated by HMRC, and that must be addressed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ross Thomson
I will make some progress, but I will take some more interventions before I finish.
I receive stories from constituents every day detailing the pain that they and their families are enduring with the threat of the loan charge hanging over them. That is why we are here today, because it is about real people and real lives, not just lines on a spreadsheet.
One of my constituents recently wrote to me:
“The Loan Charge has very likely cost me my marriage and I stand to lose everything. I cannot believe that this is happening.”
That is far from an isolated case, and I am sure Members on both sides of the House have had similar stories from their constituents. The loan charge is breaking apart families before us, yet HMRC has remained both intransigent and tin-eared.
I have a simple request today: the Government should place the loan charge on hold to investigate the true impact these changes will have on countless families across the country. I have heard from colleagues who believe that those involved in such schemes are somehow devious, mega-wealthy people, but one constituent, at the end of a career working in health and social care, recently attended my surgery and told me of his guilt because he feels he has let his family down.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I am deeply aware of this. The all-party group took evidence from a family whose father had committed suicide. If the House will indulge me, I received this email from a constituent:
“I find all this massively worrying and stressful and I try not to discuss with my wife otherwise she would feel the same. At times I have considered suicide but realise that that will help no one and impact my family most.”
The loan charge is having a terrible effect on people’s mental health, isn’t it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. A lot of people want to speak this afternoon, and I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) will bear that in mind.
Ross Thomson
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). We have all heard harrowing testimony in our constituencies. My constituent talked about the stress and anxiety keeping him awake at night and his fear for his family’s future. He cannot escape the fear brought about by a crippling demand from HMRC that will leave him unable even to keep a roof over his family’s heads. He went on to say that the loan charge has removed all joy from his life, leaving him unable to concentrate on everyday tasks or even to enjoy time with his wife and young children.
My hon. Friends and I are proud of this Government’s record on mental health. However, we will jeopardise that hard work if we continue this cold approach to people in our communities who face this charge.
Ross Thomson
Sorry, but I will continue to make progress.
This story is far from unique. More stories emerge every day from people who fear the break-up of their family and a future devoid of opportunities as they face lifelong payments to cover HMRC demands.
Another constituent wrote to me recently about his long work in oil and gas and how he has experienced the highs and lows of the industry for decades, but he told me that HMRC is now demanding nearly £200,000, dating back two decades:
“I am 59 in July this year, I have no assets, I will have 5 or 6 years of working life left, assuming that I get to work, even if I am lucky enough to secure a job for that period, trying to pay that amount of money really is mission impossible.”
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ross Thomson
Apologies, but I will make progress so that others can speak in this debate.
My constituent is facing financial ruin at the end of his long career in the oil and gas industry, which has seen him work hard during boom and bust. HMRC is turning a lifetime of work to nothing, delivering my constituent a bigger blow than the oil market ever could. It cannot be ignored that over half of those who responded to the APPG inquiry believe these changes will place their chosen career in danger. The loan charge is driving people away from industries in which they have long played an important part. This is intolerable.
I fear there has been a complete breakdown in trust between the people and the authorities that are responsible for upholding the rule of law. It is a sad reality that this breakdown in trust will not end with those who have been directly affected by the loan charge scandal. There will instead be lasting damage to the trust that the people of this country have long had in the very institutions they expect to serve them fairly. The stories I have shared today are but a drop in the ocean compared with the number affected. Each person acted in good faith, and each of them has been let down by HMRC. The fact that the Government continue to pursue the loan charge, without hesitation or thought for those who will be affected for the rest of their lives, greatly saddens me.
Many of the people who now find themselves facing retrospective charges were simply acting on the professional advice of employers and advisers. The tax arrangements that these individuals entered into were presented as entirely legal, legitimate and HMRC-compliant financial planning. None of us objects to people paying a fair share of tax. Indeed, we should be doing more to crack down on those complicit in tax evasion. However, that is not the case here.
HMRC is seeking to claw back tax and is breaking legal safeguards that ensure fairness. Those safeguards include time limits, and the Treasury Committee heard evidence from the president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, Ray McCann:
“In reality, the retrospective effect actually displaces all the protections that taxpayers are given by Parliament in terms of getting certainty for their affairs”.
The behaviour of HMRC to date has greatly concerned me, and I know other colleagues will elaborate further.
Simply put, HMRC has demonstrated it is willing to pursue individuals for settlement, driving them into bankruptcy, breaking families apart and destroying hope for financial security in old age. HMRC has blatantly gone after the softest target—individuals who have the least to defend themselves—while largely ignoring those who are most culpable in proliferating these schemes.
Members will be aware that a number of people have now taken their life as a direct consequence of being unfairly pursued by HMRC. As part of the APPG inquiry, we heard the most harrowing, powerful and emotive evidence I have ever heard. The Government have been made aware of the risk that we will only see more cases of this nature, yet they have continued to refuse to halt settlements. The Government have the power to do something about this, and they have the ability to ease the suffering, pain and distress felt by so many. However, they have yet to do so. I hope the Minister will say that the Government are willing to change course. Our request is not onerous. A six-month delay and a review is not the end of the world for the Treasury, but a failure to do this is the end of the world for thousands of people across the country.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in urging the Government, once again, to halt settlements and urgently to bring forward an independent review of the loan charge. Failure to do so would continue to put lives at risk, would break families apart and would fuel distrust in our institutions. Trust in the rule of law and our democratic system is at stake.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues can see, a number of people want to participate in this debate. I will start with an eight-minute time limit.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who has so comprehensively put the case today. I congratulate him, other hon. Members and the Backbench Business Committee on allowing us to have this debate, which has clearly captured the attention of Members because it is very heavily subscribed, as Madam Deputy Speaker has observed.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this is about real people and real lives, not names on a spreadsheet. We should remain focused on that. I have serious concerns about the effect that the introduction of the loan charge is having on my constituents. Although my constituency cases are small in number, they are huge in impact. I am the first to say that people should pay their taxes and that tax avoidance is wrong and should be stopped, and I am grateful that HMRC and the Treasury are taking steps to address tax avoidance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I very much agree with him. The biggest problem is the loan charge’s retrospective nature, because the tax situation, the way in which we pay tax and the attitude towards tax have changed so much over the years. Many people entered into these loan arrangements in good faith and, of course, they were brought on by the employer, not the employee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said, a tax judge needs to look at this because it is wrong to ask people to pay massive amounts of money retrospectively.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman makes the point clearly; the retrospective element is particularly disturbing. I am concerned that a small number of ordinary working people who are not millionaires with broad shoulders, but who are on average incomes and have acted in good faith, are being hit by significant tax penalties implemented in the most unfair manner.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nic Dakin
I will make a bit of progress.
I have seen HMRC’s briefing pack on the loan charge, and I note the line in bold that says:
“HMRC has never approved tax avoidance schemes.”
I am glad to hear that, but I am not sure in this case whether I completely believe it, because when this law was passed in 2017, it applied a retrospective tax going all the way back to 1999. Notwithstanding the trouble with retrospective law in general, 18 years is a very long time to disapprove of something but not say that or act to fix it. The reality is that, by HMRC not speaking out or acting to prevent these loan schemes from being used for 18 years, while it did not give explicit approval, it certainly gave implicit acceptance.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. At best, HMRC was woefully slow on this. Does he agree that, even at that late stage, the Treasury could have sorted this out when it accepted the amendment to the Finance Bill tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) in February by undertaking a proper review of this, so that it does not have the impact on individuals that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) have talked about? It is woeful that HMRC and the Treasury did not conduct a thorough review, and that is why we need a proper, independent investigation.
Nic Dakin
I tend to agree with my hon. Friend, but fortunately the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a good Minister, and I echo the comments made about him. I am sure he will respond in a positive way to the debate and that we can anticipate positive moves that will reassure people.
It is easy to see why people such as tax accountants, employers and even my constituents who were employed under these schemes and told they could not be employed otherwise thought it was okay to use these schemes—they believed they were perfectly legal.
Lee Ashcroft, who is one of my constituents impacted by the loan charge, is an engineer in the construction industry. He is a normal working man who happened to find himself, through no fault of his own, in a sector where businesses contracting workers obliged them to enter into these schemes if they wanted to work. To Mr Ashcroft, these schemes seemed unfair because there was no holiday pay or sick pay, but they seemed perfectly legal. He was told that they were perfectly legal by the company he worked for and by advisers with whom he checked it out.
Mr Ashcroft needed to work and accepted that this was the deal. He tells me that, in relation to £6,500 in loan payments, HMRC expects him to agree to settle a bill of £25,500—money he clearly does not have. He strongly disputes the amount he has to pay, which is vastly in excess of what he earned, but the clock is ticking. If he does not enter into an arrangement to pay by the upcoming deadline, he will be expected to pay the full amount with fines added on top. He is being forced to make an impossible decision: accept paying a huge bill that he thinks has been miscalculated and is morally wrong, or try to get HMRC to re-evaluate what he owes, and if he is unsuccessful, he will have to pay the full amount with fines on top. Either way, it will have a life-changing impact on his prosperity. Given the amount of worry that this has caused him, I think it has already had a life-changing impact, and Members will have stories of other constituents whose lives have been turned upside down by this.
It is unclear to me why HMRC is going after Mr Ashcroft in the first place. After all, it was his employer who forced people into these schemes. It is the employer who has benefited financially from this, yet it is the employees who are being left to pick up the tab, after HMRC waited 18 years to collect it and now wants it all in one dollop. These advanced payment notices are being relentlessly pursued by HMRC with no independent right of appeal. That does not seem to be playing fair.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the most iniquitous aspects of this is the fact that the promoters of these schemes are not being pursued. Does he know of any who have been prosecuted to date?
Nic Dakin
I do not know the details, but I think the Financial Secretary will be able to update us on that when he responds, and I think that that is being looked at. The reality is that people who wanted work were pretty much forced to go into these schemes, which they believed, having checked them out, were perfectly reasonable and legal. Many years later, they are picking up a big tab that does not seem to equate to the money they got at the time, but seems much bigger.
Nic Dakin
No, I will complete my speech, because other Members need to speak.
Another of my constituents, Jonathan Davidson, told me:
“The loan charge continues to be a real worry to myself and my family. HMRC have only now”—
this is a couple of weeks ago—
“advised me of the actual settlement figures which are much higher than my expectations, as such I am being forced out of retirement even though my health is not great and I am now actively looking for employment.”
That is an example of what is happening to real people’s lives. For all my constituents affected, this issue is causing severe emotional and financial distress, which HMRC is neglecting and not taking note of. It is behaving as though it does not understand that this is about real people’s lives. This is serious and should not be minimised. This is having a devastating impact on people’s lives, and the distress is very real.
HMRC’s actions are also self-defeating, as they will undoubtedly push ordinary working people into bankruptcy, restricting HMRC’s ability to recover these tax liabilities. That does not seem very sensible, and it will create pressures on the public purse in other areas. We need some common sense—I see the Financial Secretary as the personification of common sense. It is time for the Government to pause the loan charge and think again about the best way forward, which should be fair to the Exchequer but also fair to honest working people who believed they were doing the right thing and have unfortunately—and, for many, unavoidably—been caught up in these schemes.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is a near neighbour of mine. He and I represent seats in the north of England that are not full of city slickers and billionaires avoiding taxes with expensive lawyers. I pay tribute to the APPG for the work it has done on this, representing constituents up and down the country who have suffered dreadfully under this arrangement.
US Supreme Court Judge Marshall once said,
“the power to tax involves the power to destroy”.
This, I am afraid, is a good example of that—a tax policy that is destroying families, homes, mental health and even lives.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a pivotal point. This is a deeply un-Conservative action by a Conservative Government. Surely the mood of the House is clear: nobody wants to see this loan charge implemented. It is devastating people’s lives, and the Government need to act immediately.
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am not going to make a political point out of this, but I will make a policy point. When I was the Public Accounts Committee Chairman 20 years ago, it would not be true to say that the Inland Revenue behaved like a charity. It was always pretty tough, but in the last 20 years it seems to me that the exercise of its judgment has become more and more oriented to cash and less to justice. That is what we are addressing today. Part of the reason for that is that successive Chancellors have blurred the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion, one of which is illegal and one of which is a matter of judgment. That has put a huge burden on HMRC’s judgment, so that we see it effectively making the law through its judgment and in ways that are deleterious to our constituents.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case about how the tax system is developing and about the issue of justice. Does he agree with me that there are a number of people in this situation whose employers came up with schemes and they had no choice but to sign up to them? In some cases, they left the employment of these companies decades ago and are being pursued for funds, but the employers can actually wash their hands of the whole thing. It is not just for them to be pursued retrospectively, and it was not fair for them to have no choice but to sign up to schemes if they wanted to be employed by such a company.
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come back to that point in a second.
This also rests on this point of judgment: how does an ordinary lay person forecast what HMRC will decide in 10 or 20 years’ time? We see this—unlike others, I am not going to butter up the Treasury Bench today—even in the responses of Ministers in previous debates and even in the letter we received from the Financial Secretary this morning. He talked about the reason for the definition of this scheme, and said it was for the
“sole purpose of avoiding tax”.
Well, I have news for the House: I have at least a couple of ISAs—individual savings accounts—which are there for the sole purpose of avoiding tax. Are they now illegal? Is that the criterion we should apply? Well, plainly not.
There is a real issue about the approach of HMRC, and I am going to be rather harder than the all-party group in my recommendations. I think it is being just a little bit too reasonable, and I will come back to that in a second. [Interruption.] I think a number of Conservative colleagues are threatening to sue me for calling the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) reasonable.
Before I come to my main point, I want to go back to the report on this subject carried out by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. We all have very emotional cases impacting on our judgment, but we cannot say that about the House of Lords. The House of Lords looked at this incredibly dispassionately. Its Members do not have constituents, so they can in a way be viewed as much more dispassionate than us. Let me remind the House of a few of the Committee’s findings.
The Committee found that the Public Bill Committee for the Finance (No. 2) Bill in 2017
“did not adequately scrutinise the loan charge.”
That is incredibly important for something that will be retrospective, but it did not properly scrutinise the loan charge. I think it was spoken about only by the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, and by nobody else.
The Committee said that many witnesses told it that they had joined these schemes—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah)—without being aware of HMRC’s attitude towards them. Many were assured by employers or promoters that these schemes were above board and, indeed, as he said, they could not have had the jobs if they had not accepted the terms.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Davis
No, I am afraid not.
That is why we find not city slickers, bankers or finance specialists, but nurses, doctors, locums and careworkers caught up in this. All those people will never have the resources to pay back this money. It does not matter whether it is over two, five, seven or 10 years, they will just never have it.
Many witnesses said they had declared the schemes to HMRC. This really is the criminal aspect of this: someone declares a scheme, and then 20 years later or 10 years later, HMRC comes back and says, “Sorry, we haven’t closed your year, and you can pay now”. They are being asked to pay not a small amount, but £20,000 or £30,000 in the case of some my constituents.
What the Committee found is very important because, again, where does the blame lie? I think part of the blame lies with HMRC, but part of the blame lies with the employers. Many people have said that that is where HMRC should focus its effort, but the House of Lords Committee found
“little evidence of action taken against those who promote disguised remuneration schemes.”
It went on to say that
“HMRC appears to be prioritising recovery of tax revenue over justice”.
That point is central to today.
The Committee noted that the people involved were unusual subjects of this sort of recovery, because of the nature of their employment and so on. It said that of course these disguised remuneration schemes are “unacceptable tax avoidance”, but it also said:
“The loan charge is, however, retrospective in its effect.”
This House was formed in order to challenge the King, in his day, on the justice of the taxes he was demanding, and to put their own concerns back to the King to get them corrected before we paid the taxes. We should not forget the fundamental reason for this House’s existence, which is to look after our constituents in the face of demands from the state.
The Committee made a recommendation that HMRC should in future make clear public statements when it is looking at avoidance schemes. Because of the fact that so much of the burden of the decision falls on HMRC, it should make it clear to the public at large and anybody in those schemes when it is investigating them.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Davis
No, I am afraid not. I have a couple of minutes left and I am going to come to an end in a second. That is the House of Lords’ view, and it was very critical. For a House of Lords report, it was an incredibly critical report.
Let me turn to the motion and the all-party group’s approach. As I say, it is incredibly reasonable: let us have a review—a judge-led review or whatever—and take some time to sort this out. I am afraid I think that that is altogether too reasonable in the light of the pressure that is being created by this policy. People who are under this policy now are suffering mental strain day in, day out. They are not people who are ever going to find £20,000, and to say to them that they have five years to pay if they are—as one of my constituents is—on a minimum pension, is meaningless. It just means his house or his car has to go, and his family is breaking up under the strain.
My view is very simple: this should not be retrospective at all before 2017—at all—because there is no reason for it whatsoever, given the behaviour of HMRC. If we do not get something like that—I say this to the Treasury, and they can add this into their accounting—I, and I suspect many others in this House, will start to pursue a right in law for every citizen that limits the extent to which the state, and particularly HMRC, can take any retroactive action whatsoever against persons, not companies such as the Vodafones, but against individuals, because it seems to me that we owe a duty to our constituents to have some certainty from the state in relation to the taxes they pay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for being the chair of an all-party group that has produced such a reasonable report. We did it because we wanted to be constructive and to bring this House together. I want to draw attention to two points: first, the fact that this issue has brought the House together, and I will talk a little bit about that because it is in the power of this House to stop the Executive on this matter; and secondly, the nature of the retrospection, which is the issue that has caused me, as well as my constituents with such cases, to be so passionate about this issue.
First, on cross-party unity, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), a vice-chair, who opened the debate, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and all the other members of the all-party group, which represents six parties in this House. I thank all Members who spoke on Report of the Finance (No. 3) Bill, when we passed the amendment—quite unusually—because we had cross-party support from every side and political persuasion both between and within parties.
There is a reason why we got that support. It is because our constituents have come to us and we have seen the damage this is doing to their lives—real lives—but also because key principles of democracy are at stake: parliamentary sovereignty, if we can forget the Brexit debate for a minute, with respect to holding the Executive properly to account for the way they tax our constituents, and the rule of law. Those issues have brought this House together, and today we need to continue with that message and make it clear to the Minister and the Government that we are not going away until this is put right.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
When my right hon. Friend opened, he spoke about cross-party support. As he knows, since I started early-day motion 1239, whenever it was—nine or 10 months ago—the cross-party support has been astonishing: 148 MPs from all parties, including many Conservative Members, have now supported it because they really do have concerns about the retrospectiveness and the fairness. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament is really coming together and saying, “There is a real problem and a real challenge here. Treasury, please look at it”?
Sir Edward Davey
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work he did in leading that EDM. The cross-party nature and depth of support should make the Minister think today. People have been looking at the way this House operates more closely than they usually do. They need to know that when this House comes together, the Government listen. It is our constitutional job to make the Government listen. When there is that level of support and they do not listen, that is an outrage to this House.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it is about time that the Government listened. Regardless of the issue, retrospective legislation can be a dangerous thing. In some instances it might be justifiable, but by and large and in principle, it is a very dangerous thing. The other point that has emerged from this debate is that those who encouraged people in their employ to get involved in such schemes should be the ones to pay up, not the victim. Does he not agree?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
May I just point out that interventions must be short? Please remember that interventions mean that other people have less time to speak.
Sir Edward Davey
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Let me take his point on retrospection into the substance of my speech.
Everybody has paid tribute to the Minister and I join in that, but I urge him to look at the retrospection issue. The all-party group has spoken to tax professionals and has read a lot of material. There is a debate about whether aspects of this are retrospective or not, and about where the retrospection lies. One group has been hit by the loan charge where the retrospective nature has been proven beyond doubt: taxpayers who have had their tax returned to the Treasury with DOTAS added—sometimes even without DOTAS added—and who have come clean on everything they have been doing. HMRC has accepted that and has not opened an inquiry. Their cases have been closed and time has passed. Under section 9 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, we have been giving taxpayers in that situation total protection from HMRC coming back to them. That has been true for decades. Indeed, we have signed international conventions to say that that is the way individuals should be treated. Yet here we are, going back on that. To be clear to the Minister, all the tax professionals we talked to believe that for closed cases, that was a transgression. Indeed, I asked them if they could find any example on the statute book ever of a Government passing a law to override taxpayer protections and they could not.
When the Government responded to that clause with a review, their argument against all the advice was that the charge was not retrospective because it was a charge on the loan as of now—the outstanding loan. That is interesting, because they had never before proven that loanable income. That was the whole point of this whole debacle. Moreover, the loans were taken out in the past. We might not call it retrospective and we might call it retroactive, but frankly it is the same thing for the ordinary person. The reply to the amendment to the Finance (No. 3) Bill was therefore simply not good enough; it was wrong. This is a breach in the rule of law, particularly for those people with closed tax years. At the very, very least, the Government should not apply the loan charge to those people; that is the recommendation of the all-party group.
We then come to people with open tax years. Sometimes there has been an inquiry years before—15 or 20 years ago. For many taxpayers, it was not really clear what that was. There was a little form. They were not told what their rights were or what they should do in response. They just sat there, and some of them did not even know there was an open inquiry. Those open inquiries have lasted for years, with, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, HMRC doing nothing. Surely that is HMRC incompetence, not mistakes by taxpayers. They are now paying because HMRC could not administer the tax system over that period, and tried and failed to get the law right. I am sorry, but HMRC cannot penalise our constituents with tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds because it could not do its job properly. That is not acceptable.
Rushanara Ali
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out, HMRC has been looking at disguised remuneration since the late ’90s and opened hundreds of thousands of cases. Mary Aiston, at the Treasury Committee, said that
“at that time our strategy meant that we weren’t telling taxpayers enough about what we were doing on their case—so they would have had an open inquiry or assessment…We recognise that at the time our strategy meant we weren’t communicating regularly enough to keep them in the picture.”
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that was done people could have dealt with those cases and paid up immediately, and not had tens of thousands—or, in cases in my constituency, hundreds of thousands—of pounds to pay back?
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is precisely right. That is what I think has offended people. Technically for people with open tax years it is not retrospection, but in practice—and, frankly, morally—it is. One thing that I will pursue after this experience is the use of open tax inquiries by HMRC. It goes against the whole spirit of the 1970 Act and of the way the rule of law should operate. I believe that in all parts of the House we stand to defend the rule of law. When we see an abuse of it we should get angry, we should get passionate and we should pledge to do something about it. I hope we will.
How should the Government respond? I think they should call a halt and delay. That would send a clear message to people who are suffering mentally and socially with their families and their homes. Announcing that today from the Dispatch Box would give them some relief. We have been telling them that their tax bills are not due until 31 January 2020. Nevertheless, according to the guidelines, if they do not talk to HMRC by this Friday they could suffer severe penalties. A delay would therefore help.
A judge-led inquiry is the only way we will bring people back together. Such an inquiry could look at all aspects. However—to speak to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—I do not want to leave it there. The policy should change now for people with closed tax years. There should be no debate about that. That is retrospection and an abuse of the rule of law. For those with open tax years, as the all-party group’s report says, a number of measures should be taken to reduce the pain and to ensure that they can get their tax affairs in order. This House is against abuse of the tax system. That is wrong and it should be stopped. But this House is also in favour of parliamentary sovereignty—the Government listening, upholding the rule of law and upholding long-standing taxpayer protections.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I do not intend to take all of my time, because I am nowhere near as qualified as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who have done a fantastic job in getting us here to this debate, so that we can make representations on our constituents’ behalf. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister. He has been very helpful in responding to all my queries and those of my constituents. Of course, not all responses have been to their liking, but he has always been available and I pay tribute to him for that. I hope he is as accommodating today as he has been so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is not in his place any more, argued that people who use public services should pay for them. If we are talking about evasion versus avoidance then of course he is absolutely right, but self-employed contractors have a different tax regime from people who work with PAYE; they have a different structure. They will look to see whether they can make the best use of their tax situation, because they do not get sick pay or holiday and nobody is paying their pension for them. They will therefore look for the most efficient way to deal with their tax. Some of these schemes have been shown to be that for them. They asked the questions and we all know they asked the questions. There are very few people caught up in this who we think went deliberately out of their way to avoid tax.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the Minister, who has been extremely receptive, and we hope that he will take action. Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these people are well into their late 50s and many are over 60, and they have no chance of ever recovering their financial position? Some of my constituents specifically asked the Revenue whether everything was in order and correct and proper. They were told categorically that it was, and it allowed them to take out future schemes in future years.
Royston Smith
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is exactly what my constituents have been saying to me. Some of them are nearing retirement with absolutely no chance of paying back what they are told they owe. Furthermore, they tell me that these schemes still exist—I hope that the Minister will confirm whether they do—and that people are still promoting very similar schemes. If that is the case, it is incumbent on HMRC and the Government to be shutting them down and going after the people who did them.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have a great number of constituents who are very distressed about this. People cannot be treated and approached in a technical way, because this affects people’s real lives. The Treasury must bear some culpability, given that it has at least allowed these schemes to be used when everyone else has acted in good faith in investing in them.
Royston Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that we are finding a consensus across the House, in that we all agree with that. People did ask these questions. They were convinced by those who promoted the schemes that sometimes it was the only thing that they could do, but that the schemes were legal. Some of the people asked these questions of HMRC.
The worst of it is that it looks very much like we sometimes just go after the low-hanging fruit. It is easy to chase such people rather than those who promoted the schemes and landed them in this trouble. Everyone has said—I will say it too—that these are real people. When people affected first came to see me in my constituency, I did not know very much about this, but when they told me about it and the figures that they might have to pay, it was devastating. I could not believe what they have been told might happen to them. I thought, “What if that was me? What if someone came to me and said, ‘You owe tens of thousands of pounds’?” Frankly, I would have no way of paying that amount without a significant change to my life. Fine—maybe if I deserved it I would have that coming, but if people did not know that, why should their life have to change so much, to the point where some have now felt that their life is no longer worth living? Driving people to bankruptcy is not the answer. We should be finding out how this happened and discovering who is culpable, including HMRC.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a clear injustice if anybody innocently caught up in this, having sought advice for one of these schemes, were to lose their main home or indeed be made bankrupt as a result of this action?
Royston Smith
It would be an absolute tragedy. That is why I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South for securing this debate, enabling us to air this issue publicly. If anybody is made bankrupt by something that is not of their deliberate doing, it would be a travesty.
I do not propose to take much more time; I know that a lot of people are waiting to speak. It is not a great ask to the Minister to pause this, to review it independently and to give my constituents and everyone else in this House a bit of respite, so that they know that what has happened to them is right.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
As one of the vice-chairs of the all-party loan charge group, I add my thanks to members of the Loan Charge Action Group for all their work in submitting evidence to us, and particularly to those few people who have worked their socks off in recent weeks to pull together the APPG report, which was released yesterday and is available online for anybody who wants to see it. I will focus on HMRC’s communications with taxpayers that have led to many of the appalling stories that Members across this House have been relating and will relate today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I sought the hon. Lady’s permission to intervene beforehand. Many of my constituents have the same problems that everybody, including the hon. Lady, has referred to. They are asking for a six-month delay for a review of the loan charge. Does she share my real concerns about those who are purported to have committed suicide? There have been deaths, and people facing bankruptcy have had to sell their homes. The effect on people’s health is enormous.
Ruth Cadbury
Examples such as that—tragically, we heard from the family of somebody who committed suicide—have been mentioned today. The stress has been well related by Members today on behalf of their constituents.
I knew very little about this issue until I met a group of my constituents. They are normal people, if anybody is normal. They are specialists in their field and they are middle-aged, but they have had to put their lives on hold. One couple cannot get married and get a mortgage. Another are making plans for their children’s university education, and that is causing them real stress. Those who are still working are treading water. They are not investing, not employing people and not generating wealth for this country. All are profoundly anxious and depressed, and it is affecting everything about their lives.
What I have learned from the work that we have been doing in recent months is that there are, very roughly, two groups of people. The first group is professional freelancers who went into the scheme, starting up to 20 years ago. Generally, they are middle to high earners and took professional accounting advice about the options available in the post-IR35 world. This group, mainly professionals, went into loan schemes because for them, pay-as-you-earn employment was not an option and their accountants advised them that due to the regulatory complexity and disproportionate cost burden of IR35, it would be best to enter into a loan-based enumeration scheme. There was no uncertainty about the legality of the scheme back then. They made arrangements with umbrella companies to prevent them from inadvertently breaking the IR35 rules. Everyone I heard from who went into these schemes said that they did so not to save tax, but to save the administrative burden.
There is another group—an unknown number—of more recent joiners since the rules changed in 2016. They are working in public services, as nurses, doctors and social workers. The word “loan” was never mentioned to them by the scheme providers. They generally did not take separate professional accountancy advice, as they were signed up by a recruitment company that had links with the umbrella company. There appeared to be no choice, and
“everyone we worked with was doing it”.
It is possible that many of these people do not know that they are caught up in this.
Ruth Cadbury
I will if I have time.
Evidence to our inquiry shows that HMRC was aware of these promoters, yet none has been investigated and prosecuted. Why not, and why have they not been chased?
There is a 45% non-refundable charge on all loans advanced during the period unless the individual agrees to pay up front a figure calculated by HMRC—completely opaquely—and regardless of whether any such tax was legally due at the time. It is going to have to be paid and is effective from tomorrow. Anyone who has ever been employed through such a structure could face a retrospective charge in the 2018-19 tax year, which is about to close, payable by January 2020. All potential liability—it could be for many years—will be rolled up into this tax year, whether or not someone knows what their liability is, or indeed whether or not they are even aware that they have a liability. That cannot be within the spirit of natural justice.
How do the people who know about it know? Many of our inquiry respondents were notified of the loan charge in late 2018—some as late as this year. That is wholly inadequate given the life consequences of these demands. Standard letters are going out indiscriminately to any individual who might have been employed by a company that might have undertaken a disclosed tax avoidance arrangement. Letters refer to closed tax years, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, even when the tax has been agreed and paid. Evidence shows that there is no standard format in letters and no evidence provided, even of the dates in the years being queried. By withholding this information, HMRC has failed in its duty of care to taxpayers who are unaware of their right to request disclosure. They face a greater retrospective penalty in a single year—this year—than might have otherwise been the case.
People’s belief that they were doing the right thing was partly based on a belief that the loan charge arrangements were not taxable. HMRC correspondence of 2006 stated that plans
“made by an…EBT…are not taxable under Sections 173 &174”
of the
“Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) 2003”.
Furthermore, there is the Rangers Supreme Court case, which remains the position in law. Individuals are not liable—their employers are—yet HMRC is misinterpreting the outcome of that case. We understand that HMRC has used behaviour change specialists in pursuing the loan charge, which may explain the aggressive and opaque nature of its communications. The regular use by HMRC of a phrase asking people to “put their tax affairs right” is clearly part of this strategy of forcing people to feel, and accept, guilt for wrongdoing. That is despite the fact that the arrangements they used were entirely legal at the time. There have also been a disturbing number of reports of individual HMRC officers telling taxpayers that they should apply for mortgages or loans, but not telling the lender that the money will be used to pay a tax bill. Why? Because that is contrary to tax law, of course.
Many of the taxpayers who submitted evidence to our inquiry highlighted the stress and anxiety that they have experienced as the direct result of the language and tone of HMRC communication. Individuals who believed that they were acting within the law told us that they have been made to feel like criminals. The all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge agrees: it is wholly inappropriate for a Government department to intimidate individuals into settlements through threats and labelling.
The issue has had two consequences. One is the feeling of criminality. We heard about the family who read out the father’s suicide notes; he had kept the information from them as he was too embarrassed. He was too embarrassed even to see a tax consultant or his accountant; he could not admit that he might have done wrong. He thought he was going to prison. In that example, his liability was well within his means; he could have afforded to pay. But he was made to feel like a criminal—a man who had never done anything against the law in his life.
The other consequence is the threat to the homes and businesses of those who are likely to be made insolvent. This issue will affect their and their family’s lives now and in the future. We are talking about amounts that are often unjustified, unquantified and unexplained.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady, who is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there are three fundamental elements of the injustice? There is the retrospectivity, which undermines basic principles of justice; the devastating impact on ordinary people’s lives, which she has described; and the contrast between the arbitrary approach taken to those people and the sweetheart deals for the likes of Goldman Sachs. Does she agree that the retrospectivity must be ended and that the scheme must be reviewed?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree. The scheme needs to be paused for at least six months and should be reviewed by a qualified tax judge completely independent of the Government. I am also concerned that HMRC may have been acting without direct steerage from the Treasury and Treasury Ministers. Ministers have said things to the loan charge APPG that contradict what we have been told by credible witnesses. This debate raises a number of questions for Treasury Front Benchers, and we look forward to their responses.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and the other Members who secured this debate today.
I do not want to repeat the eloquent speeches that have already been made, but it is worth putting on the record that this is not happening to a group of high net worth individuals but to some ordinary, hard-working people such as social workers or IT consultants—people in the everyday run of their lives. Frankly, if I were to be cynical, I would say that the indictment of HMRC, which the hon. Lady was laying out for the Chamber, is absolutely right. I feel that these collection officials are cutting their teeth on a whole group of individuals who feel that they cannot fight back. This debate shows how they can fight back, particularly when the voices of those who are not often heard are represented so well across the House. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who chairs the APPG, was right in saying that the issue brings the House together.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I am sorry, but I will not give way. A lot of people want to speak, and the more I give way, the more their time gets reduced.
What is striking for me is that all these individuals made reasonable inquiries about their tax liabilities. They consulted professionals and were offered advice. Indeed, the actions of HMRC almost reinforce the fact that what they were doing was a legal way of pursuing their employment.
If as a result of this issue our constituents who work in the banking industry are declared bankrupt, they will not even be able to continue legitimately pursuing their career and means of earning a living, because they are specialists in that area. They will be prohibited from working in the banking sector. That is absolutely appalling.
I turn to what some of my constituents have said, to reinforce some of the points that have been made. One of my constituents used an umbrella company, which assured him that he was doing nothing wrong and that the scheme was HMRC approved. When, finally, the bill landed on his desk, the umbrella company asked him to appeal, which he did. He received letters for tax years other than the one in question, but always at least three years after he had sent in a tax return. In each case, HMRC not only requested the tax it said he owed, but three years’ interest as well.
Another constituent said:
“I am not a tax expert and the policy left me extremely confused…I didn’t know which way to turn. I was advised that I could use an arrangement that would ensure I was compliant with IR35. My primary motive was to abide by the law. I was told that the tax arrangement was HMRC and QC approved.
HMRC are now saying that these arrangements do not work, yet at the time they did nothing to curb them. They allowed me to build up years’ worth of debt, signing off my tax returns and on some occasions sending me a tax rebate!
I simply do not have the sums of money involved. I am not a wealthy person, I have worked hard and I have paid taxes. Over the 18 months, this situation has led to anxiety and stress.”
Sometimes, he has had suicidal thoughts. This person is a freelancer, so he has had no holiday pay, sickness pay, maternity pay, paternity pay, compassionate leave, pension contributions, career development, training or bonuses, and certainly no job security. He is suffering from sleep deprivation and has been thinking he could take out some sort of insurance so that if he ended his life it could secure his wife and children’s future. That is a terrible thing to have to say.
Another constituent said:
“I began receiving loans in late 2011 and they were always very clearly disclosed to HMRC within my annual Self-Assessment Returns. In mid-2012, HMRC reviewed the payroll arrangement and the loans provided to me and formally confirmed they did NOT constitute ‘tax avoidance.’”
When HMRC gives that sort of reassurance to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, they should expect to be able to believe it. Much praise is heaped on Front Benchers and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; I concur with it—my right hon. Friend is always polite, always replies and is assiduous in dealing with my constituency correspondence, for which I am very grateful. However, I am afraid that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not in his place, who said that we cannot pursue anything before 2017. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully.
I feel that HMRC has been trying to collect taxes aggressively but using what I consider to be a very tame audience. It should direct its attentions to the fraudsters and the mega-companies—not just the J.P. Morgan schemes, but the Googles and the Amazons. In some instances, our constituents are being asked to pay sums greater than what a company such as Amazon or Google has paid in a whole tax year.
I consider that this issue has been used as a loss leader by HMRC; it has put so much into administration costs that it is almost caught—it feels that it cannot go back and abandon its pursuit of these individuals. But I think it should. Treasury Benchers certainly now need to pay attention to the will of the House. The anarchy of what has happened to our Standing Orders has resulted in the House being taken over by people other than the Government. There is a strength of feeling across the House and across parties. If some mechanism has to be sought to try to get relief for our constituents, that is not now beyond imagination.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and his colleagues in the all-party group on the way they have taken up and pursued this issue, and on the incredibly well informed report they have delivered. Many of the points I wanted to make have already been made, but I think one or two are well worth underlining and reaffirming.
The first point is on the retrospective approach taken. The people caught by the charge are, by and large, on ordinary, or perhaps slightly better than ordinary, incomes and are law-abiding; they were advised, perhaps beguiled, and in some cases even coerced into being part of the schemes; and they filled in their tax returns and declared everything. There was no attempt to hide their tax status in returns to HMRC. Although it may be true that HMRC did not approve the schemes, it is self-evident that HMRC ignored the evidence in front of them that may have justified taking action, so to take action now, after 20 years, is totally unfair and defies all laws of natural justice.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Bailey
Sorry, but I will not take interventions.
The Government need to do something about this problem. Astonishingly, it appears that, during those years, the Government had adequate legal redress available to them, had they wanted to take action. The loan charge legislation they introduced was designed to recoup the money simply, in a way that avoided the time and hassle involved in taking action under previous legislation. It smacks of trying to maximise income from the softest targets with the minimum of cost. The high volume of complaints that I have had about the process used to achieve that aim underlines that point.
It has been mentioned that the deadline is Friday for people to give evidence of how they will settle their outstanding bills. I have people in my constituency who are scared witless because they are not in a position to do that. It is not that they ignored HMRC; they provided it with the evidence, but they have not had the figures necessary to make the decision on how to settle their affairs. They are being threatened by HMRC that if they do not do that, penalties will be invoked, but HMRC has not provided them with the figures they need to do it. It is absolutely incredible, and it underlines the impression that HMRC is trying to maximise the amount of income that it can get from individuals who are trapped in this situation.
I looked at the HMRC document on the subject, particularly the “Supporting people” section. Unbelievably, it says that people must realise their assets, if necessary. I suppose that with a multimillionaire, that is a reasonable approach, but for ordinary people—especially retired people on low incomes, whose home may be their main asset—it is a totally inappropriate way to “support” people. One person who came into my surgery told me they think—they have not had the figures—that, after 5 April, they will have to sell their house. It is all right for HMRC to say people will not have to sell their house, but if that is their only asset and they have to realise their assets, they have no alternative.
The HMRC document goes on to say that people can remortgage. A retired person on a low income who goes to a financial institution and says, “I need to remortgage my property so I can pay off my tax debts” is unlikely to get a sympathetic response. Frankly, that document contains a lot of honeyed words that actually give no help or succour to those who are confronted with this potentially devastating and life-changing financial experience.
HMRC holds surgeries in the House of Commons that we can go along to. That is praiseworthy, but I went along with a couple of cases on loan charges and, unbelievably, there was no one there in a position to give me an answer. Given that this is the pre-eminent taxation issue that Members face at the moment, and HMRC is presumably trying to improve communication between constituents, MPs and itself, that is an amazing omission, which only underlines again the fact that HMRC appears to be totally indifferent to the plight generated by its processes and the culture that surrounds them.
I say to the Minister that there will be thousands of people watching us today, knowing that their future welfare, their livelihood and their happiness depend on the words of advice he gives at the conclusion of the debate. I just hope that his response will be favourable. Treasury Ministers do not often have a chance to make people happy, but here is an opportunity to do.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I should not be here today. I should be at the funeral of my constituent Graham Smart. He was the chairman of Leverstock Green football club, and as his constituency MP and president of Hemel Hempstead football club—another community club—I desperately wanted to be there and had promised to attend. However, my place is here in this debate, making sure that I stand up for, initially, one of my constituents, who came to see me many months ago, which is when I joined the all-party group. I was informed this morning that I now have 100 constituents who are affected by the loan charge.
I sat in on some of the all-party group’s evidence sessions. There is a really important point to make here. We have Select Committees in this House and other Committees. All-party parliamentary groups can be a complete waste of time, or they can really make a difference. I jointly chair one of these groups—the all-party group on medical cannabis under prescription—and we managed to change the law. I truly hope that the all-party loan charge group, with the backing of the House, will be able to sway Ministers and the Treasury’s view on this, which I think is one of the great disasters that we are bringing on our communities.
More than 900 years ago, this House was formed to represent the people who paid tax. Admittedly, it was completely unelected in those days, but that remains our job. Unlike some of my colleagues, I have clearly upset the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I was over-zealous defending my constituents. I have apologised to him privately and I apologise to him publicly now. I think that he is fundamentally wrong in what he said to me, but at the end of the day that is his opinion and, I am sure, the Treasury’s. In my opinion, what is happening here is that some of my constituents took advice from the companies—if they had not, they would not have got the job—and from some very large taxation accountants; they submitted completely openly that they were in one of these schemes; they had a registration number from Her Majesty’s Treasury; and now they are getting bills for hundreds of thousands of pounds, which, as we have heard, is completely and utterly destroying their lives.
Like lots of colleagues, I have had constituents come to me. I am not making it up, but I am not going to name these people, because—it is part of the problem we face—they are too ashamed to tell their loved ones that these bills are coming down the line. They are petrified of their employers knowing. Many of the people in my constituency who have come to see me and written to me are employed in the financial sector in the City. There is absolutely no doubt that they will lose their jobs and their livelihoods.
Sir Mike Penning
I will give way twice: once to my hon. Friend and then to another colleague.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting forward a strong and moving case. Is he aware that some early-retirement benefit schemes—so-called EFRBS, or employer-financed retirement benefits schemes—are also being unpicked retrospectively, causing an equal amount of pain and suffering to constituents, including one in my constituency who is having to pay back £175,000?
Sir Mike Penning
I do not agree with the way the Treasury has started to unpick people’s personal taxation schemes. This is not the big companies that frankly get away with murder because they can employ the right sort of lawyers, but the small people. They are the people who are getting messed about.
Sir Mike Penning
I will give way once more; then I will make some progress.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; I know he is short of time. He and the House might be interested in the reply given to me in the Public Accounts Committee by Jim Harra, the second permanent secretary at HMRC. He said:
“Among the disguised remuneration users, there are undoubtedly people who have liabilities for years, where under the normal rules we do not now have assessing rights. In our settlement opportunity, we have asked those people to settle for all years, including the years for which we do not have those assessing rights. If they choose not to do that—I can’t make them settle voluntarily for those years”.
Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Financial Secretary should formalise that tax advice?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just warn Members that because of the interventions the time limit will need to go down to five minutes to get everyone in?
Sir Mike Penning
On that basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not give way anymore. It would be right and proper to let colleagues speak, no matter how short their contributions.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Is there one rule on taxation in this country for one person—a small business—and another for others, or am I missing something here? For instance, a constituent came to see me who worked alongside a colleague who was in the same kind of scheme. Constituent A had had his scheme agreed and closed. He had disclosed everything, including the registration number and the DOTAS number, and it was closed—finished. He came to me because he sat next-door to a colleague who was doing exactly the same job under exactly the same contract and exactly the same kind of scheme, with exactly the same declarations, but for nearly 15 years this scheme had been left open. There is something fundamentally wrong in that.
The Lords Committee’s conclusions are eminently sensible. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that perhaps they could have been a bit stronger, but that might have lost some people on each side. We can work with them. I am slightly concerned about the reference to tax judges. Ray McCann, the president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, has said that technically the charge is not retrospective—so that is the position the taxation people are going to come from—but he went on to say that it has an effect of being retrospective. That sounds like semantics to everybody else out there, but that is what a specialist judge involved in taxation will look at when we argue the point. The point is that it is clearly retrospective, and that is where the Minister and I completely disagree.
The Minister has an absolutely golden opportunity to say, “Stop. Let’s see what the effect is here.” Why are we picking on these people who in many cases cannot pay—not will not pay but cannot pay. As we heard earlier, they are being advised to get loans. How are they going to do that? Where is the equity? Are they going to use their house? Many of them are of a similar age to me. They have absolutely no chance. They can pay through the nose on interest rates and borrow money from anybody, but do we really want to encourage that? Or, would we like to say, “We think something has gone wrong here.”?
The House has come together—I think the chairman of the all-party group, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), said the group represents six parties—because there is something seriously wrong. These people are petrified. My constituent said to me, “If my wife finds out about this—she has suicidal tendencies, and we already have major problems.” Other constituents say they need to come out of retirement—“I’ve been out of the IT industry for about five or six years now. I have no chance of coming back into the industry.” Others work in the finance world and if their employers find out that action is being taken in this sort of way, they have had it. What are we doing, driving people into this sort of debt when they thought they were doing the right thing?
I say to the Minister in all candour: take a look around the House today, a Thursday on a one-line Whip. Even the Whips could not have got this many people in here from both sides of the House, given what is going on at the moment. [Laughter.] I am really serious: I do not think the Whips could have got this many people in here on a Thursday, on a one-line Whip. What has driven us here is our constituents. It is our job. It is what this Parliament was set up to do—to defend the little guy against the big guy. The big guy is the Government, and we will defend the little guy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I call Jim Fitzpatrick on a five-minute limit.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate on an issue that affects many of my constituents. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and other colleagues who bid for this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for affording the time for it. I commend the leadership of the all-party group and thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent opening speech. I wish to concentrate on relaying a few constituents’ comments to those on the Treasury Bench, to show the strength and depth of feeling on this issue. They speak much more effectively for themselves than I could do on their behalf.
Marc and his partner John wrote to me to express their concerns. For them, the main issue is the retrospective aspect of the legislation, which stretches back over 10 years, yet the schemes were allowed to operate with no notification to members at the time. They fear the knock-on effect of bankruptcy to contractors, which means Marc will fail credit checks and is unlikely to work in financial sector ever again.
Another constituent, Vladimir, says his loan provider shared his DOTAS number with HMRC every year and disclosed the promoter name and the benefit in kind that the loan was providing him. Similarly, Daniel says that the loans he received were all disclosed on his tax returns.
Rony wrote:
“As I moved from permanent to contracting I used an agency ‘Aston Mae’ who advised me about the benefits of using a limited company or using an LLP. I also used a UK Chartered Accountant who was fully aware of the LLP I was working for.”
Amjad got in touch to say that
“this issue has taken over my life since I received the letter from HMRC last August”,
and makes the same point about fully declaring.
Another constituent who is facing serious trouble, Rehan, wrote,
“on a personal level, the threat of the Loan Charge has made me incredibly stressed and physically unwell”.
Like many in his position, Todd contends that
“there was nothing ‘disguised’ nor ‘contrived’ about the arrangements. Taxpayers described in detail exactly what their tax arrangements were under DOTAS.”
Another constituent, Abdul, said that
“if the schemes have always been defective, why did HMRC not write directly to affected individuals and advise them of this?”
Richard got in touch and what he said echoes the previous point. He said:
“HMRC and the Treasury say these arrangements are ‘defective’ and have ‘never worked’. Yet, not once did HMRC communicate that they believed the scheme was ‘defective’ or ‘never worked’”,
and that means he is now liable for more than £200,000.
Marie wrote:
“It makes my blood boil when I hear ‘you should have known better’. No one told me! I am not an expert on tax and am risk averse, I would not have entered into the arrangement if I even had a sniff that it was not legal. I have already had to sell my house to pay the first lot of APNs which came through and don’t have any savings or a home.”
The solid theme of frustration, confusion and bleak despair runs through every e-mail, letter and meeting I have had on this issue. HMRC and the Minister keep saying that this change is not retrospective, that the average amount is £13,000 and that everyone knew what they were doing. Clearly, that is not the case, and it has been empathically contradicted by my constituents.
In conclusion, I thank the Loan Charge Action Group and its secretary, our former colleague Greg Mulholland, for their work on this issue. Three recommendations from the group’s report stand out for me, and they are certainly reasonable recommendations, as several colleagues have already said: first, the request for a six-month delay to the loan charge; secondly, a 24-hour HMRC-funded mental health helpline, to help to prevent more suicides; and finally, a full and proper review led by an expert tax judge. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Given the unanimity of the opinion in the Chamber so far and the number of compliments that the Minister has been paid by so many colleagues from all parties, my hopes have been raised.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I feel a little cautious in this debate as I do not have the full knowledge or experience of many Members here and I do not have many cases in my constituency.
I have had a considerable number of cases over the years in which I have had to deal with HMRC. Contrary to what many people have said, I have found that individual approaches to individual taxation experts in HMRC have been extremely positive: cases have been listened to, and we have secured some dramatic changes.
I have six cases of loan charges in my constituency, and one other case which, while not a loan charge, is slightly relevant. I was approached by an individual some years ago. He was divorced and his wife had moved, some years before, to New Zealand of all places. He paid a large monthly payment to her and support for the child, and she remained single—or so he thought. After a considerable number of years, he discovered that, in fact, she had got married and that all that maintenance he had paid over those years—vast sums—he should not have paid, so he stopped paying. HMRC came along and asked him why he was no longer making those payments, because they were tax deductible, and he explained. An HMRC official said, “Well, the money that you have paid that you should not have paid is now counted as profits and we would like tax on that plus interest.” This man was not suicidal, but he came close to considering murder. The ex-wife was still alive. We went to HMRC and got an agreement on this retrospective—or retroactive—payment. It was spread over time. The collector was eminently reasonable and the payments were managed. When the circumstances of this individual changed—he went to university—again we went back, and again they changed the terms.
What I am saying to my six loan charge cases, or to those who want help—only two of them do—is that I am prepared to take up their cases and work with them. Everyone in this Chamber will know that when we have that portcullis on our letters and we ask for a meeting, it happens. That has to be the best way through it. What I have discovered in two cases is that some of the information that the Inland Revenue and HMRC have been given does not match the real information. When we hear Members say, as we all have done, that communications have broken down and that the information that has been used has given rise to incorrect decisions, some of that is because officials are not being given—probably deliberately—every bit of information that they need to come to a fair and clear decision.
I could not believe that two of them, who were bright, independent professionals, had actually taken up their loans. I asked one of them to explain to me—I am fairly simple and can only count to 32—how it had happened. They said that they had been told that it was all right. I asked by whom. They said by the promoters. I asked them to describe the situation. They said that they had worked for whoever it was and that they had been given money, but it was not payment; it was a loan. I said, “Fine, what was the interest on it.” “Oh, there was no interest,” they said. I asked, “When will you pay it back?” “Oh, we’re not going to pay it back,” they said, “and we are not paying any tax on it.” I said that that was just too good to be true.
Julia Lopez
I must confess that I share some of my hon. Friend’s mixed feelings about this issue, particularly as there is a disparity between what my constituents say to me and what the Minister says to me. Where there does seem to be culpability from HMRC from my perspective is that it knew full well about some of these loan schemes for a very long time and subsequently a political decision was made to call them in, and that political decision could have been taken much earlier so that we would not have seen some of this damage. That creates a lot of uncertainty within the wider tax system, which is very corrosive.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention if for no other reason than she has given me a minute more. I will leave that for the Minister to answer. I can only go by the six cases that I have seen and what she says does not apply in any of them.
If I can say anything to Members it is this: please, put these cases together and consult an individual senior tax inspector. I have found the inspector and the collector to be really co-operative, which makes such a difference to these people’s lives. There is a look of relief on their faces when we come out of the meeting with those officials. There is also an acceptance that they will have to pay the loan. Some may call it retrospective, but I call it retroactive. I do remember the case of the divorced man who did not commit murder—his bill was way up over £100,000.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), although I disagree with much of what he said. This is not an issue of just getting people to sit down with the right tax inspector and sort things out. Today’s debate has shown that there is a deep-rooted problem right at the heart of this issue—people who were fully aware of the kind of scheme that they had entered into, and who had an understanding that it was fully legal, suddenly finding that they were faced with huge tax bills. Many people find themselves hitting their head against the brick wall of officialdom with frustration, anger and fear. As we have discussed today, this needs to be sorted out, not at some official level, but at Government level. A ministerial decision is needed.
The economist Adam Smith, who wrote the first economics textbook, laid down what were called the canons, or principles, of taxation. In answer to the question, “What should the basis of any tax system be?” he mentioned three things: first, that there should be certainty; secondly, that there should be fairness; and thirdly, that there should be convenience. If we look at what is happening with this loan charge, we can see that all those principles of taxation—the rules of good application of tax—have been broken.
Many of the people who entered into these schemes did so because they wanted to reduce their tax bills. That is perfectly legitimate. There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I do not think that anyone here has advocated that if people have been evading their taxes they should not be pursued. But some people were forced to enter these schemes; they could not have secured employment otherwise. In fact, at the all-party group, we received evidence that even HMRC was taking on contractors, who in turn then took on employees and insisted that they were paid by these remuneration schemes. It seems that HMRC was quite happy to employ contractors on that basis, because the scheme was deemed to be legal.
Members have covered a number of issues. Let me reiterate just some of them. First, I do not believe that this scheme and the loan charge meet the criteria of ensuring that there is certainty for taxpayers. It is retrospective. No matter how the Minister tries to wriggle on this, the case is that if tax is imposed on a loan balance today, and that loan balance has been built up over a number of years, because people thought that it was okay to repay in that way, then the tax that is being demanded is retrospective.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the loan charge being a current liability, which is the Government’s argument. Does he agree that our constituents need clarity about what recourse they have to those advisers who told them to go for these schemes, as well as clarity from HMRC about the options for refinancing, and what protections they have as citizens?
Sammy Wilson
The other point about the retrospective nature of this is that many people thought they had put in their tax returns and given the information. They were not told that there would be an inquiry into their tax affairs, and they believed that what they were doing was perfectly legal, and that their payments would not be subject to additional tax.
My second point is about certainty. Many of those who gave evidence said that for years they were given tax bills that did not even work. They were given bills for sums that did not coincide with what they had earned, and in some cases they were told that the figure was just an estimate. One person said that when she queried the bill, HMRC said, “That is what most other people are paying.” That is how the tax bills were worked out in some cases. There was no degree of certainty, and often the bills were not related to the years that people had worked, or to their income.
Is it fair that none of those who promoted these tax schemes have been pursued? The people being pursued are the recipients of the schemes, who in some cases were forced into them, as they would not have got employment otherwise. Their employer said, “This is the way you will get paid, and that is what you have to do.” The promoters of those schemes—many of whom are based offshore or are no longer in business—are not being pursued, and those who needed to join these schemes in order to find employment are now faced with a tax liability.
Some evidence that we received suggested that if people did not settle, they might be taxed not just on the money they received, but on the fees taken by those who have now disappeared. Is that fair? My third point was about convenience. That is why we use pay-as-you-earn, and we pay tax on a monthly basis or whatever, rather than being hit with a huge sum of money all at once.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The point about people being asked for a huge sum of money all at once gets to the nub of the issue. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the case, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these people need huge amounts of time to pay, or in some cases debt forgiveness because they simply cannot afford to pay?
Sammy Wilson
I was just coming to debt forgiveness. When it comes to large companies, HMRC is prepared to negotiate and cut tax bills significantly. In these cases, however, it is a case of, “This is the sum owed. Enter into a discussion and settlement with us, or you will be hit by the loan charge.” For all those reasons, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, this problem does not simply require us to sit down with our constituents and a tax inspector; this requires action by the Minister. We have asked for reasonable action from a reasonable Minister, and I trust that is what we will get today.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I apologise to the Minister if I am not here to listen to his response to the debate. I am flying to Rome to go to the Vatican for an engagement on behalf of the all-party group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. That goes to show how important those all-party groups can be, and I hope there will be a significant policy development in that area.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on his excellent speech and I thank the all-party loan charge group, which has done so much work in representing our constituents’ interests. None of us wants our tax system to be abused. We should all pay our fair share of taxes, and we must ensure a level playing field for the sake of the integrity of our economic model.
The interests of those who do not have the means to opt for or set up complex tax schemes should be as protected as the interests of those who can afford such advice. It is therefore right that in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 the Government sought to close the disguised remuneration loophole, but today we are questioning the way that the Treasury handled that closure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) chaired the Public Accounts Committee during my first Parliament, and he was completely right in what he said about the change in culture inside the Inland Revenue and Treasury towards such issues over the past two decades.
Current Treasury policy is having an unfair retrospective effect, which is recklessly throwing the lives of thousands across the country into sheer chaos. Sadly, that also highlights some of HMRC’s own performance issues, as it appears to have failed adequately to inquire into notifications by honest taxpayers about their use of a scheme under DOTAS when it had the chance. I do not understand why HMRC now thinks it is fair to go back over records that are up to 20 years old, and unexpectedly ask for sums in the tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds from ordinary, hardworking people. It completely baffles me. More to the point, who are these people? By and large, they are the most flexible and entrepreneurial workers in our system, and as we have heard, they were employed flexibly and did not receive holiday pay or allowances because of their employment conditions.
Our constituents are seriously distressed by the vast amounts of money that the Treasury is trying to claw back from them in a totally unexpected way. They have also experienced repeated delays in the handling of their cases, resulting in even more uncertainty and pressure. They have experienced consistently poor communication from HMRC. One constituent told me that an adviser on the dedicated helpline told him not to quote her under any circumstances. I am grateful for the letter, dated yesterday, that the outstanding Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Treasury made available to us. It states:
“I strongly encourage any of your constituents affected by this issue to contact HMRC as soon as possible before 5 April. I have enclosed a factsheet on disguised remunerations, and further information on the support available from HMRC”.
It seems a bit of a stretch to get that information to constituents by tomorrow, although I appreciate the Treasury’s putting out that message.
HMRC’s website states that it is estimated that 75% of income from this policy will come from employers and 25% from individuals, and that so far, 85% of that money has been raised by employers. That is not entirely surprising, because employers are not in the same position as individuals, and it is much easier for them to come up with funds if they are presented with a bill by HMRC. It is the little people who are on the receiving end of this policy.
One of my constituents who is facing bankruptcy articulates the issue clearly:
“In short, HMRC got tired of going for the scheme providers because they knew how to deal with them and were always one step ahead of them…Due to their inability to get any perceived tax they feel they are owed out of them, they have now shifted the focus further down the chain to people like me.”
The Minister has received plaudits from across the House, and I hope that the steel in his position—
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this important debate. In January last year, Labour’s shadow Treasury Minister said of the impending deadline for people to pay the loan charge by April next year:
“We cannot let vulnerable people who have been exploited end up with massive tax debts hanging over their heads for many years to come. If we see bankruptcies, failing businesses, repossessions and even suicide, that will be because this Government have not done the outreach needed and not invested in adequate training.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 291WH.]
I am sorry to say that on 1 April we heard that HMRC had reported itself to the police over the death of an individual who had been notified of a loan charge bill. It was the first time that HMRC had felt it had been given sufficient evidence to link a death to the loan charge. I do not know any details about the case and I do not want to speculate, but it was a tragic loss of life and a reminder to all of us of what is at stake.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Some constituents have told me that they will be severely affected by the retrospective loan charge if it is rolled out tomorrow. It will have a devastating effect on them and their families. Does my hon. Friend agree that the charge should be halted and that a review should be set up to investigate HMRC’s actions?
Mohammad Yasin
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very important point. I entirely agree with him. It is very important that we make sure that people do not suffer because of this very unfair loan charge.
I have a number of constituents whose lives have been turned upside down by changes made three years ago to tax legislation for disguised remuneration schemes. On the face of it, I support the Government’s move to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes, but the way in which the loan charge has been handled is confusing and cruel, and seems less guided by principle than by rushing through a badly designed process to reclaim tax.
The director general for customer strategy and tax design at HMRC told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee in October 2018 that
“the loan legislation was put in place because it was just too much time and trouble for HMRC to exercise its pre-existing powers conferred by Parliament”.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Some 100 people have been affected in my constituency. I am grateful to Mr Salotra and Mr Jhaj from Hounslow West who came to the rally yesterday. They highlighted the fact that families are under great strain and stress and that the situation is one of policy failure. Does my hon. Friend agree that inadequate research on and an inadequate impact analysis of the policy have also contributed to the pain and strain on people who thought they were doing—and who want to do—the right thing, and that a delay and review are not just the right thing to do, but the human thing to do?
Mohammad Yasin
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
One of my constituents recently wrote to me:
“Essentially, we have legislation being enacted because HMRC find it too difficult or troublesome to follow the rules and yet they expect taxpayers to follow the rules.”
No one disputes that HMRC has a right to challenge companies and individuals who have participated in tax avoidance arrangements. However, Parliament gave HMRC powers to do so long before the loan charge legislation was proposed. Those powers have not been exercised, making a mockery of the existing legislation and denying taxpayers their legitimate right to have their dispute resolved by the courts.
Many have no idea whether the schemes their employers were getting them into were effective or defective. It is completely unfair to penalise those people, who are innocent, and not those who designed and enabled these complicated and vague structures. We must distinguish between those who entered into these arrangements with their eyes open and those who were entered into them by their employers. The legislation has resulted in thousands of people accruing a tax debt that had not been invented when employers invested in good faith. If nothing changes, thousands of people will be made bankrupt, families will be destroyed and innocent people will have their lives ruined.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Like many other Members, I have a number of affected constituents. When one of them first came to see me in my surgery, I listened. It was a complex tax case and it soon became clear that the way in which it was being handled was genuinely not how I had been used to seeing things dealt with during my time as a Treasury Minister. I and many of my colleagues, including my next-door neighbour, the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), are right to raise our concerns, not least because of the very personal impact the issue is having on thousands of people around the country who have this hanging over them without anything being done to resolve the situation, other than those who represent them setting out how much of an impact it is having on their lives.
I have young constituents who are contractors and have been unwittingly caught up in this. They did all the right things, including asking their accountant and checking whether a QC had approved a scheme. An older gentleman who is caught up in it is looking at having to sell his home. He is in his 70s and clearly has no ability to go back into the workplace to even begin to recoup some of the money that HMRC is now claiming he should pay.
There are a number of issues, but in the end it comes down to how we in this House, and HMRC, look at the concept of fairness in taxation. I think that HMRC has simply got it wrong and is striking the wrong balance. I agree that the Financial Secretary is a talented Minister, but in the end it is these more challenging areas of policy that make or break a reputation, rather than the ability to do a brilliant job from day to day on turning around constituency casework where, as others have said, he is almost unparalleled in his assiduousness. I hope that he will use his talent to find a way through and to come up with a compromise to achieve a quick resolution.
The approach being taken circumvents taxpayer protections on time limits on HMRC inquiries, as many have said. The bottom line is that, overwhelmingly, people declared these arrangements transparently. They sent in their tax returns and, as has been said, some were given tax rebates. They were given no indication that HMRC was ever going to come back to those years.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I am also an ex-Treasury Minister and my right hon. Friend’s neighbour. Could she comment on the unusual nature of the situation? One of my constituents has had £300,000 assessed, so the average of £13,000 can mask some of the very large numbers involved.
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my constituents has done their own estimate and they believe that this could cost them £230,000. They say:
“I was first contacted by HMRC in 2013/14 about income from just the 2008-2010 tax years and having accepted my appeal letter to their enquiries I haven’t heard anything from them since. So 5 years on, I still have no clear idea what HMRC believes I owe them and the real justification for it.”
As they say:
“Communication from HMRC has been inconsistent and sporadic at best. In addition”—
I will come on to this issue—
“HMRC does not appear to be targeting the companies who were (and in some cases still are) providing these tax planning schemes, but rather the individuals who used them. Sadly, there are still people joining these schemes today, unware of the impact it is likely to have on them.”
HMRC’s approach to the loan charge has been punitive rather than proportionate. For some constituents it has essentially grouped up to 20 years of charges and lumped them into one big sum that they are now being asked to pay. [Interruption.]
With the sound of a leaky roof in the background—this has been an interesting week for other events happening while Members have been giving speeches—I will conclude by asking a really important question. What on earth is being done to tackle those promoting the schemes? They are the people who have, effectively—and, I believe, knowingly in many cases—mis-sold schemes, got rich off the back of them and left the people who took part in them to pick up the pieces.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Over 10 years ago, Roy Faichney and David Perrin—non-accountants in an accountants tax firm—were arrested and later convicted, but their clients were not told that HMRC might come after them 10 years later. That strikes me as grossly unfair and out of time.
Justine Greening
I think that is right, and it would be good if the Minister was clearer about how many schemes HMRC is aware of, how many are currently being tackled by HMRC, how many remain unaddressed, what penalties have been issued in relation to closing down such schemes, how much that has totted up to, and what action has been taken against the directors who pursued and promoted those schemes, often in the knowledge that they were not compliant with HMRC. Will they ever be barred from being directors in future? They are clearly reckless and, I think, not fit to be company directors. We need to send out a message across the industry that such behaviour is not acceptable, that lost revenue will be sought to be recouped from the businesses and companies promoting the schemes first—that they are the ones at risk—and that then, perhaps secondly, there will be more clear-cut rules for people to understand when they are putting themselves and their assets at risk by participating in such schemes.
It really is time that HMRC did all the people caught up unwittingly in this loan charge issue a favour, set out a sensible compromise that draws a line in the sand and does not go back so far, treated them with dignity and enabled them either, where they still owe money, to settle or, where not, to move on with their lives and get clarity as soon as possible.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I hope that I can complete my speech before rain stops play—I think it is probably some kind of symbol of how many people view Parliament as broken, but let us return to the matter at hand.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on securing the debate. Clearly this issue has caused much distress, and brutally so at times. Of course, if tax is due, it should be collected. Without the ability to raise funds from taxation, our public services will obviously grind to a halt, but my concern, and that of many other hon. Members, is about how the loan charge and the recovery of it has been handled to date. It raises many questions about how HMRC can say in all honesty that each individual case is being looked at properly before the menacing letters are sent out. Let me make it clear that if, following due process, it is determined that money is owed, it should be recovered in a fair, consistent and reasonable manner. However, what I have heard raises questions about HMRC’s capacity to deal with these issues properly.
I previously raised the issue of my constituent Mr Crook when we debated the matter in Westminster Hall back in November. I recounted the six times that he had contacted HMRC about his potential liability without any response. I explained the immense anxiety that he was feeling, because he was not getting any answers and feared bankruptcy. Since my involvement, there have been responses from HMRC. I am sure that it was entirely coincidental that they came the week after the Westminster Hall debate.
I wish that I could say that we had somehow managed to reach a happy ending, but we have had tales about spam boxes and deleted emails and about how, in that wonderful phrase, my constituent’s request will be “progressed within the normal timescales”. Yet here we are, 360 days after my constituent registered his interest with HMRC, and still no agreement has been reached. My constituent is not the only one in this position, so I repeat the question that I raised back in November: does the Department consider that it has sufficient resources to deal with this issue?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I have a constituent called Jeff, who has lived by the rules and played by the rules, and who submitted tax returns year in, year out, yet he is also suffering this retrospective injustice.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the retrospectivity of this that is really difficult for people to reconcile with what they consider to be a fair and transparent process.
I have had constituents raise concerns that if they manage to reach agreement with HMRC, they will be required to sign a settlement document that stops them reclaiming money from HMRC if they are later judged against in a judicial review. The retrospectivity of this sits uncomfortably with me, but the idea that the Government will not be bound by future court decisions goes very much against the rule of law that we are used to in this country.
That is the wholly unsatisfactory situation that we face, but I want to return to where we all started on this. My constituent tells me that, having submitted his tax returns each year when he was working, they have never been queried—[Interruption.]
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wondered what was going on. Is it hot air that is escaping from in here?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Some might say that there is a leaky Parliament at the moment, so we will take it from there.
Justin Madders
I am sure that many Cabinet meetings have similar difficulties.
My constituent tells me that, having submitted his tax returns each year when he was working, they have never been queried. He states that, by doing that, HMRC has at the very least implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted that any moneys that he received in the form of a loan were just that. However, it is the retrospective nature and long reach of the loan charge that is so hard for him to accept. I understand that it has been claimed that HMRC has always said that these arrangements were unacceptable, but I have not seen anything prior to 2016 to suggest that that was the case.
When the Minister responds, can he say whether in future I should advise my constituents that they should no longer consider HMRC responses to tax returns to be final, that they can be reopened at any point and that any schemes registered with HMRC can be overturned decades in future? Can he also advise me whether any companies that made loans will be pursued for employer national insurance contributions? What if the company is no longer trading? Will the employees’ national insurance records be updated?
I also want to say a few words about the human cost of all this. HMRC has admitted in response to freedom of information requests that no assessment was made of the likely number of taxpayer bankruptcies that will result from this charge, yet the official HMRC statement—[Interruption.]
Justin Madders
I will carry on.
The HMRC statement says:
“The government anticipates that some of these individuals will become insolvent as a result.”
It also says that the measure
“is not expected to have a material impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.”
I find that statement unbelievable on two counts. First, it is unbelievable how little understanding or empathy there is for those facing bankruptcy. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes in the real world will know that individual insolvency has a massive impact on families. My other huge reservation about that statement is that it appears to say that no assessment has been made of the number of bankruptcies, yet it claims that there will be “some” insolvencies. If people have to be made bankrupt, I think we are all clear that something has gone terribly wrong.
Finally—and before we get the paddles out—I would like to ask the Government to think about what kind of message this whole mess is sending out to entrepreneurs, the people the Conservative party used to consider the bedrock of its support. Under this Government, those people are being left with the distinct impression that HMRC is prioritising the recovery of tax revenue over justice by targeting individuals rather than the promoters of the schemes, many of whom still enjoy generous contracts with Government. They knew what they were doing but appear to have accepted no responsibility for their actions and faced no consequences. The suggestion that some public sector employers were insisting that the people paying the price now would only be employed if they agreed to accept the kind of contract that HMRC is now declaring unlawful is an outrage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am going to suspend the sitting, and the bells will ring two minutes before we restart. [Interruption.] No photographs, please.
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
Sub-Committee on Disinformation
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Damian Collins will speak on the publication of the 10th report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on the launch of the Sub-Committee on Disinformation for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call hon. Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Damian Collins to respond to them in turn. Hon. Members can expect to be called only once. Questions should be brief. I call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. Earlier this week, the Select Committee published its 10th report on the creation of the Sub-Committee on Disinformation, which followed our reports on disinformation and fake news—the final report was published in February this year, with the interim report published in July last year. Our reports on that important subject were based on an inquiry that spanned about 18 months and that took in thousands of questions and many witnesses.
The focus on disinformation and fake news comes from our belief that there is a genuine danger to democracy and society in the deliberate and malicious targeting of disinformation at citizens, largely using social media to influence what they see and their opinions about politics, society and institutions. In the discussion about disinformation, much of the focus has been on it being used in election campaigns or around political events, but it is by no means limited to that. Disinformation is becoming a serious issue in the health sphere, in particular, with anti-vaccine information and stories being disseminated through social media.
The problem of disinformation is not limited to the period of our inquiry. When we established our initial inquiry, we were particularly concerned about the role of disinformation in the United States presidential election and other elections around the world, and about the role of foreign states and, in particular, agencies such as the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg that deliberately create campaigns and mechanisms to spread disinformation through social media and target people relentlessly.
That has become a bigger societal problem as people increasingly get their news and information through social media. In this country, about half the population receives news principally through social media. That means that, rather than going to a curated news space, such as a newspaper, a broadcaster’s piece of news or a news organisation’s website, they are receiving news and information that has been shared by their friends on social media in bitesize chunks, or they are being targeted with information by advertisers and other organisations that promote content.
We know that, during the US presidential election, the number of shares of the top 20 fake news stories was greater than that of the top 20 real news stories. The issue is fundamental to the way people receive news and information because, on the channel where they increasingly receive it, they often do not know why they are receiving it or much about the organisation that is sending it. Disinformation is often dressed up to look like real news, but it could be hyper-partisan content from people with a high degree of bias or, more seriously, content that is totally fabricated. That has been an issue for some time, but it is of growing importance because of the scale and reach of social media.
When we look at the potential application of technology, the problem is only set to get worse, given the phenomenon of deep fake content. That is when someone takes a recording of your voice—I am sure they would not do it in your case, Mr Gapes—and creates a fake video image of you, then writes their own words and has them played out through your mouth in the film. We are all familiar with those grainy films that emerge during political campaigns whose production quality is not great because they are often shot on someone’s smartphone. Imagine the capability to do that easily in a totally fake way and to release a film of a politician supposedly saying something malicious or misleading during the final days of an election campaign. That capability exists, and we need the tools in place to fight back against it.
Since we published the Committee’s report in February, we have seen other events that lead us to believe that this is an ongoing and growing problem. We were all shocked and appalled at the way in which harmful footage from the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, was livestreamed on Facebook and shared continuously on social media platforms around the world, and particularly YouTube, for a number of days afterwards.
We are also concerned about the role of organisations that spread news and information about political events in this country—this is particularly linked to Brexit—but that we do not know much about. The Committee’s inquiry identified an organisation called Mainstream Network, which was contacting people through social media with adverts and asking them to lobby their MP to vote in favour of a hard Brexit and to “Chuck Chequers”—to use the expression at the time—and not support the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy.
People have a right to a political opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that, but when they are being targeting by an organisation and they do know who is doing that, who is providing the money or who is supporting that organisation, that becomes a problem. In our campaigns as politicians, we have to put legal imprints on our leaflets, posters and flyers to make it clear who they are from, but people do not have to do that online, and those loopholes are being exploited. We have also seen campaigns and organisations other than just Mainstream Network, such as We are the 52% and Britain’s Future, where large amounts of money are being spent to target people with messaging, but we do not know who is doing that. That is going on all the time and on a growing scale.
The purpose of the Sub-Committee is to provide an institutional home for the Select Committee to build on the work of its initial inquiry, to look at new incidents of disinformation campaigns, where they lack transparency and where they are deliberately misleading, and to recognise that this is a form of harmful content that needs to be addressed. We look forward to the publication of the Government’s White Paper on online harms, which I believe will happen early next week, so that we can see what ideas they propose and understand more about their response to the Select Committee report, which covered many of those issues. The Sub-Committee will look at the issues arising from the White Paper and at the areas where the Government are looking for a response and consultation.
Damian Collins
The Sub-Committee will be the forum through which we look for areas where the Committee can analyse and respond to the White Paper. It will also be the forum through which we seek to hold regular sessions with important organisations and people who are investigating similar issues, and particularly the Information Commissioner.
The first meeting of the new Sub-Committee will be on Tuesday 23 April when we return from the short Easter recess. We will then question the Information Commissioner, principally about her investigation into the work of Mainstream Network and connected organisations, to understand more about who is funding that organisation and who is behind the dissemination of the content that it is sharing. That will be an important first step in the Sub-Committee’s work.
I appreciate that hon. Members have questions that they want to ask me—one of my Committee colleagues wished to jump the gun—so I will not use up every second of my 10 minutes. The Sub-Committee is a new step for the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has never created a Sub-Committee before. We have done so because we recognise the concerns about the spread of disinformation and the pivotal role that social media play in that.
Disinformation is a growing issue for democracy and society, and we need to provide robust public policy responses to tackle it at source, as well as through the channels through which it is shared. We also need to look principally at the responsibilities of big technology companies to act more effectively against the dissemination of disinformation, to provide more tools for their users to help them identify untrustworthy sources of information, and to provide greater transparency about who is promoting that content.
Julian Knight
I was not certain whether I was allowed to intervene, but I will ask my question now. I welcome the advent of the Sub-Committee. In terms of the scale, this is not just about Russia or potential foreign actors intervening in our Brexit-related political crisis from a UK base or from overseas; it goes on worldwide. It is not just one foreign actor, but perhaps up to 39 foreign actors. Does my hon. Friend, the Committee Chair, agree that we need the Sub-Committee to be long standing and its scope to be as wide as possible in looking at all those other countries and what they are up to in terms of British politics?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is a worldwide problem. As he knows, we took evidence during our inquiry about problems to do with disinformation in South America and across Europe—this is not just about Russian campaigns of disinformation. The reason why we decided to create this institutional home for our work on disinformation is that such work runs beyond the scope of any one particular inquiry; indeed, looking to develop successor inquiries with a narrow, defined remit could restrict us from looking at other material from elsewhere around the world.
We look forward to the Government’s White Paper and their response to the Select Committee report, because this country could provide a world-leading framework for understanding the liabilities and obligations of technology companies in terms of acting against known sources of disinformation, and I would include disinformation as a form of harmful content, along with other forms of extreme harmful content.
My hon. Friend is quite right that this is a global problem, and I hope our work in exposing what is going on can benefit other inquiries. As he knows, one reason why we established the international grand committee as part of our disinformation inquiry was to aid our partnership work with other Parliaments that are investigating these issues so that we could benefit from their insights and to share our own work.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Less than two weeks ago, in the current febrile political environment, I was sent information from a closed Facebook group making the entirely false allegation that I had paid for two coaches to go to the march in London. I was made aware of that only because an individual contacted me and gave me the information. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is really important that closed groups on platforms are investigated and that this issue is dealt with urgently by Government? If so, what role does he see the Sub-Committee playing in that process?
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee, makes an important point. He will know that we discussed the role of groups with Facebook during our investigation. We believe they play a significant role in spreading disinformation; it is not just through targeted advertising that someone can drive content through a platform such as that. Indeed, as he knows, the Committee’s final report on disinformation touched on how far-right organisations are using closed Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members to spread content very quickly through the web. Content posted into the group by a group administrator goes immediately to the top of the news feed of members, who may in turn share it.
These closed groups may be closed to the public, but Facebook can tell what is going on in them, and it should act where closed groups are behaving irresponsibly or maliciously in spreading lies and disinformation about people. It can see who the administrators are and who is doing that.
As a consequence of the attacks in Christchurch in particular—having an independent regulator with the power to go into the tech companies to see what is going on would facilitate this—we should do an audit of the sorts of groups and organisations that were sharing and promoting the vile content involved. That could provide a really important map of the way in which these far-right groups, in particular, co-ordinate online and spread disinformation.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is not just about global news stories such as the Christchurch attacks; disinformation is also taking place in individual communities. We should be able to report such things to Facebook and know that it will investigate and take action against groups, including by closing them or the administrator down if necessary.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all members of the Committee for a very important report. I know that the Minister is working extremely hard on these issues.
My question is about making it easier or more streamlined for the police to investigate closed Facebook pages. At this point in time, it seems to be very difficult for the police to access information even when they have suspicions about it. The fact that individuals can post anonymously without giving their own details seems to exacerbate the situation whereby they feel they can post whatever they like without any responsibility.
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady raises a number of very important issues. Co-operation with the authorities is important. We have seen too many cases where different social media companies have been criticised for not readily sharing information with the police as part of an investigation. Often the companies have very narrow terms of reference for when they would do that; sometimes if there is an immediate threat to life or if information might be related to a potential terror attack, they will act. However, we see hideous crimes that affect families in a grievous way and those families want the crimes to be investigated efficiently and speedily, and for the police to get access to any relevant information. I think we would have to say that the current system is not working effectively enough and that more should be done.
There should be more of an obligation on the companies to share proactively with the authorities information that they have observed. They might not have been asked for it yet, but it could be important or relevant to a police investigation. Part of, if you like, the duty of care of the tech companies should be to alert the relevant authorities to a problem when they see it and not wait to be asked as part of a formal investigation. Again, that sort of proactive intervention would be necessary.
I also share a general concern, in that I believe tech companies could do more to observe behaviour on their platforms that could lead to harm. That includes self-harm resulting from a vulnerable person accessing content that might lead them towards a pattern of self-harm. Indeed, one of the particular concerns that emerged from the Molly Russell case was the content she was engaging with on Instagram.
The companies should take a more proactive responsibility to identify people who share content that may lead to the radicalisation of individuals or encourage them to commit harmful acts against other citizens. I think the companies have the power to identify that sort of behaviour online, and there should be more of an obligation on them to share their knowledge of that content when they see it.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Gapes.
The Committee has produced an absolutely superb report—such detail—and it is to be welcomed. It raises serious issues in relation to the power of the platform providers, and their lack of usage of the powers they have to identify people and to do something with that information. That is very important. The Government should consider how to tackle the people who put this material on these platforms. We should get the providers to work through these issues with the Government and stop the false information that is being put up.
This issue affects huge numbers of people because, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, a lot of people take such information as gospel, as most of their media input is from social media, so it has a huge effect. I urge the Government to look at this issue seriously and to consider how we can push the social media platform providers to have a better response and remove false media reports that are put online.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the issues at the heart of this—it comes up again and again throughout our report—is the obligations of the tech companies. A social media platform is not necessarily the publisher of content; it has been posted there by a user of the platform. However, the social media company can observe everything that is going on and it curates the content as well.
When someone goes on social media, if they just saw what their friends had posted most recently, that would be one thing, but because social media algorithms direct users towards particular content, we are concerned not only that harmful content can exist, but that when individuals start to engage with it, they are directed to even more of it. I think that we should not only consider the responsibilities of the tech companies to remove harmful content when it is posted, but question the ethics of algorithms and systems that can direct people towards harmful content.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on an excellent, wide-ranging and groundbreaking report, and I congratulate all the members and staff of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who demonstrates great knowledge of and enthusiasm for this inquiry, asked me to make a few points.
The inquiry started an ongoing worldwide conversation about the threats posed by shadowy, unaccountable and anti-democratic forces. As I understand it, in February the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee hosted its first ever international grand committee, which included representatives of countries such as Canada, Ireland, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Singapore, France and Latvia. The Committee has also formed a new Sub-Committee as part of that international grand committee.
I recognise that it must have been difficult in a fast-moving environment to produce the formal report of an 18-month inquiry in such a timely fashion. I congratulate the Committee on establishing the Sub-Committee. Although the hon. Gentleman may already have answered this question, can he say exactly when the White Paper, which has been delayed repeatedly, will be published? Does he have any information on that White Paper that he could outline today?
Damian Collins
I have some information on that, but given that the Minister is here, I will leave it to her to respond. The official word is “imminently”, which I think means “very imminently”. We look forward to the White Paper; it is an important piece of work that I hope will lay the foundations for turning the work of our inquiry, and other work that the Government have done, into real policy. We could establish in this country a world-leading framework for dealing with these issues.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
Life in Parliament is full of surprises at the moment. I must confess that I had a complete misunderstanding about today’s hearing; I thought it was in the main Chamber. When I alighted on the Order Paper on my return from a meeting outside the House and saw that this hearing was absent from it, I thought that it must have been moved—along with so many other things in Parliament at the moment. That explains why I have no official documentation whatsoever.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) knows, this is my top priority across what is a very broad brief. I will therefore respond based on my own understanding, the excellent remarks that have been made by hon. Members, and of course the report of my hon. Friend’s Select Committee, which I read from cover to cover. I commend his work as Chairman, and all hon. Members who serve on that Committee, which exemplifies the power and potential that a Select Committee can bring to policy making. I am delighted to hear of the new development that my hon. Friend has announced: the Sub-Committee that he has set up specifically to tackle disinformation sounds like an excellent initiative.
I was delighted to hear that at the first meeting of that Sub-Committee, Members will be able to question and hear from the Information Commissioner, whose office is the leading data protection agency across Europe. That is partly because of the reputation of Elizabeth Denham, the commissioner; partly because of the huge additional resources that we have given the Information Commissioner’s Office; and partly because the office is leading on an investigation into the misuse of data, primarily by Facebook but by other platforms as well.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. Can I direct the Minister to ask some questions?
Margot James
I see. I am so sorry. You have been very forbearing with me as I completely misinterpreted my role.
Margot James
I thought I was making closing remarks. Should I be asking questions?
Margot James
I will convert some of the comments I was going to make into questions, then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe indicated that he might want to know when the White Paper is coming out. We intend to publish it early next week—Monday, in fact. That White Paper is very broad, and I think it is an excellent piece of work. It has been informed by the work of my hon. Friend’s Committee, as well as by many other Members and external bodies, and also by the hard work of our officials in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The White Paper will raise a number of questions, and I will take the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend about closed groups, encrypted content, and anonymity. From my knowledge of the White Paper, I think those are the three biggest challenges when it comes to delivering on the objectives that my hon. Friend has set out for internet companies. There are various experts working in those areas of encryption and private groups, and I would welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
That is fine, but we have limited time, because we have another statement and then a normal debate after that. Thank you very much. Damian Collins, did you wish to respond?
Damian Collins
I will respond briefly. To add to the Minister’s comments, we have all benefited enormously from the work of Elizabeth Denham and the ICO. It has demonstrated that it is one of the world-leading organisations in its field, and the fact that it has invested so much of its time into this area has helped enormously. This was an extremely long inquiry, and I place on record my thanks to all the Committee Clerks, particularly Chloe Challender the Committee Clerk and Josephine Willows the Committee specialist. They worked tirelessly, well above and beyond the call of duty, to support the Committee in its investigations.
The Minister has touched on some important issues. We discussed closed groups earlier, which are an important mechanism for allowing content to be shared virally and at great speed, particularly on Facebook. That sharing can be done not just through advertising, but through those closed groups. We know that social media platforms can observe what is going on in closed groups, and part of their responsibility should be to monitor that activity, particularly if those groups are being used to spread harmful content.
Encrypted media is also an important issue, and I have some concerns about the vision that Mark Zuckerberg has set out for Facebook, effectively bringing Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp together. If that means all content being shared through encrypted channels, it would give the platforms an excuse to say that, because they cannot see what is being shared, they have no responsibility for it. I do not think that is acceptable, especially when those platforms will be using data gathered about their users to help facilitate contact via encrypted channels, and will still have a good understanding of what is going on. That is why the idea of a regulatory system is such an important step forward. As we have seen from the way Ofcom works with broadcasters, we need a regulator that has statutory powers—the power to go in and investigate, with the backing of Parliament—and the flexibility to look at new challenges as they arise and establish new standards for what is a responsible, ethical and acceptable way of working.
Elsewhere in the world, encrypted channels are increasingly becoming the principal mechanism for sharing information in election campaigns, particularly WhatsApp in India and Brazil. In any country that has a smartphone-connected electorate—as so many countries now do —sharing of political information through encrypted media will be an increasingly big problem. In our report, we tried to address many of the issues that exist today, and there are things that we can get on and deal with now. However, we may look back in five years’ time and say that, even having done all those things, the challenge of responding to disinformation being spread through encrypted media is one we still have to crack. We cannot leave that challenge to the tech companies on their own; we cannot leave it to them to solve that problem for us. We need to establish a clear legal framework, whereby it is clear what duty of care and responsibility tech companies have to ensure that their technology is not abused by people who seek to do others harm.
China and the Rules-based International System
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
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
We move on to the 16th report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the topic of China and the rules-based international system. Tom Tugendhat, the Chair of the Committee, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Tom Tugendhat to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once, and questions should be brief.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Gapes. Your contribution to the Foreign Affairs Committee over the past 20 years has been truly exemplary, and indeed, your contribution to this report is one of the reasons why it was such a success. I am very glad that you are chairing this hearing.
Today, the Foreign Affairs Committee published its report on China and the rules-based international system. We worked on this inquiry for more than a year, including a trip to China to understand how the UK was seen from a Chinese perspective. As ever, we are very grateful to many people who submitted evidence to us, and especially to those who gave oral evidence, including the former Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd.
China is seeking a role in the world commensurate with its growing economic power, and the UK should welcome its desire to take part in global governance. We do not believe that China wants to jeopardise the benefits that it has reaped from a stable, rules-based international system. However, it has consolidated power in the hands of the Communist party under President Xi, and the UK’s China strategy needs to reflect that. On many issues, China is a viable partner for the United Kingdom. The threat that environmental degradation, for example, poses to the Communist party’s legitimacy has led China to join international efforts on climate change and sustainability.
However, on other issues that China perceives as challenging its domestic control, such as global initiatives on human rights and free societies, it has opposed international approaches. It is appropriate that this statement follows one from the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, given how many of the concerns we considered overlap with that Committee’s work.
Indeed, in the area of human rights, the evidence suggests that China does not intend to reform the rules-based international system. Rather, it intends to subvert it by promoting an alternative version of human rights that stresses economic development at the cost of the universality of individual civil and political freedoms. In our report, we urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to increase its efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations by using UN mechanisms, public statements and private diplomacy.
During the inquiry, we also heard troubling allegations of Chinese attempts to interfere in the UK’s domestic affairs. The openness of the UK’s political system and society is a fundamental source of our strength. However, in the face of an autocratic state seeking to increase its influence abroad, that openness can also be a source of vulnerability. The UK needs to decide how to draw the line between legitimate attempts to exercise influence and illegitimate attempts at interference. It is a topic that we on the Foreign Affairs Committee will be looking at further in our new inquiry into autocracies and UK foreign policy.
The Committee also noted its concern about the Chinese Government’s approach to Hong Kong. The Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong is a legally binding international treaty registered at the UN. It is of great importance to UK national interests and the health of the rules-based international system. China’s adherence to the letter and spirit of the declaration is a key test of the sincerity of its commitment to global governance. We were therefore deeply concerned by evidence that Hong Kong’s autonomy is at risk, especially in the area of the rule of law. We are concerned that the Chinese Government are moving away from an approach of “one country, two systems” towards “one country, one system”. We therefore urge the UK Government to continue to raise concerns about Hong Kong publicly and privately with the Hong Kong authorities.
We support the Government’s efforts to increase the UK’s presence in the Indo-Pacific—including its military presence—in line with its capacity and other defence commitments. The region is vital for global trade and home to a number of UK partners and allies. Communication about those efforts is crucial. Poorly communicated military deployments in the Indo-Pacific could be perceived or depicted by China as a crude attempt to contain the expansion of its influence.
The UK should focus instead on core principles, including freedom of navigation, the rights of states—including China’s neighbours—to form and maintain alliances of their choosing, and the importance of a balanced and consensual regional security order. We urge the Government to ensure that initiatives to expand the UK’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific are explained with reference to those principles.
China’s belt and road initiative—perhaps the most famous and well-known aspect of its foreign policy—is likely to have geopolitical effects that are as important as, and potentially more important than its economic impact. That Chinese-led investment in foreign countries, and in developing countries in particular, need not conflict with British interests. Asia’s infrastructure gap is real, and exporting the fruits of China’s spectacular growth could be a way to close that gap while addressing China’s own economic needs. The UK should help China with that. It can gain economic benefits from doing so, including by focusing on areas in which the UK has particular value to offer, such as legal and financial services.
However, in its current form, the belt and road initiative raises concerns in relation to UK interests. There is a risk that Chinese investment could encourage countries to strike deals that undermine international standards or that leave countries with unsustainable debt that undermines their political stability. The Government should take a strictly case-by-case approach to assessing belt and road projects and refrain from expressing a view on the initiative as a whole.
For the UK to come up with a comprehensive strategy to guide its relationship with China, it will need to answer some key questions. What are the drivers of Chinese foreign policy? What are the major goals of UK policy towards China? What is the bottom line of UK interests, values and national security considerations on which we are not prepared to compromise?
The UK’s approach to China reflects an unwillingness to face the reality of China’s strategic direction. Building a deeper partnership with China is still desirable, but we must recognise that there are hard limits to what co-operation can achieve and that the values and interests of the Chinese Communist party, and therefore the Chinese state, are often very different from those of the United Kingdom. In the report, we call for the Government to produce a single public document that defines its China strategy, crafted through a cross-Government process directed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That chimes with findings emerging from all the substantial inquiries we have undertaken.
The FCO has a diminished grip on our Government’s international strategy. It needs to reassert itself as the focal point for that strategy and regain some of its self-confidence and authority. Without a comprehensive approach, the UK risks prioritising economic considerations over its other interests, its values and national security. A constructive, positive UK relationship with China is possible and desirable, but it will require strategy, rigour and unity in place of hope and muddling through.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, think it is a delight that you are in the Chair, Mr Gapes, although in a way it would be better if you were sitting down here, because I think your contribution would be useful. I commend the Committee on which I sit on our wonderful report. I think the Chairman has outlined the issues very well. How concerned is he that the British Government are a bit mealy mouthed sometimes when it comes to issues such as the Uighurs? More than 1 million people are in probably the largest concentration camp in the world, effectively being reschooled or re-educated—whatever we want to call it. Also, how worried is he by Italy’s recent deal with China? With that, we are beginning to see all the possible dangers of the belt and road initiative that he pointed to coming into the European Union.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. His contribution to the report was extremely important, as he knows. He raises two points that we looked at in various different ways. The Italian question came up at the end of the report process. On the question of the Uighurs, one of the things that came out strongly is that it is not simply a Chinese domestic issue. The repression of Muslim communities in western China will almost certainly have repercussions on other areas, including the UK and our allies in the region, as radicalism is likely to increase and further violence may follow from that.
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, this is one of those moments when one must remember that one is looking at various forms of China. We are seeing the Chinese security state experimenting with its powers, particularly in Xinjiang. In some ways, one could say that modern China is an experiment. The challenge to which we do not know the answer is whether old men with tech can beat young people with ideas. So far, we do not know.
Italy’s deal with China is part of a long pattern that we have seen in Chinese foreign policy, which is to divide alliances and seek to break up groups. In this case, that is to split Italy from the rest of the European Union. It is interesting that when President Macron met President Xi only a few days after that deal was signed, he insisted on having Chancellor Merkel and President Tusk in the room at the same time to make the point that the European Union was still a united entity when dealing with Chinese trade. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Italian decision to go on its own poses some important questions, not only for the European Union but for the United Kingdom.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his report in such detail. The report is excellent and thorough, and I commend all members of the Committee as well as its excellent Chair. Will he tell me how important he thinks soft power is in building our future relationships with China and ensuring that we foster them in the most positive ways, such as through cultural exchange, art and literature, which are important? I had an excellent visit to the Brunei gallery to see the exhibition of John Thomson, who was a devoted Scottish photographer. It was curated by Betty Yao. In the 1800s, he took the earliest pictures of China. I know that the ambassador has been very positive on the connections. Will he comment on taking forward soft power and culture, and that connection?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady makes some important points on soft power. We did not look specifically at the area of arts that she talks about, but we did speak to people about universities. The university sector is an extremely important element of the UK’s soft power, particularly in Scotland, which has universities with international reputations such as St Andrews, which is merely an example of the much larger university sector.
When we look at the university sector in terms of soft power, it is important that we look at both its influence and the challenge that dealing with autocratic states can pose. The hon. Lady is right that soft power is very important; it allows us to spread cultural values and to influence future generations of Chinese society. However, it also gives the Chinese state an opportunity to influence some aspects of the UK.
We took evidence from some universities and professors who commented on the nature of the intervention in UK civic life that the Chinese state has made, on occasion, in seeking to close down debate or discussion in UK universities by using Chinese students as an economic lever over our university sector. That is clearly important, and something we need to be cautious about. It is one of the reasons why many of us on the Committee are so supportive of the work of the BBC World Service in setting out a neutral and open information network for the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Chair of the Committee and all its members for this comprehensive report. As he and the Minister will know, I have a deep interest in human rights. Pages 28 and 29 of the report are clear about the persecution of ethnic minorities or religious groups. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned the Uighur Muslims. House Christians, Buddhists and the Falun Gong also face persecution. The Chair of the Committee will be aware of the debate that we had in Westminster Hall a short time ago about live organ transplants or extraction on a commercial basis, with some 90,000 transplants per year in China.
I know that the Minister is very sympathetic to the issue—this is not a criticism, by any means—but I wonder whether the Committee gave any thought to how to address the human rights exploitation, which is clearly at a clinical, surgical level. Although the Chinese constitution says that there is freedom of expression, there clearly is not. How can we persuade the Chinese Government, through the Minister and our Government, of the changes that we feel they should put in place?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman’s record on defending human rights, and particularly the freedom of religion and belief, is second to none in this House, and I am grateful to him for those points. In the inquiry, we restricted ourselves to focusing on the UK, our relationship to China and how we should shape our position. We therefore did not look at the house Churches, the Christian persecutions or the Buddhist persecutions that he speaks of.
We looked at the Uighur element because of the repercussions on the UK of increased radicalisation in Muslim communities. We also recognised the closing down of freedom of expression in Hong Kong, and therefore the intervention in the rule of law, because we have a specific commitment, lodged with the United Nations in the Sino-British treaty, that we are obliged to maintain.
Furthermore, we also inherit some aspects of that rule of law, because we continue to send judges to the court of final appeal in Hong Kong. The undermining of the rule of law in Hong Kong could therefore affect the perception of UK justice here at home. We are focused on how we can influence the UK Government to change their actions in relation to protecting the UK’s interests. That is why we focused, as I said, on the Uighur and the Hong Kong elements in relation to human rights.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, who my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) holds in high regard. If the UK Government decide to uphold the UN ruling on the Chagos islands, in respecting the international rules-based system, they risk letting China in and upsetting the delicate balance of power in south Asia and the Indian ocean. If the UK Government do not respect the decision, they undermine the rules-based system, allowing China further to erode and undermine the balance of power in the South China sea with its base construction. Which is it to be?
Tom Tugendhat
I am impressed with the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in relating the Chagossians to a Foreign Affairs Committee report on China. There is a difference, which I will leave the Minister to explain, with the British Government’s position towards the Chagos islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will not be drawn on that—forgive me.
I will say that the UN law of the sea, which guarantees freedom of navigation in all parts of the world, is an extremely important underpinning of world trade. It is extremely concerning that nations are restricted in transiting through international waters, because that can have severe repercussions on not just our own community and trade but those of very important allies such as India and Japan, which share our interest in free trade. We therefore need to be very supportive of democratic states in the area, whose economic lives will—I hope—be increasingly linked to our own.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, as I will call him, on this excellent report, which has been put together in such detail. I will ask a couple of questions, particularly on what he thinks the Government will do regarding the Indo-Pacific routes, and how we can push the Government to make some clear lines in relation to them.
My hon. Friend raised the belt and road project, which will have a huge effect on Europe and on what we do. China has to meet international standards, in relation to products, the way they are transported, the areas that they go through, and the people who are affected. It has to trade on the same level footing as we do. He also rightly raised issues surrounding democracy in Hong Kong. I press the Government to support that and to continue to move forward; we have a responsibility to do so.
Finally, soft power was mentioned—where we have a huge advantage. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned universities, which are very important, as is the World Service, but I urge him to look at the British Council, which does a phenomenal amount of work in this area. The British Council’s presence in China, looking at the issues, will lead to more young people and students coming to our universities. That is a great tool of soft power that we do not use as much as we should.
I thank my hon. Friend for the report, and urge him to look at those questions. The Minister is a very good fellow, and I am sure he will be supportive.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
There were a lot of questions there, but we do not have much time.
Tom Tugendhat
Mr Gapes, I will be as brief as you are in Committee. [Laughter.]
Tom Tugendhat
I will pick up on the points that have not been covered, particularly those relating to the British Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) is right that we did not explore its work, but it is an extremely important element of Britain’s soft power.
The work of the Department for International Development in China is also interesting, because it has ceased, in many ways, to be a donor agency instead of a partner agency. That is an area in which our partnership with China is reaping rewards, not just for China but for the United Kingdom and many other countries in the region. Our assistance in professionalising Chinese aid and sharing best practice is helping in many areas. That is an expression of soft power that we often overlook. We often look at DFID’s soft power as a donor agency, but being a partner agency is an important element too.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
Let us not beat about the bush: the rise of China is the big geopolitical issue of our age. It is fantastic that the Committee has put so much work into its report. I know that it makes a lot of recommendations; there may be some that we do not entirely agree with, but having appeared before the Committee, I hope that we can work closely together on its important work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) quite rightly pointed out the importance of the juxtaposition between the two reports debated in this Chamber today. I think it is wishful thinking to assume that there will be a global protocol for the internet. It may be slightly disingenuous for Facebook and others to suggest that they can work towards one, because there is no doubt that there are fundamental differences in values. Equally, this is a world in which we need to work both in bilateral relationships and internationally.
May I touch on the rather provocative question asked by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes)? Of course our view is that the judgment of the International Court of Justice was advisory, rather than being a judgment that we are necessarily subject to, but there is a risk that in trying to address these issues we could be accused of being mealy mouthed. Fundamentally, I am not quite sure where we will come out. There is a great risk that if the injustice to the Chagos people continues for any great length of time, we will be accused of riding roughshod in the way that has been suggested. I am being very candid with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that it is right to do so.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. May I gently suggest that we get back to China?
Mark Field
Well, there was an issue relating to China there—the fundamental issue of standing up for the rules-based international order. We will need to work closely on it with partners and recognise that China will not respect that order, although it respects order in its own right, and that it will want us to adapt and evolve those rules for a 21st century in which it will be an even bigger player.
I do not think I have any more questions, but more questions will arise from a full analysis of the Committee’s excellent report, to which we look forward to providing a full written response in due course.
Tom Tugendhat
The Minister’s response, both on the Chagos islands and on other areas, shows why he is highly respected in his brief and why he is such an important part of our diplomatic effort around the world. I am extremely grateful for his contribution. I am particularly grateful that he brought up the comparison between democracy and autocracy with respect to the question of privacy and openness. He is right, because democracies fundamentally require privacy to survive and autocracies fundamentally compel openness. That is a challenge that we are seeing around the world.
It remains for me to thank you, Mr Gapes, because your contribution was invaluable throughout; the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who was also a fantastic member of the Committee; and our Committee staff, who have been instrumental. Sadly, our specialist Matthew Harries was with us all too briefly and has now taken up a different opportunity elsewhere, but he was absolutely first rate; he could not have been better or more diligent in his preparation and his efforts. Our Clerk Hannah Bryce has been exemplary in keeping our rather disorderly Committee together on our trips—she is extremely impressive. I thank them both, along with our other Clerk, who I am glad to see in a new place, from my perspective—sitting next to you, Mr Gapes.
IR35 Tax Reforms
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered IR35 tax reforms.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gapes. We are now a year out from the Government’s extension of the IR35 rules to the private sector, and we are halfway through the Treasury’s further technical consultation, which is due to conclude on 28 May. Although the IR35 reforms are a complicated issue, I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for us to add something to the process, raise the concerns of constituents who will be affected by the changes, and flag up to the Minister our anxieties about the IR35 roll-out into the private sector.
The rules have been a long time in the making. It was in the late 1990s that concerns began to creep across Whitehall that private service companies were becoming a widely utilised tool to disguise worker status, allowing some workers to perform the role of an employee while they and the employer reaped the tax benefits of a business-to-business relationship. We all want to tackle non-compliance and tax avoidance and close any loophole that allows an employee to leave their employment on a Friday and return to the same role in the same office on the Monday as a contractor or consultant through a PSC, paying less tax. The question, however, is how it is being tackled and what impact it will have on legitimate small businesses and the clients who engage them.
The last Labour Government introduced provisions to allow the tax authorities to take a closer look at contractual relationships to identify where an intermediary, such as a PSC, may be being used to avoid tax contributions and associated workers’ rights. That legislation, known as IR35, was introduced in 2000 following the March 1999 Budget statement. It was a controversial measure at the time, and calls to scrap it came from different parties. However, although the initial implementation created problems that still bedevil the modern IR35 rules, the legislation took important steps to avoid a contraction of the tax base as self-employment increased across the UK labour market and to ensure that where individuals acted as employees, they were treated as such.
In many ways, the objectives of the original IR35 rules were significantly ahead of their time. The growth of self-employment in the UK economy has produced several structural problems, with employment status and the gig economy leading to situations in which employers can privatise the reward of lower-cost labour through tax avoidance, but socialise the risk that comes from cutting corners, with the costs borne inevitably by the public purse.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, on which I sit, has looked closely at the impact that unclear worker status can have on the wider economy. Our inquiry considered the findings of the Taylor review and supported its conclusion that there is an “overwhelming case” to tackle the lack of clarity around employment status. We also supported its recommendation that the Government should produce
“a clearer outline of the tests for employment status, setting out the key principles in primary legislation”.
Perhaps at the moment the Government lack the necessary bandwidth and political capital to follow through fully on the review’s recommendations, but that is ultimately where we must end up.
One of the major issues with the IR35 changes is the great difficulty in assessing whether an individual should be caught by the rules. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ guidance and tools are far from 100% effective, and there is a lot of complex case law. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said what progress the Government have made on the issue and on the Taylor review’s recommendations.
It is impossible to look at the myriad changes that the labour market is likely to go through in the coming decades and not conclude that legal clarifications will need a serious rethink, particularly to secure the integrity of the tax base that will be all too important in an ageing society. In many ways, the IR35 rules are a stopgap in the journey towards a statute book that supports 21st-century employment practices and the realities of modern workers’ lives. I have no doubt that the objective of the reforms is correct, but their implementation threatens to scupper any associated benefits.
The roll-out of the IR35 rules in the public sector has raised several concerns that need to be ironed out. Independent research has highlighted problems in implementing the reforms, including initial unfamiliarity with the legislation and guidance, which has resulted in compliance problems. Many public authorities were found to be overly cautious or to have judged more contractors to fall within the rules than they should have.
The incentive, of course, is on the fee payer to take a cautious approach rather than leave themselves potentially vulnerable to future tax liabilities. If there are agencies in the contractual chain, it is the agency immediately above the PSC in the chain that becomes the fee payer and is therefore responsible for the liability of an incorrect status decision, so an agency is unlikely to dispute a decision that brings the contractor within IR35 even when it should not be. I know that the Government are exploring options for the consequences for businesses that fail to use reasonable care in making a decision. Will the Minister update us on progress in that area?
Concerns have also been raised about the reforms’ impact on the ability of public authorities to recruit contractors in sufficient numbers and with the required range of skills, as a result of which the rates for off-payroll workers have increased in some areas. Some contractors have been put off working in the public sector at all.
Many of those problems in the public sector have been solved, or at least mitigated, but the private sector presents a very different problem, with significantly greater variation, potentially weaker channels of communication and less room for manoeuvre when things go wrong. That has led a number of membership organisations, including the CBI, to call on the Government to extend the trial period in the public sector and offer extra resources to support the initial roll-out when the private sector is eventually included. The CBI was so concerned that it even went as far as to ask the Government to eliminate the prospect of an early roll-out in 2019.
We are in a state of great uncertainty about our future relationship with the European Union and its likely impact on businesses, the economy and private sector recruitment. I wonder whether the Government will consider delaying the roll-out beyond 2020 if it is deemed necessary. I have received representations from constituents who operate as contractors and have enormous reservations about the extension of these rules, and I am sure other hon. Members have received such representations.
One constituent who came to my surgery set out his concerns about the complexity of the system. He has deep reservations about whether it could be implemented successfully and about the costs when things go wrong. He says:
“I have no idea how clients will assess my work when the responsibility transfers to them, and neither do they”.
He believes there will be widespread non-compliance as clients struggle to make assessments and default to playing it safe. He works in IT, and also has deep fears about where ultimate liability will rest. I know the idea is that the fee payer is responsible, but contractors are looking at recent HMRC decisions about various schemes that were deemed legal when they were set up, which are now leaving individuals with massive retrospective tax bills. There is a worry that poor application of the rules now could end up meaning that individuals face bankruptcy later down the line if they are chased for payment.
My constituent sums up his concerns by wondering if there will be any point in continuing as a contractor at all. Among the reasons, he cites potential problems for processing expenses. In the public sector, we have heard about the removal of the 5% allowable deduction from the income of personal service companies for general expenses incurred in running the business. If all engagements are treated as caught by IR35, all the income accounted for is either tax, national insurance contributions or net pay, so there is nothing to set running costs against.
My constituent also says that the situation could lead to him setting up an umbrella company, which would increase costs. He is seriously concerned about that, as he is about the potential for disproportionate costs to be passed on to the contractor by clients. He says:
“Ultimately, if the benefits are removed from me and I am actually paying more tax than a regular employee, with none of the rights, then I have a difficult choice to make. What will my clients do if they cannot source flexible skills in the contract market due to many others doing the same as me? They have two choices: one is to hire an employee, which defeats the ‘flexibility’ argument. If they cannot hire an employee just for the duration of a project, they will most likely go to a large organisation, such as IBM or Capita who will charge them 2-3 times the contractor day rate.”
My constituent makes the important point that those large companies are much more likely to have sophisticated tax and legal expertise at their disposal than small businesses such as his.
What my constituent says about being treated as an employee for tax purposes while not enjoying the same employment rights is crucial. I know that the Government are aware of that point, and I would be grateful if the Minister would update us on their current thinking. I am sure that the Minister will recognise many of the concerns that my constituent has highlighted, as they reflect much of what has been raised by private sector interest groups and in Government consultations.
As I said before, the aims of the IR35 rules are right, but the prospect of their implementation has fostered a very bleak view indeed. The substance of this implementation must therefore be better, as the rules will be wholly self-defeating if, by their very nature and complexity, they force contractors out of the market or encourage more sophisticated forms of tax avoidance. I am sure all of us here would agree that the aim is to allow flexibility where needed, while ensuring that revenue and rights are not lost where a contractor effectively becomes an employee.
I have asked the Minister for quite a lot of things. When he is summing up, I hope he can provide a further update on the use of the IR35 rules in the public sector, particularly around compliance with the rules, uptake and concerns that companies are exiting the public sector market because of those rules. I hope he will summarise the key lessons the Government have learned from the public sector roll-out and how they are being adjusted to suit the different nature of the private sector. Will he clarify whether the Government have any ambitions or plans to further roll out the IR35 rules to small businesses in the private sector? Will he also give an update on how the IR35 rules sit in the Government’s wider consideration of the recommendations of the Taylor review?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. As hon. Members may know, I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary loan charge group. I was approached by an agency that employs doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants purely for the NHS, because there is an interconnection with the loan charge—the unintended consequences of IR35’s creation are why we have the whole problem with the loan charge.
Loan schemes were set up as a way of enabling people who are self-employed and freelancers not to be disbenefited and not to have to pay more tax than if they had gone through pay-as-you-earn. For many people, it was intended to remove the administrative burden of setting up their own companies. As the debate going on now in the main Chamber will show, many hon. Members from both sides of the House have lots of examples of the many distressing consequences of the way the loan charge has been handled by HMRC, particularly in the last three or four years.
I want to relay the concerns of the managing director, owner and founder of what was a significant recruiter of NHS workers, whose business has declined by more than 60% in recent years. The particular issue he has concerns about—I hope I can express it clearly, and I apologise if I do not get this entirely right—is the confusion in the NHS about whether freelance workers are PAYE or not. There is mixed communication, which is causing him difficulty in his business, but it is also causing difficulties for the workers concerned. These are low-paid, or medium-paid, people—some earn less than £30,000, and most less than £50,000 per annum.
Because of the inflexibility of NHS employment, those people choose to work on a freelance basis, day by day. London-based people could be sent to Southampton one day, Bath the next day and maybe somewhere in London the day after. They incur travel expenses. For long days, they incur costs that they would normally be able to claim against the company. However, if they are PAYE, they cannot claim those costs. They therefore make themselves unavailable to the NHS.
I also learned that this situation is one of the major causes—in addition to Brexit—of chronic shortages of clinicians, medical staff, nurses and nursing assistants in the NHS. For people who need to work flexibly, the work is just not worthwhile when they are being forced to go through PAYE. They are therefore working in the private health sector, where there is more flexibility and the restrictions do not apply, they are leaving the country, or they are leaving health and working in another, more flexible, sector, where they are better off.
I have been told that 99% of the firm’s agency workers are being unlawfully blanket-assessed in IR35 and forced into unlawful employment, without a fair assessment—approved NHS framework operators are enforcing the blanket assessment. NHS Improvement has stated that a fair and individual IR35 assessment must be carried out, but that is not happening; blanket assessments are not compliant with the legislation.
Under the new rules, the fee payer, which is the agency or third party paying the worker’s personal service company, is not allowed to carry out an IR35 status assessment to determine the proper IR35 status of the worker—I apologise for reading this out, but I will get it wrong if I do not. The fee payer is the closest party in the contractual chain to the worker’s personal service company. This is despite HMRC guidance that states that, where a public authority, agency or third party makes a payment to a worker’s intermediary on or after 6 April 2017, it decides if the rules apply and then deducts tax and primary NICs from the payment it makes and pays the employer’s NICs, and that is included in calculating the apprenticeship levy.
The HMRC check employment status for tax tool that is used to assess workers assumes mutuality of obligation, which is one of the main tests that has to be assessed in all engagements via IR35 determination. As a result of the assumption, the CEST tool is flawed. The importance of mutuality of obligation is demonstrated by the recent tribunal case of Dr R Narayan v. Community Based Care Health Ltd—I can make the details available. In the supply of people to NHS trusts, there appears to be no mutuality of obligation. The worker can cancel a shift at any time and will not be paid, which is key to that case. The NHS trust can cancel a shift at any time, and the worker will not be paid, as confirmed in the contracts of the agency I mentioned. However, 99% of the agency workers are blanket-assessed inside IR35 and forced into unlawful employment.
It appears that HMRC does not understand the IR35 rules. Apparently, it recently lost a tax case against Lorraine Kelly. If HMRC has lost approximately 50% of IR35 tax cases that it has brought against contractors, how can it implement an online tool to get a correct IR35 result? HMRC gets that right only 50% of the time when it goes to court, which has to be worrying.
I am very concerned about what I have heard from this agency, which is trying to do the right thing. Incidentally, it warns all its staff about the loan charge. It is an umbrella company but does not use the loan charge. I am absolutely convinced that the company is trying to do the right thing, but it is really concerned about the impact that the confusion between HMRC and the NHS is having on the ability to supply appropriately qualified staff to the NHS, as and when needed.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
From discussing the issue with constituents, trying to read up on it and coming here today, the thing that really strikes me is how complicated it is. It is clearly complicated for most of us, as well as for the people who have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, nobody likes tax loopholes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West gave an example of one that is clearly unethical and wrong. What made me realise more about all this is that a lot of the people who are affected by this want flexible working relationships. They have to respond to peaks and troughs in their businesses, and we need a system that works for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West brought up concerns about the implementation of IR35 legislation in the public sector, and raised the CBI’s concerns about its implementation in the private sector. He also mentioned the clarification that can be provided by the recommendations of the Taylor review. We would all welcome clarification on this issue. I do not know whether I speak for other hon. Members, but the more I tried to read about it, the more complicated it became.
I want to raise a couple of issues from my constituency, which have been raised by people who have to deal with the system and who have very real concerns. Let me refer to the case of Kaye Edwards from Acrefair. Kaye is a freelancer and runs a consultancy business in Liverpool that has secured assignments for many other freelancers during the last 10 years. She has serious concerns about the off-payroll IR35 tax legislation in the public sector, and believes it would dramatically damage the UK if it were extended to the private sector. She believes her personal assignments and her company will be severely impacted by the proposed legislation. She states that her company is small and struggled through the credit crunch. She is of the opinion that companies like hers helped to bolster the economy during that period and are now battling uncertainty, which is not helped by the issues surrounding Brexit.
Kaye believes that the administration and lack of clarity on off-payroll legislation will make it either very difficult or untenable to continue her business. She believes that there are real concerns about the responses from HMRC and the Treasury. I am drawn to think of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said about HMRC and its lack of success rate in the cases that have brought against it.
Kaye Edwards claims that there have been many recent surveys on what would happen if IR35 were applied to the private sector. She thinks the widespread theme is that UK businesses will be subject to major disruption on all fronts. Increasing costs, shrinking talent pools, reduced flexibility, and legal challenges to status assessments are among the hurdles that firms are expected to have to navigate. She is fearful that the costs of doing business will rise, and claims that any current and future projects that are already planned for, costed, in progress and/or are funded by investment will be affected. She is especially fearful of how this will affect people working in IT, and feels that it could make some projects on low margins unprofitable, leading to cancellations and job losses. She is someone who has to deal with the situation on a day-to-day basis.
I have heard from another constituent on this issue. He runs a small company that is trying to develop its supply chain. Owing to the nature of the business, my constituent engages only in contract work, which involves travelling across the country. As such, he claims expenses for travel, accommodation, food and so forth. HMRC allows contractors working in the private sector to claim back 5% of the income that is generated through a contract to offset the admin costs of running a business. However, my constituent says other expenses will not be claimable. He argues that recent changes to travel and subsistence allowance mean that the contractors working under the rules of IR35 will not be able to claim on everyday expenses, such as travel, hotels, meals and so on. He believes that HMRC will reclassify those earnings as liable to tax and national insurance contributions if they do not meet its test. My constituent claims that this is notoriously difficult to do; in many cases, contractors’ expenses will not meet the test, causing a significant loss of income.
I apologise for reading that word-for-word; with the complexities involved, I am rather fearful of not doing so. Can the Minister clarify some of those concerns? My constituents are committed to the business work that they do, and these sorts of workers are very important in my local area. However, they are clearly worried about the proposed changes. I hope the Minister reassures us in some way and deals with the situation—it is causing great concern to my constituents who are likely to be affected by it.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing the debate and pulling together the necessary support from the Backbench Business Committee. This debate is a good example of the constituency MP in action and effectively representing constituents—the sentiments expressed so far by my hon. Friends indicate that.
I had never heard of IR35 until a constituent came to see me about it and asked me, “What do you know about IR35?” I had to confess: “Nothing. I have never heard of it.” I was in for a quick education, however, as he iterated his deep concerns about the changes. I must confess, having never before seen, heard of or understood IR35, I share his alarm. It is only right that the Minister recognises the deep and genuine concern about the issue, which is shared not only by constituents, but by hon. Members who have been made aware of it.
My hon. Friend encapsulated that concern—the changes to IR35 are akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am heartened to see Labour MPs standing up for freelance workers and raising concerns about the policies that the Conservative Government have proposed, which could damage entrepreneurship, workers’ rights and private sector businesses. That is quite curious, as the narrative is usually the other way around.
I am aware that the original IR35 legislation was introduced by the previous Government some time before I entered the House, but I refer hon. Members to what the current Chancellor said in November 2001, at the time of its introduction:
“One reason why the Government’s IR35 initiative has been so damaging and destructive is the fact that it has hit at the most flexible part of the economy.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 16WH.]
It would be interesting to see if the Minister can explain how the reforms are no longer as damaging and destructive as his boss previously thought.
In February, I submitted a written question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In his answer, he said:
“The reform does not change the amount of tax payable by the firm engaging the worker.”
I am afraid that that is factually incorrect. Before the reform, the firm that engaged the worker did not expect to pay employer national insurance contributions. The person of significant control did that, and deducted it from the amount received from the engager. After the reform, the engager will pay employer national insurance contributions on top of the amount paid to the person of significant control.
The figures produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility have the highest uncertainty rating possible, with no data available on the behavioural effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West indicated that the potential effects could be devastating for firms, which may have to contend with cumbersome administration burdens and face considerably increased costs both to retain and to hire contingent workers, particularly those that require overnight stays to complete the work. As extra costs to business are inevitable, firms clearly need more notice so that they can plan accordingly. They face hard choices to decide whether to increase costs or cancel or delay existing projects.
Of course, some firms will no doubt be in a position to pass any extra costs on to the contingent workers whom they hire by reducing the amount that they pay. Sadly, those in weaker bargaining positions and with lower earnings will be most affected. Those given a Hobson’s choice will end up classed as employees for tax only, but will not have any of the associated employment rights. That seems entirely contrary to the Government’s good work plan.
There are clear concerns about the complexity of employment status assessments, which HMRC’s check employment status for tax tool, or CEST tool, has been unable to overcome. It is worrying that HMRC promotes the use of a tool that gives incorrect results, as evidenced by the Lorraine Kelly case, which has been mentioned. Given that HMRC loses the vast majority of IR35 cases in court, how can it adequately educate and prepare the entire private sector to accurately assess the status of the contingent workforce? Should a teacher who consistently fails their own exams be the one chosen to teach the lessons? We must reflect on the complexity and incompetence that pervade the system.
Putting the financial implications to one side, the logistical challenges for the private sector are enormous. An estimated 600,000 self-employed freelancers work in the UK, and they and their firms will be affected by the reforms. Every single engagement needs to have a status assessment completed, and I am told that each assessment takes approximately one and a half hours, so over 1,000 status experts would be required to complete the next six months. There are simply not that many available, and even if there were, the level of inconsistency across them would create more uncertainty.
Firms that think they have correctly assessed genuinely self-employed people will themselves have no certainty, because HMRC can challenge the situation at a later date and go back six years if it considers that the firm has been careless. Every firm will have to prepare for the reforms within 12 months, but where are the warnings and support from HMRC and the Treasury?
In the light of the very subjective nature of the tests, HMRC will always be able to take an angle, which could mean that a firm will have to battle for many years to defend itself, at considerable cost to its business. The level of possible tax risk and penalties for firms could be crippling. Cambridge University estimated a tax risk equal to 56% of the original cost of hiring the self-employed worker. That risk will accumulate every year for each worker hired, and put an uncertain risk on the balance sheet of every UK business that is engaged in the practice.
That kind of risk will need to be evaluated during any potential company sale, which could reduce the attractiveness, value and shareholder value of the firm. Will firms still consider the UK as a base for operations when that kind of uncertain financial environment is the newly laid foundation of the British economy? If a growing company needs to hire contingent workers, will it choose the UK as its base?
The new proposals also introduce a new tax. It is based on a subjective assessment by the client, which could be wrong, yet there is no route to appeal. HMRC has suggested that firms should manage the appeal process themselves, but asking the perpetrator to judge their own situation is hardly a valid appeal and does not enable a taxpayer to seek natural justice through the courts. The new proposals effectively bestow on firms powers to make tax judgments that affect someone else’s wellbeing without there being any proper way to appeal. If HMRC cannot get the assessment decisions right, is it fair to put them into the hands of firms that have a vested interest—to avoid tax risk—in wrongly claiming that the worker is caught by the legislation? That will clearly require some sort of independent arbitration service, but the assessments need to be completed before the work begins. How is that possible when the service would need to deal with around 600,000 assessments a year?
I sympathise with the Treasury’s challenge. It is concerned about the projected decrease in employer’s national insurance contributions, as the modern workforce changes and more people move to flexible self-employment. The Treasury wants to take the same sized slice of tax from everyone who provides labour, irrespective of their employment status. Unfortunately, the tax system has not kept up with the modern way of working, and employer’s national insurance is now seen as an unnecessary cost by firms that can much more easily obtain the services that they need from the contingent workforce, particularly with platform-based or gig-based working.
The employer’s national insurance of 13.8% is, in all but name, a payroll tax, which firms that hire contractors do not have to pay. It is the £60-billion elephant in the room. Contractors, because of various changes over the years, pay largely proportional taxes to those on a salary, and any historical tax advantages are small compared to the chunk of employer’s national insurance that firms do not have to pay when they hire the self-employed. If the tax differential was closed, none of us would be standing here today and there would be no such thing as “deemed employees” or IR35.
If the Government are concerned about falling revenues because of the self-employed, they should ditch the introduction of a new complex tax that is based on the already failed IR35, and instead just introduce a new off-payroll tax that applies to all firms that hire freelancers who are off-payroll. A small but simple tax would be far preferable to the large and uncertain one. To re-class those people as “deemed employees”, without giving them employment rights, is not the answer and never has been. The concept is ideologically flawed and will damage the flexibility of the British economy as the UK attempts to find its feet in these particularly uncertain times for the economy and its prospects for growth.
I shall close by asking the Minister some direct questions. If, as HMRC has claimed, a third of workers are probably “deemed employees”, how come HMRC keeps losing IR35 cases in court? In the light of the inaccuracy of HMRC’s CEST tool, and the lack of evidence about testing and accuracy, can the Minister assure us that the tool will undergo formal independent scrutiny to ascertain its worthiness, before any future enhancements are released to the wider sector? What studies has the Treasury conducted to consider the impact of the reforms on the self-employed?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, even though it looks as though that will be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing the debate. Those of us in the Chamber today share common ground on the problems of IR35. The hon. Gentleman said that we all wanted to see what was due to be collected in taxes being collected to pay for the services from which we all benefit. That is an important point to bear in mind, and we share that view, but that is not to take away from the difficulties that have been presented in the Chamber so eloquently today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Taylor review and the need to get the recommendations in play with some speed, and to the conflict between agencies and contractors. He also made a good point, on which we need to reflect, about our future relationship with the EU—the crisis that we currently face over EU membership. That should be food for thought for Ministers in relation to a possible delay to the further roll-out of IR35. The hon. Gentleman talked about his constituent and mentioned that large companies often have sophisticated tax systems and resources that are not available to those who are often affected.
[Sir David Amess in the Chair]
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about the unintended consequences of IR35, moving on to the loan charge, which I will touch on in a few moments, and in particular the confusion in the NHS and other public bodies. She mentioned those working flexibly with the NHS to meets its needs. Another point that I agreed with was that the effect of rolling IR35 into Brexit is to increase the unattractiveness of going into such jobs and accelerate chronic staff shortages by trying to force into the PAYE system people who do not want to be in it.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) also talked about public sector damage, but she reflected on it in terms of IR35 being applied to the private sector. She expressed concerns that this was the wrong time, given Brexit as well as IR35. She quoted her constituents’ worries about additional costs, shrinking talent pools, legal challenges, investment losses and the expenses incurred. She mentioned the impact on IT businesses specifically, which is to make some unviable or unable to operate at all.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) talked about how, when IR35 was introduced, the issues around it became relevant and very present, showing up as a genuine concern for many people. He highlighted the real extra costs to businesses and, as was said earlier, the number of IR35 court cases lost by HMRC. The Government must reflect on that when they look at this. The hon. Gentleman also rightly talked about the lack of advice, warning or assistance from HMRC, moving on to the risk of the penalties incurred and of further extension of IR35 making it even less attractive to do business throughout the UK, especially in current circumstances.
The SNP has expressed concerns about the extension of IR35 since it was proposed in 2017. The UK Government must pay close attention to their own technical review and rule out extending IR35 rules until contractors’ concerns have been addressed. HMRC has been described as using a hammer to crack a nut, but this UK Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into tackling major, systematic tax avoidance and evasion. The extension was proposed through the Finance Act 2017, and since then the SNP concern has been about the key effect on contractors supplying public sector bodies. It is only right for such contractors to pay their fair share of tax, but they have been left with an unfairly high level of bureaucracy, making it even more difficult for them to play their flexible role within the economy, as those in the sector have confirmed. Experts have expressed concerns that IR35 does not even achieve its stated aim of equalising tax between those in its scope and employees.
IR35 has also made things more difficult for public sector organisations in rural communities, something I know a lot about, being a highland MP. In rural areas, we often rely on contractors to fill vacancies and to employ key staff—teachers, doctors, nurses and such key people in our communities—so we have great concerns about the further impact on contractors if IR35 is extended for the private sector in April 2020, as proposed.
We have expressed such concerns repeatedly. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) first warned the Chancellor about the risks of the expansion of IR35 during the April 2017 finance debate. The UK Government failed to listen then and, when we raised it again, later in 2017 and in 2018. Here we are in 2019, once again asking the Minister to listen. Will this be the day when ears are unblocked? I hope so. Will this be the day when the message gets through? Let us hope that as well. The UK Government should use the 2019 Budget and Finance Bill to address IR35’s negative impact on contracted staff and our public services.
Earlier today, in the main Chamber, the loan charge was being debated. That is distinct from IR35, but some tax advisers have reportedly informed clients that IR35 required them to utilise tax vehicles now being tackled by the loan charge. For tax professionals to advise clients to use such loopholes is plainly wrong. People should of course pay their fair share of tax to support public services, but the UK Government must now pursue organisations that facilitated such loans. For those caught up in loan charge issues, there is great concern that HMRC has failed to work constructively with those seeking a loan charge repayment.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing the debate—I am sorry, I should have done that earlier. I was in the loan charge debate, which has been suspended because rain is penetrating the main Chamber, so I came over to this debate. I want to add something now that I said in the other debate. Until the past three or four years, many of the early adopters of the loan charge were doing so with the strong advice of chartered accountants. In my earlier speech, I included at least two pieces of evidence to show that there was no uncertainty about the loan charge—it was legitimate. One was a memo written by an HMRC staff member in 2006 about loan arrangements being legitimate, fine and approved; the other was the Rangers case.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is making an intervention or a separate speech.
Ruth Cadbury
I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) will have a look at some of the contributions made during the other debate. Having done so, he will be able to agree with me that there is a lot of confusion and that people were not behaving illegally.
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which allows me to agree with her—I too attended the early part of the main Chamber debate before coming here—and to say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship as well, Sir David. It is a particular problem that the companies that gave such advice are not being pursued, and the Minister must do something. As a final comment on the hon. Lady’s intervention, given the state of politics in this place, it is hardly surprising that the roof has fallen in on Westminster.
Among those caught up in the loan charge issues, there is great and heartfelt concern that HMRC has failed. It has failed to work constructively with those seeking a loan charge repayment plan to pay the taxes demanded. Often, that is bundled up with fines and additional costs. It cannot be right that people are pushed into desperation, or face the threat of losing their family home or of bankruptcy when a more thoughtful, flexible and fair approach should and must be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North tabled early-day motion 2241, and I encourage Members to sign it. We hope that the UK Government and the Minister will force HMRC to change tack and work constructively with those seeking reasonable treatment of people due to pay fair tax payments for unpaid amounts and to remove the threat of bankruptcy and homelessness.
In conclusion, IR35 is not in a state to be further expanded at the moment. That has been clear throughout, in the comments by Members in this debate and from what we have heard about those who have experienced the effects, such as contractors and the people trying to deal with IR35 in our public services. It cannot be right for the Government to steam ahead without taking that into consideration.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing this debate. It is also a pleasure to sit opposite the Minister. I had withdrawal symptoms after the end of the no-deal statutory instruments. I am afraid this subject has a similar level of complexity as the subjects we discussed in relation to no-deal preparations.
As many hon. Friends and Members have mentioned, IR35 arrangements are designed to operate in relation to workers involved in so-called off-payroll working. They cover situations where people work for a client through their own intermediary, often a personal service company. We have heard many examples in the debate. If people were providing their services directly, they would be classified as an employee. However, as a result of the arrangements, IR35 workers pay income tax and national insurance contributions in a different way to an employee. Individuals who work in such a manner benefit from increased flexibility and reduced tax liability, but the IR35 rules are intended to ensure that they pay broadly the same tax and national insurance contributions as an employee.
As we have discussed, the rules have applied to public sector bodies since 2017, and the Government confirmed at the 2018 Budget that they would extend the change to the private sector. The Government have just launched a technical consultation about the new arrangements.
Self-employment and contractual arrangements are a vital part of the UK economy. People who are genuinely self-employed deserve to be properly supported, while also ensuring that everyone pays the right amount of tax. However, there are real concerns that workers are being forced into self-employment by unscrupulous employers to avoid costs and their duties to workers. Both the law and the Exchequer are struggling to keep up on this issue—a point that has been made by various speakers today. HMRC estimates that it loses about £3 billion a year because of self-employment in name only.
There is a problem, but at the root of it is the gap between how work is characterised for tax purposes and how it is characterised for the purposes of employment legislation. The Taylor review was meant to clarify at least the latter, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) in a speech that was characteristic of all the speeches today when she spelled out the experiences of her constituents, and appropriately so. The Taylor review had many flaws. I will not go into all of them now, but it suggested that, for example, sick pay could be traded for a weakening of minimum wage rules—certainly not something that I would support—and that came at the same time as the courts were recognising that many alleged self-employed workers were anything but.
However, the review did offer a number of recommendations that the Government have sadly been extremely slow to consider. The lack of clarity over the implementation of Taylor where it is warranted is leading to a huge number of problems, including the ones we have talked about, for genuinely self-employed contractors and for what we might call bogusly self-employed contractors, as well as for their employers, as they adapt to coverage by IR35, knowing that even the IR35 rules may be subject to change because of future alterations to employment law in the wake of the Taylor review.
It looks as though we will not see an immediate change, so HMRC is engaging in a process of what I call bricolage to try to bridge the gap, and the consequences are complicated and very confusing. The confusion was described appropriately by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who talked about a constituency case. She was kind enough to share the details of the case with me before the debate. She was absolutely right to raise the concerns of her constituent.
Ruth Cadbury
May I clarify that it was not a constituency case? The case was raised with me as a result of the work that I did on the loan charge.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for that clarification. Regardless of where the individual was based in the country, the case was revelatory. In theory, with a levelling of the playing field upwards when the private sector is covered by IR35, some of the concerns about the leakage of highly skilled contractor staff from the public sector could be removed by the extension. However, the other problems that hon. Friends and Members have rightly referred to are still there, not least the problems that arise for small, often one-man or one-woman-band contractor companies that are trying to provide specialist skills on this basis, who may well end up being disadvantaged in relation to much larger providers of those specialist services. Surely we do not want that; surely we want to continue to have the innovation that exists in the complex ecology of different firms and freelancers offering such services.
We really need a joined-up approach to the issues that brings together the consideration of tax and employment law and levels up protections for the self-employed, as well as dealing with the current implications of the tax system that boost bogus self-employment. In the absence of that, we have the issues that we have been talking about today, and employers themselves are trying to find a third way through all of this, as we have seen with the GMB-Hermes deal recently, where a new employment classification has been created in the absence of any other way to improve the situation.
We do not have a coherent approach. It is unfortunate that, as Members have mentioned, the lessons have not been learned from the roll-out of IR35 to the public sector before it is rolled out to the private sector. I will not go through all of them now, as they were appropriately described by my hon. Friends, but one that I want to underline again is the concern about the finance and time that has to be spent by the self-employed who face uncertainty because of the new rules.
The kind of experience that individuals have had with the HMRC online tool, which has already been explained, is a common one. The tool is not based on all of the case law, and the case law itself is not very clear in how it directs us to determining the status of many different contractors, so it does not resolve the situation for many users. It puts an additional strain on contractors, including many individuals who, as has been mentioned, might be on quite low incomes and cannot absorb additional costs. The Government need to look at the issue at a legislative level, rather than the onus being on HMRC to try to deal with it in a technical and procedural manner. It simply cannot. A different approach needs to be taken. As we established in our previous general election manifesto, the burden of proof should be with the employer, so that the law assumes a worker is an employee unless the employer can prove otherwise. We need to be clear on that.
Concerns about the appeals process have been mentioned. I will not go into them in detail, but I will underline the questions asked by hon. Members. How can we be sure that the process will be fair when it is led by those who employ contractors effectively marking their own homework, in the memorable words of one hon. Friend?
The Institute of Chartered Accountants has stated that tax and benefit differentials between different types of work need to be addressed. There needs to be further consultation on what, if any, tax incentives are offered to the self-employed. That is one view from industry and it coincides with what was outlined in the Taylor report:
“Over the long term, in the interests of innovation, fair competition and sound public finances we need to make the taxation of labour more consistent across employment forms while at the same time improving the rights and entitlements of self-employed people.”
That brings me back to the fundamental issue that I will close with, Sir David.
It is a fact that the tax and legal status of work is not aligned, not certain and not comprehensible. It is impossible for many of those caught up in it to understand the right way forward. My party has said that we need a proper commission to look at it in detail, to modernise the law around employment status and to look at how it interrelates with tax status. We have presented a 20-point plan for security and equality at work. We need to build on that through a consultation that includes the voices of the people affected. We have heard so many of them in the short time that we have had today.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend is making important points about the flaws in current thinking. With the consultation on expansion due to start in the next month or so, there is an urgent risk. Does she think we need to pause and reassess the roll-out before we blunder into it and cause much damage?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very concerned that the consultation is going ahead and that the whole process is continuing, because the consultation does not focus on the problems with the public sector roll-out. I would have anticipated that any consultation to expand the approach would take those issues on board. I hope the Minister will address that in his response, specifically why there has not been the necessary change of direction.
We may need legislative change, as I suggested, because of the lack of clarity, but we should not treat individual contractors as guinea pigs while it all gets sorted out, given the impact it could have on them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Colleagues will have noticed that the House has adjourned because of a water leak. However, that does not affect these proceedings, which can continue until 4.30 pm. I call the Minister.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, in this very dry Chamber. I acknowledge the six excellent speeches that I have listened to carefully. I hope I will be able to respond to the whole range of concerns that have been raised, and specifically on the way in which IR35 has been implemented, as well as on the implications of the Taylor review.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing this debate, and I thank everyone who has contributed. The Financial Secretary wanted to be here today—I suppose he could now come over and see how we are getting on—but the debate on disguised remuneration and the loan charge in the main Chamber meant he was unable to attend, so I am here in his place. I am conscious that disguised remuneration and the loan charge were mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and I will come to that issue shortly.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax—I am sure that feeling is shared across the House. We want to help people to pay the correct taxes on time by ensuring the system works as it is meant to. Some serious points have been made about the effectiveness of the system, which I will get to.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If the leak in the House had happened yesterday at 5 o’clock, there would have been conspiracy theories, but that is by the way. For small businesses and the self-employed who pay tax, we need a tax system that is simple to follow. Will there be changes in the tax system to make it simple to follow for small and medium businesses and the self-employed?
John Glen
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s instinct that tax simplification is how all Governments should seek to develop tax reforms. I will make some observations about that later.
As we have heard, the Government have set about extending the reform of the rules that govern off-payroll working. Those rules, known as IR35, were introduced in 2000—in fact, in the previous year’s Budget—to ensure that people working through their own company, who but for the existence of that company would be taxed as employees, pay broadly the same tax and national insurance as other employees. The rules do not affect the genuinely self-employed, and the Government recognise the massive contribution that contractors make to business and public services across the country. Our aim is simply to ensure that contractors who work through their own company pay the right tax.
However, evidence suggests that the rules have frequently been misapplied, meaning that contractors acting as employees were incorrectly paying less tax than if they had been employed in the usual manner. In April 2017, the Government introduced reforms for public sector organisations that take on contractors through their own companies. The reforms mean that public sector organisations are now responsible for deciding whether the contractor is acting as an employee and is therefore within the rules, as well as for ensuring that the right amount of tax is paid.
HMRC estimates that the reform has raised an additional £550 million in income tax and national insurance contributions over the first 12 months.
Ged Killen
Does the Minister know—I am not claiming that I do—how much of that £550 million is the result of the public sector incorrectly sweeping up contractors into the IR35 rules?
John Glen
I am not aware of any distribution analysis, but I will check with officials, and if I can give clarification on that, I will do so by letter.
Non-compliance in the private sector remains a persistent and growing problem that, if left unchecked, will cost the taxpayer as much as £1.3 billion by 2023-24, according to the Government’s estimates. In last year’s Budget, the Government announced that we will extend the reform of off-payroll working rules to all sectors, including the private and voluntary sectors. That will help to address the issue of non-compliance and to ensure there is a level playing field for the public sector and other sectors when hiring contractors.
The Government have listened to the views of individuals and businesses and have decided that the reform will apply only to medium and large organisations. It will not extend to the smallest 1.5 million businesses. In addition, it will take effect from April 2020, to give businesses and other organisations time to prepare. The Government are consulting on the detailed design of the planned reform, and we are listening carefully to the representations made. Our aim is to provide the individuals and organisations concerned with greater certainty about how the off-payroll working rules will operate from April 2020 in all sectors, including about the actions they can take to prepare for the changes.
Hon. Members talked about HMRC’s check employment status for tax—CEST—tool and raised some questions about its effectiveness. CEST was developed in consultation with stakeholders, including tax specialists and contractors, to assist individuals and public authorities in making the correct determinations. HMRC will stand by the result of CEST, provided the information entered is accurate and in line with HMRC guidance. It gives an answer in 85% of cases, and where it does not, more detailed guidance and support are available through a telephone number for individuals.
To support organisations in applying the rules, HMRC will continue to review and improve CEST. HMRC has already held user research sessions, and will continue to work with stakeholders over the coming months to ensure that the tool and the wider guidance suit the needs of all sectors, and to address specific points raised during the consultation. Enhancements will be tested and rolled out before the reforms are introduced in 2020. I asked officials for greater clarity on what that is likely to mean, and we are talking about improved guidance, better phraseology and improved language that gives greater certainty to individuals who make inquiries.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned the issue of blanket decisions in the example she gave. Members have expressed concern that businesses might take a blanket approach to applying the off-payroll working rules to contractors without looking at the facts of individual cases. Independent research suggests that has not generally been the case in the public sector, where the reform has been in place since April 2017. I cannot account for every case, but research was done to evaluate the issue because it was a legitimate area of concern. The vast majority of public bodies are making assessments on a case-by-case basis. I have looked into how that research was done— HMRC commissioned an external independent organisation to speak to central Government Departments, the NHS and local government departments to ascertain that.
Having listened to people’s concerns, we included proposals in our recently published consultation to help to ensure that processes are put in place for individuals to resolve disputes with their engagers directly and in real time. The proposals would put a legal requirement on engagers to have a status disagreement process in place, and would require them to consider evidence provided by an individual contractor and review their status determinations accordingly. HMRC is committed to working with organisations to ensure they make the correct status determinations, and will publish detailed support and guidance to help organisations prepare well ahead of April 2020.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for his response. We look forward to that research. I hope he checks it with bodies such as the NHS and ensures that the different levels and layers of the NHS are looked at. I have been given evidence that different trusts are doing different things and that NHS Improvement and the framework providers in the NHS are providing conflicting advice, which of course causes a problem for agencies and for workers themselves.
John Glen
I am very happy to look into that and to see that that work is forensic enough to give a reliable read-out on actual behaviour.
Members also questioned whether there might be an additional burden on businesses that hire contractors, and raised concerns about introducing the reform at this time of uncertainty. As I mentioned, the reform simply enforces legislation that was introduced in 2000. Fundamentally, I believe it is fair that two people who work in a similar way pay broadly the same tax, and the businesses that hire individuals are best placed to determine whether these rules apply. Medium-sized and large organisations will have until April 2020 to implement the changes, and we will keep the existing rules for the smallest organisations, minimising administrative burdens for the vast majority of businesses and other organisations.
I turn now to employment rights, which the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned. I, too, have missed our exchanges in Delegated Legislation Committees, but it is good to be talking about another topic. Falling within the off-payroll working tax rules does not currently change an individual’s status for employment rights, as there is currently no direct link between employment taxes and those rights.
The Matthew Taylor review took place in summer 2017, and the good work plan was published in December 2018. As set out in that plan, the Government agree that reducing the differences between the tax and rights frameworks for employment status to a minimum is the right ambition. We will bring forward detailed proposals this year—I recognise the need for this to happen quickly—for how those frameworks could be aligned. In the meantime, it is right that the Government take action to improve compliance with existing rules. Those who wish to challenge their employment status for rights can take their case to an employment tribunal, regardless of their tax status.
Members suggested that there is a link between the off-payroll working rules and disguised remuneration schemes. Disguised remuneration arrangements have nothing to do with the off-payroll working rules; individuals are able to comply with those rules without entering into contrived avoidance. Trying to get around rules that are designed to ensure that everyone pays their fair share is not an excuse to use a tax avoidance scheme.
There was mention of some celebrated court cases. It is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. Obviously, many of those cases are very complex; only the very complicated cases make it to court. HMRC will work with businesses to ensure they are equipped to make the right determinations.
I want to be clear that this reform does not introduce a new tax but seeks to strengthen compliance with existing tax rules. The Government value immensely the contribution of the self-employed and flexible workers—various Members have made the point that they make up a much larger proportion of the UK workforce—and intend to protect them, but there are many legitimate commercial reasons for people to work through limited companies and for businesses to engage those companies, and that should not need to change. The off-payroll working rules exist to ensure that those individuals pay a fair amount of tax, and the Government believe it is right that we address non-compliance through these reforms.
I hope I have addressed the points that were raised. If there are any points I have not dealt with, I would be very happy to take on board the final remarks by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and to write to any Member in lieu of responding appropriately.
Ged Killen
I thank the Minister for his response and hon. Members for attending the debate. This is a very complicated issue, and it is not necessarily one that sets pulses racing. However, for the people affected, their livelihoods are at stake, so I am pleased that Members have had the opportunity to raise their constituents’ concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke about what is going on in the NHS, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) pointed out how many public services in rural communities are dealt with in this manner. We have not yet got this right in the public sector. That is the crucial point: if we cannot get it right in the public sector, these issues will only be amplified in the private sector. We have to consider that carefully.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, people’s livelihoods and incomes are at risk because, for example, expenses will be treated as earnings. For a lot of small businesses, having expenses treated differently could be the difference between success and failure. Small decisions in this respect may have major impacts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned the CEST tool, which I touched on in my opening remarks. I am not comforted by what the Minister said about that tool, purely because I have experience of it in a previous life and I know just how inconclusive it can be.
Ged Killen
I thank the Minister for that. I appreciate that we can have a constructive approach. I do not think any of us disagrees about the principles; this is about getting it right.
HMRC’s idea of working with people to assist them is different across the board. I point out gently to the Minister that it can be daunting for people to have HMRC assisting them, because it provides guidance but it is also the enforcer. People are therefore keen to get things right on their own, so we need a fair and transparent system that everyone can understand and use fairly. If we can get a tool that works, that is great, but let us make sure we have one before we come down too hard on people.
I did not hear the Minister confirm whether the changes will eventually be rolled out to small businesses in the private sector. I appreciate that he might not be in a position to answer that today. If the Government are considering that, I urge real caution. They have not suggested that yet, but, having come from a small business background, I can say that that would be a very difficult prospect.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the roll-out being restricted to larger businesses, which the Minister referred to. The changes will inevitably also impact small businesses, which are contractors with areas of expertise. For example, a large bank such as Barclays might commission a software expert to come in and build a product or tool, and that expert might in turn employ staff to support that project. If we classify the person who runs that small business as an employee of the bank, how are they meant to pay their staff?
That is the fankle that this reform will result in. It will draw us into situations where thriving, dynamic businesses that are responsive to the needs of large businesses—small businesses that can, for example, plug into a large financial institution to deliver a bespoke project and detach again —are not able to function in that way because their people will be pulled in as payroll staff members. Does my hon. Friend agree that those will be some of the inevitable negative impacts for small businesses if the Government do not get their act together with these changes?
Ged Killen
I absolutely agree. Small businesses will be affected by these changes anyway. People will be operating in a two-tier system, because many will work for small businesses as well as for large businesses in the private sector, and different rules will apply in those situations. I am not saying that is an argument for equalisation, because I still think it would be difficult for small businesses to act as the judge of whether someone falls under the scheme.
I am not in any way opposed to the principle of preventing tax avoidance. We all want to ensure that we boost tax revenues as much as possible, but that must be done fairly and transparently, and we must not destroy flexible working in the economy or self-employed people and small businesses in the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered IR35 tax reforms.
Whirlpool Tumble Dryers
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) will imminently publish its review of Whirlpool’s tumble dryer modification programme.
In 2015 Whirlpool identified a design issue in several tumble dryer models which could lead to increased risks of fire incidents due to excessive lint accumulation at the rear which then ignites. The company then undertook a modification programme to address the issue. However, concerns were raised about the modification programme and in May 2018 my predecessor, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), commissioned OPSS to review the actions taken by Whirlpool.
Following a review of the modification programme, as well as consideration of technical documents supplied by Whirlpool, the OPSS has concluded that the risk is low and further reduced by the modification. However, shortcomings were found in the testing and quality assurance procedures, and the business must improve its monitoring and management of risk. They must also continue their consumer outreach programme and use more creative methods to contact affected consumers.
Given the full circumstances of the current position, in particular that the overall level of risk is low and that efforts have been made by Whirlpool to address the identified problem and to comply with its legal obligations, formal enforcement action is not justified at this stage. However, OPSS has produced a list of requirement actions for Whirlpool to take in light of the findings of the review, and OPSS will continue to monitor the programme. Should Whirlpool fail to take the expected action within appropriate timescales, enforcement action would need to be considered.
The main findings of the review are:
The ongoing risk from tumble dryers modified by Whirlpool is low and consumers can continue to use them.
Whirlpool has made efforts to address the identified problem but must do more.
OPSS is requiring Whirlpool to take further action and will continue to monitor the steps taken to ensure the efficacy of the modification in consumers’ homes over the long term.
The modification and outreach programme should continue, with new and different methods used to reach consumers.
The safety of consumers is the number one priority for Government. We acknowledge the steps Whirlpool has taken to reach consumers and modify their tumble dryers, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
[HCWS1490]
Intellectual Property Office: Performance Targets
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
Our industrial strategy sets out the Government’s vision for making the UK the most innovative country in the world. The UK starts from a position of strength and is already ranked in the top four of the global innovation index and top 10 by the World Bank as the best place to start and grow a business. But the global landscape is changing and we must continue to invest in research and development. The industrial strategy has set an ambition to raise total research and development to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027, helping businesses access the right funds and equip them to face the challenges and opportunities presented by new technologies and new ways of doing business.
Intellectual property (IP) plays a crucial role in innovation and touches everything that makes modern life more enjoyable, easier, safer and prosperous. It provides inventors, creators and entrepreneurs with the confidence to invest knowing that they will reap the benefits of their investments. UK investment in IP rights reached almost £64 billion in 2016 and studies have shown that industries that rely on IP have accounted for over a quarter of UK employment and almost half of GDP. Our IP system matters. It creates jobs and economic growth and is helping to propel Britain to the forefront of innovation.
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) corporate plan 2019-20 explains how through its stewardship of the IP system, it will help the UK to be the most innovative and creative country in the world. It will do this through delivering excellent IP services, creating a world leading IP environment and attracting and retaining the best people by making the IPO a brilliant place to work. This plan outlines the start of the IPO’s transformational journey, which will provide truly modern IP services to its customers.
The UK already has one of the best IP regimes in the world, consistently ranked as one of the top regimes in indices such as those from the Taylor-Wessing Global IP Index and US Chamber of Commerce International IP Index, and during 2019-20, the IPO will continue to contribute to building a business environment that makes the UK the best place in the world to start and run a business.
As an executive agency and trading fund of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the IPO has set targets which are agreed by Ministers and laid before Parliament. I am glad that today I can inform the House that for 2019-20 the IPO’s targets are:
At least 85% of our customers to rate us 8/10 for overall satisfaction.
By the end of March 2020 we want 90% of renewals to be conducted via the new enterprise-wide digital renewals service.
75% of the businesses we reach confirm that they are able to make informed decisions about their IP.
Deliver our services efficiently through continuously improving our systems, processes and ways of working to make things better for our customers and our people, reduce costs and improve the value for money we provide. Our target is to achieve efficiencies worth at least 3.5% of our core operating costs.
[HCWS1485]
Common Frameworks Analysis
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the revised UK common frameworks analysis, which is also available on gov.uk. When the UK leaves the European Union, powers previously exercised at EU level that intersect with devolved competence will flow back directly to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. In some areas, we will need to maintain UK wide approaches, or common frameworks, after we leave the EU. Frameworks will create a common approach across the UK in a range of policy areas. They will provide a number of benefits, including ensuring it remains simple for businesses from different parts of the UK to trade with each other, helping the UK to fulfil its international obligations, safeguarding our common resources and ensure the effective functioning of the UK internal market.
The revised analysis sets out the progress we have made to develop common frameworks in collaboration with the devolved administrations since the first analysis was published in March 2018. There is a reduction in the number of policy areas where primary legislation is being considered, from 24 to 21, in these areas only some of the elements of the framework are expected to be in legislation. In the majority of areas (reduced from 82 to 78), non-legislative arrangements, such as a concordat, are being considered. The number of areas where no further action is required to create a framework has increased from 49 to 63. In these areas, to ensure certainty for businesses is maintained, the UK Government and devolved administrations will continue to cooperate when appropriate. Finally, there are now only four areas where competence is disputed, and conversations between the UK Government and devolved administrations continue (reduced from 12 in the first publication), demonstrating the significant progress made in this area. These changes demonstrate the careful and considered joint work underway to establish common frameworks, which in some areas has led to reclassification.
The co-operative approach to frameworks so far demonstrates the progress that can be achieved through proceeding collaboratively. We welcome the commitment demonstrated by the Scottish and Welsh Governments to agree on the direction of travel set out in the analysis and to continued close working to develop frameworks. We also welcome the commitment to co-operative working, including in policy areas where no formal common frameworks are required.
[HCWS1486]
Informal ECOFIN
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
An informal meeting of Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Ministers will be held in Bucharest on 05-06 April 2019. Ministers will discuss the following:
Working Lunch - Multiannual Financial Framework
Ministers will discuss the multiannual finance framework in the context of the European semester and financing of the EU budget.
Working Session I
The Council will then be joined by Central Bank Governors for the first working session.
Institutional Cycle Priorities
Following a presentation from Bruegel, Ministers and Central Bank Governors will discuss the priorities for the next EU institutional cycle.
Capital Markets Union
Ministers and Central Bank Governors will then discuss the way forward for the Capital Markets Union.
Working Session II
Labour Mobility in the EU
Following a presentation from the Centre for European Policy Studies, Ministers will discuss the macroeconomic and fiscal impact of labour mobility in the EU.
Taxation and Economic Growth
Ministers will discuss the role of taxation in supporting EU economic growth.
Preparation of the April G20 and IMF meetings
Ministers will be invited to approve the EU terms of reference for the G20 meeting and International Monetary and Financial Committee statement, ahead of the spring meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C.
[HCWS1491]
School Condition Funding
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today, I am announcing the allocation of over £1.4 billion of capital funding in the financial year 2019-20 to maintain and improve the condition of the school estate.
This funding is provided to ensure schools have well maintained facilities to provide students with safe environments that support a high-quality education. It is part of £23 billion committed over 2016-21 to deliver new school places, rebuild or refurbish buildings in the worst condition and deliver thousands of condition projects across the school estate.
For the financial year 2019-20, the £1.4 billion of capital funding includes:
Almost £800 million for local authorities, voluntary aided partnerships, larger multi-academy trusts and academy sponsors, to invest in maintaining and improving the condition of their schools.
Over £400 million available through the condition improvement fund for essential maintenance projects at small and stand-alone academy trusts and sixth-form colleges.
Over £200 million of devolved formula capital allocated directly for schools to spend on small capital projects to meet their own priorities.
Details of successful applications to the condition improvement fund have also been published today, covering 1,413 projects at 1,210 schools and sixth-form colleges.
Details of today’s announcement will be published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website. Announcement notifications are also being sent electronically to responsible bodies’ chief executive officers.
[HCWS1482]
Citizens’ Rights: UK Nationals in the EU
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Citizens have always been our priority in the negotiations for our departure from the EU. Today I am setting out further details on the steps that the Government are taking to protect UK nationals.
Reciprocal arrangements for social security co-ordination, including reciprocal healthcare, in a no-deal scenario
UK nationals who have chosen to build their lives in the EU and wish to remain there are concerned about their social security entitlements, including healthcare cover in the event of a no deal.
In the Government’s December announcement on citizens’ rights, we highlighted that aspects of the social security co-ordination section of the withdrawal agreement, including reciprocal healthcare, require reciprocity from the EU or member states and cannot be protected unilaterally. We set out that we were exploring further options to protect these rights in a no-deal scenario and the Department for Health and Social Care proposed maintaining existing healthcare arrangements with EU member states and EFTA states until 31 December 2020 on 19 March; with the aim of minimising disruption to citizens’ healthcare provision.
However, to fully protect UK nationals in the EU, the UK is seeking to protect the social security co-ordination rights of UK nationals in the EU, including reciprocal healthcare, by reaching reciprocal arrangements with the EU or member states to maintain existing rights for a transitional period until 31 December 2020, consistent with our guarantee of the healthcare rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Family reunification
UK nationals are also concerned about their right to return from the EU with non-UK national family members after exit. Having listened to these concerns, I can confirm that UK nationals will be able to return to the UK with their existing close family members under current rules, until 29 March 2022. This means that where the relationship exists before exit or where a child was born overseas after this date, they will be able to apply to and qualify for the EU settlement scheme until 29 March 2022. After this date, such family members will be able to return to the UK by applying under the relevant UK immigration rules.
UK nationals living in the EU who return to the UK after exit will be able to be joined by future spouses and partners, where the relationship was established after exit, and other dependent relatives until 31 December 2020 if they previously lived in the EU with that family member. From 2021, the UK immigration rules will apply to such family reunion. These arrangements will apply in both a deal and no-deal scenario, providing UK nationals in the EU with sufficient continuity after exit to allow families to plan with confidence, while also bringing family reunion rights for all UK nationals in the UK and abroad into alignment from 29 March 2022.
Access to benefits and services
The Government have already announced that UK nationals living in the EU will continue to receive benefits, including child benefit and disability benefit, where the recipient is exporting a UK benefit to their EU country of residence. UK nationals in the EU who are already in receipt of a UK benefit, including the state pension, will also continue to receive these benefits should they choose to return to the UK.
UK nationals returning to live in the UK who meet the ordinary residence test will be able to use NHS services. This means that UK nationals who have returned to the UK permanently in a no-deal scenario would have access to NHS-funded healthcare on the same basis as UK nationals already living here.
UK nationals considering returning to the UK and planning to make new applications for benefits and services should check eligibility requirements for the relevant benefits and services on gov.uk. The usual entitlement conditions, which exist for both resident and returning UK nationals, will apply and we expect most returning UK nationals will be able to satisfy the necessary eligibility requirements. Certain benefits and services, such as non-contributory benefits, include satisfying certain residence criteria and individual decision makers will carefully consider each application to ensure that UK nationals receive the benefits and services that they are entitled to.
Access to higher education, further education 19+ and apprenticeship funding in the UK
UK nationals living in the EEA or Switzerland on exit day, who wish to study in England, will continue to be eligible for home fee status and student support from student finance England, along with access to further education 19+ funding for courses and apprenticeships in England starting up to seven years from exit day in a no deal scenario. In a deal scenario, the seven-year transition period will commence at the end of the implementation period.
The seven-year transition period will ensure that eligible UK nationals living in the EEA or Switzerland wishing to study in further education 19+, higher education, or undertake an apprenticeship in England, will be able to do so immediately on their return to the UK during this transition period.
Further information
The measures outlined above are without prejudice to the rights and privileges accorded, by virtue of the common travel area, to Irish and UK nationals when in each other’s state.
The Government continue to pursue a ring-fenced agreement with the EU and has exchanged letters with the European Commission on the subject. The UK has also reached separate agreements with the EEA EFTA states and Switzerland, which will mean that in a no-deal scenario UK and EFTA nationals living in each other’s countries before exit day will be able to continue living their lives broadly as they do today.
We will continue to provide updates to UK nationals in the EU on gov.uk and through our network of embassies, consulates and high commissions.
Let me reiterate that securing the negotiated withdrawal agreement is in the mutual interest of all our citizens. It is the most effective way for the Government to guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU and to provide certainty.
I will be depositing the policy paper “Citizens’ Rights - UK nationals in the EU” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1483]
General Affairs Council
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
The UK and the EU have agreed an extension to Article 50, until 12 April 2019, which is legally binding in EU and international law. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full Member State, and continue to act in good faith.
I will attend the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 9 April 2019 to represent the UK.
The provisional agenda includes:
Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-27
Ministers and the Commission will discuss progress on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) negotiations. The intention is to reach an agreement on the negotiations in autumn 2019.
Conclusions on the Reflection Paper “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030”
The Council will adopt conclusions on the reflection paper titled “Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030, on the follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change”. The paper was released in January 2019 by the Commission as part of its 2019 Work Programme. Ministers will discuss this paper ahead of the Sibiu Summit in May, where issues relating to Europe’s future will be discussed.
Values of the Union - Hungary / Article 7(1) TEU Reasoned Proposal
Ministers will discuss the Article 7(1) procedure in relation to Hungary.
Rule of Law in Poland / Article 7(1) TEU Reasoned Proposal
The Commission will provide an update on “Rule of Law” developments in Poland and Ministers will discuss next steps.
[HCWS1487]
Foreign Affairs Council
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will take place in Luxembourg on 8 April. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini.
The FAC will discuss current affairs, Afghanistan, Eastern Partnership and Venezuela.
Current Affairs
We expect HRVP Mogherini to update Ministers following her visits to the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Dinard and the League of Arab States summit in Tunis. She will also provide an update on the first round of Ukrainian presidential elections.
Afghanistan
Ministers will discuss developments in Afghanistan, including recent efforts to make progress on peace, and will look ahead to the presidential elections scheduled for later in 2019. They will also discuss the EU’s future role in Afghanistan.
Eastern Partnership
Ministers will discuss preparations for the Eastern Partnership ministerial meeting on 13 May and will reaffirm the EU’s commitment to supporting greater resilience, security and prosperity across the region. They will assess progress against the priorities identified as the “20 deliverables for 2020”: to achieve a stronger economy, governance, connectivity and society. Ministers will also take stock of ongoing work to mark the partnership’s 10th anniversary.
Venezuela
Ministers will receive an update from HRVP Mogherini following the latest meeting of the international contact group on Venezuela and on plans for next steps. Ministers will discuss how to maintain pressure on the Maduro regime including the possibility of further targeted sanctions.
Council Conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on Afghanistan, which call for an Afghan-led process and confirm EU support and its future role, as well as the Court of Auditors’ special report on Mali and Niger.
[HCWS1488]
Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the publication of the recent tailored review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC), an arm’s length body of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
The MACC was established in 1953 to express gratitude to the American people for the post-war support and assistance conceived by US Secretary of State George C Marshall, subsequently known as the Marshall plan. It provides postgraduate scholarships in the UK for US students with the potential to excel in their chosen fields of study and future careers. Marshall alumni become advocates for greater mutual understanding and cooperation between our two countries, bolstering our bilateral relationship and our soft power.
As a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), the MACC is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament.
The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
The full report can be read on gov.uk: https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/tailored-review-of-the-marshall-aid-commemoration-commission
This Review involved consultation with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK and the US, including MACC commissioners and staff, former and current Marshall scholars, FCO officials, staff working on similar scholarship programmes and academic institutions in both the UK and US. It provided an opportunity to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission and its programme, and to understand how it delivers on the FCO’s strategic priorities.
The review concluded that the MACC runs a high-quality and well-managed programme that is still needed and contributes to strengthening the UK’s relations with the US. As such, it is a valuable soft power asset, providing a good return on a relatively small financial investment. It also concluded that NDPB status remains the right classification for the commission. However, it identified areas for improvement, making a total of 24 recommendations, including:
The Association of Commonwealth Universities, which currently administers the MACC, should draw on in-house expertise to support the commission and ensure the sustainability of the programme’s administration.
The FCO should establish more consistent active outreach activity throughout the US network.
The commission should develop a shared communications strategy, while the FCO should ensure communications about the programme are incorporated into FCO communications work.
The commission and FCO should develop and implement a stronger monitoring and evaluation system.
A joint implementation plan is being developed by the FCO and the MACC, with agreed recommendations expected to be implemented by the first quarter of 2020.
Copies of the Review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1489]
Parks and Green Spaces
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
In September 2017, the Government agreed to provide a written update to Parliament to assess the progress made against the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report into the future of public parks. Today I am updating the House on a suite of initiatives to secure this future.
These have been formulated in conjunction with the parks action group (PAG) who advise on the steps the Government could take to ensure the future of our parks and green spaces. The PAG, which is comprised of a cross-government group of senior officials and a sectorial group, along with its co-ordinator have been key in driving forward the recommendations of the Select Committee. We published details of the PAG’s membership and aims on 19 September 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-500000-for-new-action-group-to-grow-future-of-public-parks
In its first recommendation, the Committee advised that the Government should develop models to support local authorities in the assessment of the value of their parks. In 2018 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, provided funding for the outdoor recreation valuation tool https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/ which enables the recreational value of publicly accessible parks, paths and beaches in England and Wales to be estimated and factored into decision-making. Additionally, in July 2018 the Office for National Statistics, working in partnership with DEFRA, published a national set of UK urban natural capital accounts as part of a work programme to develop natural capital accounts for the UK.
The Committee’s second recommendation covers the relationship between local communities, local authorities and the free use of parks. The Government ran a public consultation on the free use of parks, “Running Free: Preserving the Free Use of Public Parks Consultation”, between April and July 2017. We published our response in December 2018 and it can be found here: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/764830/Parkrun_Consulation_Response.pdf. Whilst we recognise the right of local authorities to quite legitimately charge for specific events in parks as a means of income, our position is that public parks should remain free for members of the public for reasonable everyday use.
The Committee, in its third and fourth recommendations, rightly asked the Government to support the development and working of friends' groups. My Department recently provided Locality and the National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces with £130,000 to develop a national infrastructure for “Friends of Parks” groups and create a network of green champions. Working with local authorities, friends groups and other voluntary organisations, these green champions will be invaluable in supporting community groups who wish to take greater responsibility in the management of their local parks. This funding will also expand the existing Government-sponsored “My Community” website to provide a hub for community groups interested in supporting their local parks.
In line with our response to the Committee’s fifth recommendation, my Department has addressed health and safety in parks by promoting best practice and quality standards. The green flag award scheme, run under licence from my Department and operated by Keep Britain Tidy, continues to highlight community and local authority-run parks that have achieved a national quality standard for parks and green spaces. This scheme ensures that all participating parks meet high quality standards and that these parks act as ambassadors for best practice. 1,577 sites achieved the award in 2018 and I hope to see further parks added this year. Green flag award parks can be found here: http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk/award-winners/
In its sixth recommendation, the Committee rightly asked the Government to investigate the action that could be taken to increase provision of parks and green spaces. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recently announced significant funding to support parks across the country. He committed £9.7 million to local authorities to support them in the maintenance of their parks. He also provided £3.75 million in funding to 200 community-led organisations as part of our successful and very popular pocket parks plus programme. Working with their local authorities, these community groups will expand access to green space for our communities.
The Committee’s seventh recommendation asked local authorities to adopt a whole-place approach, and co-operate with other local authorities, when updating their local plans. The Government are confident that the national planning policy framework equips local authorities with the decision-making powers to secure the protection of parks—for both new and established communities. Additionally, we have recently provided £1.2 million to the future parks accelerator programme which is an initiative, developed by the National Trust and Heritage Lottery Fund, to support local authorities and, importantly, area-based partnerships to pilot and test new and innovative models of managing and funding parks estates.
In response to recommendation eight, my Department has invested £30,000 in a joint project with DEFRA and Natural England to develop a framework of green infrastructure standards. Local authorities will be supported to assess their green infrastructure provision against this new framework. This project will also examine how our commitments on green infrastructure can be incorporated into national planning guidance and policy.
In its ninth recommendation, the Committee asked further questions of the Government’s 25 year environment plan. This plan, published in January 2018, recognises the importance of parks and green infrastructure for people’s health and wellbeing. It includes the commitment to green our towns and cities and details a series of actions relating to green infrastructure and trees. One of these actions is to develop a national view of what “good” green infrastructure looks like. DEFRA and MHCLG have helped to establish the cross-government project led by natural England mentioned above that will review and update existing standards for green infrastructure. The project is working with a range of expert stakeholders, including the PAG, to develop an initial framework for testing and piloting in summer 2019.
The Committee’s tenth to thirteenth recommendations asked the Government to support the development of new and innovative models of parks estate management and funding. My Department has invested £20,000 in the Landscape Institute to support them in the development of apprenticeship standards for the roles of “landscape technician” and “chartered landscape professional”. We will continue to work with the PAG to ensure the findings from the Association for Public Service Excellence’s forthcoming research report into the skills of existing parks managers are reflected in these standards. As outlined above, we have also supported the future parks accelerator programme to provide examples of new and innovative models of parks estate management and funding. Additionally, we have provided £210,000 to help capture and share the lessons learnt from Newcastle City Council’s transformative parks management project, and to help them make available governance and legal templates to others wishing to adopt this innovative model.
We can all agree that parks and green spaces are vital to the communities we serve. They provide space for respite from our busy lives, opportunities to spend time with our friends and families, and they are oases in our busy urban areas. I am confident that the initiatives I have outlined above demonstrate that the Government is making significant progress on delivering on our shared commitment to secure the long-term sustainability of parks for our future generations.
[HCWS1494]
Ebola Outbreak: UK Response
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
The number of cases of Ebola in the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has recently passed 1000. Given this, it is both proper and timely to update the House on the steps which the UK Government are taking to continue to support the response in DRC and to ensure robust and effective preparedness in neighbouring countries.
Since I last updated the House on 14 February, there has been an increase in the number of confirmed and probable cases of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in eastern DRC. As of 31 March 2019, 1,089 Ebola cases have been recorded (1,023 confirmed and 66 probable) and 679 people have died. Twenty-one health zones have been affected and 12 are currently reporting active new cases.
Despite the success of the response in curbing the disease in a number of health zones, the outbreak is still not under control. The last few weeks have seen a substantial increase in the number of cases reported, and the security context remains extremely challenging. In late February, two Médecins Sans Frontières Ebola treatment centres were attacked in Butembo and Katwa. The UK condemns these attacks in the strongest of terms; health workers fighting this disease should never be the target of violence and nor should patients. However, I am pleased to note that the affected treatment centres have now re-opened, run for the moment by the Government of DRC’s Ministry of Health in collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), both of whom the UK is supporting.
The attacks underline the difficulty of responding to this outbreak in an area of ongoing conflict, and the vital importance of strengthening community engagement to break the chain of transmission. Despite the challenges faced there has not been a rapid rise in cases as was seen during the West Africa outbreak in 2014-16.
With UK support and technical advice, the response is now shifting to become more locally-owned, including through the hiring and training of more local staff, which will have the additional benefit of building longer-term health capacity and resilience. The response communications strategy has been revised to ensure that messages come primarily from local, influential leaders and figureheads.
The UK remains one of the major supporters of the response and DFID has recently released new funds to the third strategic response plan for this outbreak. Some of this new funding has been used to target specific areas of the response that need strengthening, particularly around infection prevention and control, and water, sanitation and hygiene. The vaccination campaign remains a key element of the response, with over 93 thousand people vaccinated in DRC so far. Once again, at the request of the Government of DRC who are leading the response I am not announcing specific funding figures to avoid putting front-line responders at further risk of attack.
As mentioned in my statement to the House on 26 March regarding Cyclone Idai, I recently spoke with both Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, and Sir Mark Lowcock, Head of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), to underline UK support and urge further measures on the part of the UN system in tackling the outbreak. We welcome WHO and OCHA strengthening their leadership in-country to support the DRC Government in delivering an effective response.
There remains a significant risk of transmission to neighbouring countries and measures are being taken to prepare accordingly. The UK is leading donor efforts to support regional preparedness. In Uganda we have supported the vaccination of 4,420 front-line health workers, with a further 1,000 planned over the next month. We have also helped establish a screening facility at the border with DRC. In Rwanda we have strengthened surveillance activities at borders, carried out infection prevention and control training, and supported the roll out of vaccinations for at-risk health workers. We have also supported similar activities including in South Sudan, and have recently deployed staff to strengthen efforts in Burundi.
The risk of Ebola to the UK population remains very low. Public Health England continues to monitor the situation daily and review the risk assessment on a two-weekly basis.
The UK is committed to supporting our partners to end this outbreak of Ebola as quickly as possible. We have continued our “no regrets” approach, providing both funding and expertise—recognising that this is an international crisis that both requires and deserves a sustained international response. Tackling the spread of deadly diseases in Africa is firmly in our national interest—saving lives, reducing suffering, and helping prevent transmission across borders.
[HCWS1492]
Access for All
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Improving access to Great Britain’s railway stations is a key priority for this Government and we want all passengers to be able to travel easily and confidently. The Department’s Access for All programme is critical to delivering this; the programme has already delivered an accessible, step free route at more than 200 stations, as well as smaller scale accessibility improvements at more than 1,500 others.
The “Inclusive Transport Strategy”, published on 25 July 2018, included a commitment to extend the Access for All programme, announcing an additional £300 million of funding from the public purse. Our approach is to work with transport operators and partners to target investments where they are needed most and where they can deliver the greatest impact. This funding will enable us to deliver accessibility improvements at more stations across the rail network, and allow us to proceed with the station enhancements that were deferred from Control Period 5.
In total 73 stations are set to benefit from this funding. This is in addition to the 24 station projects that are ongoing. The selected stations will, subject to a feasible design being possible, receive an accessible route into the station, as well as to and between every platform.
The new stations due to be upgraded from this funding are listed below. They have been selected following nominations from the rail industry, which engaged with local authorities and other stakeholders. We then assessed them against annual footfall, weighted by the incidence of disability in the area, and also took account of local factors such as nearby hospitals and the availability of third party funding. Due consideration was also given to the preferences of the train operating companies and, finally, a number were chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country.
Abergavenny
Anniesland
Beaconsfield Station
Biggleswade
Birkenhead Park
Bridlington
Broad green
Caerphilly
Catford
Chalkwell
Chorley
Cricklewood
Crowborough
Cray
Cwmbran
Daisy Hill
Dumfries
Flint
Hackney Downs
Handforth
Herne Bay
Hertford North
Hillside
Hunt’s Cross
Irlam
Isleworth
Johnstone
Kings Langley
Leatherhead
Ludlow
Menston
Mill Hill Broadway
Port Glasgow
Retford
Selby
Shotton
Smethwick Rolfe Street
St Erth
St Michaels
Stoneleigh
Stowmarket
Tenby
Todmorden
Uddingston
Wandsworth Town
Wellington
The stations deferred from Control Period 5, which will now be progressed are:
Alfreton (Parkway)
Barnes
Barry (Town)
Battersea Park
Cathays
Chatham
Garforth
Grays
Hither Green
Liverpool Central
Llanelli
Luton
Market Harborough
Northallerton
Peckham Rye
Petts Wood
Queen’s Park
Seven Sisters
Southend East
St Mary Cray
Streatham
Theale
Trefforest
Walton-on-Thames
Warwick
Weston-Super-Mare
Worcester Shrub Hill
All work at the stations is due to be completed by the end of March 2024.
In addition to these significant upgrades, we intend to use £20 million of the funding to re-launch the Mid-Tier Access for All programme. This will be focused on stations where accessibility improvements can be delivered with between £250,000 and £1 million of government support. We will be seeking nominations for this funding in due course.
All of the work carried out by Access for All comes in addition to access improvements that the industry is required to deliver as part of other projects or renewals of station infrastructure.
Together these measures will make a real difference to people’s lives, opening up access to leisure and employment for disabled rail passengers as well as making it easier for those with heavy luggage or children in buggies to use the network.
[HCWS1484]
Pensions Dashboards Consultation
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Later today I will publish the Government’s response to the consultation on the pensions dashboard CP75.
Pensions dashboards will revolutionise retirement planning. They will enable people to access their pension information in a single place online, in a clear and simple form, whether that is on a laptop or tablet, and from their own home. Putting individuals in control of their data, pensions dashboards will bring together all pensions information from multiple sources, which can then be accessed at a time of their choosing.
This Government’s pensions reforms have transformed Britain’s retirement savings culture. More than 10 million people have benefitted from our revolutionary policy of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.
On 3 December 2018 the department published a consultation “Pensions dashboards: Working together for the consumer”. The Government’s response to the pensions dashboards consultation outlines how the Government will facilitate the pensions industry to deliver this project.
Both the quantity and quality of the 125 responses received were helpful in informing the approach we set out. The responses we received were largely positive in nature.
The result of this feedback is that Government will facilitate the delivery of pensions dashboards as a key priority. We expect to see to see initial industry dashboards developed and tested from this year.
The Government remain committed to ensuring the individual is in control of their data and is conscious of the need for pace in order to deliver dashboards. Our priority is to ensure that information is presented securely, in a clear and simple format to support consumers with their retirement planning. The response to the consultation on dashboards includes:
a commitment to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to compel all pension providers to make consumers’ data available to them through a dashboard;
an expectation that the majority of schemes will be ready to ‘go live’ with their data within a three to four year window;
confirmation that state pension information will be included as soon as possible;
and that dashboards will help to reconnect people with “lost” pension pots, benefitting savers and providers.
A crucial entity in taking this forward will be the industry delivery group; made up of stakeholders from across the industry, consumer groups, regulators and Government who will be accountable to the Single Financial Guidance Body board. We anticipate the delivery group should be fully operational by the end of the summer. The priorities for the delivery group in 2019 are to create a clear strategy for delivering the digital architecture, design a robust governance and security framework and to work with industry on their readiness to provide data via dashboards.
It is my firm belief that the pensions industry is best placed to develop and deliver dashboards.
However, there is a role for Government in facilitating industry’s delivery of dashboards which work for consumers and put people in control of their data.
Pensions dashboards can be an enabler for a real step-change across the sector to modernise the way it communicates with its members. They also provide an opportunity to build trust with consumers, ensuring they can access their pensions information in a convenient way.
[HCWS1493]
Upland Farming
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the long-term viability of upland farming.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my own farming interests as set out in the register. Upland farmers have been looking after exceptional landscapes, including national parks, for generations. They are responsible for a distinct farming and cultural heritage and the production of high-quality food. We will work with farmers to improve animal health, agricultural productivity and the environment, and support enhanced rural connectivity, to ensure an economically viable future for this and future generations of upland farmers.
Lord Grantchester
With their vulnerability of terrain, sparsity and remoteness, the upland areas need a range of measures underpinned by good delivery systems that keep farmers farming in a wider rural economy including forestry and environmental landscape management. Has the Minister’s department considered establishing a specialist high-value unit as a successor to SDA to champion strategic development, with a clear vision for the uplands?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as a Government, we entirely accept that the uplands have an important connection to us all. After all, they provide 70% of our water. They have an enormous environmental benefit. Through the environmental land management system, which will replace the CAP, we are looking for ways to support and encourage the next generations to do this vital work on our behalf.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the need for the 6,500 upland farmers to continue to receive public financial support? Without that, they will not succeed. Some 70 million people visit the uplands each year and that sort of payment is essential. In addition, I note the important role that small and medium-sized enterprises play in those local communities. Without that interaction, those communities will die.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend speaks of the whole uplands economy. Tourism—such an important part of it—is based on the agrarian systems which make us all want to visit those areas. We have said that we will continue direct payments for 2019 and 2020. There will be a transition, but we will also introduce the environmental land management system. I believe that upland farmers will have a very interesting and productive use of that scheme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we can hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, but it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Beith
My Lords, as several Peers have acknowledged, upland farmers make a massive contribution to the care of our hill areas. However, the character and community of those areas will depend on upland farmers being more than merely park-keepers. Does the Minister recognise that if Brexit leads to very high tariffs for lamb exports to Europe, and massive imports from new trade deals with New Zealand, it could spell the end of hill livestock farming? That is really dangerous for the hill areas.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely why I mentioned food in my Answer. Upland farmers provide excellent food for the nation and for abroad. We clearly want that to continue. We want a trade deal. I am sure that all your Lordships wish us to secure a deal for the nation, but the situation is particularly acute for the upland farmers. I referred to animal health and productivity in my reply. We want to work with the farmers to ensure we conquer many of the diseases that are a travail for them, such as sheep scab. There are all sorts of areas of work that industry, the Government and farmers can work together on.
Lord Cunningham of Felling
My Lords, it has long been established that hill farmers regularly have incomes in the lowest decile of all farm incomes. That has not changed over many years. If we want our uplands—whether the Scottish borders, Northumberland, the Lake District, the Peak District or elsewhere—to continue to look the way they do, it is absolutely essential that people there are given more and better support if we are to ensure that we can go on enjoying the upland countryside, as the Minister has recognised we all do.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, 53% of England’s SSSIs are in uplands. These are hugely important areas for our country. I agree with the noble Lord, who comes from an area of great upland rural and cultural tradition. Our objective is to secure that future, because it is important to us all that upland farmers still produce food and look after that wonderful landscape.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, since the Minister accepts that the upland farmers are the best guardians of the uplands and that there needs to be a reasonable income level, will he therefore accept that there has to be a market equivalent to what they have at the moment in exporting largely to the European market, and a guarantee of income beyond 2020, which is only next year?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we have said as a Government that we will commit the same sum of money until the end of this Parliament. No Parliament can bind its successors, but 2022 is the likely end of this Parliament given the cycle we have. If we are to keep people on the land, they need a viable income. They also need to live a contemporary life, which is why I specifically mentioned the work we are undertaking to improve connectivity in the uplands, where we are not as strong as in other rural areas, and where we need to commit money, which we are doing.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm as a matter of fact that remaining in a customs union with the European Union would achieve the objectives that all noble Lords who have asked questions—and the Minister—have agreed must be our objective?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Our objective is to trade freely with the European Union, the EU 27, our partners in what I hope will be a very productive and long-term economic arrangement. That is what we should aim for.
Fuel Poverty
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of households in fuel poverty; and what action they intend to take to reduce that number.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, in 2016, 2.55 million households in England were in fuel poverty. We can measure progress using the total fuel poverty gap—that is, the reduction in bills required for all fuel-poor households to heat their home at a reasonable cost, which has decreased by £25 million since 2010. The best long-term solution to tackle fuel poverty is to improve energy efficiency, which we have made the primary focus of our energy company obligation.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I hope he agrees that we have not cracked this problem yet. The official figures are the tip of the iceberg. Since I last asked this Question, things have become worse, with fuel price hikes and a massive rise in the private rented sector, where fuel poverty is at its worst. The Government’s plan for insulating and upgrading homes is 60 to 80 years behind target. What practical steps will the Government take to solve this Victorian problem before we get to the 22nd century?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we should treat the figures with some caution. They are based on income below the poverty line, and thus are relative figures. That being the case, there is always the danger that the more one does the worse they get, because you can never actually meet that target.
However, the noble Baroness is right to look at practical measures. I referred to the energy company obligation, which has delivered 2.4 million energy saving measures since 2013. I also refer to the warm home discount scheme and the various measures we announced recently to deal with the private rented sector, providing extra insulation for houses and increasing the obligation on landlords to spend more on bringing their houses up to an appropriate level of insulation. I refer to the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018, which made various changes, and the work that Ofgem has done on the safeguard tariff. I could go on.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that one simple, practical measure would be to make the winter fuel payment taxable? It is paid out by the department for social services anyway, so that would be very easy. The tax collected could then be used to increase the payment, so that those who do not pay tax would get a higher sum. That would mean it was self-adjusting. There would be no further expenditure, but it would at least mean that more of the expenditure went to those who need it.
Lord Henley
I suspect it is a benefit of which a large number of Members of this House are in receipt—I see one or two indicating that they are not. I note what my noble friend said. It is a very good suggestion, and I will ensure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor is made aware of it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to mention the private rented sector. One year ago, the minimum energy efficiency standards regulations came into force, which meant that properties could not be rented unless their EPC was E or above. However, properties are still being advertised that do not meet that criterion. What are the Government doing to ensure that local authorities apply those regulations and fuel poverty is reduced in that sector?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord is right: it is for local authorities to do that, but he will also remember that we brought forward further regulations this year, which he and I debated in this House, whereby we increased the obligation on landlords in how much they should be expected to spend to raise houses in the private rented sector to, I think, at least band E. I forget the precise level that they have to be at.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, how many households dependent on universal credit have to choose between sufficient food for their children and sufficient heating to keep the children warm during the winter months? If figures are not available, will he commit the Government to commissioning a study to find out that information?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will see whether those figures are available and if they are, I will make them available to the noble Baroness. In my original Answer, I was trying to address the importance of the aggregate fuel poverty gap. We are seeing that come down over the years; the aggregate fuel poverty gap was of the order of £857 million in 2010 and it has now dropped by £25 million to £832 million.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as renewable energy prices become more and more competitive with new technology, would one fairly simple way to ease fuel poverty not be to reduce the subsidy charge on electricity bills that has to be imposed to pay for green subsidies? Does my noble friend not agree that the energy gap Her Majesty’s Government imposed has not been a great success, since fuel bills are rising all round?
Lord Henley
On that last point, I assure my noble friend that we estimate that the price cap will save consumers something of the order of £1 billion annually on their bills. On his first point about setting the levels of subsidy for renewables, it is important to provide the appropriate subsidy to see that we get the appropriate developments in renewable energy. As my noble friend will be aware, we have seen a dramatic drop in the cost of producing offshore wind, for example; the same is true of solar and we hope those trends will continue.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
One of the key aspects in reducing fuel poverty is giving people the tools to manage themselves, through the infrastructure development of smart meters. On this development curve, can the Minister give the House a measure of success regarding how many households have been drawn out of fuel poverty by their introduction?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to talk to the importance of smart meters. We hope that by 2020, every household will have been offered a smart meter. Most people are satisfied with them and, if used properly, we expect smart meters to enable consumers to take something of the order of £300 million off their fuel bills.
China: Religious Freedom
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current assessment of freedom of religion in China.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, there are several recognised religions in China, with tens of millions of practising Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, among others. However, we are deeply concerned about developing restrictions on freedom of religion or belief in China, including reports that authorities are tightening control over how certain religions are practised. At the United Nations Human Rights Council last month, I raised directly our concerns about restrictions on freedom of religion or belief in China, including on Muslims and Christians in Xinjiang.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. There are deeply worrying reports coming out of China, not least about persecuting the Christian churches there—an ancient Christian church there was founded in the 7th century. Will he comment particularly on the developing situation concerning Uighur Muslims and the development of the network of re-education camps in Xinjiang province? What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made and what are they planning to do?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the desperate situation facing Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province. I assure him that we have raised this directly, on a bilateral basis, with the Chinese Government. As I indicated in my earlier Answer, I raised the issue directly during the Human Rights Council, with specific reference to the Uighur Muslims, during our statement there. Working with like-minded partners, including the United States, we also hosted a side event during that council to draw further attention to and increase international collaboration on this priority issue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Has the Minister had a chance to read yesterday’s Spectator and last week’s Westminster Hall debate about forced organ harvesting from China’s religious minorities, including Falun Gong, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and, possibly, Christian dissidents along with prisoners of conscience? Fiona Bruce, Member of Parliament and chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, described it as,
“potentially nothing less than a 21st century genocide”,
and “almost a perfect crime” because “no one survives”.
Will the Government attend this week’s China Tribunal hearings, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC—who prosecuted Slobodan Milošević—and modelled on the people’s tribunal into the Vietnam War, pioneered by Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre? Their interim findings say that tribunal members are,
“certain—unanimously, and 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”.
Will the Government ask China for its response to these deeply disturbing findings?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I read the debate that took place, not the article, but I will do so. On a number of occasions, the noble Lord and I have talked about the specific issue of organ harvesting. I assure him that we are watching and working closely on the outcomes of Sir Geoffrey Nice’s review. The detailed report will also be out later this year. Our officials have attended every evidence session and will continue to do so and update accordingly. In raising this issue directly, I am deeply concerned, like the noble Lord, particularly because there is an issue of organ harvesting not just from people elsewhere: I have heard it suggested and was briefed on prisoners in the system being used for this purpose. The situation is deeply concerning and we are raising it at all levels.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Is the noble Lord prepared to raise this issue with the World Health Organization? Its responses to concerns raised about the use of organs in the appalling way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, were very weak. I hope that the Government will be as vigorous in dealing with the WHO as they appear to be with the Chinese Government.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord makes a valid point. I assure him that, as the UK’s Human Rights Minister, I will raise this issue with all appropriate organisations.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to hear from the Minister that we have made bilateral representations and used our seat at the Human Rights Council, but there are other, often more subtle, ways we can exert influence. The UK Government are an employer of many local staff in our embassies; our soft-power institutions, such as the British Council and perhaps the BBC, also employ a lot of local staff. Can the Minister outline whether the Government have a policy in situations like this to ensure that these persecuted minorities are represented within the local staff we employ?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend makes an important point. I assure her that, in recruiting for any post throughout the world, the United Kingdom adopts a policy of equality and justice. Her point is to ensure that all communities of a particular country are represented and that there is no discrimination in our recruitment. She makes an important point about soft power in other organisations working in China, which I will take back. I do not have the numbers in front of me on the different communities employed but I will certainly take that back and write to her, as is appropriate.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the abolition of capital punishment. There is evidence that a significant proportion of human organs were removed from executed prisoners. China’s use of the penalty is subject to great concern because there is no transparency on the number of executions it carries out. We now have an American roving ambassador dealing with this matter. What liaison exists between our Minister and the American roving ambassador to make sure that we make the strongest protest possible to China about its lack of transparency in carrying out such executions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I work very closely with Ambassador Sam Brownback on both this issue and freedom of religion across the world; we are co-ordinated. Another recent example was a visit to Pakistan. As I left Islamabad, Ambassador Brownback was arriving. We have ensured a co-ordinated approach on what the United Kingdom and United States are doing.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To follow up on my noble friend’s question about the WHO, I understand—and completely agree with—the Minister’s commitment to raising these issues with China, but organ harvesting has other implications, not only for universities, which could be co-operating. Can the Minister assure the House that he will raise this issue across Westminster and Whitehall to ensure that all departments take it seriously and that we do not start using organs harvested from prisoners?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is quite right. I am aware, from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, of World Health Organization’s current, persisting view. I assure the noble Lord once again that this is important to the World Health Organization and Whitehall. For example, some countries are also adopting systems to restrict this. We are working with them to see how those restrictions are applied and we seek to review our own position in that respect.
Schools: Staffing
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision by some teachers to take a 20 per cent pay cut in order to prevent staff redundancies in their schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, it is for schools to make their own decisions about investing their funding and their staffing. The department publishes pay ranges and all maintained schools must follow these in setting pay. Although there is more money going into our schools than ever before, we recognise that there are some budgeting challenges. That is why we have introduced a wide range of practical support to help schools and local authorities economise on non-staff costs.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but it is the usual mantra about more funding going into schools. That is, frankly, sophistry, because 91% of schools have suffered real-terms cuts in per-pupil funding since 2015. My question highlights just one example of school budgets being stretched beyond breaking point, leading to situations where parents are asked to buy essential items such as books and stationery. Some schools now close on Friday lunchtimes to save money. Is it not a disgrace that, in one of the richest economies in the world, head teachers are forced to beg for funding in some situations? The very principle of free education is being undermined by Conservative cuts to our schools. The Government’s latest school workforce statistics show that, in 2017, there were 137,000 more pupils in England’s schools, yet there were 5,400 fewer teachers and 2,800 fewer teaching assistants. How can the Minister possibly justify that?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I think that the school which has come to the noble Lord’s attention is Furzedown School in Wandsworth. The challenge which that school faces is declining pupil numbers. They have declined every year for five years, which is why it needs to keep an eye on its staffing levels. That is its problem. It is a well-funded school, receiving £4,900 per pupil, which is well above the national average of £4,166. On the bigger point of overall funding, the IFS has said, independently, that per-pupil funding for five to 16 year-olds by 2020 will be 50% higher than it was in 2000.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said “91%”; it is 91% of schools that have had their per-pupil funding cut across England. To have staff taking cuts in their salaries; to close schools on a Friday; to have so-called cost cutters going into schools and suggesting that school lunch portions are reduced in size; that is no way to run an education service. Does the Minister deny that there has been a reduction in funding in 91% of our schools? Since 2015, my home city of Liverpool has lost £48 million to our schools.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said in answer to the Question, funding is going up. It does not help the debate to follow scurrilous articles about food portions. That school was throwing away a large quantity of food. No parent wants to see that happen. It is a huge environmental waste. It was highlighted simply as an area of inefficiency. As a Schools Minister, no one wants more funding into the system than me, but I want that system to be well run so that the money goes to the front line. Noble Lords will have seen the story in the press the other day about the Tolworth Girls’ School, where the head teacher claimed that she was so badly funded that she had to clean the lavatories herself. What she did not tell you was that she took an 8% pay rise, taking her to between £125,000 and £130,000, and increased the cleaning budget by nearly 90%.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, the Government speak a lot about the importance of social mobility for pupils. Does the Minister not think that this is an appalling situation for dedicated professionals to be in, taking salary cuts and doing all they have to do to keep schools running? Are the Government speaking to teachers’ and head teachers’ unions about this situation? If so, what is the response?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, last year we increased the main scale pay rate for teachers by the largest amount in nearly 10 years. Teachers are well paid, and deservedly so. This year, we are increasing the contribution to their pensions by some 43%, one of the largest increases in any pension contribution in the country.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is very difficult for those of us who are not experts in the subject to gather from the interchanges that have taken place the actual position of per-pupil funding in schools. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister would tell me whether the assertions that have been made about per-pupil funding in schools are correct or not.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: it is complicated, and that is why we introduced the national funding formula, which put another £1.3 billion into the system. Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school, while allocating the biggest increases to schools that have historically been the most underfunded. There are 43 local authorities that between 2017-18 and 2019-20 have seen a 4% or greater increase per pupil.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
So what exactly is the change in per-pupil funding?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The average per-pupil funding is as I gave in an earlier answer: around £4,100 per pupil. On top of that we add pupil premium, which is some £12 billion we have put into the system for the most disadvantaged children, as mentioned by the noble Baroness earlier. The funding is good; I would like to see more but I want to see it go to the front line where children will benefit.
Business of the House
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:24 - Division on Lord Pannick’s Motion - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 119 - Lord Pannick’s Motion agreed.
12:39 - Division on Lord Forsyth’s Motion to resolve into a Committee of the Whole House - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 254 - Lord Forsyth’s Motion disagreed.
13:09 - Division on Lord Warner’s Motion - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 111 - Motion that the Question now be put agreed.
13:21 - Division on Lord Forsyth’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 251 - Lord Forsyth’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
14:39 - Division on Lord Foulkes of Cumnock’s Motion - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 97 - Lord Foulkes of Cumnock’s Motion agreed.
14:49 - Division on Lord True’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 122 / Noes: 248 - Lord True’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
15:40 - Division on Lord Warner’s Motion - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 77 - Lord Warner’s Motion agreed.
15:52 - Division on Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 234 - Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
16:25 - Division on Lord Scriven’s Motion - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 79 - Lord Scriven’s Motion agreed.
16:38 - Division on Viscount Ridley’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 223 - Viscount Ridley’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
17:30 - Division on Lord Strasburger’s Motion. - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 62 - Lord Strasburger’s Motion agreed.
17:44 - Division on Lord Robathan’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 238 - Lord Robathan’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
18:14 - Division on Lord Hamilton’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 235 - Lord Hamilton’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that:
(1) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day; and
(2) Standing Order 39 (Order of Business) be dispensed with to enable that Bill to be considered after the motions on Economic Affairs Committee reports in the name of Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, unconventional times call for unconventional measures. What are these times? The country faces the possibility of an exit from the EU without a deal; a disorderly exit that nobody wants. The Prime Minister does not want it, business and the CBI do not want it, the TUC does not want it, the House of Commons does not want it, and your Lordships’ House voted against a no-deal exit by a majority of 169. But the eventuality remains a risk, as we are constantly reminded, because that is the default legal outcome unless something else happens. That legal default—a crash-out no deal—would mean no transition period, the immediate introduction of tariffs, complete uncertainty for British citizens living in the EU 27, no European arrest warrants, security concerns and dire consequences for industry, to say nothing of the implications for Gibraltar or the island of Ireland.
We have received a Bill from the House of Commons that makes something else happen, and we are about to give it a First Reading. It would ensure that there is a legal requirement on the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 period to prevent that default legal outcome coming to pass. However, the Bill, passed by the elected House, can have effect only if we deal with it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent in time for the EU Council to consider the application for an extension. To fulfil our duty to deal with a Bill sent by the Commons, we have to handle it today.
This is in compliance with the view of your Lordships’ House on 28 January, when we called on Her Majesty’s Government to take all appropriate steps to ensure that sufficient time be provided for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any proposition that had commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons. That Motion was passed with a majority of 152.
The Commons has passed this Bill. It has expressed a clear view that no deal is unacceptable and that the situation is urgent. Regrettably, the Government failed to honour that Motion published by your Lordships. They should have tabled the Motion I am about to move, to facilitate and expedite the will of the elected House. Today, the Government still will not listen to the Commons—or to this House, which has voted to facilitate any Bill from the Commons. That is not leadership. The Government have lost the support of the Commons, and now refuse to follow your Lordships’ Motion.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I believe the conventions of the House, to which the noble Lord used to adhere, mean that it is my decision whether to give way. I have decided not to.
We, rather than the Government, had to table this Motion, which would allow us to take all stages of the Bill today and add it to today’s agenda. However, it is not just the Government who are failing to respond to the decision of the elected House. We see on the Order Paper seven amendments to my Motion—all, it must be said, from Peers who have been very open and honest about their desire for, or at least their acceptance of, a no-deal departure. However, rather than just voting against my Motion, which is the correct way to halt proceedings if they have support across the House, they have chosen to try to delay the Bill so long that it can have no effect, and so thwart the decision of the elected House.
Some of those Peers have even, at the very last moment, found themselves in absolute need to speak on a really interesting Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the report Making Tax Digital for VAT: Treating Small Businesses Fairly—the very small businesses, presumably, that wrote to me saying, “Whatever we want, it is not no deal”. But just before 6 pm last night, once they knew this Motion would be here today, they found themselves suddenly seized of the need to add their names to the speakers’ list. I have a list of those who added their names at the very last moment.
What we are seeing today, in addition to those seven amendments and to more people wanting to speak later to put off the Bill, is a small group of unelected Peers in an unelected House trying first to stop us considering the Bill today, and then trying to talk it out. No doubt they are seeking to go through the night to halt the Commons’ desire to prevent no deal. They cannot win this by the strength of their arguments or through support, but only by those tactics.
I and my friends will be here all night. I have discovered that breakfast starts at 7.30 am, and am taking orders now. If that is what it takes to do what the elected House of Commons has asked us, that is what we will do. For the moment, I urge the House to respond to the cross-party Bill which has arrived here, having been passed with urgency in another place, and, in this time of national uncertainty, do what we are appointed here to do—to consider in a timely fashion any legislation sent to us. We should agree to pass it in time for it to have an effect. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this House resolves itself into a Committee on the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, pursuant to Standing Order 62.
This has nothing to do with Brexit. It has to do with the procedures of this House and of our constitution. I am very disappointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is held in very high regard in this House, and we have—I will not say “enjoyed” but we have had good-humoured discussion over and over again on issues arising from Brexit. But this is about how the House operates and how our constitution is carried out.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, I had a look at her CV. I see that she contributed to a book entitled Prime Minister Portillo and Other Things That Never Happened. Obviously she is doing one on Brexit at the moment, judging by the contribution she has just made. I am very surprised indeed that she of all people, and the Opposition, should be joining the insurgents in the House of Commons who have sought to undermine the process and procedures of the House of Commons.
If that sounds an exaggerated point, I will quote from what the putative Prime Minister in the House of Commons, my friend and former colleague Oliver Letwin, had to say—I do not know whether he had a word with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. He said in response to a colleague in the other place:
“My hon. Friend can rest assured—although this may not be of any comfort to him—that those of us who are promoting this course of action have taken the trouble to identify Members of the House of Lords who are well able to carry the Bill forward in the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend may also wish to know, although I fear that it will also be of no comfort to him, that there is overwhelming support in the House of Lords for this measure, and that we therefore anticipate that it will, in all probability … pass through the House of Lords very rapidly. To that end, the House of Lords has in fact already passed a motion that provides for the expeditious consideration of exactly this form of Bill … My sense, for what it is worth, is that although the House of Lords procedures are arcane and it is impossible to determine from the outside the time that will be taken, there is very substantial support for the Bill there, and it is therefore very unlikely that anything other than technical amendments, which might be wholly welcome, would come back, and they would therefore be accepted. I do not think that is an issue we … face”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; cols. 1067-71.]
To describe our role as a House in protecting the constitution and reforming our legislation as “arcane procedures” shows an extraordinary arrogance, which is matched only by the way in which he and others have sought to turn the House of Commons into the Executive and to prevent the House of Commons and indeed the Government carrying out their proper duties.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sorry for intervening on my noble friend, but I find it utterly extraordinary that we have just listened to a Motion being moved by a leading Member on the Opposition Front Bench who simply would not take an intervention. This debate can be solved so easily. Over the last two or three decades, the House has developed an extremely successful practice for dealing with urgent Bills. We do Second Reading on one day and we take Committee and the remaining stages either the next day or the day after that. I understand that the Bill is urgent, but there is absolutely no reason to have all stages taken on one day.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord is not making an intervention, which means a short question—he is making a speech. I wonder whether he would look at the Companion and see what it has to say.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am happy to give way to my noble friend if he wishes to finish his point, but I think he made it pretty clearly. The noble Baroness suggests that this has all got to be done today. Why? We could sit tomorrow or we could continue on Monday. There is no reason at all why it should all be done today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I really want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
No, I am making an intervention. It is not for me to give way to the noble Lord, much though I am sure we will be happy to hear from him in due course. The point I want to make to the noble Lord is that this House has dealt with emergency legislation in one day. I refer him to the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill, which I took through this House on 26 November 2001, with a Second Reading and Committee in one day. It was to stop a scientist from another country who was coming to the UK to carry out human cloning, and legislation was needed urgently. We took it in one day. This legislation is needed urgently because we do not have a functioning Executive, we have the most critical situation this country has faced in decades and the Commons has had to do what it did. That is why it is urgent. Surely the noble Lord can see that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am surprised that the noble Countess did not intervene, given the length of that intervention from the noble Lord. He will recall that the Bill that he referred to was agreed by the usual channels, which is the normal way in which we proceed. I realise that because I was in the House of Commons I may have got used to its procedures, but I have been used to Bills being presented with the name of the sponsor. There is no sponsor on this Bill. The noble Baroness said that it was being presented for its First Reading, but the Bill appears to be an orphan. Who is the sponsor for this Bill?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is very alarming, because I thought that the noble Lord was a very good House of Commons man. When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that in the House of Commons there was no functioning Executive, that is because, according to Sir Oliver Letwin and some of his friends in the other place, they are now the Executive. His remarks in the Commons were extraordinary. He said that,
“when this House comes to legislate, as I hope it will and fear it must, it will be, so to speak, a Cabinet. We will be making real-life decisions about what happens to our fellow countrymen—not just legislating in the hope that many years later, subject to further jots and tittles, the law, as administered by the system of justice, will work better. We will be making a decision about the future of this country. How can we possibly make those decisions unless we are properly informed? The process of which we are now at the start will require the fundamental realignment of the relationship between the civil service, Government and Parliament. There is no way we can continue to act as though we were merely a body to which the Government were accountable; for a period, for this purpose, we will have to take on the government of our country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/2/19; col. 1110.]
This is what is being said at the other end of this building.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The point I wanted to make, which addresses the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, addresses the point that my noble friend has just made. It is that, admirable as the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, brought forward in one day was, it was not on a major constitutional issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend is quite right. The point that I am making is that at the other end of this building we have, in Sir Oliver Letwin’s own words, a revolutionary action taking place.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am very grateful; I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for giving way. Was not part of the campaign during the referendum about the sovereignty of Parliament, not the sovereignty of the Government? Is not the delay in passing a Bill already through the Commons bringing this House into disrepute?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It was indeed about the sovereignty of Parliament. The sovereignty of Parliament means that Parliament has a role to hold the Executive to account, not to become the Executive, as the noble Lord well understands and knows.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is it not the case that Parliament delegated its decision on the issue underlying these proceedings to the people of this country? The problem is that far too many people in Parliament do not like the answer they got.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I thought I might deal with some of these arguments on the next amendment. I am trying to make a case here and am getting lots of interventions. The noble Baroness said we were trying to delay the passage of the Bill, but I am being delayed by interventions from her colleagues; I am anxious to make rapid progress.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
On the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, while it is true that there have been expedited proceedings in times of emergency or for security measures or measures relating to Northern Ireland, those expedited proceedings have normally taken place when both sides of the House have agreed that it was necessary. This measure is being introduced despite being opposed by the Government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I absolutely agree, and it is questionable whether it is necessary. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has already indicated that she plans to ask for an extension of our Article 50 period, so we do not need this Bill. I am told that when this point was put to our putative Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Letwin, he said he needed it as an insurance policy. I am sorry, but subverting our constitution for an insurance policy seems a pretty high premium to me.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the opinion of the excellent and rather consensual chairman of the House of Commons Procedure Committee? He said the following yesterday:
“The House of Commons is about to pass a major piece of legislation without a Report stage or a substantive Third Reading. If the Government did this, the House would rightly be deeply irritated with them, so the House should find no virtue in its actions this evening”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1211.]
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Indeed, and perhaps even at this late stage the noble Baroness might be prepared to reconsider her Motion. I would be perfectly happy if we had Second Reading today and took the Committee stage another day; there is no great issue here.
The noble Baroness suggested that the amendments had been tabled by people in favour of no deal; that is what she said. As I said at the beginning, this is not actually about the merits; we will get on to those later. As she sought to imply that one was coming from a biased position, I wonder if she would like to look at the pamphlet produced by Sir Stephen Laws and Professor Richard Ekins, entitled Endangering Constitutional Government: The Risks of the House of Commons Taking Control. They also picked up those words I quoted from Oliver Letwin, and this is what they say:
“By those words, Sir Oliver announced his intention to create a constitutional crisis, and invited MPs to join him in a flagrant and destructive attack on our current constitutional settlement. However, even if many MPs resile from the conclusion that the Commons must become the Cabinet, the course of action MPs have now set in motion, with help from the Speaker, is one which undercuts the Government’s capacity to govern and its freedom to set the agenda—to propose policy which Parliament might then choose to resist, adopt or adapt.
If the Commons continues down this path unopposed, the Government will end up in office but unable to govern. The Commons would nominally have confidence in the Government but would in practice not extend to the Government the freedom that such confidence would otherwise entail to carry out any policy initiative. Again, the constitution does not require that Parliament should accept the Government’s proposals. But unless the Government enjoys the initiative in formulating and proposing policy, the country cannot be effectively governed; and the relationship between the political authorities and the people will break down if MPs act in mutually inconsistent ways in performing their dual role both as an electoral college for government and in exercising oversight over the conduct of public affairs”.
What a mess we are in. Members opposite, in this House, of all places, where we have conducted the debate in a civilised manner—
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Prime Minister has accepted that her Government cannot get her legislation on Brexit through the House of Commons and needs to consult the rest of that House on alternative approaches?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, indeed, and that is why we do not need this Bill, which is a point that I have already made. The Prime Minister has said that she wants an extension. She has asked—I think somewhat courageously—the leader of the Opposition to talk to see if they can find a common purpose, but we know that that has been received with a certain amount of cynicism on the Benches opposite. Most of them are not great fans of the leader of the Opposition, although today they appear to be united in conspiring with those people in the House of Commons to undermine our constitutional system.
In the House of Commons Standing Order 14 has always given the Government’s business priority. It has existed since the early 19th century. The Government have always had a veto on legislation which involves taxation or expenditure. I am afraid that the combination of some militant people who wish to prevent the will of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union and a rogue Speaker—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
—yes, a rogue Speaker who allowed Dominic Grieve to amend an Act passed by both this House and the other place by a mere Motion, is what has created these difficulties.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord has said twice that the Prime Minister wants to get an extension of time. The passage of this Bill would give her additional strength in getting that time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will say very gently to the noble Lord that he ought to read the excellent speech made in the other place by the Secretary of State, Stephen Barclay, in which he explained in great detail how this Bill actually makes it more difficult for the Prime Minister to achieve her objectives. At the end of the day, with the support of the noble Baroness, we are not in control here; it is the European Union that will decide the length of an extension. This Bill is making the Prime Minister’s task very much more difficult.
Anyway, there will be plenty of time to go into the ins and outs and the merits of the legislation, but I am moving a Motion that we should take consideration of this in Committee. I appreciate that it is an unusual procedure but, as the noble Baroness made clear in her opening remarks, these are unusual times and these are important issues. We need to be in Committee—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. As I say, we need to be in Committee because we need to be able to cross-examine the basis for the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness. We need to be able to speak more than once, which we cannot do unless we are in Committee. We need to consider the implications of this for the future conduct of business in this House. I will not read them out because I do not want to waste time—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, the noble Lord has been speaking for 20 minutes.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have to say that if the noble Lord had been speaking for 20 minutes, it would have been much less interesting.
I will not read them out, but in the Companion are two pages of very important information about Private Members’ Bills waiting to be discussed. Are we to have it that the Opposition can seize control of this House and accelerate Private Members’ Bills by arguing that they are urgent? There is an opportunity here for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the attraction of accelerating Private Members’ Bills to be considered in a day has great merit. For the record, my Private Member’s Bill had its Second Reading in September 2017 and has just reached Report. I hope that anyone considering acceleration of Private Members’ Bills in this way will agree to offer the same facility when I reintroduce my Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord knows that I have sympathy for his Bill—although there are others here who do not wish to see his Bill proceed—but he needs to have a word with Sir Oliver Letwin, who is able to arrange these things, and get his colleagues lined up.
Lord Naseby
Is not my noble friend right? I speak as a former Deputy Speaker—I was elected to carry out that role—as well as a former Member of Parliament in the other place. There was no Report stage in the Commons, which in itself is extraordinary—and incredibly extraordinary on a major constitutional Bill—and a truncated Third Reading. It is no good the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite saying there had been an exhaustive examination in the other place—there has not been. Why did Members of the other place pack up at half-past 11? Because they got tired. On the Maastricht Bill we went through the night for three nights running. That is how you look at a Bill in depth. My noble friend is right to ask that we should look at this Bill in depth during a Committee stage today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure there will be time to discuss the way in which the Bill was handled. It was passed by only one vote—and that came from someone who was wearing a tag on release from prison. The noble Lord says, “For goodness’ sake”, but this is a major constitutional matter. It was passed by one vote after speeches were limited to two minutes in the other place because of the guillotine. Does he think that is the way to proceed? He had a go at me the other day because I said that this practice of suspending our Standing Orders will lead to tyranny. He mocked me. He said, “Tyranny? How ridiculous”. All that lies between us and tyranny is that we respect the conventions of both Houses. Why do we do that? Because it is our constitution. I hope the noble Baroness will accept the amendment because she is in danger of tearing up our constitution in order to make a narrow party-political point. I beg to move.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, I speak at a very difficult time for our whole country. However we see this debate in this Chamber, we have to consider how it will be seen outside of it. For what it is worth, if I had still been a Member of another place, I would have voted in principle against this Bill. It raises serious constitutional implications for another place, and I hope that very soon it will look at its rules of order and conventions and change them, so that this type of legislation can never again be presented either to this House or to the country.
It is true, in strict terms, that this Bill is not related to the real question before us: the withdrawal agreement and a treaty between 27 other EU countries and the United Kingdom. However, we cannot have this debate without recognising that it has wide implications for that consideration. It seems to me, on the balance of argument which has been presented, that if I were going to vote—but I am not—I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is a reasonable way of proceeding, although I know it may seem to some to be a blocking measure.
I understand the anger and frustration, and the belief that the procedures of the House of Commons have been changed in a way that was almost impossible to foresee for those of us who spent years there—I was there for 26 years. Nevertheless, it has done it; nevertheless, the Speaker has ruled; and, nevertheless, even by one vote, the Bill has been passed. We in this House have to be very careful about stopping this Bill. We may take a long time on it, and we may raise very serious constitutional questions about the way the House of Commons has behaved and urge it to change its procedures for the future, but if the word were to go out that the House of Lords had blocked the Bill, it would raise a very serious question. I have never made any secret of my view that this House needs very substantial reform, and if noble Lords want to bring on the day that this House is changed in a very substantial way, it will happen. Noble Lords need to be extremely careful.
One thing I urge the House to remember is that, at long last, the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of the Opposition are meeting in what appears to be a climate of compromise with a readiness to try to put the country’s interest first. It may or may not succeed, but it is profoundly to be hoped that it does.
How will this whole thing look, against that atmosphere and that priority, to the 27 countries that will have to consider this Bill, if it were to become an Act? The Prime Minister has already indicated what she wishes to do, but they are in control of the procedure. Many times in this whole debate about Europe, I warned this House about Article 50, which we should never have used. It is deliberately designed to stop the sort of normal compromise and agreement which has proceeded in both Houses over many years. We are not in a so-called negotiation, and people are now seeing it. In front of us, we have a proposal from 27 countries. It may be that the Prime Minister is ready to go along with it, and perhaps the House will eventually, but it is not a negotiated procedure in the normal sense of the word, and those countries have the right to make the decision about whether to allow a postponement.
Furthermore, something we should consider is that it has to be unanimous, so just one country can refuse. We know they are thinking very carefully about whether they will allow this. Even if we get around it procedurally, they are worried about its implications for the whole tone and debate in their countries when electing the new European Parliament. The way we debate here and in the other place will go a long way to deciding whether they will wish to accept a postponement, which I profoundly hope they do. Do not think that we are in a little bubble here which has no implications for anything else.
This country has a long record of accepting international treaties. This country has a long record of sending its Ministers, particularly its Foreign Secretary, out to negotiate under the royal prerogative. It was a great mistake when we changed the royal prerogative and the right of a Minister to go into an international treaty to trade across the table and to come back to Parliament and ask for a yes or no. That is how we have dealt with international treaties. The obligation has been on Ministers—the Foreign Secretary and everyone else—to talk with their opposite numbers throughout a treaty-making process so that there was built-in consideration of the bipartisanship of foreign policy. Do we deny that virtue that we have had over centuries in this House and in another place, whereby international politics was, if possible, conducted under bipartisanship? Are we throwing all that out too?
Time after time during this process we have failed to understand that our own constitution is a check. Parliament—we here and those in the House of Commons—voted for a referendum, yet what does the country see? It sees an elite in both Houses, and in London, blocking the decision democratically made by the electorate in the referendum. Shame on you if you do anything to let that happen.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the European Union has made it clear that, for an extension to be granted, it must know the reason for it. I would have been much happier with a decision in the House of Commons—not necessarily through this sort of procedure—that told the Prime Minister, by agreement, what it wanted to give as the reason. This is a fundamental part of the Bill. It is asking the Prime Minister to go and ask for an extension without specifying the reason to be put forward. Surely if the House of Commons requires the Prime Minister to do that, the minimum it should do is give an instruction as to the basis on which it wants that. However, for reasons I do not completely understand, we are in this position.
It is worth remembering that the European Union said at the beginning of these negotiations, described so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that it was determined to agree the withdrawal agreement before any substantial discussion about the future. Therefore, it is now urgent to agree the withdrawal agreement. The Prime Minister’s agreement with the European Union has come before the House of Commons a number of times, yet, as far as I know, no amendment to it has been proposed. Surely if we are dealing with the withdrawal agreement, it is important that what is wrong with the Prime Minister’s one, in the eyes of the House of Commons, is made clear in an amendment to it. Of course, the European Union says that it will not agree to such an amendment, but if the option is a no-deal departure instead of an agreed departure, the European Union might well prefer a revised agreement. I do not know whether that is the case—needless to say, I am not party to these negotiations. I do not intend to be here all night either.
I am trying to understand what is going on. I believe that we need to concentrate on the withdrawal agreement. Nearly all the discussions in the House of Commons, so far as I have been able to follow them—they are quite detailed—have been about the future relationship. One problem is the provision in the present agreement about the future arrangement in the shape of the Irish backstop. It seems to me that that should not strictly be part of the withdrawal agreement, but part of the arrangements for the future. That is a possible amendment to the Prime Minister’s deal that might be of some interest.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. The House of Commons passed a Motion saying that the agreement should be amended to replace the backstop. That is what the House of Commons decided but, unfortunately, the Government do not appear to have asked the European Union to do that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I understand that. To ask to amend the agreement is one thing, but to tell them the specific alteration is another. I am very familiar with that particular Motion, which passed. The point that I am trying to make is that if you want to change a document, you should propose the amendment you have in mind. The amendment tabled—very wisely, if we wanted to get some agreement—did not do that. All it said was that we must get alternative arrangements. What alternative arrangements are likely to be suitable? This point seems very important.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Has the EU not made it absolutely clear that it is impossible to reopen the agreement?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
That is what it says, but why should we accept that? It is supposed to be a negotiation. If we wanted an alternative arrangement, I should have thought that the position should be us saying what that alternative is. I have heard, “We don’t know what the UK wants”, again and again. A specific amendment to the agreement might well be subject to further consideration.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House of Commons sent us a Bill that its Members consider urgent. We should get on and consider its merits and demerits. Forty-nine noble Lords have put their names down for Second Reading, including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. There will be ample time during Second Reading for all these points to be explored. I suggest that we get on and do it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved that the Question be now put. If he did not, I would like to do so.
Motion
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, I am instructed by the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered a most exceptional procedure, and that the House must not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if the Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Motion be put without debate.
Lord True
My Lords, we must vote on the closure Motion that the noble Lord has moved, stopping a number of people who wish to address an important point in so far as the procedure of this House is concerned. If I can be helpful to the noble Lord, the procedure is that we now vote on that, if he would like to move for closure.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, there is no debate on this. The Question is that the Question be now put.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Leave out from “move” to the end and insert “that the Standing Orders of the House relating to public business shall apply to all proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill.”
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that, if any of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Lord, Lord True, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, or the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, are agreed to, I will not be able to call the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, by reason of pre-emption. In addition, if any of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Lord, Lord True, or the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are agreed to, I will not be able to call the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, before we move to the next speech, I make a plea. Those of us who sit at this end of the Room cannot hear what is being explained from the Woolsack. I ask the authorities of the House, if the human race can send people to the moon and do wonderful things, how is it that we cannot get a sound system by which we can hear very important notifications about what we are supposed to be doing?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, nor, it seems, can we actually implement what 17.4 million people have voted for.
My amendment is very simple and requires that we reject the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to suspend our Standing Orders, and that we treat this Bill in the same way as we would treat any other Bill. I appreciate the points that have been made about the urgency of the consideration of this matter, but I have already indicated that it would have been perfectly possible for us to consider the Second Reading of this Bill today and have its Committee stage on Monday. That would have given people a chance to absorb the arguments, to treat them properly and to put down amendments. As it is, it will be extremely difficult for people to put down amendments for the Committee and Report stages of what is a vital Bill.
The noble Baroness suggested that this is some kind of partisan exercise by leavers. I have to say that those who are jeering have probably not read the Bill. If they read it, they will find that it makes it much more difficult for the Prime Minister to reach an agreement on her extension, because she has no authority. She has to come back to the House of Commons if something is proposed that is not as she has proposed, and it actually makes the process more difficult for those who wish to avoid no deal and see this carried through speedily and effectively. It passed the House of Commons by one vote without amending that very basic point.
What this House is very good at is reading legislation, putting down amendments and agreeing sensible conclusions. It was impossible for the other place to do this, given the timetable that was set. When the Secretary of State, Stephen Barclay—who I think has done a magnificent job in very difficult circumstances—complains that he has only a few minutes to address these matters, something has gone very awry. I was struck, and indeed moved, by what he had to say at 7 pm last night in the House of Commons:
“We are passing the Bill in haste and do not have adequate time to debate it in the manner that I would like us to—there is only one minute left on the clock. There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws. It is because of those defects that the Government will oppose the Bill, and I urge Members to oppose this defective Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1146.]
If ever there were an invitation from a Secretary of State to ask this House to do its constitutional duty, that is it.
In the most appalling circumstances, when time for debate was very limited, the thing was rammed through the House of Commons in nine hours. All my amendment does is say, “Please can we actually do our duty and carry out the proper scrutiny of this Bill, and reject the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it all has to be done in haste?”
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The original Question—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Empey, can hear me—was that this Motion be agreed to, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out from “move” to the end and insert the words as set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment gives me the opportunity to speak both to the amendments tabled to the Business of the House Motion and to the Motion itself.
I regret that we find ourselves in this position today, and I believe that there are concerns around all corners of this House regarding the precedent that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill has set in the House of Commons. I am extremely disappointed that we are now facing a similar attempt to force that approach on this House. This House gets its legitimacy not from its composition but from the performance of its role. As Leader of the House, I have the responsibility within government to ensure that this House’s role is respected in the way that the Government ask it to consider legislation. In these unusual circumstances, where the Commons has passed legislation which is not supported by the Government, today this is the responsibility of those promoting the Bill.
When the Government seek the expedition of a Bill, we include the Explanatory Notes, including notes on the case for it to be expedited. Unfortunately, there appear to be no such Explanatory Notes today, which does not aid our consideration of the Bill. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan notes the irregularity of the position we find ourselves in. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Blencathra raise the roles of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I have sympathy for all three of these amendments.
However, to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy from these Benches, I must acknowledge that there are situations where this House has to take decisions on legislation without the guarantee that our Select Committees will be able to produce reports. I know that the Government, and past Governments, have not always covered themselves in glory on those points, as noble Lords have regularly pointed out. Therefore, Ministers will not be taking part in Divisions on the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton or Lord Blencathra. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Forsyth, Lord Ridley and Lord True argue that the Standing Orders should apply to the Bill in the normal way. This is the view of the Government, and we will therefore support these amendments.
On Tuesday evening, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s next steps, including her intention to seek a further extension under Article 50. A European Council meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 10 April, at which this request will be discussed. I am therefore in full agreement with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. The Government see this legislation as unnecessary to achieve such an extension with the European Council.
Because of the speed at which this legislation is being considered, we have genuine concerns that this Bill could tie the hands of government and, in fact, be contrary to its stated objectives, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly pointed out. The Bill creates a process whereby, if the European Council proposes an alternative date on 10 April, we would need to come back to Parliament the following day—Thursday 11 April —to get its agreement to that alternative date. By this point the Council would be over. The leaders of the other member states would have gone home and it would put us in the position of potentially having to try to agree a further extension with the EU through correspondence in the 24 hours leading up to our departure on 12 April. I simply do not believe this is a sensible or desirable process. On that basis, the Government’s position is the same as that stated yesterday by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We will be opposing this Bill again today.
Many noble Lords have commented today, and on other occasions, on the lack of scrutiny legislation often receives in the House of Commons. I ask noble Lords to think carefully before they vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which would indicate that, although small, this significant piece of legislation should require only two days of parliamentary debate across both Houses. If, after amendments have been disposed of, the noble Baroness presses her original Motion to a vote, the Government will oppose it, as we did in the House of Commons.
Motion
Lord Warner
My Lords, I think the mood of the House is that we should move as expeditiously as possible through these amendments to the Motion, so that we can consider the substance of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill as quickly as possible. I therefore urge the House that the Question be now put on this particular Motion.
The Lord Speaker
I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if a Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion be put without debate. Does the noble Lord still wish to move this closure?
The Lord Speaker
With great respect, I must remind the noble Lord that he is not in the House of Commons. We do not have points of order in this House.
Lord True
Leave out from “move” to the end and insert “notwithstanding the non-binding resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House to ensure the timely passage of legislation necessary to implement any deal or proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons, that this House does not consider it is in keeping with the traditions and procedures of the House of Lords, its proper scrutinising role or its function as a safeguard of the constitution to apply unprecedented procedures to this Bill, and therefore declines to dispense with normal Standing Orders.”
Lord True
My Lords, it is probably worth placing on the record what has happened so far today, because it is germane to the argument I wish to put to your Lordships. It is the same argument that I put to my Front Bench last week: your Lordships would make a grave error if they adopted the habit of not adhering to their Standing Orders. Last week I was rather disobliging to my Front Bench, and I apologise if I was a little sharp to my noble friend the Leader of the House. I submitted to the House—and found some support across the House, although notably it was whipped against by the Front Bench opposite—that it would be wise for your Lordships to wait for a report from the appropriate committee before taking a grave and important decision. The Government declined to do so. What transpired afterwards was that no doubt the Government took advice from wiser people than me, and wiser people outside the House. The Government actually adjourned the House the next day to do precisely what I had asked them to do the previous day and waited to hear the report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I condemn the Government’s attempt to set aside Standing Orders, but I congratulate them on listening.
Today we have a similar but even graver attempt to set aside our Standing Orders, which comes not from the Front Bench of the Government but from Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. Let us be under no illusion here: that side is whipped and is acting not at the behest of the slightly risible figure of Sir Oliver Letwin. It is the Labour Party that provides all the votes for Sir Oliver Letwin—the bulk of the votes—that is moving this procedure today and that is seeking to abuse the procedures of the House, with the support of the Liberal Democrats. I believe that when the Official Opposition seek to usurp the role of the Government and to set aside the proper procedures in this place, they should submit themselves to the same scrutiny as the Government are required to do, which we glory in every day. Why do we come here every day?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I said I am beginning to wonder why the noble Lord comes here every day.
Lord True
The noble Lord is a great wag, is he not? I have often thought the same about him, but I find him too engaging to have said such a thing.
I return to my argument. One thing I regret about the amendment I have tabled—but it was necessary because of the nature of the Bill before us—is that it mentions the House applying,
“unprecedented procedures to this Bill”.
I believe my amendment would be better if it said “any non-emergency Bill”. I think your Lordships are teetering slightly on the edge of a different dangerous place from that which was put to us earlier in the debate. In this part of our proceedings, the argument is ultimately about procedure. That may be arcane, but later in my remarks I will develop why I think that that is extremely important.
Our first discussion today was when my noble friend asked us to go into Committee. I would like to have spoken on that and I will now develop the points that I would have made then because they are absolutely germane to the point. My noble friend was responding to a situation where the Official Opposition, at the behest of the Labour Party, has come to the House and for the first time is asking your Lordships to accept this unusual procedure: the combination of the Bill before us and what happened in the Commons yesterday. That deserves to be examined. Why did my noble friend suggest that we should go into Committee? The reason was shown to us. When the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, tried to intervene on the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, based on all of his experience—my noble friend Lord Strathclyde enjoys great respect on both sides of the House because he is a great servant to this place—he wanted to ask for an explanation from the noble Baroness, acting for the Official Opposition, about usurping the role of the Government and demanding that this House pass legislation which is not approved by the Government in one day, she declined to take his intervention.
That showed me why my noble friend was right to ask that we should go into Committee. Why should not the Official Opposition or anyone else who might want to use this procedure in the future not be required to make the same response to the House on the whys and wherefores as a Minister of the Crown who comes before noble Lords has to do? What is it about the Official Opposition with this bogus cry—
Lord Robathan
I am very interested in what my noble friend is saying. For clarification, do the people who are backing this not understand that this will be used against them if it is allowed to continue?
Lord True
Well, my Lords, it is for each noble Lord to draw whatever conclusion he or she wishes. I simply draw attention to the fact that this is a device that is being used by the Official Opposition, with the approval of the leader of the Labour Party, against the House of Lords.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, to support my noble friend Lord Robathan, the point he has not made clearly is that members of the Opposition wish to be sitting on this side of the House, and one day they will. They will then find the dragon’s teeth they sowed cutting away at their feet.
Lord True
I am sure that my noble friend is right but really I am not so interested in the politics of the matter. Of course that is the case, but it is the case of life and of democracy. The cry of democracy is that the people choose and the Government change. That is the glory of freedom. What is going on in the House of Commons, with your Lordships being suborned to assist in it, is that those who the people of this country did not choose are trying to use the procedures of both Houses to deny the people of this country what they actually did choose, which was to leave the European Union.
Lord Spicer (Con)
One of the reasons why the Opposition are using the strange technique that my noble friend has exposed is in search of the word “compromise”. Surely that is something that we are going to have to look at later in the proceedings. That is because in a binary situation, you cannot have a compromise: you are either in the European Union or you are out of it. You particularly cannot reach a compromise with someone who is an extreme socialist and is using that as his red line.
Lord True
Again, my noble friend makes a strong point that takes us to the substance of the Bill, which we will discuss later. After many years in the usual channels trying to do the best for this House, and 13 years of opposition when we never attempted a procedure of this kind, I am trying to say to noble Lords, particularly our reasonable colleagues on the Cross Benches, that we should be cautious about waving this through so easily.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had a bad day in court because he jumped up and tried to cut off argument. Are lawyers not supposed to listen? I apologise because the noble Lord is not in his place, but he did not allow anyone else to make the case for going into Committee. I turn to the last Motion we had. Let me remind noble Lords of what was before the House.
Lord True
Noble Lords may know but they need to be reminded and the world outside needs to understand. The last proposition was that in relation to this Bill, shoved through the House of Commons late at night, which a former Leader of the House has just risen to tell us has flaws which need to be examined and addressed in Committee, we should be prepared not to set aside the Standing Orders but to look at its different stages on different days. Perhaps we could take the Second Reading today and take the remaining stages on another day. Is that such an unexceptionable proposition? Is that not what your Lordships are here for? I repeat the question I put earlier: why do your Lordships come here, if not to scrutinise? What is the purpose of the House if not to scrutinise properly?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I just make the point that this House has been asked by the other place to consider a Bill that it would like to pass. We are debating issues here that could have been debated on so many other occasions. We have been passing statutory instruments for no deal without impact assessments and without proper consultation. We have overridden, when it has been convenient for those who perhaps want to leave with no deal, but this is about stopping us crashing out with no deal and giving the Prime Minister the support she may need to stand firm and go back to the European Union to ask for a longer extension so that we do not crash out with no deal.
Lord True
My noble friend is entirely wrong. That is not the point before the House in this Motion. Indeed, the procedure I have suggested would still allow the Bill to be passed. However, since when has it been the function of this House to say “Yes, sir” to any piece of legislation suddenly rushed down the Corridor? That is the proposition being put to us by my noble friend Lady Altmann: “The House of Commons has asked us to pass this, so we must be pass it. Get on with it”. Every time someone comes to this House bearing papers with a green ribbon on them, they are asking us to agree. Of course they want us to agree and they would probably prefer us to do so quickly, but we do not have to. That is called freedom and it is called scrutiny. It is also called consideration, but none of that is allowed for in the procedures that have been put before us today. The Bill comes with no Explanatory Notes and not even a name on it, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, admitted, yet we are being asked to pass it in a hurry or we are behaving badly. The day when the House of Lords is behaving badly because it is giving proper due consideration to a proposed Act of Parliament in the time that is sufficient and necessary for it to do so, as the noble Baroness asks in her amendment, is the beginning of the end for the House of Lords. That will be when the House of Lords says, “Yes, sir, we all want to go home”. I am sorry, but we need to be mindful of the importance of proper procedures.
I do not care for tweeting but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is a great tweeter. I was sleepless last night, thinking about what I might say today, so I had a look at what she had been tweeting. Your Lordships will be interested to know that on 24 February—you can look it up—she sent out a tweet complaining that the Government might want to get the withdrawal Act through in 10 days. She tweeted that the House of Lords does not have programme Motions; the House of Lords needs time to consider things. That was on 24 February.
It ought to be 1 April today—it is 4 April—because the noble Baroness has come forward with a programme Motion in which she says that the House of Lords cannot have more than one day to consider this matter. I do not eat Devonshire clotted cream, but I find the noble Baroness’s position as rich as that.
While I am talking about the noble Baroness, I feel I must say how discourteous it was to the House to table this Motion so late. We heard from the putative Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Letwin, yesterday morning that he had been discussing matters with his friends down the Corridor—who are here in person—so why could she not have tabled this Motion before that? She tabled it before the Bill had arrived from the House of Commons and knew what was there. She could have given better notice to the House but failed to do so. She tried to bounce the House at the very last minute and then came up with this trumpery that something has to be passed quickly when the Prime Minister has already said that she will do what the Bill asks her to do.
What nonsense is this? Why are noble Lords going along with this nonsense and being prepared to set aside their Standing Orders?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Talking about Standing Orders, the noble Lord, Lord True, will recall from when he was bag carrier for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Companion to the Standing Orders recommends that speeches should not exceed 15 minutes. He has now been speaking for 17 minutes. Would it not be appropriate for him to draw his remarks to a close?
Lord True
My Lords, I am introducing an amendment to a Motion, which is a different matter. I ask the noble Lord and others to consider that this is a matter of extreme importance to the House. In this little book—I do not know if the noble Lord has ever read it or knows what it is—are the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House, which have been established over centuries to protect our procedures and to help secure the liberties of the British people. They should not be lightly set aside. We set them aside frequently when there is an emergency, but on no basis of credible argument can what is going on today be considered an emergency. It is a charade—“chicanery” was the word used earlier—to enlist this great House in the political activities of the Labour Party, with which certain useful people in other parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, may go along.
The Liberal Democrat Leader should have been heard. Why did the noble Lord, Lord Warner, tell the House to choke off debate when the leading member of the Liberal Democrats wanted to follow the important remarks of the Leader of the House? It was wrong. That procedure of closure is also in our Standing Orders but it is not without reason that there is a note saying that it should not be lightly entered into. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, entered into it rather lightly.
What we have here is a pre-cooked plot—the gaff was blown by Sir Oliver Letwin in the other place yesterday—but it is the tip of the iceberg. One of my colleagues said earlier that if your Lordships consent to this kind of procedure being standard, what will happen when another Government are formed and a different person on the Front Bench says, “We set aside these Standing Orders. Your Lordships may consider this to be a scrutinising House but, no, it all has to be done in a day”? That is where we are heading.
That is not my surmise or what I am suggesting; it is what we see from the Official Opposition. As to the person who may be sitting here in a few months’ time if there were an election, what demur or doubt would she have in bringing forward such a Motion to frustrate your Lordships’ ability to consider and scrutinise legislation? Once you begin with a little sin and a little lie, big ones readily follow. We should be extremely cautious in assenting to this setting aside of Standing Orders.
Lord Lilley
Has my noble friend noticed the internal inconsistency of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter? It begins by referring back to the resolution of the House on 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government “should provide sufficient time”. It then goes on to curtail the time available to the House to consider this. How can both halves of the Motion be passed in one breath?
Lord True
My noble friend is right. He has anticipated the fast-approaching conclusion of what I will say.
It cannot be right not to allow sufficient time to consider a Bill which, as we have heard from my Front Bench, is still flawed; on which committees that have reported raised doubts; and which was being amended on the hoof by its own proponents in the House of Commons last night. There is no argument in logic because the Prime Minister has said that she will ask for a delay. There is no argument in procedure to say that we have to pass the Bill today. It is a political position taken up by the Official Opposition—I repeat, the Official Opposition—and we should not support it.
Everything I have sought to do in politics—and, by the way, I was proud to be the bag carrier, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, so kindly put it, to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—both in administration and local government, and the privilege I have in being a Member of your Lordships’ House, is to speak for freedom. One of things that defines the freedom of this House is its free procedures: the right of us all to put down an amendment and to have it heard, not closed; and the right of us all to put down a Motion and have it closed, not waved away. These things may seem small and arcane to those on the outside but, to me, they are a small part of freedom—and I have always wished to live and conclude my life in that. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Could my noble friend reflect on the fact that it would be a great disappointment if, after he sat down, someone were to move that the following person who wants to speak should not be heard? That would amount to a bigger abuse of procedure altogether. Curtailment of debate in this House is a serious matter. There should not be curtailment and I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches go along with it. I remind them what JS Mill wrote in On Liberty. He warned democracy about the tyranny of the majority. He thought that that was the greatest threat to democracy. There is a clear majority on the Benches opposite that this Bill should pass. There is a minority on this side of the House. To silence the minority is very much against the principles of JS Mill, the founder of the Liberal Party. He would not have approved at all. I beg Members not to move the closure Motion too quickly because it is abuse of a basic democratic principle. This is an abuse of majority power. This House should not be sanctioning it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
On the point that the noble Lord made, two Cross-Benchers have moved closure Motions, but he should not assume that the other Cross-Benchers agree with them. We do not operate like that.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Some of them may have done, but the noble Lord should not assume that the group as such supported them.
Lord True
I would like to move to a conclusion, although I of course respect and acknowledge the noble and learned Lord’s intervention. Indeed, I suspect that the House, because it is pre-cooked, will not want to listen to what I am saying today, but I say to the House that this is the tip of a very deep and dark iceberg if we go on this way. Part of the protection of freedom in this House has been the existence of the Cross Benches. The Cross Benches are sometimes, often and always used to be prepared to listen and be the balance in the argument. Who will be a guardian, that balancing element in this House that guards against the tyranny of either of the great parties, if they survive this crisis, which wish to tip aside our procedures, supress what we normally do and allow proper scrutiny? Who will be the protectors of that if not the Cross Benches?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Following the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I say that it is perfectly true that the Cross Benches do not take a collective view. It is also true that the two previous closure Motions were moved by Cross-Benchers and quite a large number of them voted for them.
Lord True
On these things, people have to stand up and be counted. I reflect that having made my speech last week against a strong Whip from my party saying that we should obey Standing Orders, I did not regret it and I asked myself whether I should intervene in this debate—I have intervened only on the Standing Order and the procedural point—and do it again. I felt that I must because not only is the pace so extraordinary but it is so odd that 227 Members of the House of Lords— your Lordships’ House, the revising Chamber—voted to close off, after a few minutes, discussion of whether your Lordships should allow yourselves more than one day to discuss a Bill of such importance and such significance. I think that was a sad reflection on our love of our procedures which I confess are part of our freedom. Our freedoms were won by Parliament. They are held by Parliament and we in this place have a part in that, irrespective of where we stand on the debates on Europe. One thing I agree with my noble friend Lady Evans on is that we have heard a lot, but surely on this business of how we conduct ourselves we can rise above the debates that we are having later and consider whether this House wishes to embark down this road. I submit that when I suggested to my noble friend on the Front Bench last week that the Government should listen and adhere to Standing Orders, they did listen. They adjourned the House and we had the debate the next day. I now submit to the noble Baroness that she should show the same grace and that she should accept the proposition that we hear one stage today and have time to reflect on the later stages of the Bill on another day. That is not an unreasonable provision. I put that submission in conclusion to the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
This is an abuse of our procedures. Can it stop?
Lord True
I would have stopped 30 seconds later if the noble Lord had not risen. He calls it an abuse of Parliament. I call it the right of any Member of Parliament to put the case for proper procedures, freedom and accountability, and accountability lies there just as it must lie here.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I shall begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who very helpfully quoted Mill at me. I absolutely agree that democracy requires the exercise of free speech. It also requires the following of rules and the exercise of its powers with responsibility. We have just heard a 30-minute speech. It may have been an excellent speech, and I am sure that if I now speak for 30 minutes it will be an excellent speech as well, but if I speak for 30 minutes, and all my colleagues speak for 30 minutes, we will never get to the substance of today’s debate. Therefore, your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak for 30 minutes—25 should be enough.
The burden of all these amendments is that the House is being expected to follow unprecedented procedures. Is this surprising? We are in extraordinary, unprecedented times. We are in a national crisis the like of which has not occurred in my lifetime. It is a national crisis which consists in no small part of the fact that there has been a collapse of government. The Prime Minister, after seven hours in Cabinet, addressed the nation to say that she would like the leader of the Opposition to tell her what to do and that, if she did not like that, she would go to the House of Commons and ask it to tell her what to do within hours of having to put something to the European Council next week in order to prevent no-deal Brexit. This collapse of government is unprecedented, and it would be slightly surprising if Parliament did not respond to it by taking unprecedented measures to fill the vacuum where normally one finds government. The third unprecedented point, which is unprecedented in human history, is that unless we prevent a no-deal Brexit at the end of next week, this country will be the first democracy ever to have agreed to make itself poorer, less secure and less influential. Therefore, it is unprecedented and needs dealing with in unprecedented ways.
The key element which means that it is necessary to deal with this Bill today is just how little time there is. We are talking about a very few days before the Prime Minister has to write to the European Council, hopefully with some view about why we should have a further extension. As of this minute, the only thing that can be written in that letter about why we are doing it is because we cannot think of what we want. I hope that by close of business on Monday we will be a bit further forward on that, but, if this House blocks this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whom I do not always agree with, said earlier, how would that be perceived? How would it be perceived if we were to agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that we could not possibly deal with this until a Select Committee had dealt with it? At a time of national crisis, I think that the world would think that your Lordships had lost a sense of proportion.
The other argument that has been made against the Bill, including by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, is that it is unnecessary because of a commitment made by the Prime Minister. However, it is a sign of the confidence that the Commons has in the Prime Minister that it does not think that that is enough. It thinks—and I agree—that, unless we have something like this Bill, there is absolutely no assurance that the Prime Minister will come forward with the necessary guarantee.
Finally, I have two points to make about the amount of time that we have to debate the Bill. First, we will have longer to debate the Bill, the less time we waste on these procedural Motions. Secondly, I look forward to the debates that we shall have later. I look forward to the Second Reading and to debating amendments in Committee and on Report. I have brought my toothbrush. It will not be the first time that I have spent all night in your Lordships’ House, and many of my colleagues have done the same. We are here at the service—says he very pompously—of the country to debate this issue for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his colleagues want to debate it. No doubt we will hear the same arguments time and time again but, if that is what the noble Lord wants, I shall, as always, look forward to hearing them and will be in my place to listen to them, however long it takes.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats will be glad to know that I shall be brief. I will address myself to the main point embedded in what he said. To begin with, this is a most appalling day. I have served in Parliament for 45 years and there has never been an instance of constitutional vandalism of the scale that we are witnessing today and at the present time more generally.
I am on the record as having long been concerned that in this country we do not have a written constitution. The reason that we do not have a written constitution is not that there is anything bad about written constitutions interpreted by the appropriate courts and safeguarded by the courts; it is our history. If one looks across the world, one sees that written constitutions come into being only when there is a historical discontinuity. For example, when a colony of the United Kingdom is given self-government, it equips itself with a written constitution—although ironically, or worse than ironically, it seems that the majority of the Members of this House do not believe that we are capable of self-government. A written constitution also comes into being following a bloody revolution and frequently after defeat in wartime. We have been blessed uniquely in this country in not suffering these historical discontinuities, and that is why, uniquely, we do not have a written constitution and have to rely on respect for the procedures of Parliament. However, we pay a price for not having a written constitution. We pay a price for having had a reasonably trouble-free history, unlike the rest of the world, and that price has become evident today and in recent days.
The main point made by the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats is that the issues surrounding Brexit are so important that it is necessary and right to tear up the constitution. However, the reverse is the case: the more important the issue, the more important it is that the constitution and the conventions are respected. As there is a really important substantive issue of a constitutional nature lying behind this, the more important it is that we respect the constitution and do not engage in this vandalism. I respect the fact that views differ on the length of this debate but I think that everybody agrees that this is a very important issue, including the noble Lord, who said so himself.
Viscount Ridley
Can my noble friend address this point? The problem that the Bill is trying to address is a disagreement between the Government and Parliament and between Parliament and the country. The idea that you resolve such a thing by ramming something through an unelected House in one day is surely a constitutional monstrosity of an even greater kind.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My noble friend makes a very strong point. I am deeply concerned at the growing rift between Parliament and the people, with the refusal to accept the people’s judgment, whether you agree with it or not. A very clear judgment was made in the referendum. There is a real danger that undesirable but very often understandable insurrectionary forces will feel that they cannot trust the British Parliament or the British constitution, and a very ugly situation could well arise. Therefore, my noble friend is absolutely right.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I had not planned to speak, but I am literally moved to tell your Lordships what my feelings are. I have spent 55 years teaching and studying law, including constitutional law. If you want to know how effective I am, I have had in my lectures the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The point about studying law—and probably many people in this House practise or have practised as lawyers—is that you internalise respect for the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, explained about us not having a written constitution. Our constitution works only because of trust. Why do we accept the authority of the Lord Speaker, whoever he or she may be? Why do we accept the rulings of the clerks, disguised as they are in their wigs? It is because we trust them and because this has gone on for centuries. It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of the role that people fill. Each Session we take an oath, standing by the Dispatch Box, to be loyal to the Queen and, implicitly, to uphold the law. Why do judges not interfere with the proceedings of Parliament? There is no question of anyone challenging this law if it goes through today because the judges accept that Parliament deserves their trust. We trust the judges and they trust Parliament, and if that breaks down, the whole system breaks down. Not only is the constitution being damaged and trashed today but we have been subjected to gagging orders. I am speaking now because I think that, if I wait another five minutes, there will be another Motion to stop us talking.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can she categorise in terms of respect for constitutional convention and order a Government who are defeated in the House of Commons by 230 votes and just carry on, then have another vote on the same thing and are defeated by 180 votes and then carry on? Is that not a little odd in terms of practice?
Baroness Deech
It is unusual but it is not unconstitutional, because it lies in the power of the House of Commons to put an end to that situation, if it wishes to, by getting rid of the Prime Minister or passing the withdrawal agreement. We are suffering from a lack of trust that is about to come upon us, as I said. The constitutional damage may be irreversible.
I will add that there has been a lot of loose talk about sovereignty and Parliament taking control. We do not have our sovereignty; we gave it up in part when we joined the EU, and we will not recover it until we leave. At the moment we are like prisoners rattling the cage while outside the warders have the keys. We can debate all we like here, but we can see from this Bill that the EU 27 will tell us what to do. What is the point of delay, and of advising this and that, when they have said that they will not alter the withdrawal agreement, and the power lies with them?
I am sorry to say that I blame this breakdown in respect of the constitution in part on the EU. The effect of the EU has been to preside over judicial corruption across Europe; to preside over financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability in Brussels; to allow creeping right-wing extremism across Europe; to allow the appointment of Juncker when we did not want it; and to accept the appointment of Selmayr, apparently breaking all the rules that there are. This disregard for the constitution and for the rules that the EU itself lays down, which are flagrantly disobeyed by Poland, Hungary and others, is now lapping around our ankles.
Unless we uphold the constitution by following every little bit of our rules today—albeit that this might require people to be brief in their remarks, as I will be—the damage will be incredible. People out there who respect us, who respect the law, who do not need to be whipped into submission or coerced and who obey the police and the rule of law will wonder why they too have internalised the legal system if we cannot do so. We have to believe in our own legal system and our own procedure.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendments, but the reason why I will not be supporting any of them is precisely that we are in a position where the Government have failed to deal with the Brexit referendum. The constitutional problem started there, and to suggest that we should not deal with procedures today is misguided. We have to deal with the crisis that is developing in this country. We need to get this legislation through and work with the House of Commons in order to try to resolve the constitutional mess that was caused by the referendum in the first place.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I will say a few words following on from the speeches of my noble friend Lord Lawson and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Both of them referred to the fact that we have—and we have always regarded it as one of our glories—an unwritten constitution. That has its risks. In a set of circumstances where a country has an unwritten constitution, the safeguards of our liberties lie with our conventions, precedents and procedures. An unwritten constitution works only if the institutions of government respect those conventions, procedures and precedents. Under an unwritten constitution, the House of Commons has very great power—but the House of Commons should exercise that power with constraint, circumspection and respect for those conventions, procedures and precedents.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, the Leader in this House of the Liberal Democrats, says that a breach of those conventions, practices and procedures is justified because we are in a state of national crisis. He will know that that is the pretence that tyrants have used down the ages for abrogating the safeguards that have existed in those countries to safeguard the liberties of their citizens.
That brings me to the role and responsibility in these circumstances of your Lordships’ House. Surely if your Lordships’ House has any role and responsibility, it is to put a brake on the breach of those conventions, precedents and procedures that has undoubtedly taken place in the House of Commons. Be under no illusion: what has happened in the House of Commons will set a precedent that may be followed in circumstances that would have a much more dire effect on our liberties than the issues that we are debating and discussing today. If that precedent is to be tempered, the only body that can do it is your Lordships’ House. That is why your Lordships’ House should today put a brake on the breach of those conventions, precedents and procedures and vote for my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I have form in speaking on emergency procedures whereby our legislation is put through in one day. It is frequently the case that legislation pertaining to Northern Ireland is shoved through Parliament in a day. The Government Front Bench will know that I objected strongly—I raised the matter in this House—to several Bills coming into the House to be dealt with in one day when it was perfectly clear that they could have been dealt with in a different way. However, the one big difference was that both the Government and the Opposition supported those pieces of legislation.
If I were the promoter of the Bill today, I would have to say to myself: “We are now at 2.26 pm, our proceedings started after Questions at around 11.30 am, we are still on procedure and we are going to be on procedure for quite some time”. I would take the option that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, put forward: get on to Second Reading and finish the business on Monday, when we will have had time over the weekend to consider it. I cannot see any reason why a rational person would not do that.
There is a more important issue. I have not been in this House that long; many noble Lords have been here far longer than me. However, I detect a complete change in the atmosphere in this place. Today has shown me that we are becoming the nasty House, and I do not like it. We have continuous interruptions of speakers from a sedentary position; we have heckling; and we have some nasty comments coming from wherever they happen to come when a certain individual is expressing his or her views.
The irony of it all is this: I represent a party that recommended remain, but the people spoke in a referendum that this House and most of the Members in it put their hands up for, and we accept the result without question. It is over. Leavers and remainers are gone—at least, that is the way it should be. But, if we go on in this way, we are going to leave behind us the bitterness that we found in Northern Ireland after the Belfast Good Friday agreement or the bitterness that was left behind after the miners’ strike. In such circumstances personal relationships get damaged, and that is a great shame.
Technically the usual channels are not functioning, because it is not entirely clear today who is the Government and who is not. However, if I were promoting this Bill I would be working now to get us on to Second Reading and finish the thing off on Monday. There will be no loss of impetus in so far as the EU is concerned because, ironically, I think that the proposal coming forward in the Bill actually does more harm than good. The fact is, sadly, that the European Union will see a Prime Minister going in to meet them on Wednesday virtually on her hands and knees—and that is not something I want to see.
From where I come from, I want to see a deal. That is by far the best outcome for my part of the world—but I know that that view is not expressed everywhere. However, I appeal to the House to prevent this nastiness, and the heckling and the gagging. The procedures could have been dealt with differently if we had been operating across the Chamber through the usual channels as we should. I urge Members to focus on dealing with this matter in a proper way, before we do irreparable damage to our House. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there is an emergency of a sort and that we have to try to get our act together by Wednesday. I accept all of that. Leaving the finishing stages of this legislation to Monday will not make an iota of difference to that, but I appeal to noble Lords not to proceed with this nastiness. It will not be repaired quickly if we continue in the way we are going.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has spoken with a good deal of sense. My understanding is that the usual channels had formally agreed to finish this Bill on Monday, and that that arrangement was withdrawn yesterday. The noble Baroness is shaking her head. I have 19 years’ experience of dealing with process and procedure in this House. One abiding rule is that once you do not involve the usual channels, it all goes wrong. That is exactly what has happened today.
I know the noble Baroness is about to speak. Can she explain why it is so urgent that we sit virtually all night to pass this Bill? We could do what all the precedents set have done, and have the Second Reading today and finish the remaining stages at the beginning of next week, asking the usual channels—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip—to organise it. That would get rid of the nastiness that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to. It would make for a far more rational debate, and the Bill would be completed—I recognise there is a majority for the Bill in this House—in plenty of time for whatever else happens next week.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we are actually dealing with the amendment on whether we should have a committee report. I draw the attention of the House to the speech Mr Steve Baker gave late last night in the Commons. I do not know why I should pick on him at this particular moment—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Oh! I had not noticed. Mr Baker was looking forward to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House, in the,
“fervent hope that their Lordships will examine this Bill line by line”,—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1217.]
and give it good attention. The hope was that we would get on and deal with the Bill, and that is what this Motion is about.
However, I speak now to only the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. He asked me why I did not take an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was moving a Motion: normally, you move a Motion, then people stand up and ask questions and points of order, and at the end one comes back with the clarification. That seems to be the correct way to do it.
On the particular issue of whether we should have a committee, we have a committee report on this Bill. Even if we did not, the point of committees is to assist this House, not to stand in the way when something needs doing. Their members are also Members of this House, and can therefore give their very wise—and often learned, in the case of the Constitution Committee —advice directly to the House. We can do it then.
The important thing I want to raise, because I was not able to on the last amendment, is the idea of how awful it was that we were moving this, rather than the Government. As I said at the beginning, it should have been the Government who brought the Bill to the House, because that was what the House had passed before. We are doing it because that was not done. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that it is normally the Government who table Private Members’ Bills. Yes, but they failed to do so. We will do it when they do not. The Leader of the House is obviously in a difficult position—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think I will continue, if the noble Lord does not mind.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am sure the noble Lord does, but I would like to answer the point that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made some time ago, which I have not been able to answer. She is in a difficult position; I understand that. She is a member of the Cabinet and of the governing party, but she is also the Leader of the House. In the absence of a Speaker with authority—although we do have a very authoritative Speaker—she also has to consider the whole House’s interests. It would have been her responsibility in that role to have brought forward this Bill as it was voted for before.
We have talked about a “constitutional monstrosity”, “tearing up the constitution” and “constitutional vandalism”. We are asking that this House considers a Bill sent to us by the other House. Is that “constitutional vandalism”? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, this country faces a national crisis. The people in the Gallery—I am sorry that there are some there, because I am quite embarrassed that they are watching us—must wonder what on earth is happening when, at a time of national crisis, we are debating not the content of the Bill or the issues that have been raised by some speakers, but whether we should even consider the Bill today. This is out of order. In fact, I think it is shameful that this is being done. I find it shameful that the Government are helping on this.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think the noble Lord has spoken quite enough. We have heard from him; I think we know his views. We should not still be debating the content of the Bill, because we have not got on to it. We want a Second Reading. We can vote against the Bill if we do not like it; that is the democratic way of dealing with a Bill that you do not like. But to try to talk out the ability of us even to take the Bill is an abuse of process. I will not support the amendment to my Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True.
Lord Robathan
Since the noble Baroness does not like taking interventions, I will have to make a speech. It will be a very brief one.
Lord Robathan
I always thought that this House was about courtesy, but I have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, does not really agree. Never mind. Indeed, if I might digress slightly, the noble Lord rudely accused my predecessor in the seat of Blaby in the House of Commons of being in Parliament too long. I note that the noble Lord first wanted to come into the House of Commons in 1966—that would make it 53 years—so he has not done badly himself, although the electorate kept throwing him out.
The point I would like to make is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked why the Government had not put down a Motion. It is quite straightforward: the Bill was not passed until 11.30 pm last night. How could the Government possibly have put down a Motion then? The Bill was passed by one vote—I regret to say that it was passed at all. There was never any certainty of it being passed, and it would have been extraordinary if my noble friends on the Government Bench had said, “Oh, we’ll put it down just in case”. That is not the way Parliament works. It has procedures. That is the whole point of the amendment.
Motion
The Lord Speaker
I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if a Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. Does the noble Lord still wish to move the Motion?
Baroness Noakes
Leave out from “move” to the end and insert “notes that the Prime Minister has already indicated her intention to ask for a delay in the date for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and considers it unnecessary, as well as undesirable and unprecedented, to apply exceptional procedures to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5 Bill) and therefore regrets the proposal by Her Majesty’s Opposition to do so.”
Baroness Noakes
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be looking forward to hearing from me. The amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper gives reasons for not supporting the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which are as follows:
“that the Prime Minister has already indicated her intention to ask for a delay”;
and that this House “considers it unnecessary”—as well as “undesirable and unprecedented”—“to apply exceptional procedures”. I shall speak to those elements in a moment.
I wish that the House had committed this Motion to be debated in Committee because we could have had a more natural, free-flowing discussion about some of the issues raised so far—all of which have been brought to an end by the closure Motion, which I believe is undesirable. However, the House chose not to go that way; that leaves a number of unanswered questions, which we still need to explore, about exactly how the procedures will work today. I am quite unclear about how we proceed between Second Reading and Committee, given that there has to be an interval to allow for amendments to be processed and made available to noble Lords, and for noble Lords to consider them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, going back to the Bill that I took through in a day, clearly, gaps were put in. There was a gap of an hour or so between Second Reading and Committee to allow people to draft amendments and have them printed. The same could happen between that stage and Report. It is perfectly proper and easy to make this work in one day.
Baroness Noakes
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, makes a very good point but the Bill he refers to was undertaken with the full co-operation of the usual channels; because they co-operate, they set out how those things will work. That has not happened in this case, as I understand it, and therefore this House is quite unaware of what will happen when we get to the end of Second Reading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the temptation to live past glories is ever-present in your Lordships’ House but the point is that the Bill I am talking about had its contentious points: I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is not here in his place, and Baroness Blatch, who I think noble Lords opposite will recall with a great deal of respect, were very much opposed to it. Perhaps the noble Baroness was there when we did it; the point I am making is that we were not unanimous on that Bill.
Baroness Noakes
The point remains that the Bill was processed with the full agreement of the usual channels. The fact that it was not supported by all Members of the House is irrelevant. The usual channels arrange for the orderly business in this place.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is it not also the case that we are not having a day? It will be around 8 pm or 9 pm before we get on to Second Reading because we will have my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Motion, as well as a Statement. This is crazy.
Baroness Noakes
I completely agree with my noble friend, which is why it is important to understand the implications of this. If, as I suspect, a number of amendments to the Bill will be tabled after Second Reading—of course, they cannot be tabled until then—the Public Bill Office will require considerable time in which to manage them. It will arrange for them to be printed, then noble Lords will obviously need to have sight of and consider them, as well as consider whether there are any appropriate groupings of them. This is not a rapid process, so we then come up against the issue of what time this will all happen. I have absolutely no idea.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Can I answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack? If noble Lords who have tabled wrecking amendments decided not to move them and if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, decided that the important reports from his committee should not be debated half way through the night, we could go straight to considering the Bill now. That would show this House in a good light, considering the Bill properly.
Baroness Noakes
I hear the noble Lord, but to put the onus on my noble friend Lord Forsyth to delay the debate on his very important reports issued last year is unfair. We are in this position because of the action taken by the Opposition in tabling the Motion to deal with this in one day.
Lord Robathan
The truth is that the objection of most of us to this business Motion is to it being rushed through. Why, for instance, could the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not move for Committee on Monday and have only Second Reading today? How about that? It would seem to be a reasonable compromise.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I have a small suggestion. I am not sure whether I am being fair to the noble Baroness, but logically her amendment and the following four should be debated and moved en bloc. We do that for other things; why can we not do it today?
Baroness Noakes
The noble Lord may well find some commonality in some of the things that each of us says about our Motion, but they are distinct Motions that deserve to be considered in their own right. That is why we have tabled them in that way. Before I leave this point, there is a serious issue that I hope the Front Bench opposite will consider, which is what will happen to the time of this House. We should consider in particular the impact on the staff of this House, who have to serve the way that this Bill is being processed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I very much agree with the point my noble friend made, particularly about the staff. There are two Motions from the Economic Affairs Committee that are being taken together. One relates to 50,000 people who are affected by the loan charge. Another relates to small businesses that have to submit their VAT returns digitally by tomorrow. These are big issues, and it is not my Motion but the committee’s. I say to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench that it seems that there is a consensus in the House that it is more sensible to take Committee on Monday.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If there is not, it would be interesting to know what the arguments are. Then we could proceed in a sensible way that reflects people’s plans and also those of the staff of the House.
Baroness Noakes
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. He reminds me of the importance of his debate, and indeed I am speaking in that debate. It is not just about the 50,000 people who are affected by the loan charge—although it is very serious for all those individuals—but there are issues with suicides that have flowed from that loan legislation. That is why it is really important that we continue with that debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Baroness is right that these are two important reports. It would be much better for them to be dealt with properly, at a sensible hour on Monday afternoon—which they could be if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, wanted them to be properly debated instead of used as an obstruction to today’s business.
Baroness Noakes
I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks they are an obstruction to today’s business, but today’s business has been forced on us by the Benches opposite—it seems without any consideration of the sequencing of the Bill as it comes through this House, as I raised in my opening remarks. These are important issues and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will reflect on them.
The first reason for my amendment to the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that the Prime Minister has already indicated her intention to ask for a delay. I remind the House of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, when she addressed the nation. She said:
“I know there are some who are so fed up with delay and endless arguments that they would like to leave with no deal next week”.
I count myself in that group—but that is not the point of today. She said:
“I’ve always been clear that we could make a success of no deal in the long term. But leaving with a deal is the best solution. So we will need a further extension of Article 50, one that is as short as possible and which ends when we pass a deal. And we need to be clear what such an extension is for, to ensure we leave in a timely and orderly way”.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that to the nation on television. She said it in the other place and in a letter that has been written to all Conservative parliamentarians—so she means it and we should take her at her word.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend argues that the Bill is therefore unnecessary, but I am afraid that it would be necessary if, for example, the European Council made a counterproposal for a significantly longer extension of Article 50. In the absence of this legislation, the Prime Minister would have to use the prerogative power to refuse that, and we might then leave on 12 April without a deal. The House of Commons, with this legislation, seeks to exclude that possibility. I am sorry; the argument that this is unnecessary does not wash.
Baroness Noakes
I have to disagree with my noble friend on that. We have to trust that the Prime Minister means what she says.
Baroness Noakes
Benches opposite may laugh, but that is highly disrespectful to a Prime Minister who has worked extremely hard on this. The Prime Minister can be criticised for many things—
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I remind the House that this is the Prime Minister who told the nation seven times that she was not going to call a snap election—and the eighth time, she said she was.
Baroness Noakes
I am not entirely uncritical of the Prime Minister, and in particular of her handling of Brexit. Anybody who has heard me speak before will know that.
Lord Myners (CB)
I do not wish to quote the Prime Minister to embarrass her, but to remind colleagues in the House that the Prime Minister has, perhaps belatedly, recognised that there is a need to reach across and hear the views of others to facilitate a consensus in what most of us would agree is a moment of crisis. That is not a word I use frequently, but we are in the eye of the storm and I would like this House to be seen to be playing its role in taking things forward and facilitating agreement on a strategy.
The debate of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is on a matter of considerable importance. Nobody who suggests that it might properly be delayed until early next week should be accused of, in some way, belittling the issues involved. The nation is now genuinely looking to this House to have a mature and proper debate on a matter of great importance. It reflects badly on the House and the institution if we are seen to become besotted with procedure, thereby denying the vital need to address the issue. We will not address the issue until we move on from matters of process to matters of substance.
Baroness Noakes
Indeed, but there are important issues of process that we do need to address. I was saying that the Prime Minister had not always made a success of Brexit to date, but she has been persistent throughout in trying to achieve the will of the majority, the 17.4 million people who voted to leave in the referendum, and we have to give her credit for that. She has also acted throughout with integrity, and I hope that no noble Lord would suggest otherwise. In some ways, the Bill suggests that we cannot trust the Prime Minister, and I resent that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Myners, pointed out, the Prime Minister has now engaged in discussions with the Opposition. We understand that they are constructive; whether anything comes of them remains to be seen. To date, the Leader of the Opposition has shown no interest in doing anything other than pursuing a political line on Brexit. He even refused to go into cross-party discussions which my right honourable friend set up last month because he could not walk into the same room as Chuka Umunna, one of the MPs who had left his party and was a founder member of the independent group—the TIGers. It is of great credit to the Prime Minister that she is now reaching out to try and reach some consensus on a deal that the Commons can align around when it goes back to them. This Bill is saying that we do not trust the Prime Minister to do that. That is an unfortunate thing, and why the Bill is unnecessary.
The next reason for not agreeing with the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that it is unnecessary to apply exceptional procedures. Your Lordships’ House has good procedures to allow it to do its job as a revising Chamber. The House normally prides itself on its ability to scrutinise legislation carefully. The reason we do this—
Baroness Noakes
The reason we do this is that the other place does not do a very good job of scrutinising legislation. There are a lot of reasons for that. Compared with the normal proceedings of your Lordships’ House, the proceedings in the other place are much more party political. Anybody who reads Hansard can see that. In particular, since 1997, when Mr Blair introduced programme Motions, the amount of time dedicated to legislation has been severely truncated at all stages of Bills going through the other place. They often arrive in your Lordships’ House with very little scrutiny, and with some clauses and parts of Bills not scrutinised at all.
We have an important job to do. When my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin was moving one of his Motions yesterday in the other place, he freely admitted that the Bill—which we will move on to at some stage—needed to be “tightened” and that that would be done by the House of Lords. So the other place now expects this House to do the job of perfecting legislation. That has been the case for some considerable time, but we have to have procedures to do it.
Standing Order 46 sets out the bare bones of how we approach legislation. It states:
“No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the Whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day as the Bill has been read the Second time; no report shall be received from any Committee of the Whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill, when any amendments are made to such Bill; and no Bill shall be read the Third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee, or the order of commitment is discharged”.
Those arrangements—
Lord Pannick
Does the noble Baroness accept that, forceful though her points no doubt are, we have now been discussing the same points for three hours and 46 minutes, in the context of a Bill that has been sent to us by the House of Commons on an urgent basis? Does she not accept that it really is time to move on? She has put her name down for Second Reading. All these points could be made in her Second Reading speech.
Baroness Noakes
I fully hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says, but I have a right to be heard on the Motion that I have put on the Order Paper. A considerable amount of the time has been taken up by noble Lords moving closure Motions, which involves two Divisions every time.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, is it not the case that the procedural issues which the noble Baroness is now speaking about have already been decided twice by the House in earlier votes?
Baroness Noakes
No: they are on different amendments to the Motion so they are different issues.
Viscount Ridley
This seems extraordinary. We have not heard from my noble friend Lady Noakes before this. I think we should hear her respectfully.
Baroness Noakes
I thank my noble friend for that. I had reached the end of reading through Standing Order 46, which is an important foundational part of our procedures. I remind noble Lords that it has been in existence since 1715. It has served us well for more than 200 years, so we should be very careful about tinkering with it. It is the case, in many instances, that those rules can be modified if noble Lords agree. It is usually done through the usual channels, in a way that achieves consensus. That has not been the case on this occasion. It is nearly always done so that there is a minimum of two days. I have been involved in a number of bits of legislation that have been done on an accelerated basis, but I have never seen one rammed through in one day like this.
I have never seen a Bill not leave the other place until just before midnight but be on the Order Paper here for all stages the following day. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, tabled her Motion—in effect, to take over the procedures of the House to do it in one day—only yesterday. Many noble Lords will not even have seen that until they got today’s papers. This is all highly irregular and is working against the ability of this House to scrutinise this legislation properly.
Lord True
I was not allowed to respond to the debate in which I spoke about this subject. The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Strathclyde, made a sensible and constructive point: instead of trying to push this through it should be remitted to the usual channels. As many noble Lords on all sides have said, we could do this in the normal way for accelerated Bills: a Second Reading now and Committee another day. Why will the Opposition Front Bench not agree to that?
Baroness Noakes
My noble friend makes very good points. I hope that the Front Bench opposite is reflecting on them.
The House is being asked to handle this Bill on a one-day basis and, in effect, tear up the rules under which we normally consider legislation. This has led to a speakers’ list being closed before this business Motion is even finished. This Motion was not available to noble Lords until they came in this morning, so some will not have had the opportunity to put their names down to speak at Second Reading.
Lord Warner
Is the noble Baroness not aware that we have had extensive conversations about this? Yesterday, the House of Commons managed to amend its procedures so that it could complete consideration of the Bill within four hours. They expect us to deal with the Bill with due expedition. The majority of the House of Commons voted for this Bill. We are now getting to the point where this House is being exposed to a filibustering set of manoeuvres by the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Noakes
I remind the noble Lord that it was a majority of one in the other place. I do not think that the other place can be proud of the length of time it devoted to this legislation yesterday. Second Reading was 55 minutes; towards the end speakers were given two minutes; the Secretary of State had a very short time to wind up. That is not a proper way for any chamber to handle legislation. I would not hold it up as an example to this House, which should be doing things properly. We accept that we can have an accelerated procedure.
Baroness Noakes
I am not giving way at the moment. I am going to make some progress if the noble Baroness does not mind.
Baroness Noakes
I have given way many times, so I am not giving way any further. I need to make some progress. I think we can agree that some acceleration is necessary; we have done that in the past and it can be agreed in the usual channels. As a number of noble Lords have said, separating Second Reading from Committee and the remaining stages does at least give us an opportunity to reflect on the points made at Second Reading and to determine sensibly which points should be taken forward to Committee and Report. We are not being given that opportunity: at best we might get a couple of hours between Second Reading and Committee under the proposals of the noble Baroness. So I believe it is unnecessary to apply these exceptional procedures. Indeed, I might even say that it is downright dangerous to do so. That is also why it is undesirable for this House to apply these exceptional procedures.
Baroness Noakes
There are no national security issues. All the examples that have been given of expedited procedures have involved agreement between all parties. The fact that a lot of people in Westminster are very excited about a no-deal Brexit should not be confused with a national crisis. Recent poll evidence shows that the most popular way forward is actually a no-deal exit, and of course it is by no means clear that the Bill actually prevents an exit on WTO terms by tying the Government’s hands in a series of parliamentary procedures on how much time to ask for. It does not do that. The Bill is worthless in that regard and to that extent it does not deserve a place on the—
Baroness Noakes
I am drawing to a close. Anybody can make a comment once I have moved my amendment. I remind the House that my amendment is there because the Prime Minister has already indicated her intention to ask for a delay. It is unnecessary, undesirable and unprecedented to apply exceptional procedures. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I really feel that we are not doing this House any great favours today. We have had an orchestrated series of speeches from the ERG and its friends. That does not represent the view of the entire Conservative Party on these Benches, although I am bound to say that, as I listened to some of the speeches, I felt enormous sympathy for my honourable friend Nick Boles. We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. It is deeply regrettable that we have this Bill before us. It is not a perfect Bill, but at the time when it was thought up and brought forward the Prime Minister had not made her recent welcome move. I sincerely hope that she will be successful. I know many honourable and noble friends in my party take a counter view, but I think it is desperately important that we hold the interests of our country first, second, third and last.
It is terribly important that we do not carry on with this procedural nonsense, because that is what it is. We have a Bill and at this rate we are not going to get to Second Reading.
Lord Cormack
No, I will not give way—I will in a minute. My noble friend has the next amendment and doubtless he too will speak at some length: I hope it will not be the half-hour or 20 minutes we have just had, because that is far too long. It is really important that we get on to the Bill. We have four more amendments, I think, after this one; then we have a Statement; and then we have my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s important debate—although it is not as urgent as the business that will then be before your Lordships’ House. I wish we could approach this in a consensual, adult manner and do two things. First, I hope my noble friend Lord Forsyth will be willing to have his reports debated next week. There will be plenty of time. The first week of our Recess has been cancelled—I make no complaints about it. Therefore, he has plenty of time and it would be a very good idea.
Secondly, I think that we should have Second Reading today—here, I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes—and move on, not on Monday but tomorrow. The House has met on Fridays before. The other place is not meeting tomorrow, so there would be no delay whatever in the parliamentary process if we took Report tomorrow. I really think we have to be sensible and I ask noble friends in all parts of the House who were there to remember that April day almost exactly 37 years ago when the House met on a Saturday. That was the most dire of emergencies and both Houses met on the Saturday after the Falklands invasion. So there is nothing sacrosanct about any day other than Sunday as far as your Lordships’ House is concerned. In the war I believe there was one Sitting on a Sunday, but that is beside the point. I urge both Front Benches to talk seriously about this. It does nobody’s cause any service, whether they are a supporter or an opponent of the Bill, to be going bleary-eyed through the Lobbies at 2 am, 3 am, 4 am, 5 am or 6 am. It does no service to anyone.
I have two hopes, and I shall not say any more during the debate today. That may please my noble friends but at least I do not blether on as long as some of them do. I hope that we can heal the bitterness to which my noble friend Lord Empey referred a few hours ago. I hope also that we can make genuine progress on this Bill. I beg my noble friends who have amendments to come to withdraw them, to hold their fire and to make their speeches in the main debate, which I hope we will get on to very soon, and I hope that we can finish the Bill tomorrow. That would make abundant sense, both here and outside.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I wish I thought that the Members sitting around the noble Lord who has just spoken would take any notice of his message but, having listened for more than four hours to a set of procedural issues that have nothing to do with the Bill we are supposed to be discussing today, I suggest to the House that we put the question.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered a most exceptional procedure, and the House should not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of business in the House. Further, if the Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. Does the noble Lord still wish to move the closure?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the next amendment, I gently remind your Lordships of the guidance in the Companion that speakers are expected to keep to within 15 minutes.
Amendment to the Motion
Viscount Ridley
Leave out from first “that” to the end and insert “the attempt to accelerate procedures on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill is not in accordance with normal practice in either House of Parliament and the provisions of Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) should be dispensed with only to the extent necessary to allow the First and Second Readings of the Bill to be taken on one day, the Committee stage on a subsequent day, and the Report and Third Reading to be taken on the same day subsequently.”
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, I am getting quite used to losing votes today—but then, as a supporter of Newcastle United, losing never discourages me.
Right at the end of the last debate, my noble friend Lord Cormack refused to take an intervention from me; he has explained that he has to leave his place now. I was merely going to ask him, as an acknowledged constitutional expert, if he did not think that the ramming of a Bill through the House in one day would do more damage to the reputation of this House than these procedural debates we are having, which he said would damage the reputation of the House.
My amendment says that instead of trying to rush this constitutional enormity through in one go, in one day, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would like to do—and I do not think a cogent answer has been given to the question of why that should be necessary—and to do so based on a flimsy, one-vote majority in the House of Commons of 313 to 312, which is 50.08%, we should take two stages today, two on another day and the final two on a third day. That seems a reasonable way for this House to go about discussing important matters.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wonder if the noble Viscount has thought about the kind of image he is projecting as the fifth Viscount, a hereditary Peer, trying to subvert the elected Chamber of this Parliament.
Viscount Ridley
I was coming to that. If I recall rightly, earlier today the noble Lord referred to me, from a sedentary position, as a “constitutional monstrosity”. I am in this place because my great-great-grandfather was put here by Queen Victoria on the advice of Lord Salisbury. The noble Lord is here because Queen Elizabeth II put him here on the advice of Tony Blair. There is not all that much difference.
As I say, I believe it vital that we should debate this hugely important measure as freely as possible with as many attempts to get it right as we need. I express my astonishment that so many Members opposite, who normally take the view that the purpose of this House is to scrutinise legislation properly, suddenly want to abandon their principles and shove through a measure that would create a dangerous precedent for the future. This is precisely the sort of case where we need to tread with care.
We have taken three years trying to reach agreement on how to leave the European Union. We have been told again and again, both in this House and elsewhere, that we must get this right, yet now we are being asked to take a whole Bill through in a few hours—a Bill that defies everything the people asked us to do. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, this could lead to a slippery slope to tyranny.
Viscount Ridley
Noble Lords opposite may laugh but that is exactly the point my noble friend made. Bit by bit, we are disentangling a very delicate constitution. If ever there was a time to ask the Commons to think again about shoving legislation through in this unprecedented and dangerous fashion, it is now. The people of this country are watching us and, as the polling evidence makes clear, they are not in favour of this kind of manoeuvre. Given the choice between a bad Brexit and a Brexit with no withdrawal deal, they have clearly expressed a view for the latter, yet this Bill would deny them that.
Moreover, I am astonished that so many Members opposite, who normally do all they can to prolong and encourage debate, and to revise and amend Bills, have suddenly discovered a love of closure Motions—of shutting down debate before it has hardly even started. What an extraordinary volte face. How many times have I come into this Chamber over the past few years to hear the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others arguing that the Government have not given them enough time to debate an issue? Now, suddenly, they want to shut down debate.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I have not once taken four hours and 31 minutes of the time of the House. If the noble Viscount would compromise between the time I normally take, which is 10 or 15 minutes, and the four hours and 31 minutes taken today, we would have finished about two and a half hours ago.
Viscount Ridley
I have taken five minutes so I do not quite understand his point, but there we are.
I am always conscious that the House of Lords should not exceed its powers. It is not an elected Chamber and it does not have the democratic legitimacy of the Commons. That applies to life Peers as well as to hereditary Peers. Our job is not to force through legislation but to tidy up, revise, gently question, and sometimes to ask the Commons to think again. This is surely a case where we should be doing that. We should ask the Commons to think again about shoving legislation through in this unprecedented fashion. I am equally clear that if there is ever a time when the House of Lords suddenly needs to discover its constitutional teeth, it is when the Commons is doing something unconstitutional, egregious, hurried and potentially worrying. This is not an argument about Brexit but about doing things properly.
If there ever was a justification for the constitutional monstrosities of hereditary Peers being still here, it is that we can occasionally cry foul when a despotic majority tries to ride roughshod over the carefully balanced but fragile device that is the British constitution and—if noble Lords will excuse the mixed metaphor—to stand against the sudden and dangerous enthusiasm of a temporary, 50.08%, majority that does not want to do things in the proper way. What is more temporary than the majority exercised by Sir Oliver Letwin? In this case, the despotic majority is the Motion passed by a single vote in the other place at something like the third attempt. A majority is no less despotic for being small if it is allowed to be unconstitutional.
The purpose of the Commons passing that measure was to take control of the House of Commons and force a Bill on to the Order Paper to defy the clear wishes of a huge popular vote of 17.4 million people and deny them what they have voted for—namely, Brexit, if necessary without a deal, on the date they had been repeatedly promised. You can be in favour of that or against it—
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Respectfully, can the noble Viscount supply the evidence to show that the 17.4 million British people who voted to leave voted to leave without a deal? They were given many options, and many promises were made to the effect that that would not happen. What evidence does he have that they would prefer no deal to any other outcome?
Viscount Ridley
Those 17.4 million people voted for Brexit, and it is abundantly clear from what both Houses of Parliament have done since—passing Article 50, setting a date, and the Prime Minister saying hundreds of times that no deal is better than a bad deal—
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Can the noble Viscount explain why—when we have been telling ourselves for a long time that Parliament and the people no longer speak with the same voice—Parliament having made that decision and said those things is the same as the people having done so?
Viscount Ridley
We are here because there is a difference between a remainer Parliament and a leaver majority in the country. That is why we are here; that is the problem we are trying to resolve. My argument is that this Bill does not resolve it because it denies them the clearest form of Brexit, which all the polls suggest an awful lot of people want.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that a large number of people who voted remain in the referendum, including myself, have frequently said that they accept the result of the referendum and support the Prime Minister’s deal, and have sought to facilitate our departure? The reason the Prime Minister’s deal has failed is that his friends—the extreme Brexiteers —have put a block on it.
Viscount Ridley
I do not agree. What has happened is that we were presented with a deal last summer that the British public, much of the House of Commons and even many remainers did not like. There has been a huge amount of opposition to that deal, and it should have been abundantly clear to the Government that it would not fly.
I said that I wanted to talk about—
Viscount Ridley
In a minute—I have not even finished a sentence at this point. I said that I wanted to talk about the procedural points, and I have, but I have been diverted by these interventions on Brexit. I would be quite happy to save these points for the Second Reading later today, if noble Lords would prefer.
Baroness Andrews
It is not the interventions which are distracting the House; it is the fact that the noble Viscount himself introduced the Brexit argument. He has made yet another unsubstantiated assertion; this time that the British public rejected Mrs May’s deal. Where does he get that information?
Viscount Ridley
From opinion polls, and that is the best evidence we have.
As I said, one can be in favour or against the proposition that we should leave the European Union, or that we should leave it with or without a deal. I am acutely aware that, as we have seen in the past five minutes, most in this echo chamber of remain are wholly against it and are absolutely out of touch with people all over the country. However, we cannot deny that it is a matter of solemn importance, and, if the Bill goes through in the fashion proposed today, without proper debate and scrutiny, a lot of people out there may be very angry. They will be angry with us not because we spent a lot of time talking about procedure; they will be angry because we rammed through something without proper scrutiny and debate. I say again that the integrity of the constitution is the key point.
I am no historian, but I know that, for good reasons, we have arrived over the centuries at the delicate balance of powers we have in this complicated democracy. One of the key points is that all government Ministers are answerable in Parliament. Who is accountable in Parliament for the Bill that we will be asked to pass today? Will it be Sir Oliver Letwin, Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn or Mr Bercow himself? They cannot be dragged to the Dispatch Box in the same way that a Minister can be, and they are not represented in this House by a junior Minister—unless the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is now Sir Oliver Letwin’s junior Minister; I am sure she would be very good at it.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, from the way Sir Oliver was talking in the Commons last night, in a shockingly disrespectful way towards this House, it certainly sounds as though this is the way he sees it. I remind noble Lords that he said:
“My hon. Friend may also wish to know, although I fear that it will also be of no comfort to him, that there is overwhelming support in the House of Lords for this measure”.
How dare he say that in advance of us even seeing the Bill? He went on to say that,
“we therefore anticipate that it will, in all probability … pass through the House of Lords very rapidly”.
He took the House for granted, and I hope that irritates noble Lords as much as it irritates me. He went on:
“To that end, the House of Lords has in fact already passed a motion that provides for the expeditious consideration of exactly this form of Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1067.]
Noble Lords will see how precedent works: suddenly, something we did in January comes back to haunt us. He went on:
“My sense, for what it is worth, is that although the House of Lords procedures are arcane and it is impossible to determine from the outside the time that will be taken, there is very substantial support for the Bill there”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1071.]
Thus we are dismissed with a wave of President Letwin’s hand.
My time is nearly up. Let me end by saying that I find it peculiar that so many in this House urgently wish to rule out leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement, but show none of the same urgency and determination to rule out not leaving the European Union at all.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my anxiety about going into Committee on the Bill today is that we will be doing so without the benefit of political commentators writing in broadsheet newspapers, without watching important television programmes and, most importantly, without taking account of academic constitutional experts. We will be sailing blind.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I should like to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley. I had wanted to speak in favour of the two previous amendments but, because of the closure Motions, I was unable to do so.
I strongly agree with my noble friend that this House will not bring itself into disrepute in the country at large by using all the manoeuvres and powers available to it to prevent this Bill being passed by your Lordships today. The Bill has been passed improperly in another place, which has usurped powers reserved to the Executive in a way that is quite unforgivable when this country faces a difficult situation involving negotiations with the European Union and time is running out.
The Bill is designed to remove from the Prime Minister the ability to exercise the royal prerogative powers remaining to her to resist instructions by the European Union with regard to her request for an extension. She should be entitled to refuse a very bad deal. The European Union is likely to agree to her request for an extension—even for a long extension, God forbid. There is a huge majority in the country for bringing this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible. Any agreement with the European Union that resulted in a delay of another year or two years would be unwelcome, with ensuing costs to business, continuing uncertainty and the inability to make investment decisions that provide jobs for people. That is already happening—this situation is already costing companies more than might have been the case. Companies have got ready for no deal. I did not want no deal; I wanted a sensible, agreed deal—a Canada-plus-type deal.
I shall not, however, speak about Brexit now, as this is a procedural debate. It is quite proper for your Lordships’ House to have a procedural debate in circumstances where the House of Commons has broken its conventions, even on a matter of huge constitutional importance.
Furthermore, I am not sure that the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is right. It says,
“further to the resolution of the House of 28 January that Her Majesty’s Government should provide sufficient time for this House”,
but it then goes on to contradict that. As I understand it, Her Majesty’s Government did not provide the time; the time was stolen by the noble Baroness and her associates, just as the time was stolen in the House of Commons.
We are seeing a complete breakdown in the rules by which our parliamentary democracy operates. In those circumstances, it is not correct for noble Lords opposite to suggest that this House will bring itself into disrepute or be regarded as overstepping the mark. This House is defending the majority of the people who want what they voted for to be delivered, and the Bill is designed to prevent that. It is quite improper for proper debate on the Bill to be truncated in the way proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley. It is a reasonable amendment: it suggests that we debate the Bill over three days, taking one or two stages on each day. That is quite a reasonable compromise, and I very much hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, we are going round in circles. The irony of me saying this is that we are tying ourselves up in knots. I therefore ask that the Question be now put.
Motion
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered a most exceptional procedure, and the House should not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of business in the House. Further, if the Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. Does the noble Lord still wish to move the closure Motion?
Lord Robathan
Leave out from “Commons,” to the end and insert “notes that more than one day is required for this House to have sufficient time to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill received from the House of Commons that has had less than one day of consideration in that House, and had not been received by this House by the end of business on 3 April.”
Lord Robathan
Okay, I shall be quite brief; not least because my noble friend Lord Young on the Front Bench has implored me—begged me on bended knee—not to go over 15 minutes. I doubt I shall.
The first point to make is that this is not about Brexit. It will not have escaped many of your Lordships’ attentions that I believe we should leave the European Union, and I voted so to do. However, I do not wish to mention Brexit again, because this is a procedural Motion and we need to concentrate on the procedure, which is extraordinarily important. Other noble friends have made that point well.
We are legislating in unseemly haste, nearly three years since the referendum and two years since Article 50 was triggered. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, who I do not think is here, said it is a crisis. Of course it is a crisis, but we have had two years, arguably three, to sort it out. I find it worrying that we are now rushing through something that does not need to be rushed.
I quote from the chairman of the Procedure Committee, Mr Charles Walker, who said:
“The House of Commons is about to pass a major piece of legislation without a Report stage or a substantive Third Reading. If the Government did this, the House would rightly be deeply irritated with them, so the House should find no virtue in its actions this evening”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1211.]
I implore Members opposite and on the Cross Benches: if we make this a precedent, the Government—it could conceivably be the Government I support, or a different Government—might push forward such a procedure. I say to all noble Lords that this is not sensible. Another MP said yesterday that:
“I know how their Lordships feel about ill-considered and briskly prepared legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1217.]
This is ill-considered and briskly prepared legislation, so we should not rush it through as people are trying to.
My final quote from yesterday’s House of Commons Hansard is from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We are talking about really serious legislation. We have talked about crises, and people have said how important it is to get this through, yet the Secretary of State in charge of this says:
“It is being passed in haste, and the fact that we have a time limit of two minutes for a number of speeches this evening is an indication of the fact that the Bill is being passed in haste. It is constitutionally irregular and, frankly, it fails to understand the decision-making process by which any discussion of an extension or agreement of an extension at the European Council will be reached”.
He goes on:
“The Bill also calls into question the royal prerogative. It has been a long-standing practice that Heads of Government can enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that would constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1145.]
That is powerful stuff, and the reason is that this is not about—I will not mention the B-word—a particular Government or political hue; it is about the way Parliament functions.
Yesterday, this particular Motion was passed by one vote. I regret that it was passed. Previously, a similar Motion was defeated in the House of Commons, so there is a certain lack of consensus there. Without mentioning the B-word, those who want a second referendum say it passed by only 1.25 million extra votes. This was one vote, so we need to consider it.
Is it contentious? It is extraordinarily contentious. Parliament and the people are divided. With this Bill, we are looking at constitutional change and precedent. If we accept this, it will come back and bite us all, not just the Conservative Government, which we can fairly say is in disarray, but any Government and, I fear, any relationship between Parliament and the country.
My noble friend Lord Howard said that we act as a “constitutional check”. My noble friend Lord True asked: “Why are we here”? I heard a rather unseemly cry from the Benches opposite in answer to that, but I will tell noble Lords why we are here. I have been here for three years now. I talk a bit; too much perhaps.
Lord Robathan
Thank you; I accept that. First, we are here to revise legislation. Although we do not get it perfectly right, we do it quite well—much better than the other place, in which I sat for 23 years. That is to the credit of the House of Lords. The second reason we are here is to act as a check—it can only be a minor one—on the tyranny of the elected House. We should be very concerned about this being pushed through the way it is. We legislate in haste; we will repent at leisure.
Other noble Lords—I am looking at two or three on the Benches opposite—were here for the Dangerous Dogs Act. After it was passed, in haste, everybody said that it was a terrible mistake because it was not properly thought through, or examined by Parliament, Select Committees or the clerks. It was not properly examined at all, and what we are doing here is the same. I am not even talking specifically about the Bill that will come up later. I am talking about the whole process by which we pass legislation. The way this procedure has been brought forward is an abuse of Parliament.
The debate has been closed down by one Liberal Democrat, one Labour Peer and at least two Cross-Benchers. Be careful what you wish for because, guess what, if this is to be accepted practice, it will be used against every party, every person on their feet, and every person who wants to raise an issue, by the Government, by the Opposition and by whomsoever. I appeal to noble Lords: of course we all have strong feelings about this but let us remember that the procedures of this House are here for a purpose. They are not perfect, and here I take issue with my noble friend Lord Ridley who said that he did not accept that they were arcane. Actually, some of them are, but, without a dictionary, I do not know if “arcane” is necessarily that appalling.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord has talked a lot about the procedures of this House. However, going back over many years, the House does know when a filibuster is going on and takes action to stop it. The noble Lord talks about the tyranny of the other place. It is usually tyranny of Governments that we talk about. The reason the Commons has had to do this is that, as he said, we have a shambolic Government who have completely lost control of the most important issue that this nation has faced for many decades. The Commons has had to take control. We should surely at least respect that by giving the Bill an opportunity to have a Second Reading. The noble Lord talks about the role of this House. The role of this House is not to filibuster.
Lord Robathan
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree: it should not be about filibustering. However, I and a great many other people believe we are acting as a check on the wrong procedure down the other end. The noble Lord was here in January 2011. I wonder whether he took part in the filibuster I looked up, which tried to stop the referendum on parliamentary voting. Did he not? Perhaps he was on the Government Benches at the time? No, he would not have been. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, formerly Deputy Prime Minister, who is not in his place, was apparently very active in it. So I am afraid that filibusters—as the noble Lord suggests this might be—are not unique to any particular party. We should go by constitutional precedent, proper convention—
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I remind him that I have been here for over 12 years. I cannot remember when this House has asked, time after time, to put something forward like this. We normally take the time that is required. The threat was, “Be careful what you wish for”, but this has not happened in 12 years because we have not needed it. Today, we have spent more than five years on five amendments. The whole country is watching us make a complete disgrace of ourselves. The noble Lord is bringing shame to this House: it is pure filibustering and should not be allowed.
Lord Robathan
I am grateful to the noble Lord for filling up a couple of minutes. It is not five years, as it happens.
Lord True
The point being lost here is that which I based my remarks on, which is simple. Noble Lords opposite should be asked when the last precedent was for this abuse of our procedures. That is the fundamental point. I have heard 30, 40 or 50 speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on this subject. I have made about five in the period, so I think we are entitled to have our say in this House.
Lord Robathan
I think that is right, and I am still not going to talk about the B-word. Furthermore, I intended to be brief, so I shall sit down very shortly—unless I get any more helpful interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, or somebody else.
There is no precedent, as the noble Lord said, for five closure Motions, or whatever we have had today. But then there is no precedent for the Business of the House Motion that we have in front of us. I genuinely think, not just because I take a different view on leaving the European Union from many in this House, that if we start tinkering with our procedures, we will all rue the day. When closing down the debate on this Business of the House Motion, I say to noble Peers opposite and elsewhere in the House: be careful what you wish for.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, pace the noble Lord, Lord Warner, not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and now my noble friend Lord Bilimoria, and recognising that I shall not be making myself popular by this, I start by strongly regretting today’s succession of guillotine Motions. I believe that this dramatic expedient for halting all further debate is a radical and exceptional device, as the speaker each time seeks to remind us, suitable for, but only for, obvious filibustering contributions when no cogent position is being advanced or defended, not for an afternoon such as this, where truly serious questions underlie the debate. It is one thing to have deployed it, as recently by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the Grocott Bill about by-elections for hereditaries. There, it was purely for killing amendments with, I certainly accepted, no substance. To do it here, I suggest, is really not, I hope, a precedent for the future.
I turn very briefly to the Motion, with one or two sentences only. Although the Bill passed late last night after a much abbreviated debate by a single vote, we, as an unelected House, obviously have to be wary of being thought to thwart the will of the elected Chamber. That said, surely we would have to be very certain indeed of the critical need for the Bill, which is essentially promoted as an insurance policy against the risk that the Prime Minister may somehow dramatically let us down and breach her promise to us. We would have to be sure too of the urgent need for the Bill to be passed today, rather than on Monday, to justify so dramatic a curtailment of this House’s ordinary, vital scrutiny functions.
I cannot resist the beginning—alas, I can never remember more than two lines—of a spoof letter to the Times from some 70 or 80 years ago, perhaps by AP Herbert: “Sir, I crave a tiny portion of your valuable space, To record my stupefaction at the follies of our race”—if anybody could finish it, I would be enormously obliged and readily buy them a drink. I today feel stupefied that we have reached a point which begins to look ever less necessary, and would echo the suggestion made an hour or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for a double consensual approach to try to inject some time into this process. I simply repeat: postpone Committee and Report until Monday, and extend the time left today for the Second Reading speeches through the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, graciously forgoing—as I understand he has already agreed to do—his two debates which otherwise were to be heard before this Bill proceeds. If that were arranged, we could bring this whole matter to an end and start the Second Reading debate. In 20 minutes, everybody could get tea, agree to that and then proceed to Second Reading.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and I agree entirely with his remarks—particularly his final recommendation. The one thing of which he cannot be accused is being a member of the ERG, which is very refreshing. I shall be brief, because, as always in these debates, much has been said. However, I claim the right to say what I think on important occasions such as this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, started off by saying that unconventional times require unconventional measures. I could not disagree more. In unconventional times, you need conventional measures to keep your bearings and know where you are. Otherwise, if you are not careful, you descend into chaos. Not many days ago we had a debate in this Chamber revolving around statutory instruments, dealt with by my noble friend Lord True. I will repeat the point he made again and again: we must always draw huge difference between the great issues which we want to discuss—the things that divide us and about which we get very worked up—and the framework within which we discuss them. Today we are destroying the framework. If we do that, there is a danger of descending into chaos. Some outside this Chamber may say—the people of this country are starting to say—that it is chaos that we between us have created.
This is a momentous decision, and it needs time. It seems to be generally accepted in the country that we will rubber-stamp it; that the Bill will take a little while today, but then go through. The media treat it that way. But we cannot be seen as a pushover, a rubber stamp or a mere formality. Otherwise, as has been said by many, we have no justification to continue to exist.
In days gone by—quite a while ago, I remember, when I was a Member of the House of Commons—time used to be the Opposition’s main and legitimate weapon. Yes, it meant that things were sometimes strung out, but it also ensured scrutiny without time limit. That meant proper scrutiny in real depth; you did not make the same degree of mistakes. To cut the debate short in those days, which was rare, there was such a thing as a guillotine. Over the years, the guillotine became “programming”, which is the modern word for it. The House of Commons now guillotines things routinely, with the result that, like a sausage machine, we get half-thought-through legislation from down the Corridor, which we have to deal with by the bucketload. This is just part of the same thing. Surely we must maintain our right to correct if need be or to look carefully at what they do, and, if need be, to ask them to think again.
The Bill itself is an abuse of the parliamentary system. To ram it through in one day like this would be to compound that abuse. The truth is that it is all part of the plot to stop us leaving the European Union—I am not afraid to mention that. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, just intervened on somebody in the debate; he now spends night and day working to stop us leaving the EU. I find it hard to take remarks from people in this Chamber when I know what their motives are. There has been a huge amount of dishonesty over the last two and a half years, not least from the gentleman who is burbling from the Opposition Back Benches.
Lord Framlingham
Not at all; on the contrary, I accuse him of honesty. He is honest all the time: he wants to stop us leaving the EU and is working night and day to stop it happening. That is what I said, and if he can deny that, I will give way to him again. I do not want to impugn; it is dangerous to get into this, as it gets very emotive, and I know that we do not want to—
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I listened to my noble friend and thought to myself, “But isn’t your objective that we should have no-deal Brexit, and you are pretending that it is about the constitution?” That seems like an extraordinary accusation to make, when my noble friend knows that very well.
Lord Framlingham
I will be perfectly honest: if I had my way, we would have a no-deal Brexit and would be out in a few days’ time. We would have the certainty the country is crying out for, and businesses and companies would be able to get on with the job they have been told will need to be done. We would save ourselves £39 billion. It would be refreshing—we would be on our way. There is no doubt about that at all. But how we get there is a different matter, and today we are talking about the difference between what I want and how you achieve it through the structures of politics.
Lord Framlingham
Yes, we are. If the noble Lord does not understand that—he has been here longer than me—he understands nothing at all.
In truth, as I said, it is all part of the same thing. The House did not like it last time I warned it of the damage we will do to ourselves if we are not careful. Some people think that by taking time to look at this today, we are somehow damaging our reputation. People out there know what is going on. Most people either voted leave or now want to leave or want us to get on with it. They do not want any more protracted negotiations and discussions. They know today which side they are on in this House. I contend that there is a grave danger of too many Members in this House not understanding what the people really want, and in the long term that is a danger not just with regard to this issue but for the House itself.
Lord Framlingham
I want to press on. I will be accused of filibustering again in a minute, and that is the last thing I want.
A relatively small number in this House—those of us who think like I do about how we deal with our constitutional affairs and such issues, and I link that to the whole EU debate—speak for the people outside this House. I believe that, and that is why many of us feel we have to do what we are doing.
We should remind ourselves that the Commons passed the Bill by a majority of one. Half the Commons did not want to do it. Surely we must look at it extremely carefully. It is our duty to do that. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, earlier today, when he said that if we use our structures and machinery to block what the people have voted for, shame on us. I believe that it will be a shame on us and will have serious repercussions for the future of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Elton
My Lords, for two minutes, I should like to offer the Opposition Front Bench the advice I have given to various Leaders of the Opposition when they were in my party: never take a power or create a precedent which you would not want to be used against you when you are in office yourself. Everything else that I would want to impress on the House was said by my noble friends Lord Lawson and Lord Howard. The wisest advice we have had was from the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I am not filibustering; I am giving your Lordships advice.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have had two speakers in favour of the amendment. I repeat two things I have said before. One is that the best advice is that we should all have a cup of tea. I second that one. The other is that, as I said at the beginning, if Members are against the Motion I tabled that we should hear the Bill today, the correct course is to vote against my Motion. Tabling a series of amendments where every speech has been against my Motion, rather than in favour of the different amendments, just shows that if this is not a filibuster, it is a technique to spin this out. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who said that it was incorrect of certain people to move the closure Motion. That is partly because the device of having umpteen different amendments was a way of arguing against my Motion rather than the amendments being correct and useful for the sake of the House.
Various people may have moved the closure Motions, but I remind the House—the House does not need reminding because Members were all here—that every one passed by the will of your Lordships’ House, not by that of those who moved the amendments. If noble Lords did not want the closure, they would have voted against it. In fact, the Motions were all passed by 2:1.
On the previous amendment, we heard about the tyranny of the elected House and that we have a despotic majority, all because we want the Bill heard in this House in a timely manner. It is surely best for this House that we do not continue with lots of speeches about all the amendments that are actually only about my Motion. It would be very nice if we could get to my Motion, so that those who really object to what we are trying to do, which is to get the Bill heard in this House, can vote against it. Let us see what is the will of your Lordships. For the moment, I suggest, without moving it formally, that we move to the vote on this amendment, and I urge the House to decline to agree it.
Lord Lilley
My Lords, I respectfully follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. The simple truth is that almost everyone who has spoken, with the exception of her, has said that this is purely about constitutional aspects and not about Brexit. I agree with her that it is about both. I am a new boy, so I shall deal briefly with the constitutional aspects of this procedure. As a new boy, I knew one thing about this House: it has the power to make the other House think again. I have enormous respect for that power, and it is a power exercised only after due consideration.
As Secretary of State for Social Security for five years, I used to introduce a lot of legislation. Almost invariably, it would get through the lower House with very little amendment or change. It would come to this House and the next day, my officials would come to me to say, “Very sorry, Secretary of State, the Lords have gone and amended your legislation”. Initially, I tended to be shocked, horrified and angry, until I looked at the changes which this House had made. I cannot recall a single occasion when I did not, on inspecting those changes, accept them either in whole or in part, in spirit or in letter. This House does a good job in making that House think again, but it can do that only if it takes time to consider things and brings all the available expertise it can provide itself and acquire from outside.
It seems that the one reason we should not take this all in one day—the reason we have not taken Bills all in one day in the past—is that, by taking it over two or three days, we give time for outside experts to make representations to us. I know this House brings to bear enormous expertise, but it also has enormous contacts outside, which it draws on in that interlude between Second Reading and Committee and between Committee and Report. If we deny ourselves those interludes, we deny ourselves access to that expertise and the ability to make the high-quality changes, reforms and suggestions to the other House to make it think again, which I certainly found enormously valuable when I was down there. That is the central issue that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as acting Prime Minister for the day, will respond to in due course.
By way of exculpation, I will also explain why I endeavoured to raise a point of order with our Lord Speaker. I was referring to paragraph 29 of the Standing Orders of this House, which says:
“No speaking after Question put … When at the end of a debate the Question has been put, no Lord is to speak save on a point of order”.
I have since discussed it with the clerks and the Lord Speaker, and they are inclined to think that that needs rectifying, since elsewhere it says that no points of order are allowed. Perhaps in ancient times, when this was first written, “point of order” had a different meaning. I have not been here long enough—I was certainly not here in 1674, when this rule was first adumbrated—to know why. Of course, the whole rule that there should be no debate after a Question has been put was adumbrated back in 1674, so it may be that in rectifying this we will find that there can be a little debate, discussion or explanation as to why a noble Lord should want to truncate and prevent debate in this House, the whole purpose of which is debate. I put that forward to explain that I was not endeavouring to be out of order but to follow the rules of the House, as they had been drawn to my attention.
But this is not about just constitutional issues; it is about Brexit itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out. She said that the only justification for doing what we are doing—for not abiding by our normal procedures, allowing proper discussion or allowing expertise from outside to be drawn into it—was that prolonging it increases the risk that we leave in what she calls a no-deal Brexit: on WTO terms, with all the mini-deals that have been agreed between us and the EU. She considers that a disaster. I consider that a far greater disaster would be to set aside the will of the people, as solemnly requested in a referendum, with a promise repeated by all the leaders of all the parties and all our former Prime Ministers that, whatever the decision, they would implement it.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
How many people who voted in that referendum are still alive? How many new people are on the register? What would the noble Lord say is the relationship between those who voted and those now on the register? How long does he believe we should continue—five years, 10 years? Should a referendum taken 10 years ago be binding on us for ever? It is absolute nonsense.
Lord Lilley
I entirely agree. It is quite reasonable to have a referendum every 45 years, which is the time we had to wait before this second referendum. People’s opinions change over time. Back in 1975, I campaigned for us to remain in the EU. I was young and inexperienced. I was recruited for the campaign to keep Britain in Europe by a particularly beautiful girl, who is now my wife, so I plead that one’s opinions can change—as hers and mine have—with experience. We all have more experience now than we had three years ago of the sort of organisation we are dealing with in the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, the former Governor of the Bank of England, has said, that is what we should be thinking about far more than the niceties of a withdrawal agreement.
One thing is certain. During the referendum campaign no one asked, “Would you like to vote to ask permission to leave?” That is like a primary school child putting up their hand in the classroom and saying, “Please, miss, may I leave the European Union?” That is a nonsense. We voted to leave. The Prime Minister of the day said that if we left, we would leave on WTO terms. I want to argue that that is not too frightening. On the contrary, although it is not the best thing—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Is the noble Lord addressing himself to the words of the amendment?
Lord Lilley
I am—just as she did. Initially she said that she was addressing all the amendments with the argument that if we did not leave now, there would be a problem. I am arguing that if we—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I said that we should deal with this Bill in time for it to have effect. That was the point I made—that if we did not deal with the Bill before we ran out of time, there was no point in having it. I did not go into the issue of Brexit.
Lord Lilley
On the contrary, the noble Baroness is rather forgetful, because I noted down the five points she made about what would happen if we did leave with no deal. They were about citizens’ rights, tariffs and industry; I have forgotten the other two.
Lord Strasburger
I wonder whether the noble Lord has completed his remarks on the amendment. If so, will he please sit down?
Lord Lilley
No, but when I have I certainly shall. I am trying to get on because I want to deal with the central argument that was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: namely, that it would be a disaster if we do not get this legislation through because of the amendments that we are now considering and if we leave with no deal on WTO terms. I maintain that it would not be a disaster. What would be a disaster would be denying democracy—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry but I will not give way.
Let me get to the point. There are three advantages if we leave without a deal. No doubt it would be best to have a free trade agreement—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is the convention that we address the words in the amendment and I am not entirely convinced that the noble Lord is doing that at the moment.
Lord Lilley
Let me therefore do so. The amendment,
“notes that more than one day is required for this House to have sufficient time to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill”.
I submit that several days are required and that it is worth taking those days, even if it means leaving on WTO terms—because they are quite acceptable. First, we would keep £39 billion. That was the opinion of this House. I trust the committee which concluded that and I would be quite happy to submit to international arbitration, because I certainly would not want to not meet any legal obligations that we have. So £39 billion is a positive.
Secondly, we would end uncertainty.
Lord Lilley
As I say, the second advantage is that it would truncate uncertainty. That will unleash the investment that has been held up. We all agree that uncertainty is bad for business. That is the one negative thing that this long process has had, but ending it means that people will start investing either to take advantage of the opportunities or to cope with the difficulties.
The third advantage is that it will force Ireland, the European Union and the British Government to implement—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry, if the House is reluctant to listen to the facts, as I have noticed that sometimes it is, that is a shame, because it is important that we take into account the advantages of what is before us. We should take note in particular of what the Irish Government have said. Leo Varadkar said that, in the event of no deal:
“I have made it very clear to my counterpart in the UK and also to all other EU prime ministers that under no circumstances will there be a border. Full stop”.
Mr Juncker gave an assurance to the Irish Parliament that if negotiations fail—
Lord Lilley
I am sorry: people want me to finish so I am getting on as rapidly as I can. He said that if negotiations fail with the Tory Government on the exit agreement, he would give a clear commitment that the European Union would not need to impose border customs posts or any other kind of infrastructure on the frontier in order to protect European borders. We have said that in no circumstances will the British Government do so. As we have seen recently, that will force the creation of an invisible border in Ireland which will resolve that problem. I think that those are big advantages.
I will happily go on if the House wishes me to do so.
Motion
Lord Strasburger
I think we have heard enough, have we not? I move that the Question be now put.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, you are now familiar with these words but I must read them again in accordance with the procedures of the House. I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if a Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. Does the noble Lord still wish to move the closure?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
At the end to insert “but in view of the exceptional constitutional implications of the proposal put forward, regrettably without agreement in the Usual Channels, for its exceptional consideration in the House of Lords, the House shall not resolve itself into a Committee on the bill until at least 24 hours after a report from the Constitution Committee on the bill has been laid before the House.”
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Your Lordships will be glad to know that I will not detain the House for very long, but if your Lordships’ House is not the guardian of our constitution, I do not know who is. There has been much talk, and the case has been made, about how awful these procedures are in introducing this extremely bad Bill to this House as a private Bill. The real concern we should have about it is that it came from the Back Benches in the other place. If legislation of this importance can be initiated from the Back Benches, we are in very serious trouble. As my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out, we have an unwritten constitution. Like all unwritten constitutions, it is amended by precedent. The idea put forward by the right honourable Lady Yvette Cooper and Sir Oliver Letwin that somehow this is just a one-off is completely misleading. That is not the way our constitution has developed over the years.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The previous five amendments have been defeated heavily—more heavily each time. What purpose is being served by the noble Lord moving his amendment now?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
The purpose being served is that we are able to debate these issues, which are extremely important, and that, with a bit of luck—I do not put an awful lot of money on it—this Bill will never reach the statute book. It is a very bad Bill that creates an appalling precedent. I will not take too many lessons from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on talking at inordinate length, making the same points over and over again because, let us face it, we went through that experience with the EU withdrawal Bill, when a very large number of completely pointless speeches went on absolutely interminably. We on this side of the House had to sit here listening to them. We could not closure them because we did not have the majority to do so. I do not need any lessons from the noble Lord on this. If you introduce a Bill this vulnerable, you obviously run an enormous risk trying to get it on the statute book. That is what is being proved now.
Let us concern ourselves with what is happening to our constitution and our arrangements, which have worked for a very long time. I believe it might be that the usual channels are finally getting themselves back into some sort of order again and maybe discussing the future of the Bill. Was it not a tragedy that it was not possible for them to arrive at some solution for the Bill some time ago? We have to be very careful about allowing hard cases that produce bad law. In the same way, when we have a problem of this sort and we start to change our constitutional arrangements, everyone will refer back to what happened and say, “Well, it happened before, didn’t it? Why shouldn’t it happen again?” This indicates to me that the Opposition have given up any chance whatever of being the Government of this country. If they think that, were they in government and we were in opposition, we would not use machinery like this to make life very difficult for them, they have another think coming.
We have got to consider very carefully what is happening now. One reason why this is such a terrible Bill—we will get on to this at Second Reading—is that it inhibits my right honourable friend the Prime Minister from asking for an extension of Article 50, as she had undertaken to do. This makes it more difficult for her than it was before.
Lord Warner
I have a question to put to the noble Lord, not to the House. He seems to be developing an argument in which there are two classes of Bill that come from the House of Commons. He argues that this House should consider whether a Bill passed by the House of Commons is one which is appropriate for this House to consider or not. Can I be clear that this is the doctrine he is now trying to argue?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Quite clearly they are different sorts of Bills: either private Bills or public Bills. That is pretty obvious. This one seems to be a private Bill, which, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out, did not even have anybody’s name on it when it appeared here because it had not had its First Reading. We are breaking all our rules to try to introduce this Bill, in a vain attempt to try to change the price of fish over these negotiations. What the Bill actually does is make life more difficult for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, rather than easier. Why we would want to meddle around in this way, and mess about with our constitutional arrangements, I cannot understand. However, if the one good thing to come out of this is that the usual channels are at last starting to work again in your Lordships’ House, then we have something to be thankful for.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, following up the words of my noble friend Lord Lawson about the impact on public opinion of the procedures in Parliament in relation to this Bill, which could be very serious. The example I give to noble Lords is that of France, once our hereditary enemy, now our great friend. Why is it that France is so much harder to manage and govern than Britain? Let me give the obvious example. If public protests in Britain turn into violent riots, the public do not like it. Even if they agree with the original cause, they tend to tell Parliament to sort it out. When that happens in France, the French Government normally have two choices: send in the CRS to break their heads, or give in. They usually give in. It is extremely difficult for the French. This all dates back to 1789—
Lord Marlesford
It dates back to the French Revolution, and the failure of the then very inefficient monarchical Government, the Estates General. They met on 5 May and split, and the Third Estate—the people —went off to the tennis court and objected. The result was that, a few days later, the Bastille was stormed. The King was executed in February 1792, then came a year of terror between July 1793 and July 1794, which ended when Robespierre was guillotined. The French, therefore, are very conscious of the inadequacies of their form of government and of their Parliament.
Recently, seeking an outsider to run the show, they elected President Macron. They did not know very much about him, but they have now woken up to the fact that, far from being an outsider, he is actually the archetypal insider. They have shown their annoyance and rage through the gilets jaunes. We should consider the impact of this legislation—or rather, of the way it is being handled—on public opinion, because we do not want gilets jaunes here.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Constitution Committee. I would like to make a brief intervention. Thanks to the sterling efforts of the committee, our learned clerk and our legal adviser, Professor Mark Elliott, overnight we were able to produce a brief report, which I want to refer to, because it is mentioned in this amendment.
The report was very much a rushed attempt. In the early hours of this morning I sought to rewrite parts of it, but the clerk explained to me that, sadly, my rewriting had been blocked by the spam filter on his machine. Therefore, I thought I better just add a couple of words to explain. The Constitution Committee has always sought to advise the House on fast-track legislation. Indeed, there are one or two Members of the House who served on the committee when it produced the 15th report in the 2008-09 session, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards. I would like to see a little more reference during the course of this debate to the fact that we warned people that fast-tracking should take place only in exceptional circumstances. It behoves everyone in this place to demonstrate that these are exceptional circumstances.
We also sought to emphasise the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny. We set this out in our report. However, as a member of the Select Committee, I would have preferred far more time to get into more detail. I therefore refer the House to a brilliant analysis of this Bill by Professor Mark Elliott, Public Law for Everyone. Before we proceed any further, we should be aware that this is, in a number of respects, a defective Bill, and we have to be very careful how we proceed.
It was acknowledged in the other place by Oliver Letwin—the previous acting Prime Minister, before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, took on the role—that there were drafting difficulties. He explained that it did not really matter very much because these would be dealt with and considered,
“in the Lords stages of the Bill”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1064]
Therefore, we must ensure that we have enough time to look into those defects. Trying to take all the stages of this Bill in one day, which is what the noble Baroness would have us do, may lead to us enacting defective legislation.
I am very grateful to the Printed Paper Office for making available our report, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards. I hope noble Lords will look at it before we proceed very much further with the Bill. It is necessary reading if we are to undertake this unusual attempt to fast-track a Private Member’s Bill.
We identified a key constitutional principle, as set out on page 8:
“The need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained in all situations. Can effective scrutiny still be undertaken when the progress of bills is fast-tracked, even to the extent of taking multiple stages in one day?”
We went on to say that another fundamental constitutional principle was:
“The need to maintain ‘good law’—i.e. to ensure that the technical quality of all legislation is maintained and improved”.
We then asked:
“Is there any evidence that the fast-tracking of legislation has led to ‘bad law’”?
We as a House have to ensure that we do not enact bad law as a result of fast-tracking. That is all I wanted to say.
As I explained in a previous debate, I object to the idea that there should be a second referendum when it was the second referendum that created this problem in the first place. I do not want to stray too much, but I was the chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe in 1975, and I fought hard in the first referendum and fought hard again in the second referendum. I say to every Member of the House, whatever their strong feelings on this issue, for heaven’s sake, please do not let us have a third referendum. Let us get this sorted out. Let us respect the result of the second referendum but make sure that we do so by passing good legislation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think it was in about 1975 that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I first met, which just shows how long we have both been around.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It’s the way he tells them.
Two interesting and different things have just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who very honestly confessed that he hoped the Bill would never reach the statute book—let us be clear; that is what all this is about—as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who says, “I want it done properly”. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, may achieve his aim without having to put his amendment to the vote. His amendment says only that we should not go into Committee,
“until at least 24 hours after”,
the Select Committee on the Constitution has published its report. That was done at 11 am today. Given the way we are going, I think we are going to meet his target: it will be 11 am tomorrow before we go into Committee, so he may have achieved that without having to put it to the vote.
What we know is that no matter how much we want, ideally, to have time to do this legislation properly—in the “as normal” sense—we are not in normal times. It is simply no good putting this off so that by the time we get through it, and have had very clever people getting it right, it is too late. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says about there being things in the Bill that we may want to alter but spending time now on whether we consider the Bill, and how we deal with it and the need for corrections, makes it less likely that the Bill will end up in a proper state. Without having to do so officially, I hope that we can move to vote now on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I think we can reject it because it actually will be 11 am before we get into Committee.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, put his Question first.
The Lord Speaker
I think we will go on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. The Question is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, be agreed to.
Lord Blencathra
At the end to insert “but the House shall not resolve itself into a Committee on the bill until at least 24 hours after a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the bill has been laid before the House.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, first I assure the House that I have been present for every minute of the debate, although not in this place, in my wheelchair at the Bar of the House. Secondly, I inform your Lordships that the last time I spoke in this House on Brexit or Brexit-related matters was 26 February 2018. That was 14 months ago, and I have not said a cheep since. So I am not one of those who has been participating in what has seemed like weekly debates on Brexit in this House, and I will not speak on Brexit now, nor later this evening. If the House will bear with me and in light of the new information I have just received, I hope not to force my amendment to a vote.
However, I shall speak about the bypassing of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing. I am speaking in a personal capacity, because I have not had the time to consult my committee on this speech.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the failure to consult his committee provides further evidence, if any were needed, that those who most protest their allegiance to parliamentary democracy are actually doing the most to undermine it by ramming this Bill through your Lordships’ House in one day?
Lord Blencathra
My noble friend makes a fair point; I will leave him to make his own point in his own way later in today’s proceedings.
I do not wish to read the whole report, although it is very short and I will cut out the introductory paragraphs. The House might be interested if I cut to the chase. If I can do that, then I propose to not press my amendment to a vote.
We say in our report:
“In the Government’s original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … exit day was wholly a matter for regulations without any named date on the face of the Bill. The regulations were subject to no parliamentary procedure at all, whether of the negative or affirmative type. The Bill allowed Ministers to decide on exit day and set it out in law without recourse to Parliament. We objected to this, arguing for the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses were required to debate the regulations before they could be made. The principal reasons were the political and legal significance of the date that the UK left the EU, and the allied public interest in the matter. The Government accepted our recommendation.
The principal justification for clause 2 of this Bill is that it might be necessary to legislate at speed next week to change exit day. The affirmative procedure might cause delays, with the risk that exit day in domestic law might not be aligned with exit day agreed under EU law.
There is some force in this argument, but we are not convinced by it on grounds either of principle or pragmatism. The date of the UK’s exit from the EU remains a matter of the greatest political and legal significance. It is right that the matter be debated in Parliament before the current date of 12 April is changed in our domestic law. The Government have previously changed exit day from 29 March to 12 April, and they did so by a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have the time to do the same again, having afforded Parliament the scrutiny required by the 2018 Act. Negative resolution scrutiny is necessarily scrutiny after the event (that is, after exit day has already been changed in law). Scrutiny after the event is best avoided in a matter as significant as this, not least because the consequences of a successful prayer against the instrument would lead to the new exit day being legally invalidated (albeit with prospective effect only) perhaps some weeks after it has taken effect.
Clause 1 of the Bill would, in certain circumstances, give the House of Commons a vote on a proposed exit day at EU level, making it perhaps less pressing for them to have one on the consequential change to UK domestic law made by the relevant statutory instrument. But clause 1 does not apply to the House of Lords, meaning that the House of Lords would be prevented from participating in the process of approving a new exit day at EU level. It is correspondingly more important, therefore, that the House of Lords can scrutinise the relevant statutory instrument before it is made, rather than after the event, again arguing for the affirmative procedure (which is the current position). For the reasons set out above, we recommend that clause 2 should be removed from the Bill, thereby restoring the affirmative procedure to statutory instruments amending exit day”.
There you have it. I therefore urge the House to have Second Reading today, let us all—those in favour of it and those who disagree—study my committee’s report and come back to Committee, or a later stage, no later than Monday. That will give us a chance to table amendments implementing, if the House wishes, what my committee recommends. There is nothing in the Bill that justifies us casting aside the procedures we have followed for 27 years and ignoring the Delegated Powers Committee, which every Member of this House says does an excellent job.
I inherited a committee with an outstanding reputation and, not through any skill of mine, it still has an outstanding reputation. We are on a slippery slope if we decide to cast aside our procedures when we do not have to. Whenever we use the excuse of national emergency or crisis, we inevitably get bad legislation. The Bill may be perfectly okay or it could have unexpected consequences. It gives considerable power to the Prime Minister—in view of her work and behaviour over the last few weeks and months, is the House willing to give her that unfettered power? That is a decision only the House can make. Again, it is not what the Prime Minister says she will do but what the law would permit her to do that worries me and my committee.
Last night in another place, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said of the Bill:
“There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1146.]
I leave it to others to address the Bill’s flaws, whatever they may or may not be. My concern today is that we follow our normal procedures and give due consideration to my committee’s report and meet tomorrow if necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says. Give us time to study the report; let us table amendments, if that is what we wish to do, to correct the serious flaws in the Bill. I urge the House: let us do our job; let us report in ample time so that the Bill can get Royal Assent next week in ample time for the Prime Minister to go to Brussels on Wednesday.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I would like to make a short Statement that may be of benefit following an agreement within the usual channels regarding the stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill. We have agreed that Second Reading will take place today after the Motions in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. Committee, Report and Third Reading will take place on Monday 8 April. Proceedings on Monday should be concluded in a timely fashion to allow the House of Commons to consider any amendments made by this House. The Public Bill Office will therefore be accepting amendments between 10 am and 4 pm tomorrow, Friday 5 April. A Marshalled List will be produced tomorrow evening and the Government Whips’ Office will group amendments in the usual way ahead of Monday’s consideration of the Bill. After consideration of the Motion, it may be advisable to adjourn during pleasure for 20 minutes to allow noble Lords to receive a speakers’ list for Second Reading.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and the House is anxious to get on with Second Reading. This is the first and, I suspect, the last time that I shall say, “God bless the usual channels”. I think that this is a sensible arrangement in the circumstances, since the debates on my committee reports would certainly run to two hours; with apologies to those who put their names down to speak in them, the Chief Whip, in a moment of weakness, promised me a decent slot as a replacement in the future. I therefore withdraw my Motions so that we will have time for Second Reading.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Taylor for their reports. We may feel that we have worked hard in this Chamber today, but a lot of work went into those and into making them available to the House. I also thank the 250 Members of this House who have, again and again, turned up to support this Bill and give it what we should give it, which is a Second Reading. Also, for reasons that a lot of people behind me will know, I record particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Smith, who is here today and has just voted for us. We can explain that to others afterwards, but it is particularly good that she is here today. With that, I beg to move my Motion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, in the Statement that the Chief Whip just made, he said that he expects subsequent stages to be concluded on Monday. Given the proceedings we have seen all day today, is he giving a guarantee on behalf of the Government that they will be concluded on Monday?
Lord True
My Lords, if I intervene perhaps I might help the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. My interventions in this debate, as they were last week, were simply on procedural grounds. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion so that we do not have a precedent for such a Motion on the Order Paper. We have an agreement in the usual channels. We have an undertaking that we will complete Second Reading today and all other stages on Monday. I can speak only for myself, but I welcome the agreement in the usual channels. It is how we should have proceeded from the start. I will not table any amendments on the Order Paper for Committee or Report, in the spirit of co-operation that there is in the House. I ask the noble Baroness to consider, in these circumstances, whether she should not withdraw her Motion so as not to create the precedent of a Motion being forced, because I would feel obliged to divide the House on principle against it. I thank the usual channels and those wise heads on all sides of this House who have come to this agreement. Let us get on with Second Reading and, as we have just heard, consider the Bill properly on Monday. Everybody will want to get this Bill considered with dispatch. Looking around the House, I do not see any noble Lord dissenting from that. So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think the noble Lord was trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, without my Motion we would remain unable to deal with more than one stage; we would have to use the normal intervals between them. Therefore I am afraid that we do need my amendment to the Standing Orders to do that. Therefore I wish this Motion to be put to the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, Back-Benchers have a right to speak as well on this matter. I have sat through every minute of today’s debate and have seen the filibustering tactics of some of the Members opposite. The Government Chief Whip said that he expects the subsequent stages of the Bill to be concluded on Monday. As he knows, they have to be concluded by a certain time. Is he giving a guarantee that they will be concluded by that time? Otherwise, we will be double-crossed again.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have had the word of my companions in the usual channels on conduct. I have also had the word of a number of my colleagues behind me. I assure the noble Lord that business will be conducted in a proper manner that is fitting to this House, which is trying to do its best to deal with an important piece of legislation. I must also advise—as the noble Baroness probably recognises—that it is necessary for us to move the Business of the House Motion. It will not be opposed by us.
The House of Commons will remain open until it receives a message from this House on Monday. There is no time limit, but there is obviously a moment of convenience for the House. I suggest that we would look to finish around 8 pm, because I am fairly certain that amendments will be made to the Bill during Committee, after which we have Report and Third Reading. So this agreement has not been made out of the air; it has been made in consultation with all aspects of the usual channels here and in the House of Commons, and so I spoke with authority when I gave my statement. I confirm that it is necessary for us to proceed, to have the Business of the House Motion pressed by the noble Baroness in whose name it stands.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip. He has again been very helpful, and we now have that on the record.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Can we settle this, please? The Question is that the original Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, be agreed to.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Thursday 4th April 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
Making Tax Digital for VAT (EAC Report)
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Making Tax Digital for VAT: Treating Small Businesses Fairly (3rd Report, HL Paper 229)
HMRC (EAC Report)
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee The Powers of HMRC: Treating Taxpayers Fairly (4th Report, HL Paper 242).
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for the preparation of a speakers’ list for Second Reading.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do apologise. The House will adjourn during pleasure for 20 minutes; the time will be shown on the annunciator.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill
Thursday 4th April 2019
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 April 2019 - (3 Apr 2019)
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have been present for every speech today. I was sorely tempted to intervene on the odd one or two, but I kept reminding myself that I have to be diplomatic and brief during Second Reading and not upset anybody. I was always under pressure, thinking that, somewhere in this building—or on the estate—lots of meetings would be going on, trying to sort out or ease our clear difficulties with the Bill’s timetable during the day. Of course, this culminated in the welcome Business Statement by the Government Chief Whip, which I was very pleased about, so I will not make some points and I will not take very long.
I am moving the Motion because this is a Private Member’s Bill—it is a Public Bill and has the same status as any other Bill that happens to be led by a private Member—and I was asked if I would kick it off in this House. It is sponsored by Members of Parliament in the Commons from four political parties; it is not a Labour Party exercise, despite the constant refrain from a couple of noble Lords earlier. We are not in a normal situation; nobody is arguing that. The timetable of Brexit is an internal timetable in the UK but there is an external timetable, which we do not control, in the European Union.
Our role is not to rubber-stamp the elected Commons at any time; I make no apology for saying that. We need to consider what is sent to us. We do that—for example, that is why we do not vote on Second Reading—but we also have to consider the context in which it is sent to us. This is not normal. We are considering not Brexit—I am certainly not—but how now, today, the Commons is dealing with the Bill, because the case is not the same as it was one, two, three or four months ago. It has been forced into this situation. I was a Member there for only 27 years; others were there a lot longer. It is clearly now under extreme pressure, which is why this Bill was promoted. The Commons decided to take responsibility and control of the decision on a no-deal Brexit. We have gone past the stage where many members of the public thought no deal meant not leaving. That was the theme for months. When discussions relating to leaving without any arrangement took place, people assumed we would not leave. That is not the case.
For example, this morning we heard our police leaders in the UK warning about using language on Brexit that inflames a sensitive situation, possibly leading to violence. This is the UK today: police leaders warning us about our language on Brexit because it is potentially leading to violent acts. We heard the odd potential threat subliminally during the filibuster earlier today. This is a really serious situation. In my experience—45 years in Westminster—this has never happened before.
We also know that the Cabinet was last week warned by the National Security Adviser about a substantial rise in food prices as a result of leaving without a deal. Coincidentally, it just so happens that this House was due today to debate the evidence that the EU sub-committee reported as long ago as last May about food price rises due to Brexit. There is abundant evidence, which clearly the National Security Adviser has—he probably has better evidence than we have—that this is potentially a serious problem.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will my noble friend also remind the House that the Cabinet Secretary warned that there would be direct rule in Northern Ireland if there were no deal?
Lord Rooker
Yes, he did. I have kept away from the debate on Northern Ireland. I had one year there as a direct rule Minister dealing with very much domestic issues. I know the sensitivities of the language used when you are there, what you talk about and how you discuss things with the five political parties. It is pretty serious, but the present situation in Northern Ireland is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, because they have no democratic structures other than local government, which is what they had during all the Troubles. The councillors in Northern Ireland have carried the democratic burden alone for all these years.
When I do the half a dozen sessions for the Peers in Schools programme for the year, I always preface them by saying that we have two Houses of Parliament but they are not equal. That is the central message I leave. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and sometimes to ask the Commons to think again—that is what happens when we have a defeat of the Government; that is just a message to the Commons—but knowing that the Commons always has the last word. But of course, we are not in normal times. The timescale for what we have facing us next week amounts to a national emergency, which is why the Cabinet received the advice it did last week.
We need to treat the Commons with respect. I watched some of the debate yesterday, particularly towards the close of the evening because I was not certain whether I would be speaking on this subject, if the Bill carried, or, if it failed, on the food debate we were due to have. The Commons, like the country, is split and divided. We should therefore treat it with a degree of respect, not criticise just because it was one vote—a personal comment was made today about one of the individuals who took part in the voting. The nation is divided and the elected House of Parliament is divided; we should take that on board. That is why people welcomed the attempt last Tuesday by the Prime Minister to try to get some kind of consensus. The Commons alone has the legal responsibility on the meaningful vote. Some of them have woken up to the fact that, besides the meaningful vote, every other procedure has to come through this Chamber so that it can be scrutinised and checked. That is why we are doing this Bill today.
It is a simple Bill; I know there is criticism about that. Things that are simple are usually unfair—the poll tax is the example I use—but it is a simple, clear Bill. If Ministers’ words in Hansard could be fully trusted, this Bill would not be needed. I disagreed entirely with the thrust of most of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but her amendment was the one that was actually true in the sense that the Bill is not needed—but it is needed because people do not trust the words of Ministers, even when they are in Hansard. Enough have said repeatedly, “We will not leave without a deal”, but that lack of trust forced the Commons to produce this Bill, which in effect—I am not a lawyer—gives a legal force to that promise. I realise that it is not easy. I was aware early this morning that there were problems with the Bill; there were lots of discussions going on. I was grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its chair, because I had its report in my hands and read it 20 minutes before the chairman made his speech. It is very helpful but makes it quite clear that there are problems over Clause 2. Along with other matters, these have to be dealt with.
We should debate the Bill—we have a bit more time now—and send it back to the Commons, but it has to be done in line with the timescale it is forced to work to. The European Council is on Wednesday. The Bill requires the Prime Minister, a day after Royal Assent, to make the necessary decisions. It is a bit tight. That is why it must go to the Commons on Monday and get Royal Assent that day, so that on Tuesday the Prime Minister can fulfil the obligation placed on her. It says “must”. I was queried earlier today on what the sanction is if she does not. I spoke to someone who has worked with the Prime Minister for the best part of just over 20 years, day in and day out. He told me she is the most law-abiding person he has ever come across and that even when she is late for a meeting she makes sure the car goes at only 29 miles per hour. She will follow it to the letter. If the Act says she must, she will do it. There is every confidence in that, but it is the timescale that she and we are not fully in control of. We have to do our bit for the UK and the Government so that decisions can be made next Wednesday at the Council about the reason for and the length of an extension to Article 50.
I think the Bill actually helps the Prime Minister at this stage in the process, and we should support it at Second Reading—the House does not throw Bills out at Second Reading, otherwise we could never scrutinise them. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord. He and I crossed swords many times in the other place, and I always emerged from those exchanges with a great deal of respect and a touch of affection for the noble Lord—but I regret to say that I disagree what he has said to the House this evening. The House of Commons and this House decided to delegate the decision on the future of our relationship with the European Union to the people of our country in a referendum. They did that without qualification. The question on the referendum paper was not, “Do you want to remain in the European Union if we can get satisfactory terms?” or, “Do you want to leave if we can get satisfactory terms?” Rather it was a clear question: leave or remain? The country delivered its verdict without qualification. It said, by a relatively small but clear margin, that it wanted to leave.
Parliament then voted to trigger Article 50 and did so without qualification. Article 50 meant that we would leave the European Union two years after the article was triggered. There was no qualification. It was not a question of our leaving in two years’ time if we could get a reasonable deal; it was that we should leave. That, I believe, is what we should have done last week, but we did not. That was because Members of both Houses of Parliament did not get the answer they wanted. There was a considerable majority in both Houses for us to remain in the European Union. After the result of the referendum, some Members of both Houses who had been in favour of the UK remaining accepted the verdict of the people in good faith. Some accepted it but tried to limit what they saw as the damage. They were reluctant accepters of the verdict of the people. Others—far too many, I fear—have sought to thwart, obstruct and reverse the decision of the people and have never really accepted the result of the referendum.
I believe we should leave the European Union without, if necessary, any overarching agreement. In the end, I was persuaded of the merits of the proposal put by the Prime Minister to Parliament for a third time and I would have reluctantly voted for it. However, the proposal did not achieve the support of Parliament. In those circumstances, I would leave without a deal, which is why in due course I shall vote against this legislation.
I do not want to repeat the points made very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lilley in his speech today before he was cut off in his prime, but it is the case that we could leave. Preparations have been made on both sides of the channel for us to leave in relatively good order, and that is what I think we should do if the Prime Minister cannot achieve agreement to the terms she has negotiated. The former Governor of the Bank of England has suggested that we should do so with a six-month standstill. After we have left, we should agree with the European Union to trade with each other on the same terms. That is a sensible proposal and I would even go so far as to say that we should give each other 12 months in which to negotiate a satisfactory trading agreement. I have no doubt that if that step were taken, it would be perfectly possible to reach an agreement along those lines.
Given that, I speak against the Bill currently before your Lordships’ House. When the moment comes, I shall vote against it because I think we have to honour the result of the referendum, and the time has come for us to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend saying that he will vote against Second Reading?
Lord Howard of Lympne
No, of course not. I accept the procedures of this House, but there will come an opportunity for us to vote on the merits of the Bill and at that stage I shall vote against it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support the Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking up the mantle of introducing it in this House. I also thank Members of the other place, the right honourable Yvette Cooper and the right honourable Sir Oliver Letwin. I was distressed to hear the attacks being made by Members on the Benches opposite on Sir Oliver Letwin because, as far as I am concerned, these colleagues of ours in the other place are doing a great public service.
We need this Bill as an insurance policy against a no-deal Brexit. Even though the Prime Minister has said that she intends to seek a longer extension, it is essential to give the House of Commons a role in that process; namely, mandating the Government and ensuring the accountability of the Government to the House of Commons so that it can take proper control of the process, which is what has been wanted by all sides over the past three years. We should not be in a situation where this country slips off the cliff edge of no deal either through intent or by accident. I am afraid that the Prime Minister has blown hot and cold on no deal, so there is an issue as regards the confidence and indeed the trust that we can have that the policy will not flip-flop. We also need to ensure that the Prime Minister goes on pursuing a straight course.
The impact of no deal would be very severe. We have heard that from the CBI, the TUC and from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill. We have heard about a 10% increase in food prices, a possible recession, customs delays and bankruptcies among businesses.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, are these not the same people who warned us, when we voted three years ago, that pandemonium would break out? Further, are not some of them, like the CBI, the same people who said that we must join the euro—and continue to say that as well?
Baroness Ludford
I think that the noble Lord is somewhat out of date. There has been a serious impact on the economy. As a result of the Brexit vote, we have lost around 2.5% of GDP, even though we are still in the EU. We are down by around £600 million a week.
As I was saying, there are already shortages of medicines, and that will get worse. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not with us now, suggested in a debate we had a couple of weeks ago that I was wrong to draw attention to the problem of people not getting essential medicines. These stories continue to appear, and they are very real. The NHS has not stockpiled everything because some medicines such as short-life isotopes cannot be stockpiled. It is therefore irresponsible to contemplate no deal. There would also be effects on our security and on Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has talked about the issues as regards the Northern Ireland border and possible direct rule.
Last night, Mr Mark Francois MP said in the other place that the Bill is a “constitutional outrage”, a phrase which was echoed by some speakers to the amendments to the Business Motion this afternoon. What in my opinion would be a constitutional, political, economic and social outrage would be for a Government, any Government, knowingly to inflict avoidable damage on their own citizens through a catastrophic and damaging crash-out from the European Union; hence the need to make sure we avoid a no-deal situation. This Bill assists in that process.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, is it not a question of weighing the short-term inconveniences against the long-term picture? The whole point about the long term, given the appalling economic record of the EU, is that our economy is likely to grow much less while we are part of the EU or closely related to it than if it is free.
Baroness Ludford
That is not the consensus of reputable economists, who all say that we will do worse outside the EU. Some of those who say that we will be fine under no deal are not the vulnerable people who will suffer in a crash-out situation. They do not have millions stashed away.
Clause 2 would enable exit day to be changed by the Government subject only to the negative procedure. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it would be better if the clause was removed from the Bill. We dealt expeditiously with the change from 29 March to 12 April in the statutory instrument, and there is no reason to think that we would not be able to do so again if required. It is a domestic law issue; if we get an extension, it is not a question of whether we are in the EU but a question of necessary housekeeping, and it can be done.
I do not want to go on about a people’s vote, but the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred to the will of the people. It is time to update our knowledge of the will of the people. Three years on, it is not reasonable or reliable to rely on what a different electorate said in 2016. We hope and expect that the Prime Minister will seek an extension, but she should use that extension to get an update of the verdict of the people.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Will the noble Baroness comment on whether she is satisfied that the drafting of the Bill is watertight and will guarantee that, if it is passed in this way, there will be no way for the Government to escape the implications of their responsibilities under the Bill?
Baroness Ludford
It would take a braver woman than I to say that it is watertight. I do not know whether there is anything behind the noble Lord’s question and that he knows something that I do not, so I will rely on the better legal minds which will follow to answer that question. However, I have no reason to think that the drafting has not been carefully looked at.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I had planned to be at the National Theatre tonight, on date night with my wife. We had tickets to see “Follies”. The follies that we have all witnessed in this House today sadly lacked the lyrics and the music of Stephen Sondheim that I will be humming to myself throughout the debate.
I support the Bill, but I am concerned about aspects of its drafting. In particular, your Lordships will have seen that the Bill envisages that, if the Prime Minister is mandated to seek an extension to the Article 50 period and given a specified date, as Clause 1 provides, and if the European Council then says no, that it does not agree to that but makes a counter offer of a different date for the extension, under this Bill the Prime Minister would have no power to agree. She would have to return to the House of Commons—presumably the next day, given the urgency of the matter—and meanwhile the European Council will not be sitting in Brussels waiting for the deliberations of the House of Commons; its members will all have gone home because the European Council meeting ends on Wednesday night.
This is all very unfortunate, because the laudable aim of the proposers of this Bill is to reduce the risk of a no-deal exit. However, there is a risk that, by reason of the drafting, that laudable objective may be damaged by the contents of the Bill, and I am concerned about that. Your Lordships will recollect that Aneurin Bevan told the Labour Party conference in 1957 that it should not send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber. My concern is that this Bill will send the Prime Minister into the Brussels meeting overdressed with legal requirements.
For that reason, I shall be tabling, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, an amendment to the Bill for consideration in Committee on Monday which will address this problem. It will seek to make clear that this legislation does not affect the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers to seek or agree an extension to the Article 50 period to a date not earlier than 22 May of this year. A statutory instrument would still be required to extend exit day under the 2018 Act, as amended by Clause 2 of the Bill.
I very much hope that, over the weekend and when we debate this matter on Monday, the Government, Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches will give careful consideration to the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his crystal clear legal mind. I shall study his amendment with great interest when it is tabled.
Most people will agree that we have had a miserable afternoon here—although it ended slightly less unhappily than I feared—but the reason for the muddle into which we all seemed to get earlier is quite clear and direct: in the Commons, Parliament has taken control of the business and the Government from the Ministers of the Crown. We know that Parliament is not a Government and that, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made clear earlier, when Parliament takes control, things always go badly wrong—they always have, every time in history. When we look in our history books, we find that every time Parliament has tried to take control from the Crown and the Executive, disasters usually follow.
Outside my office at the other end of the Royal Gallery there is a cabinet in which there is a document signed by 59 commissioners taking parliamentary control by virtue of deciding to cut off the head of the Crown Executive—namely, the King—in 1649. That was Parliament taking control. How did that end? Disastrously: it ended with the abolition of Parliament and a sticky end for all 59 commissioners who signed the executive order. It has always been so. It is natural that if we cannot sustain an Executive and the Crown prerogative is taken away by Parliament taking control, they cannot govern, negotiate or make treaties. This is the position we are in today.
Why are we in this position? Because of cascades of errors. All this is not recent. We could all spend hours blaming each other and events going back years and years into the middle of the previous century. These errors created the waves on which we are riding today, rather like corks on a wave. We are being blown along by events and the bad decisions taken by our predecessors years ago. When I was banging on about predecessors the other day, my younger son warned me, “Well, you are one of the predecessors, so you are to blame for where we are now”.
This morning, I was speaking to a French official visiting London. He said, “This is all familiar to us”. Alexis de Tocqueville described exactly what is happening now—admittedly more in relation to America—in saying that as the growth of individualism and the concern for individual liberty grew, so it would become more and more expressive and detached from the body politic, the professional politicians and the political institutions, and that huge gaps would arise. That is not very far from where we are now but, in a sense, the whole atmosphere—the whole situation—has been vastly amplified by the electronic revolution and communications technology which, in the words of Madeleine Albright, have given every individual their own echo chamber. The flood, power and volatility of opinion have changed the business of trying to prevent the gap between the government system and the individual from growing vastly wide—and vastly wide it has grown.
Where are we heading? If this Bill goes ahead, which it probably will, one possibility—the one favoured by Mr Corbyn and his wing of the Labour Party—is a permanent customs union. Another very strong possibility is a long delay. It may be short to start with, but it could be long. Another possibility, which would cheer up many people on the Lib Dem Benches, is no Brexit. That possibility is now there.
As far as a permanent customs union is concerned, ironically, if the much-reviled withdrawal agreement were supported, it would provide a temporary 21-month customs union and, after that, the means to get out of it. I know that that is denied by those who talk about permanent entrapment, the backstop never being resolved and being permanently entangled in a customs union, but the reality is that, funnily enough, the people who are arguing that are also arguing—and I believe they are right—that the hard border issue can be resolved in 21 months perfectly well, so it would never happen or, if it did, it would be only temporary. Anyway, that is another story we have debated endlessly. The point is that, on present trends, the prospect of a permanent customs union is looming over the scene, which would be a lot worse for many people, including me, than the temporary customs union in the withdrawal agreement.
There is another dubiety behind the present situation: democracy, a much-bandied word, is not the same as majoritarianism. The idea that a majority vote determines all and the minority can be completely ignored is not democracy. It is a different trend that led to some disastrous outcomes in the 20th century. Compromise is always necessary in democracies. There are no exceptions. The irony of our present situation is that if this Bill goes forward, and if one of the outcomes I mentioned—no Brexit—were to occur, that would be an extraordinary situation: not on denial of minorities, which some of my noble friends, and certainly my honourable friends in the other place, do not quite grasp when they speak about the will of the people and that sort of thing, but on the way the referendum decided absolutely that Brexit was the outcome when in fact a vast minority’s view needed to be taken into account. If we go ahead with Brexit, it will be the other way round. We will be denying the interests of the majority instead of those of the minority, which would be hugely dangerous. There should be no illusions about that. If that is the outcome, it would be deeply unsettling and dangerous—certainly equivalent to anything the country experienced in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Quite simply, rather than having this Bill—it looks as though we are going to have it all the same—I would much prefer the way out that some of us have argued for all along: all of my party should support a version of the withdrawal agreement. It is called Mrs May’s deal or the Prime Minister’s deal, but it is in fact a worked-out agreement with the European Union that it does not want to reopen. If the EU can adjust it or add codicils to it, that is fine, but rather than the dangers of denying the majority in the future and saying goodbye to Brexit altogether, it would be far better for my party to support the withdrawal agreement. To my mind, it always was and will be the best way forward. That is difficult to face—compromise is always difficult to face—but unless we face it, there are grave dangers ahead for us.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is the chair of the International Relations Committee on which I sit. Even when I do not always agree with him in every respect, I always learn a lot from what he says.
I shall pursue my noble friend Lord Pannick’s theatrical image. Sitting here this afternoon, I had a vague presentiment that there was a similarity to the occasion when President Lincoln was assassinated at the theatre and somebody said to Mrs Lincoln afterwards, “And how did you enjoy the play, Mrs Lincoln?”. I think this afternoon’s events might have produced a pretty large raspberry to that, and I find it pretty shameful that not one of the people who kept us here all afternoon in an absolutely obvious filibuster has found the time to participate in the Second Reading of this Bill. Oh—I am sorry; I did not see the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I apologise. But one swallow does not a summer make.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My noble friend Lady Deech did not move an amendment; nor did the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I am talking about noble Lords who moved amendments. That is what I said, and I think it is rather shameful that none of them, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is here.
I will support the Bill. I think that it is both necessary and urgent. I think the reasons for it are the need to send, ahead of the meeting next Wednesday in Brussels, a very clear message to our 27 European Union partners—and they are still our partners. When this Bill becomes an Act, it will send a useful message to them ahead of that meeting. It would have been much better if we could have passed it through all its stages today, but I do not believe that Monday is too late to pass a useful message, and I hope that we will do that in due course.
What is the message that we are passing? First, as other noble Lords who have spoken have said, it is that this House does not share, the other place does not share and the whole British Parliament does not share the view that no deal is better than a bad deal. That appalling mantra, which dominated the negotiations for so many months, even years, is, I think, being laid to rest by this indication—and about time too is all I would say.
The second message we are sending is that both Houses of this Parliament need more time and space to work on a new course for our relationship with the EU in future, whatever that might be. That is a useful message to send. I do not think that we ought to be too specific about how long it will take. It may be that some rather flexible formula can be found in Brussels next Wednesday to cover that, but the idea—
Lord Framlingham (Con)
For the sake of the record, would the noble Lord confirm to the House that he is doing all he possibly can to keep our country in the European Union?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry to say that some of the noble Lord’s friends this afternoon did not even have the courtesy to give way when I tried to speak, so I have no intention of answering his intervention, which is nothing whatever to do with what I have said. I said that we should set a new course in our relationship with the European Union.
The question of the European Parliament elections cannot be completely discounted at this stage, but I do not think that we should allow that complication to be an impediment to a longer extension of the Article 50 period. There is no harm at all to be found in our participating in those elections. Obviously, should we definitively leave after the elections, the result would not be followed through. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he replies to this debate, could confirm reports that I have seen that the Government are in fact making the necessary preparations to hold a vote on 23 May if we are still in the European Union on that date. It would be really helpful to have that point made clearly, because we could then stop fussing too much about it.
I do not think that the issue of a consultation with the electorate will go away. It is not part of this legislation and therefore I will not go into great detail about it. I will say merely that so much has changed and so much is different from what was put to the people in 2016 that it would be little short of shameful if we did not consult them again. Of course, they might give the same answer as they gave before. So be it, if that is their answer—but they ought to be given the opportunity, I hope that in the not too distant future, when there is a clear picture of what Brexit means—not just “Brexit” but what it means in detail—they will have a chance to have their say.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief in making a point that I regard as fundamental. The length of my speech will be in inverse proportion to the importance of what I wish to convey. I am not concerned here with the principle of Brexit. Debate on whether the United Kingdom leaves or remains within the European Union is toxic and I associate myself with neither side in the debate. Proponents on both sides tend to lack not only balance but self-awareness.
My concern covers a matter touched upon earlier today in discussing the various amendments to the procedure Motion, and that is the constitutional implications of the Bill before us. The Bill is constitutionally novel, and some would argue objectionable, inasmuch as it impinges on the established relationship between Parliament and the Executive. I distinguish what the Bill seeks to achieve from the procedure adopted to achieve it.
The claim that the House of Commons is “taking back control” can be utilised only in respect of procedure. The current precedence of government in the business of the other place, as stipulated by Standing Order, derives from the Balfour reforms of 1902. However, wresting from the Government control of a particular policy, or determining how the Government will act in pursuing a policy, is not a case of taking back control. You cannot take back something that you never had.
Our current constitution is grounded in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Bill of Rights 1689 established that the Crown could no longer legislate, suspend laws or raise taxation without the assent of Parliament. However, the position of Parliament in relation to the Executive was and remained reactive. Parliamentarians made it clear that they still looked to the monarch to come forward with a policy. Parliament could and can say no to the Government; it could and can amend a Bill brought forward by the Government, but the onus for the measure continues to rest with the Government. They may come back with a fresh policy of their own, or they may choose to withdraw or not continue with a Bill that has been amended in a way of which they disapprove. As I say, the onus continues to rest with government. The status of each—government and Parliament—is clear and distinct and the relationship well understood. Since the emergence of Parliament in the 13th century, Parliament has been a reactive body, responding to demands of the Crown.
This Bill marks a departure from that clearly understood position. It confuses the relationship. That relationship has a clear, principled rationale. It means a clear line of accountability, with a Government accountable to Parliament and, through parliamentary elections, accountable to electors. We are in danger of engaging in an exercise that, like referendums, is strictly speaking irresponsible. With referendums, there is no means by which electors can hold themselves responsible for the outcomes. Similarly, with policy determined by a transient majority of parliamentarians, there is no single coherent body that stands before the electors to be held responsible for the policy.
If we proceed with this Bill—especially Clause 1(1)—we should not do so in a constitutional haze. I have previously quoted in debate Sir Sidney Low, who in his book The British Constitution, published in 1928, wrote:
“In England we often do a thing first and then discover that we have done it”.
I fear that we may be in danger of doing something without fully grasping what we are doing. We in this House especially should act only when we have understood and fully reflected on the constitutional implications of what we are doing. We need to raise our gaze beyond the immediacy of a toxic and confused debate, and focus on the consequences for our constitutional arrangements.
The House of Commons enjoys primacy and is entitled to get its way, but that does not absolve this House of its responsibility to ensure that legislation is examined thoroughly and as far as possible improved, if necessary inviting the other place to think again about provisions that engage fundamental constitutional principles.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, not only is the procedure relating to this Bill unacceptable and unconventional, but the Bill too has its faults. It is unnecessary because the Prime Minister has said that she will seek a delay, and this ties her hands. It makes us subservient to European Union timing. Clause 1(6) and (7) give any European Union extension priority over what we might want. According to the Bill, if some hypothetical date that the EU puts forward is accepted, there will be a Motion in the Commons taking the form of subsection (2). That subsection has dots where a date would be; it does not refer to subsection (3).
The other thing that puzzles me is the wording in Clause 1(2). It says,
“for the purposes of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019”.
I looked it up, and there is no such Act. After much puzzling, I decided that this was a reference to the Bill, but the Bill is called the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, and presumably, if it becomes an Act, it will be the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Act. Therefore, I hope that that can be corrected, or maybe there is already a European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 that I am unaware of. I found that reference puzzling and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify it or make sure that it is corrected.
I also wonder why this House would not be involved if such a Motion for an extension were passed. Why would only the Commons be involved? I think that subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1 should be deleted. I do not see why any priority should be given to European Union timings. It should be for our Prime Minister to say that she has received a suggestion from the European Union about certain dates and that is what she wants. I do not see why the European Union should make that decision. I also wonder what European Union procedures there are to make those dates firm. We have already had extension dates bounced on us, and we have been told that they are part of an international treaty. I do not know whether we are part of that, how it came about or whether we ever agreed to it.
The root of the trouble, in retrospect, is the Miller case, where a random member of the public who could afford it brought a case to ensure that Parliament was involved in triggering Article 50. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has now found a good use for the royal prerogative and suggests that Mrs May be allowed to use that in questions relating to the date. However, it may be that in years to come the diminution of the royal prerogative by the Miller case comes to be regretted.
It is also the case that there are problems with Article 50. As I said on Twitter, this is:
“A clue to the source of Brexit trouble”,
and these are not my words but the words of Professor Collier, who wrote in the New Statesman a week or two ago:
“Article 50 was designed (by a clever British civil servant of yesteryear) so as to strip any country wanting to leave of all negotiating power”.
I hope that in years to come the defects in Article 50 will be recognised.
The reason why we are in this trouble is that from day one those who voted remain, or many of them, have done what they can to block an orderly exit. Indeed, Brexiteers in the other House were misguided in refusing to pass the withdrawal agreement—not that I hold any candle for it but I do not think there was anything better, and we would not be in the situation if they had voted for it. I can therefore conclude only that the overriding motive of those who are pushing this Bill is to avoid Brexit or to have a softer Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, helpfully spelled it out in the Times a couple of days ago in an article that he said was addressed to the European authorities. This is what to do, he said to them in his article, if you want to stop Brexit: give Britain a delay. Give it more, more and more delay. Do not impose conditions, just delay and delay, and the whole thing will eventually dribble away in the sand. That is what the noble Lord said.
On the other hand, there is the question of no deal. There might be chaos, although we do not know, but two particular advantages of no deal have emerged recently. First, suddenly Mr Varadkar is talking about sensible ways to get around the Irish hard border issue. Suddenly he has come forward with what he says might be acceptable technical ways to do this—a miracle. Secondly, I think no deal would force the European Union to negotiate. It would jump-start it into negotiating, which is its duty under Article 50 and which it has neglected. All the EU has said is, “No, we will not reopen the withdrawal agreement”, and, “No, we will not change anything”. So one wonders really what the delay is for. If Europe will not reopen the withdrawal agreement, why are we delaying? It will say to us, “What’s your new plan for the future?”. Even if we were to say, which I hope we will not, “A customs union”, what guarantee is there that Europe would agree to it? Probably it will just say no to anything that we ask for so that the delay goes on and on. An extension as mandated in the Bill would not end the possibility of no deal, because if no deal happens because there is no deal then no deal is what we will get. So I do not see that there is any reason for the delay.
Lastly, on the notion of a second referendum and people changing their minds, I rather wonder whether remainers have changed their mind. What did they think they were voting for two or three years ago? Were they voting for what we see now across Europe? Were they voting for the collapse of French security? Were they voting for the high level of Belgian intelligence? Were they voting to see more fiscal indiscipline within Italy, higher unemployment in Greece and less philanthropy and sharing of burdens by Germany? Were they voting to see more authoritarianism in Hungary, less respect for the rule of law in Poland or increasing expenditure, sometimes unaccounted for, in Brussels? Were they voting to see a Europe that is unwilling to support NATO as it should? I hope that they will think again. Facts have indeed changed over the last two years, for the worse.
I hope the Minister will respond to my points about drafting and reply as to why we need the Bill at all.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I have great respect for her, not least because she was until recently chair of the Bar Standards Board. If we do not always agree on matters of constitutional law or indeed attitudes to Europe, and I am afraid we certainly do not, perhaps we should put that down to my not having been a member of the illustrious constitutional law class that she was referring to earlier today.
I welcome the Bill but we must acknowledge that its aims are modest. It allows the House of Commons to ensure that an extension is requested but it does not offer a guarantee against no deal. If it gets to the stage of the Bill being used then I am afraid that that matter remains within the unilateral control of the European Council, or indeed each of the 27 European Governments, who will retain a veto on a matter of extension. It is less powerful in that respect than the indicative Motion placed by Joanna Cherry in the House of Commons last week, though I immediately acknowledge that that Motion did not gain the support of that House, whereas this Bill did.
There is at least one fixable defect in the Bill. I say “at least one” because I am afraid I have not studied the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; it may well be that when I look at what it has to say about Clause 2 I will find myself in agreement with that. The fixable defect that I have in mind is that which was lucidly explained earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, relating to the procedure following a counterproposal from the European Council. That is alluded to briefly in this morning’s report by the Constitution Committee and covered in more detail by the legal adviser to that committee, Mark Elliott, whose name has been mentioned already today, who sets it out in his blog, Public Law for Everyone. He has done a very thorough job and I think we in Parliament should all be very grateful to him for the work that he has done.
The amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, sounds promising to me. If it can be accommodated in time for this urgent Bill to be useful, I for one will be looking at it positively and with gratitude.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue about the procedure following a counterproposal. My understanding is that discussions that include the Government are under way on this. Perhaps the Minister might be able to indicate to us at the end of the debate whether the Government themselves will be tabling an amendment on Monday. The Minister is shaking his head and saying they will not, so I think the House will take careful note of that in terms of where it might go next.
In his brilliant speech introducing the Bill, my noble friend Lord Rooker said that the Prime Minister had the reputation of being the most law-abiding person in the country who, even when she was late for an engagement, travelled at precisely 29 miles per hour in her official car. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I am delighted that she observes the speed limit in that way. However, the big problem that we in this country face at the moment is that she is accelerating the country at about 100 miles per hour towards the cliff edge. We are seeking to decelerate the car very rapidly to see that we do not go off the edge of a cliff but stop, take stock as a country and do something far more sane and sensible than that.
If we had complete trust, there would not be a need for the Bill, but I am afraid a pattern of behaviour has grown up over the past year. There was the first meaningful vote, which became meaningless when the Prime Minister lost it, and then the second meaningful vote, which then became meaningless. There was the clock that was not supposed to be run down but is now practically at zero. That pattern of behaviour has led Parliament and responsible parliamentarians to believe quite rightly that without a legal backstop, which is effectively what we are legislating for, there is a real danger that things could go seriously wrong next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is right to say that the procedure in the Bill does not make it absolutely impossible for no deal to take place but makes it much less likely because it imposes a process of parliamentary accountability and debate, both beforehand and afterwards, which makes it extremely unlikely that no deal would happen. The reason it makes it extremely unlikely is that the considered and firmly declared will of Parliament is that we should not have no deal. That has repeatedly been the vote of the House of Commons, by 400 to 200 votes when a view on that specific proposal was last expressed. The majority of one on this Bill is very misleading, because it is due to concerns about whether it is correct to limit the royal prerogative in the way that is being done at the moment. I take careful note of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on that.
It is very important to address the underlying issue, which is the crisis facing the country: does Parliament want no deal? The House of Commons could not have been more emphatic on that. It does not want no deal. However, because it does not have sufficient trust in the Prime Minister to ensure that no deal is removed from the equation, we have this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in unjustly derogatory remarks about Sir Oliver Letwin earlier, missed the point that Sir Oliver has been performing a very valuable public service. He has effectively made himself the leader of a massive parliamentary majority encompassing all sides of the House of Commons and the overwhelming majority of Members of your Lordships’ House, who do not want to see the country trashed next week by an inadvertent move towards no deal. Introducing his Bill yesterday, at the beginning of the debate in the House of Commons, Sir Oliver said,
“there should be a transparent and orderly statutory process or framework within which the House has an opportunity to consider the length of the extension that is asked for and to provide the Prime Minister with backing for her request to the EU in an unequivocal and transparent way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1060.]
That is a laudable and very necessary objective for Parliament to secure, which is why we are attending to these matters so late on a Thursday evening and will not rest until we have enacted the Bill.
The big question which then faces us as a country is: what do we do once we have this long extension? We are in the middle of a very deep political and constitutional crisis, because of our inability to light on a policy which is sustainable for the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is no longer in his place, gave a very simplistic answer to the question. I am afraid that, to my mind, that simplicity is born of a fundamentalism I find extremely unattractive. He said the House of Commons voted three years ago to delegate the decision on what we will do as a country to the people. This goes to the fundamental issue facing Parliament and the country at the moment. Three years ago, all that the country was asked to vote on—the only option people were given—was four words: leave the European Union. That was the option on the ballot paper. There was no detail.
As has now become clear, the people behind the leave campaign all had inconsistent and often contradictory objectives about what they wanted. Some said we would stay in the customs union and keep freedom of movement; some said we would not. As the negotiations have proceeded—I give the Prime Minister credit for doing her best in the negotiations—it has become clear that we cannot achieve the objectives set out three years ago. Not only that, but the Prime Minister’s own objectives, set out in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017, cannot be achieved either.
When faced with a situation in which promises made cannot be kept, the country faces a very deep crisis and circumstances have changed radically, what do you do? Do you continue to accelerate at 100 miles an hour towards the edge of a cliff? Or do you decelerate, stop, take stock, be reasonable and—this is highly appropriate—give the country the opportunity to make a judgment on whether it wants to proceed with Brexit on the terms negotiated by the Prime Minister or stay in the European Union?
The situation we face reminds me very much of a Sherlock Holmes novel. I was reminded of it because I have been speaking up and down the country on Brexit recently. Two weeks ago, I was in Crowborough, where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lived. Indeed, I had my photograph taken next to his statue. I had to get a special angle for the photo, because it is next to a Wetherspoon’s. For reasons noble Lords may understand, I was very keen to have Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the picture, but I was not so delighted to have a Wetherspoon’s in it. I managed to get the right angle, however, and those who follow me on Twitter can see the picture.
In The Sign of the Four, Sherlock says:
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
That is the situation the country now faces. The impossible have been eliminated: no deal; the Prime Minister’s deal; different variations of the Prime Minister’s deal; and supposed alternatives to the backstop, which simply have to be called alternative arrangements because they do not exist and cannot be defined. In a wonderful Orwellian twist, not having any alternative arrangements, what have the Government done? They have set up an alternative arrangements working group. You could not make it up. But there are no alternative arrangements. We will not have a frictionless border in Northern Ireland in the cloud and so on—it does not exist.
In this situation, the only sensible policy for the state that now exists is to take the best deal that can be negotiated, which is the Prime Minister’s existing one—at least that is technically possible to implement, because it has been negotiated—and put that to the people, with the alternative being to remain in the EU. In the conversations taking place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, I believe it would be possible to forge a compromise on that basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is both wrong and right. He is right that the referendum was a simple choice. What did it show? It was not a decisive view either way; it showed that the country was deeply divided and confused. I think Sherlock Holmes or Dr Watson would say that the answer to all this must be a compromise, because the country is divided. Why does the noble Lord think that, in putting a further referendum to the country, things would be any different? We would still have a divided nation, maybe with a slight majority one way or the other, and there would still be a need for compromise. Is that not obvious?
Lord Adonis
I am precisely proposing a compromise, which is to take the Prime Minister’s deal, which is the best deal that can be negotiated if we are to have Brexit, and put it to the nation, with the alternative option being to stay in the European Union. That is a compromise that would bring both sides together. The compromise I do not think it is possible to have, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Howell, hankers after, is some half-bastardised form of Brexit. We have spent month after month searching for that and I am afraid that, like the holy grail, it does not exist.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that people were confused three years ago. Does he agree? Now they are much more informed, so they can make a much more informed decision. It is not fair to compare that with the people’s decision three years ago.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord makes a very powerful further argument for the second referendum. I support his argument; he will make his speech later and I hope he will develop that important point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that, because we have not been able to produce a Brexit that lives up to the promises made three years ago, and because there is not—let us be frank—a parliamentary majority prepared to support it on principle, I think the only compromise that is now viable for the country at large is to put that deal to the people, because it is technically possible to implement it, but with an alternative option to stay in the European Union. It is my view that the majority will vote for the option to stay in the European Union because it is now so obviously preferable to the Prime Minister’s deal, and the £39 billion that we would pay the EU for worse trade and economic terms than we have now—the arguments go on. The people could make that judgment.
I will make one final remark about the situation we now face. One former leader of the Conservative Party, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has spoken and made a very hard-line speech, if I may say so, about how we need to leave with no deal. An equally significant intervention was made this week by another former leader of that party, a Member of this House who, alas, is not in his place and speaking this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. On Tuesday, he wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph and it is very important for those engaged in the Brexit debate to read it. I would particularly recommend it to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches and maybe even more so to Conservative MPs, many of whom, from my watching of debates in the House of Commons, have become extremely hard-line and militant on this issue of the need for a no-deal Brexit.
This is what the noble Lord, Lord Hague, wrote:
“Do not underestimate … the immense danger of continuing to pull apart from each other while the public looks on with an irritation that is now turning to dismay, and at any moment could turn to anger … the Conservatives are inevitably identified with the Brexit project, for good or ill, and slowly, steadily, the case for Brexit is being lost … The Conservatives … face the terrible double prospect of voters shifting away from supporting their central policy, while those who do support it become enraged by the failure to deliver it … My advice to my old colleagues is therefore this: if you don't get Brexit over the line now, it will probably never happen”.
Brexit has not been got over the line; it will probably never happen. The right thing for the nation, and maybe even for the Conservative Party, is for it to be buried, for the nightmare to end and for us then to carry on our national life in a much better prospect.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, always gives a compelling and fascinating speech, but there are not many shades of grey in it. I am sure that he, along with most of us, breathed a sigh of relief when the Chief Whip announced the agreement with the usual channels tonight, because this afternoon was one of the most unpleasant afternoons that I can remember in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to this. There was an almost palpable anger in the air for much of the time. Why? Because some of those in my own party who have been most militantly for Brexit, most of whom belong to the strangely named ERG, are not prepared—to use a word that has come up many times this evening—to compromise.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I can certainly quote my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who is here. Most of us were fervent remainers who were disappointed at the decision that was taken in June 2016. We thought it was a mistake but, nevertheless, we accepted it. We saw it as our manifest duty to work together to produce a Brexit that did indeed preserve many of the advantages of the European Union—which, I may say, had been promised by the leave campaign—but would, at the same time, turn this country in a slightly different direction, while always preserving, cultivating and deeply valuing our friendships in Europe, because the 27 other nations remain our friends and neighbours, and sharers of a common civilisation.
I make those few remarks as a preface, because what I want to do is briefly to say how much I admire those whose names are on the face of this Bill. They are men and women of four parties in the other place, led by notable members of the Labour and Conservative parties, who, realising that compromise was absolutely essential, came together. For many months now, in spite of vilification, some of which was repeated this afternoon, Sir Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve and Dame Caroline Spelman—who I must admit is a cousin of mine—of my party have worked tirelessly along with people such as Hilary Benn and Jack Dromey from the Labour Party, trying to come together.
I always felt, from the word go, that it was necessary to try to come together. I proposed in June 2016 a Grand Committee of both Houses and all parties. That was turned down—I have made similar suggestions since—but this is the nearest to an enactment, as it were, of that suggestion. They were able to come together and stand firm, and we must remember that this Bill predates, in its conception and indeed in its drawing up, the recent welcome developments to reach across the parties that we have seen in the last few days.
I can well understand why my honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin, and Yvette Cooper, a woman of great courage and stature, persisted with the Bill. It is now before your Lordships’ House. It was created in a vacuum, and the vacuum was created by a lack of leadership. What we have to recognise is that this is, as has been said, a public Bill. It is not a private Bill. It is a public Bill that has commanded a majority—albeit the smallest of majorities—in the other place and, because it has commanded that majority, it comes before us. Our constitutional duty is to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and then to look at it with care and diligence on Monday. I am glad that we will be doing that after a little refreshment over the weekend, rather than when we are tired, exhausted and tetchy in the middle of the night. We would all have been all of those things, and we would have got progressively worse as the night had gone on. Now we can come to it fresh on Monday.
Of course there are amendments that we should look at. I was much taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and glad to hear of the amendment that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are intending to place before us on Monday. It may well be an amendment that will be accepted without Division. I hope that it will, because I hope we will be able on Monday to bring people together. I hope that we will be able to send this Bill back to the other place with constructive and improving amendments that it can accept. Then it does no harm because, although this is a constitutional innovation—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was right to indicate some of the problems and potential pitfalls—we must all nevertheless always remember that it is the Executive who are answerable to Parliament, and not Parliament that is answerable to the Executive. We live in a parliamentary democracy, where we have parliamentary sovereignty.
We also have to heed the wise words of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford—he has disappeared now—who talked about the difference between democracy and majorities. There is a definition of democracy that I always like: a proper democracy is one that has regard for all minorities. A proper democracy therefore has to have abundant regard for the largest recorded minority in British history. People are always talking about the 17.4 million, but the 16-plus million were the largest recorded minority in British history. We have to come out of the difficult slough of despond in which we have wallowed for far too long with something that recognises that, particularly as the majority of those who voted remain were not of our generation. There are exceptions in the Chamber tonight, I know, but for the most part they were of the younger generation. Those of the generation that is most represented in this House this evening were on the leave side.
If we are to create a new relationship with Europe—I look at it in that way: not as the severing of a relationship but the creation of a new one—it has to be one that fires the imagination of the young and gives them the opportunity to partake in many of the benefits that we have enjoyed. We debated one such benefit on Monday night of this week when we talked about the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 projects.
It is good that there is a quieter, more sober atmosphere in the House this evening. It is good that we are not going in for too many recriminations. We are not all of one mind and one view, but we have to respect each other’s views. In parenthesis I will say how delighted I have been this week to see my noble friend Lord Spicer back in his place. He has suffered from grievous illness and shown enormous courage and bravery. I never agree with a word he says on Europe, but we have been firm friends since he first entered the other place a year or two after I did. We must remember that, only two or three years ago, although we very often had differences of opinion on Europe, most of us who were members of the same party—and indeed of the same Chamber—respected and liked each other. I have seen an erosion of respect and a diminishing of liking. It is our duty to reverse that unfortunate trend. I hope we can begin that tonight and continue it on Monday.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I am not going to give the speech that I had planned to give at this late stage of the evening. I was nearly goaded into picking it up again by the typically hard-line speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I will leave my speech with my other papers down there, and just say that I would have said a lot more about the B-word. Instead, I will just associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, because I agreed with what he said about it.
I have stayed in the House to speak in this debate because, while I cared passionately about the issues that we debated during the day, and the constitutional issues raised by the way in which the Bill has been put through the House, I believe that there are aspects of the Bill that are worth debating. We should be very wary of restricting the scope of the Government to negotiate international treaties, and that is what this Bill does. It further restricts the royal prerogative. Of course, the royal prerogative has been restricted in many ways over many years, but this is a further restriction in the area of the Government having the effective power to negotiate internationally, which I believe is important. The royal prerogative is part of how our constitution works. It is important in enabling the Government to govern effectively.
So I regret that this Bill has come to us. It passed by one vote in the other place—but we have to accept that and move on. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is no longer in his place, about the way in which the Bill is over-restrictive in this area. I hope that he will return on Monday, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to explain further what he means in an amendment there.
I accept that this Bill will come. We just need to concentrate on improving it—from my point of view because encroaching on the royal prerogative is so serious. The most important thing that we should do is ensure that the powers that have been created for Parliament are time-limited. In any event, it should only be needed for next week—or perhaps slightly longer—but we should look at putting some restrictions in the Bill on how the powers that have been created could be used. Whether we do that by time-binding the powers that are created in Clause 1 or by way of a sunset clause is something that I shall reflect on and return to in Committee. I do not believe that this is a statute that should be left for ever and a day on the statute book. I do not think that it is a good precedent, but I accept that we need to send it forward in a workable way.
I was also interested in the speeches earlier today of two of my noble friends, Lord Hunt, as a member of the Constitution Committee, and Lord Blencathra, chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Both of them indicated that this Bill should be improved through the process of scrutiny in your Lordships’ House, which we will now be able to do on Monday. I join my noble friend Lord Cormack in rejoicing in the agreement that was reached through the usual channels today. Now we can tackle this Bill in the civilised way in which we normally conduct our work of scrutinising legislation. I thank the usual channels for coming to that arrangement, and, for my part, I look forward to resuming discussion on the Bill on Monday.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, the Brexit debate has increasingly reminded me of the film that shot James Dean to fame, “Rebel Without a Cause”. Noble Lords who are old enough will remember that the high spot of the film is James Dean and his arch rival driving their cars towards a cliff edge. The idea is to be the one with the most nerve, and to jump out of the car as near to the cliff edge as possible. For some time, I have been wondering who from the ERG we could cast in the James Dean role. It seems to me that that is what they have been doing over the past few months.
I want to make one simple point. Whatever may have happened previously on this issue, it has now become a matter of trust and confidence. The Government’s behaviour over a period of time means that it is extremely difficult to rely on their word or their assurances. We have been though many stages: “No deal is better than a bad deal”; “The Government’s deal is the only deal that can prevent no deal”. The Government’s deal and no deal have, however, been rejected pretty consistently by the House of Commons, and with substantial majorities. No clear picture has been presented to Parliament or the public about the sunny uplands that are supposed to appear after we have left the EU. No picture has been painted for the public or Parliament to understand. Very late in the day, a document was cobbled together, with no statutory responsibility attached to it.
The Prime Minister has been forced, very late in the day, to seek help from the leader of the Opposition—to many in her party the great Satan, to use the Iranian mullahs’ phrase about the United States. Her decision belatedly to reach across the aisle has been extremely badly received by a substantial proportion of her party and her Cabinet, so there is now huge uncertainty as to what will happen in the next week. That is the actual position we are confronted with at this time. Whatever arguments there may have been in the past about the merits or demerits of the case for the remainers or the leavers, that is where we are today, and we have to face up to it.
The date with destiny is approaching on 12 April, whether we like it or not. In this situation, the British people can place little confidence in what an uncertain Prime Minister will do next week. We cannot be sure what will happen; we have no certainty whatever. I suggest that the House of Commons is right to try to get some grip on this situation and to create, through the Bill, at least a possibility that the British people will have a chance to create some space to think further about the issue of Brexit. With some sensible use of the Bill, they would at least be presented with an opportunity not to experience the chaos of no deal, and not to experience a deal, not having given their approval to it, negotiated by the Prime Minister with the EU and with little clarity about the future.
This kind of legislation is necessary because there is plenty of evidence that the one thing all remainers and leavers now agree on is that the Government have made a great hash of the negotiations. Those groups may be in that position for different reasons, but they both agree that this has been an unsatisfactory use of two years. Both sides of this argument are not terribly thrilled with the way the Government have handled things in trying to give effect to the referendum result. There is also plenty of evidence, whether we like it or not, that many people—on both sides of the argument, but particularly among those who voted to leave in 2016—have changed their mind after they began to understand what was actually involved in leaving the EU. That uncertainty, and the lack of confidence in the Government which helped create it, is why I support a people’s vote. It is also why I support the Bill.
I would much prefer not to have needed the Bill, for all the constitutional reasons that people have adduced. But we are where we are, as they say: in the very uncomfortable position of the date arriving when, whether we like it or not, some pretty uncomfortable things will be done on behalf of the British people. Let us be absolutely clear: the reason we have got to this position is that the Executive have consistently failed to properly consult parliamentary opinion over the two years, or to convince those in Parliament of the merits of the deal. The Government have brought this serious problem on themselves, and the good guys and girls in all this are those in Parliament who, as we approach the end game, have really tried to create some time and space to produce a more reliable and better outcome to the Brexit issue. That is why I support the Bill, which will provide some possibility of helping this Prime Minister and the Executive rethink how they can proceed in a way that achieves more support for any exit, within Parliament and within the country.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with only two things that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said: one is the lack of trust in the country for this Government; the other is the botched mishandling of all our negotiations with the EU and in Parliament. But the lack of trust is largely due to the way Parliament is seen to have tried to block the result of the referendum.
I remind noble Lords in this House, who seem to have forgotten it, that in June 2016 the people of this country voted to leave the European Union. The turnout for the vote was 72%, which was one of the biggest turnouts for a democratic vote in this country’s history. The result was conclusive: 52% to 48%. The remainers understandably did not like that and said that we did not understand what we voted for. Of course we understood what we voted for: we voted to leave. In fact, each household in the country was sent a leaflet by the Government of David Cameron, who was then Prime Minister, extolling the virtues of remaining in the EU, which said we would be absolutely mad to vote to leave. At a cost of about £9 million, that was a pretty shabby little exercise at the taxpayers’ expense.
The last page of that leaflet was interesting, and I want to remind the House what it said:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union… This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”.
That seemed to be echoed by the current Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. At that point, she clearly accepted that the result of the referendum was a clear out. There would be no single market; no customs union; no part in, part out; and the famous,
“no deal is better than a bad deal”.
Parliament seemed to agree with her on that, and with the vote in June 2016. I remind noble Lords of what the votes were, both in this House and the other place. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was carried in the other place by a majority of 491 votes. The Commons voted to give the Bill its Third Reading by a majority of 263 votes. The Bill received its Second and Third Readings in this Chamber without Division. On the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the Commons divided, and the amendment was defeated by a majority of 236 votes. The Bill was given its Second Reading by 498 votes to 114; a majority of 384. The Commons gave the Bill its Third Reading by 494 votes to 122; a majority of 372. The same applied to the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018, which was passed by majority votes in both Houses. There is this sudden idea that this is somehow unconstitutional.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord a question? Had the referendum gone the other way, would he and his friends have accepted it absolutely and stopped campaigning for Britain to withdraw from the European Union?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Of course we would have accepted the referendum result—we would have had to. We would not have said that the whole thing was illegitimate and that we wanted another referendum; we would have had to accept the result, just as we were forced to accept the result of the 1975 referendum which unfortunately brought us into the clutches of the European Union, or the Common Market, as it then was. We accepted that, so the answer is that we would have accepted this.
Today, we were presented with a wretched Bill that orders the Prime Minister to go to Brussels as a supplicant, on bended knee, to request an extension until an unknown date. That we do not have a date in the Bill is a matter of contention which will be dealt with in Committee. It is a complete negation of the vote at the end of June 2016.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who spoke earlier to introduce the Bill, and other noble Lords, have said there is no appetite for no deal. I must disabuse them of that idea, and tell them that there is an appetite for no deal. Only this morning, a YouGov poll came out—not of Parliament, because we know the flavour of Parliament and have had enough of that for a long time, but of the country at large. Among the Conservatives polled, 72% were in favour of no deal and only 15% against. From the Labour Party, 21% still voted no deal and 34% against. In London, 26% were for no deal and 45% against. In the rest of the south of England, 44% were for no deal and 34% against. In the Midlands, where I come from, 46% were for no deal and 31% against. In the north, 41% were for no deal and 34% against. That was today; it is not imagination.
Lord Bilimoria
Could the noble Lord clarify the results he has just cited? When he says, “against”, is it no deal versus revoking Article 50? If not, what is it against?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
It is no deal versus remain in the EU. That is what the question was in the YouGov poll this morning. I have it on my mobile; I will talk to the noble Lord afterwards and give it to him.
Lord Bilimoria
I have got the figures right here. The latest YouGov poll, which I looked at today, says that 37% were for a second referendum, 26% for no deal and 11% for the PM’s deal. No deal being a bad outcome was 50%, versus 25% for it being a good outcome.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
That is very different from the poll I saw. Perhaps after this debate the noble Lord and I might share a drink and we can compare polls. However, I stand by the figures that I cited from today’s YouGov poll.
Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who is generally admired, warned this House to be very careful. He was right to say that. The reputation of this House has been damaged by the perception—perhaps no more than that—that it is against leaving the EU and against the result of the referendum voted for by 17.4 million people. If this goes on, and the House continues to thwart and block the result of that historic vote, I fear that the feeling will quickly turn to downright contempt, and deservedly so.
Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)
My Lords, we need the protection provided by the Bill because the potential losses from a no-deal Brexit are so grave. I will not repeat what the House has heard many times about potential short-term disruption, which could indeed be very serious. I will not repeat what it has heard about security and Northern Ireland, although these things are very worrying. As an LSE professor and current president of the Royal Economic Society—though I do not speak tonight for those institutions—I emphasise and understand how threatening a no-deal Brexit would be to our universities and our research, which are among the UK’s greatest assets and comparative advantages.
My basic purpose tonight is to dispose, very quickly, of the fatuous argument that a no-deal Brexit would bring some medium-term sunny uplands. It is assertion without evidence; it is fantasy. Every serious study, by the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, some of my fine colleagues at the LSE, although not myself, the merchant banks JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs—I could go on—points to medium-term losses of 5% to 10% of GDP per annum; that is not tomorrow but in 10 to 15 years. That is £100 billion or £200 billion a year to this country, dwarfing the £10 billion net that we pay to the EU. Where do these calculations on losses come from? They come from rising trading barriers to our major partner and discouraged investment. They take account of possible reduced barriers elsewhere, but the suggestion that these could offset the other losses simply does not stack up. The results are consistent with the currency markets, with clear messages from business and with common sense. There is no pretence at precision here. We are simply understanding, from the serious work that has been done, that the medium-term costs from a no-deal Brexit look very serious.
The evidence for the argument of the medium-term sunny uplands is simply not there. The argument is a tissue of confusions, yet we have heard it today in your Lordships’ House. It cannot be taken seriously by those who take evidence seriously. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is grave in the short, medium and long run: that is why we need the protection afforded by this Bill.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stern, whose informed comments about the effects of no deal none of us should dismiss.
Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminded us of the film career of James Dean. I was reminded of another James Dean performance: “The Dark, Dark Hours”. We have been through the dark, dark hours—not least this afternoon. I feel that at last, with this Bill, we are beginning to see the light. When the country so desperately needs cross-party co-operation, as even my right honourable friend the Prime Minister now seems to accept, it is a huge relief that in the other place Sir Oliver Letwin has been able to work with colleagues from across that House to bring us this important piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord Cormack pointed out just what hostility some of these individuals in the Commons have had to face. They have been incredibly brave and I am full of admiration for them.
It is now clear that after three years of limping towards Brexit, the country needs significant time to plot a sensible course ahead. That is certainly not the Prime Minister’s deal, which has little to recommend it; nor is it to simply leave without a deal—we have already heard just how bad that would be. Business has been yelling from the rafters that no deal would be a disaster for this country. So we need time to come to a consensus on what the country could accept as its future relationship with the EU. The 27 have consistently said that they need the UK to say what it wants, not what it does not want. We have spent nearly three years establishing what we do not want; it is going to take us a bit of time to work out what we do want.
We have heard much today about the dangers of Parliament taking control. In normal times I would join that chorus urging caution, but if our unwritten constitution were working effectively, there would have been no need for such radical action. If the constitution were functioning, the Executive would have been listening to Parliament. Instead, they have consistently tried to ignore Parliament, from the start of this process until the recent attempts, over and over again, to bludgeon the Commons into accepting a flawed deal. This Bill gives Parliament the ammunition to require an extension to Article 50, which gives us time to plot an acceptable course. I always pay attention to what the noble and noble and learned Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Judge—and sometimes Lord Hope—have to say and I shall study their amendments, but in principle I support the Bill, which provides an insurance policy against our crashing out without a deal.
Earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, accused those of us who support the Bill of suggesting that we do not trust Mrs May. It is not about not trusting Mrs May; it is that Mrs May has to respond to changing events, and therefore what she says changes as events change. She may not even be there when D-day comes, so we need an insurance policy to avoid crashing out without a deal. I continue to believe that the best use of an extension would be to thrash out a deal that is acceptable to Parliament and then to put it to the people. Three years on from the 2016 referendum, such a major step as changing our relationship with Europe seems to me to require the informed consent of the public, and this is our opportunity to get it.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is misconceived in every aspect. It mandates the Prime Minister to seek an Article 50 extension, and in so doing its authors are pursuing what we used to call a chimera. I think we now call it a unicorn; the unicorn of soft Brexit. Where sovereignty is concerned there is no such thing, and it is sovereignty that is essentially at issue in Brexit. By sovereignty I do not mean power; the power of a nation is always circumscribed. I mean our right to make our own laws in our own democratic institutions, accountable to our own people and interpreted by our own courts. On that there should be no compromise. The choice in 2016 was between leaving and remaining. That is still the choice.
The people of this country took a robust view in 2016. They were warned of the possibility of economic disruption—indeed, they were warned in lurid terms by Project Fear. None the less, they voted as they did. Remainers are wont to say that no one voted to be poorer, but the people of this country voted as they did in full awareness of the potential consequences, including the possibility that leaving might make them poorer, and that was the decision they took. That was what they decreed.
The political parties committed themselves in advance of the referendum to accept the decision of the people, and in the wake of the referendum they committed themselves to respect it. It was therefore incumbent on the Government to pursue a clean Brexit. That meant being willing to leave the European Union and trade in the future on WTO terms, while of course seeking to achieve a free trade agreement as soon as possible—a Canada-plus-plus-plus deal. That would have been possible. Had the Government, following the referendum, stated that they were going to negotiate as soon as possible a free trade deal with the European Union, but that if the European Union was not willing to grant that for some time they would none the less be willing to leave with no deal, then our negotiating position would have been very much stronger. By now, this country would have been psychologically and organisationally much better prepared than it is today.
Remainers often assert that the real reason people voted to leave was fear of immigration. It is true that a minority were very much moved by that consideration, but there is no inconsistency between believing we should leave the European Union and being an internationalist—understanding and valuing the economic, social and cultural benefits of immigration. Reassuring those of our fellow citizens who are apprehensive and nervous about immigration is a very important challenge for our leadership. The best way to do that is to make it clear to them that in future we will have the power to make our own decisions about our own immigration policy. That is among the reasons why membership of the single market and the Norway option are inappropriate for this country.
From the point of view of democracy, no deal is indeed better than a bad deal, a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to rather contemptuously as “that appalling mantra”. It all depends on your point of view; if you believe that the issue of democracy is paramount in Brexit, then no deal is better than a bad deal. There is no such thing as a soft Brexit. It is not Brexit. Soft Brexit is actually soft remain. The Prime Minister’s withdrawal deal and the political agreement would entail the continuation of very important elements of lawmaking being controlled by the European Union, with the Court of Justice of the European Union hovering over our courts. A softer Brexit still, such as the customs union, would be Brexit in name only.
If as a remainer you believe that economics is what matters above all, you can well contemplate a soft Brexit. Of course there are degrees of separation that you may be willing to consider. However, the remainers paint a lurid picture of what our departure from the EU may mean. They suggest—the noble Lord, Lord Stern, made this case just now in stark terms—that to leave without a deal would be a catastrophe; my noble friend Lord Adonis described how the country would be “trashed” in such circumstances and talked of us driving at 100 miles an hour towards a cliff edge.
I prefer the sensible and calmer language of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, who is a very respectable economist—the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked of reputable economists, but as far as I can see, her definition of a reputable economist is an economist who agrees with her. There are economists who do not. I prefer the view of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, to that of his successor, Mr Mark Carney, who has addressed this issue in rather alarmist terms, and I am amazed at the leaked document in which Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, described the possible consequences of no deal in melodramatic terms. How can he possibly contend that the price of food would rise by 10%? It is of course a possibility that there may be some devaluation of the pound at the moment we leave the European Union, but we will have the great opportunity—this is the crucial point—to abolish the tariffs on food and allow our people to have the choice of cheap food if that is what they want to buy.
It is not Brexit that is damaging our economy at the moment but the uncertainty associated with the Brexit process and the prolonged nature of it, which are paralysing decision-making and investment. Those who argue for a further extension, and that is what the Bill is about, are proposing to perpetuate this period of indecision and economic paralysis. The sooner we extricate ourselves from the close relationship we have with the European Union, the better the chances of our prosperity. Look at the condition of the German and Italian economies and at the structural flaws of the eurozone, with no integrated fiscal or economic policy. The European Union will change, because its present configuration is unsustainable. Either it will proceed to a much more integrated economy, as the President of France wants it to do—which I believe would be, politically, entirely unacceptable to us—or it will begin to disintegrate. The financial and economic consequences of that will be dire, and the more so if we are still in membership.
Lord Judd (Lab)
We all have immense respect for my noble friend, but he has associated concepts and thoughts with the position of remainers on which I simply cannot remain silent. Some of us have always believed with deep conviction that, while politics and economic relationships are the mechanisms that helped to build the European Union, the purpose of the whole European drive has been to build peace and security on the European continent, and it has certainly achieved that. We are anxious that we do not give an example to the world in that, having done that successfully, we are now going into retreat.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I have the greatest respect for my noble friend. He is of course right that that was the founding vision of the European Union, and that has been its great justification. However, I put it to him that today’s European Union is not an agent for peace and social harmony. If he looks at the levels of unemployment across the Mediterranean countries, the rise of neo-fascism in eastern Europe and the palpable tensions and indeed hostilities within the European Union, I fear that the model that attracted his idealism is no longer the European Union we have today.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I must proceed, if my noble friend will allow me. I am grateful to him.
I find it extraordinary that those of us who believe that what is essentially at stake in Brexit is the future of our democracy and say that that is the most important thing should be characterised as hardliners. The fact that this language is used goes some way to explain the disillusion that there is among so many of our fellow citizens with politicians.
The endeavour of Brexit is about the self-respect of a country that has centuries of tradition of parliamentary government but gave away too much of its parliamentary government in 1972. It is significant that older people, who have longer memories of our parliamentary government and democracy, have been more disposed to vote leave, and that younger people, who have been brought up in a culture of cynicism about politics—a cynicism that I think derives from the democratic deficit of the European Union, in which we are implicated—are the main remainers.
The Bill, and the procedures under which it has been introduced and is being treated in Parliament, abrogate important elements of the constitution. It is flawed even in its own terms. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, reminded us, it betrays a profound misunderstanding of the respective roles of the legislature and the Executive. Parliamentary government does not mean Parliament governing, and it is very wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, have intimated, that the Prime Minister should be dispatched by Back-Bench legislation to negotiate with the Council of Ministers with her hands so tied. That is an insult to her and her office. It is not in the gift of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to determine unilaterally the date of our exit.
As the constitutional proprieties have been so comprehensively junked in recent times, we would be well within our rights if we were to reject the Bill and ask the other place to think again. Of course, we will not do that, but I hope that we will seriously amend the Bill on Monday.
Meanwhile, I hope that we will indeed leave on 12 April. Our departure will be more ragged than it need have been because it has not been well prepared for. The House of Commons does not want us to leave with no deal but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked: what would the extension be for? The House of Commons may not like no deal, but the House of Commons has been completely unable to determine what it wants. If we leave on 12 April or shortly afterwards, we can then embrace our birthright, renew our democracy, embark on a politics of reconciliation, address ourselves to the major issues that have been so badly neglected during this Brexit saga and seek a progressive internationalism for our country.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I want to adopt many of his points, which I would have made myself. Speaking in this temple of remain, one often feels like a Spartan facing the 100,000 Persians. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, appreciates the analogy, given the part of the world his family originally comes from.
I must say, Parliament and the majority in this place are out of step with the country. I was going to refer to several statistics, but they have already been referred to by previous speakers so I will not. However, I have one that I think has not been mentioned. A recent poll—in the past week, I think—said that 55% of all voters believe that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit. That is worrying. The reason for that is obviously the great disconnect between the current constitutional make-up—of the House of Commons, in particular—and what happened in the referendum. We all know the referendum numbers but, apparently, about 500 MPs in the House of Commons voted to remain and only about 160 voted to leave. That is the reason for the disconnect we now face. I am afraid to say that, in accordance with that poll, Parliament is perceived as seeking to steal Brexit from the people; that is many people’s perception.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to palpable anger in the context of the earlier debate. There is palpable anger out there, outside this place, from people who believe Brexit that is being stolen from them. In this regard, 15 days ago, Justine Greening—a prominent remainer, of course—said:
“We can do a clean-break, hard Brexit, which I know many MPs want, and I respect that. Indeed, the millions of people who voted to leave had that kind of Brexit as their expectation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/19; col. 1117.]
That supports the point I have been trying to make.
I will also make a point about no deal that is not related to Brexit at all. Anybody in this House with any experience of life, particularly of business or negotiation, would tell you—common sense also tells you—that in any negotiation, your counterparty should always know that you could walk away. Take away that credible threat and—similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said earlier—you are naked in the arena and have effectively raised the white flag of surrender. I am afraid to say that, in my view, this Bill does exactly that.
One or two noble Lords have spoken about the possible economic consequences of a no-deal exit. I will make just a couple of points. No one expects there to be no consequences of a no-deal Brexit—I want to make that clear—but many, including many businessmen, consider them manageable. Also in regard to no-deal planning, I refer to the resignation letter yesterday of Chris Heaton-Harris, the Minister in DExEU responsible for no-deal planning. He said that there has been an awful lot of no-deal planning by the Government and that, if anything, the Prime Minister appeared not to have been properly briefed about the extent of it. By implication, what she was saying in the public domain did not reflect that position.
A few speakers, including some from the Front Benches, have spoken about how a no-deal exit—a WTO exit—would be a disaster for business; the noble Lord, Lord Stern, referred to evidence, and so on. It depends where you choose to take your evidence from. We all know what the CBI, representing big international business, says, but that is not the evidence from the Alliance of British Entrepreneurs or from an entrepreneurial businessman I know, who told me, “Despite some disruption, especially initially, business will sort out its problems pretty quickly. That’s what business does”.
Closer to home, I pray in aid my youngest brother, who employs more than 100 people in manufacturing in the West Midlands. He exports to more than 30 countries worldwide, including several EU countries, and is the recent winner of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise: Innovation. I asked him what he had to say on this subject. He said, “A little short-term inconvenience is a small price to pay for a healthy long-term economic structure”. There are different points of view here; it is quite wrong to suggest that business generally thinks that it will be a disaster. That is a gross misrepresentation and distortion of the position.
I was going to go on and make a point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made before I spoke: in fact, business fears not a no-deal exit but uncertainty. Ask any businessman about that. It is about uncertainty. I am afraid that a prolonged and substantial extension would only aggravate that.
I have just a couple more points to make. I would like to say something about the position of the House of Lords, as one or two speakers in the debate have already touched on. In view of the admitted democratic deficit we have in this House and its delicate constitutional position, you might think that this place would tread carefully in opposing a majority decision of the people in a referendum. However, I am afraid that that does not appear to be the case. As I think someone else said, this place does not appear to have the self-awareness, to use that phrase, to look at itself. Outside this building, the Westminster bubble, central London and so on, everything looks rather different.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that we should take our lead from the House of Commons, which is of course elected and sent this Bill to us?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
As I tried to say earlier, there is a massive disconnect between the current composition of the House of Commons and the outcome of the referendum. Earlier, someone—the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, I think—quoted the Government’s pamphlet before the referendum; I was not going to repeat it. It said, “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”.
Lord Adonis
Is the noble Lord saying that the House of Commons should not be expressing a view on the conduct of Brexit either? That is quite a fundamental revision of our parliamentary democracy.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am saying that 55% of voters at the moment apparently thinking that Parliament is attempting to steal Brexit or stop it is not surprising in view of some of the things that have been going on recently.
Moving on from what I was saying, the majority of the country feels betrayed by what is happening. The contract between the elected and the electors has been fractured, and the consequences for democracy and the constitution of this country are potentially very serious. The Brexit genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back in again. At the moment, it looks to people like me as though the battle for Brexit may be lost, but as Monsieur Barnier would say, “La lutte continue”. Speaking as a Conservative, I regret to say that the Prime Minister is presiding, and has presided, over a national humiliation. In my view, I am afraid that this Bill will serve only to aggravate that humiliation.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is normally form in this House to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, but on this occasion I am finding it difficult to deal in the normal courtesies. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, is what he has to remember is that he is looking at this completely from the perspective of someone who is a committed leaver.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am looking at this from the perspective of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave.
Lord Liddle
I understand that, but you would think that they are the only people who count. What about the 6 million people who in the past two weeks have signed a petition to revoke Article 50? That is one of the biggest demonstrations of support for remaining in the European Union that we have seen. What about the 1 million people who went on the march? Are they just part of the London bubble and do not represent anyone outside London?
Lord Adonis
I thank my noble friend for giving way. How many of the 17.4 million does my noble friend think voted for a no-deal Brexit, six weeks’ worth of medical supplies, the M20 becoming the largest car park in Europe, the ports not working, international driving licences having to be introduced and so on? Does he think that more than perhaps a few hundred thousand voted for those particular horrors?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
Is the noble Lord inviting me to respond? Of course I will if he wishes me to do so.
Lord Liddle
My noble friend, as always, has taken the best parts of my speech. However, he is right.
We are in the gravest political and constitutional crisis that this country has seen since the Second World War. I am troubled by the tone of the debate this afternoon. There seems to be—certainly on one side of the argument—little realisation of how serious the crisis is. This might be a flawed Bill, brought here by an extraordinary process, but nevertheless it is part of the solution to the crisis in which we find ourselves, and that is why it should be supported.
The idea that Britain could leave the European Union credibly with no deal has always been a fantasy. The popular view was that coming out of Europe would be like bargaining about buying a house or a second-hand car and that unless you are prepared to walk away you will never get anything. This is a complete fallacy about the nature of our relationship with the European Union.
We have been in the European Union for 45 years and in that period the depth of integration across whole fields of our national life has been huge. It started mainly as a customs union, developed into a single market and in recent times there have been important developments in the security field which are vital to the safety of people on the streets in this country. The idea that we could simply walk away from all of this without any consequences or massive disruption is a complete nonsense.
I say with a heavy heart that I blame the Prime Minister for the fact that this argument has gained strength. I greatly admire—perhaps it is a false view—her sense of dogged public duty, but she made a terrible mistake in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 when she allowed her chief-of-staff, Nick Timothy, to insert into that speech the populist line that,
“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.
That has been the driving force for the argument that has grown about no deal being a credible alternative for coming out of the European Union.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Does the noble Lord therefore support a bad deal? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Liddle
I am certainly not saying that. I am saying that you have to recognise the realities of the 45 years of the relationship. It is almost certainly impossible to walk away from that relationship—which is what no deal involves—without massive disruption in all kinds of spheres.
We have heard a lot tonight of evidence from the association of entrepreneurs—or something—that no deal will not do us any harm, but every respectable business organisation takes the view that no deal would be very damaging. We have heard a lot about the views of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. We have heard very little about the views of Mark Carney, the current Governor of the Bank of England, who was devastating in the Financial Times today in what he said about his predecessor and the rank foolishness of what he was proposing.
Lord Warner
Does the noble Lord recall that the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, is acknowledged to have been rather slow to spot the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008?
Lord Liddle
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, makes a point, but I did not want to get into that.
What has not been mentioned is the extraordinarily frank memorandum which the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, circulated to the Cabinet. Let us remember who he is. He is the personal appointee of the Prime Minister, one of the officials in whom the Prime Minister has the most trust. As we know, the Prime Minister does not get close to many people, but she certainly has become very close to Sir Mark Sedwill, and he has written the most devastating critique of what would happen under no deal.
I think the Prime Minister is in a bad situation. She found herself trapped by no deal. Look at the present situation in the Conservative Party as a result of that foolish statement she made in Lancaster House. There are about 160 Tory MPs saying they prefer no deal to anything else and 75% of Conservative Party members saying they prefer no deal to anything else. About half the Cabinet is saying that. Why is this? It is because the concept of no deal was not knocked on the head early on in these negotiations. It would be ruinous for Britain.
This Bill is a parliamentary response to the grave danger we face. It has to be supported, and I very much hope the House will back it.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I was on the phone at 7 am to one of my fellow directors in Australia. I said to him, “What a mess our country is in. It’s harming the UK so much”, and he said to me, “Karan, Brexit is not just a mess for the UK; it is a mess for all of us around the world”.
There is no question that Brexit was caused by the faction within the Conservative Party that has existed for more than 25 years and is vehemently anti-Europe, as we have seen today, and by UKIP, which polled 14% of the vote in the 2015 elections. Sam Gyimah, the former Minister, recently said in the Evening Standard that ambitious Conservative MPs used to talk about the economy and the big society, but:
“Now ambitious … MPs are saying, ‘I have no fear of no deal’”.
We have heard time and again in this debate that no deal would be a disaster by all accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Stern, a world-renowned economist, has said that the damage could be up to £200 billion—20 times the £8 billion to £10 billion a year that we contribute to the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord True, who is not in his place, said that I have spoken in 40 debates about the European Union. It may be more. We have looked at specific aspects of Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I spoke on Erasmus and Horizon 2020, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I have spoken in many such debates. In consumer rights and every field that you look at, no deal is a disaster for that area. It will be a disaster for our universities, our businesses and our consumers. This Bill is required because we are in a crisis. We are in an emergency and are facing a cliff edge. We have been watching a train crash in slow motion. The train is about to crash and in fact it nearly crashed on 29 March.
The Government and the Prime Minister have lost control. By how much more can you lose control than losing by 230 votes—the biggest loss in history—then 140-plus, then 50-plus? Three times the Prime Minister has gone back to MPs and asked them to change their minds, yet the people of this country are not given one chance to change theirs. That is hypocrisy beyond belief. How many times today, throughout the afternoon and in this debate, have I heard mention of the 17.4 million people? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said: what about the 16.1 million? A true democracy is one that respects a minority, let alone a large minority. Let us not forget that, in the nationwide referendum in 1975, the number of people who voted to remain in the European Community was—wait for this, my Lords—17.4 million. The difference is that that 17.4 million people made up not 52% but 67% of the number that voted—an overwhelming, definite majority.
We have a divided Parliament, a divided House of Commons and a divided country. The House of Commons has voted more than once to say that no deal is not an option, but the Prime Minister has not been willing to legislate for that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, started this debate by saying that there is a lack of trust. The most important thing that I have learned in business is trust. If there is no trust, there is nothing. How can we now trust the Prime Minister and the Government when they say, “No deal is better than a bad deal”? They refer to “the will of the people”, but which people? They are talking about the people who voted three years ago.
Then they say that the will of the manifesto has now overtaken the will of the people. However, when it suits them, the manifesto is ignored. What about the grammar schools and the dementia tax? What about the fact that people do not read manifestos? There are more than 200 items in every manifesto. First, people do not even know that they exist; secondly, they do not read all 200 items; and, thirdly, they do not vote for the one item in the manifesto that says, “We will implement the result of the referendum”. It is nonsense to say that.
The electorate has changed. We talk about the 17.4 million and the tyranny of the majority, but three years later two of my children are now of voting age, whereas they were not in June 2016. Three years later, there are 2.4 million people of voting age who were not of voting age then. Three years later, the youth who did not turn out to vote regret that they did not. If given another chance, they will mobilise and turn out in droves, and that 1.3 million majority will seem a pittance. This Bill is essential to delay Brexit and prevent no deal.
There is one thing that no one has brought up. In the final stages of Brexit, this House has been left out completely. We should have had all the meaningful votes and indicative votes that have been going on in another place. We should have been doing them side by side in this House to show what we feel about the issue, just as we do with legislation. We were not given the chance, although finally, today, we have been given a chance to have a say through this Bill. Time and again, it has been pointed out in the context of this Bill that the House of Lords is the guardian of our wonderful, special unwritten constitution and that it is a check and balance on the other place, yet time and again the Prime Minister has tried to sideline Parliament. She started by trying to implement Article 50 without coming to Parliament. It took the brave Gina Miller to take on the Government, the law and the whole of our constitution, with the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary being stretched and challenged, and finally we got a say through the courts. The Government then tried to bypass Parliament in not disclosing their legal advice.
Today, after 12 and a half years in this wonderful House, which I absolutely love, I have seen it at its worst. I have seen blatant filibustering by Members of the extreme Brexit wing. Seven Motions took seven and a half hours, but it felt like seven and a half years. They were strung out deliberately; those Motions could have been debated within one hour. In my 12 and a half years, I have never seen anyone use the Motion, “That the Question be now put”, which was moved by my noble Friemd, Lord Pannick, just to put an end to the first round of filibustering, let alone seen it used so many times just to vote to get on with things. The worst part is that a lot of the movers of those Motions had their names down to speak in this debate, but there are only two of them here; the rest have scratched.
Then the Government tried to insert a Motion from the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, which I have sat on for many years, to do with making tax digital. There were two other debates, one of them to do with Europe, which I was going to speak in but were scratched, but that Motion was left in. And who were the speakers in that debate? People who signed up at the last minute who are Members of that extreme pro-Brexit wing, whom I have never seen in all my years in that Finance Bill Sub-Committee having anything to do with the committee or speaking on anything that it has produced. Luckily, that debate was pulled at the last minute.
Baroness Noakes
I have been a member of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee for many years, though not absolutely every year. I was a member of that committee this year, so I intended to speak. I hope the noble Lord is not referring to me in those remarks.
Lord Bilimoria
Absolutely not. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is here. She was a member of that committee, and I have sat on the committee with her. I was referring to other people. By the way, today’s running order was blessed by the Government. Could the Minister explain how they came to that?
Today, I was not proud of the behaviour of our House. At many stages I felt ashamed of the disgraceful behaviour that I do not think was befitting of the finest, highest-quality debating Chamber in the world. I asked one of our Members who has been here for nearly 50 years, “How bad is this compared with Maastricht?” He said, “Maastricht was a tea party compared with this”.
My noble friend Lord Pannick has clearly said that the Bill is not perfect. None of us says that it is perfect; it was rushed through at the other end. However, he and my noble and learned friend Lord Judge have already found a way of amending the Bill in Committee that will allow it to be effective and will prevent us reaching the cliff edge.
Before I conclude, I want to emphasise how much we need the Bill, because what has been agreed so far is nothing. If my noble friend Lord Kerr were here, he would say, “I wrote Article 50 in order for those two years to be used to agree a future relationship. The withdrawal Bill just becomes part of that, and then you leave after two years having agreed it”. We have not negotiated our future relationship. We have negotiated only three things: people, the backstop and money. And £39 billion out of a £2 trillion economy is absolutely not material in the long run; this big figure is actually not a material figure. What about the political declaration—the wish list of our future? Nothing has been negotiated at all: tariffs, customs, services, market access, regulation, financial services, digital, capital markets, intellectual property, movement of people, aviation, roads, maritime, energy, civil nuclear, data exchange, foreign policy, security, defence, space, cybersecurity or counterterrorism—
Lord Bilimoria
Do not ruin my momentum, please; I will give way in a second. Nothing has been agreed.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I have great sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord. Is it not a fact that it was the European Union that insisted on the sequencing of the negotiations and was not prepared to talk about the future relationship until the withdrawal agreement had been effected, contrary to Article 50?
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord, with all his experience, has pre-empted what I was about to say next. The European Union has played a blinder. Recently, I gave a master class at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, where I am chair of the advisory board, using Brexit as a case study in textbook negotiating techniques. We have made all the mistakes—including on process, which the European Union dictated.
The biggest reason we are in the position we are is that the 27 different, disparate countries of the EU had one very clear mandate and one negotiator. How many times have our negotiators changed? The position of Brexit Secretary is a revolving door. That is why the EU has done so well: it has negotiated brilliantly and with a clear mandate.
Michel Barnier, in his speech on 1 April in Brussels, said clearly that the EU would accept the current deal, a customs union, a relationship similar to that with Norway or no deal, for which it claims it is better prepared than we are, having taken protective measures—though it has not done so willingly. Lastly, Michel Barnier said the EU will accept an extension, but it will need strong justification. What will that justification be? He has been clear that there will be a painful “political cost” for this extension and, if we have not left by 23 May, we will have to take part in the European elections. He also made it very clear that a long extension is for,
“a member on its way out”.
The uncertainty is something the EU will hate.
This evening, I was meant to be giving a lecture for the London Business School about brands. I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK—
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The noble Lord should have gone.
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord may not like what I am saying, but it is true. There is lots he has not heard. It is so heartening to see heckling from a sedentary position from a Minister; it makes me even prouder of this House.
I thought about the brands of Great Britain and the UK and the world saying, “What is this great country, at the top of the world table, doing to itself?”
We must pass this Bill. We must extend Article 50. It must be a long extension and we must put it back to the people—today’s people, not the people who voted three years ago. We must put it back to today’s electorate, reflecting today’s world and today’s facts, not those of three years ago. When people are given that chance, it will be a two-thirds majority to remain in the European Union—the best deal by far.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken today, but I will try to be brief. I do not think that I can support this Bill, for the following reasons. We are told that this business is an emergency, but of course it is not. We have had nearly three years to prepare for it and the Government have assured us that they are ready to leave without an agreement if necessary. Indeed, more than half the public now thinks that it is the right thing to do. I am rather nervous about using YouGov, but it did a study and asked voters:
“If Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?”.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Adonis and Lord Bilimoria, but every English and Welsh region outside the M25 would be happy to leave the EU without a deal if no agreement has been reached by the end of next week.
Lord Bilimoria
The overall result for the whole country, if you include Scotland and Northern Ireland, was 44% to 42%—a very narrow margin. It was not as stark as the noble Lord said.
Earl Cathcart
The result was still in favour of leaving with no deal. We are told that emergency legislation is necessary, but the reality is that the Prime Minister has already said that she will seek an extension beyond 12 April—so where is the emergency? The convention is that emergency legislation passed in one day has the consent of both Houses before being brought forward: in other words, it is not contentious. This clearly is not the case with this Bill, as could be seen in the voting last night in another place.
Not only is this Bill not an emergency but: it is not necessary. As I said, the Prime Minister has already agreed to seek a further extension, which is what this Bill seeks to achieve. If passed, it will become UK law. When the Prime Minister recently sought an extension to 30 June, the EU came back with the two dates of 12 April and 22 May. The withdrawal agreement said that extensions could be made if passed by a statutory instrument in both Houses. However, the Prime Minister circumvented that by getting Sir Tim Barrow, our man in Brussels, to write to Brussels accepting their offer. Hey presto—we were told that that was sufficient to be an international agreement, and that international agreements trumped UK law, so the SI was just a tidying-up exercise. So what is to stop the Prime Minister seeking another extension by getting our man in Brussels to write another letter? Then, hey presto, we would have another international agreement that would trump this Bill if passed.
I have another point: traditionally, only a Minister may move a money resolution in support of legislation that requires expenditure of public funds. There is a very good reason for that: it is because the Government have responsibility for the Budget. If they want to spend more, they have to raise more money through taxes or borrowing. This Bill could have very significant financial consequences indeed. Staying in the EU for any length of time would be an extremely expensive thing to do and I believe that it would need a money resolution, which must be moved by a Minister of the Crown in the other place. I understand that a report from the other place says that, if we extended our stay in the EU for two more years, it would cost the UK taxpayer some £36 billion—a huge sum of money.
I was quite taken by something that my noble friend the Leader of the House said in her remarks earlier today. She said:
“Because of the speed at which this legislation is being considered, we have genuine concerns that this Bill could tie the hands of government and, in fact, be contrary to its stated objectives”,
and could lock us into leaving without a deal. My noble friend then gave the example of the Prime Minister going to Brussels next Wednesday. She might ask for a further extension to, say, Friday 31 May. Brussels might say no but, late at night—as it has done previously—come back with a counter offer of, say, Monday 22 May. All the leaders of the 27 would then go home. This Bill would then allow Sir Oliver Letwin and his friends in the Labour Party to consider this offer on the Thursday and either agree it or not. That would leave the EU 27 only until Friday 12 April to agree the date or, indeed, a new date chosen by the Commons. We know that, if all the 27 have not agreed by 11pm on the 12th, we will leave with no deal. That, presumably, is not something that the movers of this Bill would want.
I do not think that that will happen. I do not believe that this Bill will have any teeth if it is passed. If the Prime Minister wants to accept the offer of a new date from the EU, she will just get her man in Brussels to write another letter. This will again create an international agreement, which will trump anything that the Commons proposes through this Bill.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I declare, as before, my various European interests, as detailed in the register. I have been on holiday for the last week, as I had thought when I planned it that we would be out of the EU by now. While away, I have watched with dismay the way the other place has rejected yet again the Government’s deal. I really think that this Parliament has demeaned itself, and it has again failed. So it is unsurprising that, with the Government unable to carry their own deal through the House of Commons, Parliament should wish to legislate to prevent the country leaving without a deal.
In view of some of the comments made this evening, it seems necessary to repeat what I have said before. I have long since accepted that we are leaving the European Union, and would support the Prime Minister’s deal time and again, but we cannot leave on 12 April without a deal. If the Government cannot get their deal agreed by next Wednesday, we must try to agree a further extension with the EU 27. The Prime Minister has agreed to seek such an extension. The reason this Bill is necessary is that we cannot be sure that certain elements of the Government—or the Conservative Party—will not seek to prevent her carrying out her intention. In fact, I think that the passing of this Bill will strengthen her hand within the Government. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I am sure that the Bill can be improved on Monday, and that will also strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in her negotiations with the European Union.
The Prime Minister has said that she will seek only a short extension. I would support this. I have always thought that it would almost certainly be necessary to request a short extension. However, I am clear on this. Given the choice between a longer delay and leaving with no deal, it would, to my mind, undoubtedly be in the national interest to agree a longer delay. Only those driven by ideology still believe in a no-deal Brexit. We should all take serious notice of what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, who is no longer in his seat. A much-respected economist from the London School of Economics, he did not in any way exaggerate the dangers of a no-deal Brexit.
It worries me that those from all parties who seek to deliver Brexit but at the same time to minimise economic damage—those who are trying to seek cross-party agreement to get us out of this difficult situation—should be vilified from both the political extremes. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords, in applauding the efforts of those people—Sir Oliver Letwin, Yvette Cooper, Dame Caroline Spelman, Hilary Benn and others. This is surely a moment for moderation and pragmatism. In this House, and in the other place, we serve the country, not political parties or ideologies.
To my great and profound sadness, we are leaving the European Union. However, it is in that spirit that I support this Bill. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking over the Bill—I think it a pity that the Government did not take it over themselves—and I very much hope that on Monday we will pass it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the gap and to follow the words of wisdom of my roommate and noble friend Lord Cathcart and someone as experienced in EU matters as my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. I speak as someone who voted remain. However, I am not convinced that the Bill is the right approach and, like my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, I will vote against it should the opportunity arise. I have dealt with the EU all my career and I do not believe that the EU 27 will let us leave without a deal in the short term. I fear that the Bill plays into their hands.
Frankly and first, it is an attempt that will make the negotiation by the UK with the EU 27 of an acceptable deal more difficult or even impossible. It also goes against the past promises of both main parties. Those who advocate this week’s takeover of Parliament have, I suggest, become more impudent. I believe that this abuse of the constitutional norms could bring Parliament into disrepute and set the Parliament against many of the people, with potential damage to the constitution. There is the added point that if everything goes wrong with the Bill, we do not know who to hold to account.
Secondly, as a businesswoman and former member of the Government—and indeed the bureaucracy—I very much dislike the increasingly last-minute nature of business in the UK Parliament and the UK Government. Looking at the Bill, I have several questions of detail such as about how the dates work, what happens about our European elections and what is to be done about any conditions that the EU may impose, notably on our reason for any extension.
I believe that this country would be much better served if we had proper preparatory paperwork and explanatory notes on the Bill, particularly given its constitutional significance. However, I appreciate the acceleration of work by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, allowing the usual channels to find a way forward and therefore agree to a Committee stage on Monday. The fact that there was a special report on concerns about rushed legislation and amendments as HL Paper 116–I, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt, shows the scale of the problems that we can have with rushed legislation.
Finally, I was astonished when I heard the House of Commons Speaker ruling that this is not a money Bill. I will as usual be probing on the financial implications and impact of the Bill—both positive and negative, because they go both ways as a result of any delay—even though I have not been able to persuade the parliamentary authorities to agree to having amendments to require the necessary impact assessments or a sensible post hoc review on such a very important issue.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to share the gap with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will say a few words briefly and I make clear my support for the Bill in general terms. But my concern, which I flagged up in my intervention earlier, is that it fails to cover one key circumstance which could well arise during the coming days.
The Bill as it stands requires House of Commons approval of a new date as specified in Article 50(3) of the treaty but the Bill does not apply if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified under Section 13 of the withdrawal Act, and if no agreement has been reached under Article 50(3) of the treaty to extend the date at which the treaty ceases to apply to the UK. In these circumstances of possibly ongoing negotiations, there is the very real danger of the UK crashing out without a withdrawal agreement. That point has been referred to a number of times in the last few speeches. If that is the wish of the House of Commons, so be it; but the votes of the Commons indicate a strong rejection of such a course, with some 400 MPs voting accordingly. It is therefore my opinion that the Bill should be amended to tidy up that loophole, and it is my hope to present an amendment in Committee to remedy that defect.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to support the Bill from these Benches, and I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for bringing it to this House. I share the view that has been expressed that it would have been better if the Government had brought it, but we are where we are. I look forward to seeing it pass.
The purpose of the Bill was expressed quite shortly by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper in the other place. I will quote what she said, which seems so right:
“The Bill simply provides for a simple, practical and transparent process to underpin the Prime Minister’s plan. It ensures that the extension has the support of the House of Commons, but also that we keep the parliamentary safeguard in place… She has recognised that she cannot implement anything in only nine days, which is why the extension is needed. This is a hugely important Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1135.]
I agree with that. It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as a modest Bill. Modest it may be and, in certain respects, that is much to its credit, but it is an important Bill because of the issues that so many noble Lords have spoken about this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said:
“It was created in a vacuum, and the vacuum was created by a lack of leadership”,
because of uncertain times.
In listening to this debate, three points came across to me. The first was objection to the Bill from those who either view a no-deal Brexit with insouciance or actually welcome it. A number of noble Lords spoke in that way, such as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who knows the high respect in which I hold him, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, for whom I also have great respect. I profoundly disagree with their view that a no-deal Brexit is not a great problem.
This evening we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stern of Brentford, important evidence-based concerns about what a no-deal Brexit would do. Other noble Lords have spoken about that in detail, and I want to add the reference that has already been made, although belatedly, to what Sir Mark Sedwill has said about the risks. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, described it, “a little short-term inconvenience”. Those are the merits of the principal point that has been debated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, rightly described the problem not so much as not trusting the Prime Minister, but not trusting the circumstances in which she finds herself and the people she finds around her. It is therefore an insurance policy. It may well be that, without this, the Prime Minister is able to achieve what she now wants, but it is important to have an insurance policy, as my noble friend Lord Liddle described it.
That took up most of the debate this evening. The second main point was the question of constitutionality. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred to that. I was privileged to sit on the Constitution Committee when he chaired it, so I always listen to what he says with great respect. The problem is that we are in, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said, perhaps the gravest crisis since the Second World War and exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures. They are exceptional in a number of respects, not just because of the gravity of the situation with which we are faced but because of the apparent lack of ability of the present Government to solve it. That has led to the other place taking the view that it must step in to help resolve the problem.
There is a need for the Bill. It is important that we respect the other place, which has sent it to us. We will be giving it scrutiny, and I am glad that we will now continue this debate in Committee next week, although I have something to say about the critical need to get it done on Monday.
I am also glad, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, that we have been able to have this Second Reading debate in a much better atmosphere than we had earlier in the day. It was an unpleasant afternoon for all of us. The comments made about Sir Oliver Letwin were uncalled for. He did not deserve them, given what he has been trying to do in the interests of the country, having been a loyal servant of the public. Although he did not come up so much in this debate, I also mention Dominic Grieve, who was my shadow when I was Attorney-General. A more honourable and honest man I do not know. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that it was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, back in his place.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to the importance of compromise. The Bill at least provides an opportunity for that to take place. Whether it happens is another matter.
I am very conscious that the House has been debating this, one way or another, for a number of hours, so I will wind up quite quickly. On the detail of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the most important point about the royal prerogative. Following on what the Leader of the House said, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised the danger of the Prime Minister finding herself in a situation where something is offered which she would want to accept but which is not actually covered by the Motion that has been passed by the House. Does she have to come back? That ought to be looked at and, for our part, we will look at it before this matter comes back next week.
I want to underline, and end on, the importance of getting this done. Noble Lords will be aware, because they will all have read the Bill carefully, of the way it works. The day after Royal Assent is given, a Motion needs to be presented to the House of Commons—which it might or might not accept—setting out the time for the extension. That gives rise to two issues. One is that it is proposed by the Government—I would anticipate, by the Prime Minister—for the other place to consider. It is not the European Union setting out the timetable, but the Prime Minister must be given the date in time to pass it to the members of the European Council so that they can consider it before they meet on Wednesday. They will not thank anybody, I understand, if they are given it with very short notice. It is obviously an important decision for them and they will want to discuss it among themselves. That is why we must reach the position on Monday where we have dealt with all amendments in time for the other place to also deal with them that day and Royal Assent be given, so that the following day, Tuesday—only one day before the Council meeting—a decision can be reached on the timing.
A number of noble Lords have expressed happiness that we have been able to reach an agreement so that this does not go through the night tonight, but that was on the basis that we will conclude this on Monday—the Chief Whip talked about 8 pm. I hope all noble Lords will be able to co-operate on that. We have our work cut out, but not if we do it efficiently. At the end of the day it remains quite a straightforward and simple Bill, which we will be supporting.
Baroness Deech
The noble and learned Lord referred to this as the greatest crisis since the Second World War. Briefly, that brought to mind the famous case of Liversidge v Anderson, the facts of which I need not remind him of. There were emergency powers and the majority of the court held, “Yes, that’s all right, let’s lock this chap up”. The judgment we remember now, and it was famous even then, was the judgment of Lord Atkin, who said:
“In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace”.
We stick to the principles we have always had. His reference to Second World War reminded me of that: when you have an emergency—and I would not compare this with the Second World War—it is all the more important to use the proper constitutional principles.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I remember that case very well, of course, though I did not have the pleasure of being one of her constitutional class. Of course, what the House of Lords decided in that case was that it was not for individual Ministers to make decisions; that is what the case was about. It was about control of executive power: they were not to make determinations themselves. In this case, the Bill seeks to give primacy to the House of Commons to enable its decision, perhaps in the face of the wishes of the Executive, to be effected.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as this is not, of course, a government Bill, I am sure noble Lords will be delighted to know that I can keep my remarks brief. Legislation has been debated, scrutinised and passed by this House since July 2016 to prepare for our exit from the EU, including many statutory instruments that noble Lords have scrutinised thoroughly to ensure that in any scenario, our statute book will function properly and appropriately. At the most recent count, more than 500 statutory instruments have been considered by the SLSC and more than 200 SIs debated by this House under the affirmative procedure. However, the Bill before us today in the name of the right honourable Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford offers little but constitutional ambiguity and greater, not less, uncertainty. The Government strongly oppose the Bill.
I agree with many of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, my noble friends Lord Howard of Lympne, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The approach to this Bill risks setting an unhealthy and constitutionally irregular precedent for this and future Governments. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked me a simple question: do we need this Bill at all? The simple answer is no. Most importantly, the fundamental flaws in its drafting not only undermine what it seeks to achieve but may even increase the risk of an accidental no deal next week. I also note the Lords Constitution Committee’s report and thank it for its efforts to produce its report so quickly.
Noble Lords will recognise the ambiguity that would arise should the Bill pass, particularly regarding the royal prerogative and the long-established convention that the Government of the day lead on our international negotiations. Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. This Bill not only calls that ability into question, it does nothing to provide any clarity on what we should, in fact, seek.
The other place has consistently demanded greater certainty for businesses and for citizens. Despite this, noble Lords will no doubt be very alive to the risk that the conditions imposed by the Bill bring to life the very real possibility that we cannot agree an extension in time, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, by my noble friend Lord Cathcart and at the end by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This is because the Bill creates a new parliamentary process whereby any counteroffer on the extension of the Article 50 period by the EU must be put to Parliament and agreed on the day after the offer is made by the EU. As we saw at the European Council on 21 and 22 March, when the original extension was agreed, it requires a request by the UK, a decision by the 27 EU member states and then agreement from the UK.
I am pleased to say that yesterday the other place approved a government amendment to the Bill to change the parliamentary scrutiny procedure that applies to an SI, amending the definition of “exit day” from affirmative to negative.
The Bill creates processes that increase the risk of us being timed out, but, even if agreement were possible in time, we would still need to ensure that any extension agreed in international law was reflected in our domestic statute book. The Government considered it prudent to seek to amend the Bill to make the SI needed for this purpose subject to the negative procedure to ensure that our statute book reflects international law.
However, I regret that the other place did not pass the amendment that the Government put forward to address the dangerous constitutional precedent set by this Bill overall. It would have protected the Government’s ability to reach an agreement with the EU on an extension to Article 50. In doing so, it would have clarified the position on the royal prerogative to ensure that nothing in the Bill would prevent the Government being able to seek and agree an extension.
The Bill therefore remains fundamentally flawed. It could tie the hands of the Government and bring about a situation contrary to the purpose expressed by its movers. This legislation is not a sensible or desirable approach to take and I urge noble Lords not to support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Before he sits down, could the Minister answer two questions? I asked the first earlier, and I would be grateful for an answer. Have the Government taken the necessary steps to prepare for a European election should the extension go beyond 23 May? Secondly, I found missing in his remarks any recognition that the elected House had actually taken a decision—that it had adopted this Bill and sent it to us. If we adopt it on Monday, is he seriously saying that the Government consider themselves to be somehow above decisions taken by the two Houses? If so, that is a very peculiar constitutional suggestion.
Lord Callanan
Of course we do not. I can answer both his questions with the same statement. The Government will abide by the law of this country in all circumstances—both European Parliament election law and any law made by this Parliament—in the appropriate fashion.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I did not hear much compromise in that last speech. The only reason we are here discussing this Bill is lack of trust and compromise throughout the whole process. We have just heard the embodiment of it, which was different from many of the other speeches over the last three and a half hours—they have been, as someone said, much pleasanter than what we might call the afternoon session, where it got pretty het up.
I will not try to wind up, but I will also not fall out with the staff of the House, so I might need some help. One of the early speeches that made me think was the very sharp speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is a lesson for us all in what he said not just about this Bill but beyond it about changes. I was really taken with that, as I was with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there was a vacuum which the Commons started to fill. That is the reality. People may not like it, but a vacuum was left there.
Many noble Lords—I will not list them all—supported a second vote. I did not mention that in my opening speech, but I certainly support putting whatever decision is finally taken back to the people. It is preposterous to argue that we can all change our minds three or four times in both Houses but the people are not allowed to change their minds or think again when they know more facts.
First of all, criminal offences were committed by the leave campaign—no one has mentioned that. The fact is that a whole series of court cases is probably coming up, and I certainly hope that a few people will be locked up as a result of them. However, the fact is that things went wrong there. It is not relevant to the Bill, but it is there in the system, and it is partly that which has caused the lack of trust, as well as some of the bitterness around on both aspects of it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what about Russian money, for instance, which is another example?
Lord Rooker
Dirty Russian money flooding into London, which allegedly funded part of the campaign on digital media, is a serious issue. We in this country have not taken it as seriously as the Americans have started to take it. One only has to look at the material that comes out of the Khodorkovsky Center and what happens in parts of London. We have taken legal powers, but we have not taken enough action about the money that is swilling around.
The noble Lord, Lord Stern, also made a powerful speech. Economics has never been my strong point, but, to be honest, what he said scared the hell out of me. The consequences of walking out without any arrangements in place are very worrying.
I will touch on another aspect: the food issue, which my noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned. We were due to have a debate on Brexit-related food prices and on the effects of leaving without a deal. Some 30% of our food comes from the EU, 50% is made here, and 20% comes from elsewhere. A 22% average increase in tariffs will not lead to a 22% increase in food prices, but, when you talk to industry, you realise that the 10% that the National Security Adviser scared the hell out of the Cabinet with is realistic. That is a 10% increase at the checkout as a result of no deal. You cannot gainsay that—the facts and the evidence are there. It is no good saying, “You’ve been a-scaring—it’ll be all right in time”. It will be all right in time for those who can afford to carry the burden in the meantime, but that is one serious problem that the National Security Adviser warned the Cabinet about.
Lord Cormack
Is my friend, the noble Lord, aware also of the frightening predictions that have been made by the extremely able president of the NFU, Minette Batters?
Lord Rooker
Yes. The NFU has been the quiet dog on this issue for three years. It never had a position on Brexit. It did not campaign—it was split. Many took one view and many took another. I know NFU members, ex-presidents, who worked their socks off travelling the country, trying to organise for remain. But the organisation was split—it never put its corporate voice into the debate.
Lord Cormack
That may be so, and I agree, but the president has recently come out very clearly on this, and it is terribly important that that is put on the record. Does the noble Lord not agree?
Lord Rooker
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I applaud the role that the new president has taken.
Lord Newby (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord’s peroration. He may be aware that, contrary to what a number of noble Lords said, many people who, like myself, live hundreds of miles outside London, are very aware that the majority of farmers, particularly upland farmers in the Yorkshire Dales, voted leave—frankly, they do not like people from Leeds, far less people in Brussels; the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, appreciates the strength of that view. They voted leave, not carelessly, but not thinking that it would have any personal consequences for them. Now, they very much realise that leaving without a deal could mean the end of their careers. Therefore, when the extremely impressive group North Yorkshire for Europe held a stall at the Leyburn cattle market a couple of months ago, expecting to be nearly lynched by all these farmers who voted leave, much to their surprise they were if not physically embraced, mentally embraced, by people who said, “My goodness! We now realise that our livelihood is seriously at risk”.
Is this not just one example of the many we have heard from noble Lords today of the potential economic consequences—not minor but visceral—of crashing out without a deal for the livelihoods and lives of people we respect for the contribution they make not just to the economy but to the environment, and who, as we speak, are going to bed worried about what is happening to our country?
Lord Rooker
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My very last point—it is my very last point, because it follows from what I said earlier—is about the warning from police chiefs this morning about the language being used. We have heard it here today: “betrayal” and “stealing”. The police have warned us not to use that kind of language because, in this sensitive area, it is almost inciting people to violence. Those words have been used, as have some others this afternoon, but I did not list them all. We either listen to what the police say or we do not. It is absolutely preposterous that language like that is used in Parliament, given the official advice this morning.
With that off my chest, and given the announcement that we are not having a recess next week—I am damn clear that I am keeping to my short family holiday, and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen will be here on Monday to carry the burden of Committee—I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.