House of Commons
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
May I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) for the exceptional job he did as Foreign Secretary and for the professionalism and integrity with which he conducted himself?
We are concerned about the situation in Kashmir. I spoke to Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August. We want to see a reduction in tensions in Kashmir, respect for internationally recognised human rights and steps taken on all sides to rebuild confidence.
Hugh Gaffney
Doctors have warned that the political situation in Kashmir is leading to a shortage of medicines and that hospitals are being left unable to provide treatment for patients. This is because Kashmir receives over 90% of its medical supplies from India. If this situation is not resolved, Kashmir faces the real risk of a major public health crisis. What steps will the Government take to sort it out?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk not just about the theoretical nature of the dispute, but about what it means for communities in Kashmir. It is important that internationally recognised human rights are fully respected, and the way through the tensions is with a constructive political dialogue. The dispute between India and Pakistan in relation to Kashmir is fundamentally for them to resolve, as recognised in UN Security Council resolutions and the Simla agreement.
Dr Williams
The Kashmiri community in Stockton South are understandably concerned about the safety and human rights of the people of Kashmir. Does the Secretary of State believe that there is a role for the United Nations or other independent parties to monitor and report on the alleged human rights abuses to ensure that the Kashmiri people are protected?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in Kashmir in the past and that this is something that the General Assembly has looked at. Fundamentally, though, the UN also recognises that the dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India is for them to resolve. The hon. Gentleman makes the point—as others will and have—that there are internationally recognised human rights at stake. They are duties owed to the international community at large, and we will certainly be scrutinising the situation carefully to see that those rights are respected.
Paul Blomfield
In Sheffield on Saturday, there was a big protest of people who felt that the Foreign Secretary’s response to the crisis has not been good enough. Will he therefore commit to working through the United Nations and the Commonwealth to strengthen international pressure on India to restore Kashmir’s special status and to working with both India and Pakistan to secure a long-term solution based on the 1948 UN resolution, so that there can be a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to determine their own future?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman expresses his concerns powerfully and I understand how keenly they are felt. I have already referred to the UN Security Council resolutions and to the Simla agreement. It is not correct to say that we have not been seized of this issue. The Prime Minister spoke to the Indian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi, on 20 August and the Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, on 7 August. I raised concerns about the situation with Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August. We will obviously be monitoring the situation carefully and talking to international partners in relation to it.
Alison Thewliss
The large Kashmiri community in Glasgow Central are deeply concerned about their friends and relatives in Kashmir, particularly given the media blackout and the curfew that has been imposed. What has the Secretary of State done to raise both those issues, and what does he intend to do to ensure that the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination?
Dominic Raab
On the issues of detentions, potential mistreatment and communications blackouts that the hon. Lady has raised, I have raised those issues with the Indian Foreign Minister. The Indian Government have made it clear that the measures are only temporary, as strictly required, and we of course want to hold them to that undertaking.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Events in Kashmir are of the most profound and immediate importance to thousands of my constituents, because British Kashmiris often have family and friends on not one but both sides of the line of control, and they are in frequent FaceTime, email and Skype contact, just like anybody else, even to the second and third generations of migrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such circumstances they must have active representation not just from their MPs but from the Government? Will he therefore join me in saying that the time has come to reassure them on the human rights of their families and friends and to ask for independent observers in Kashmir?
Dominic Raab
I know the scale of the community that my hon. Friend has in Wycombe—I believe it is over 10,000. I understand how keenly this is felt among Kashmiris in Wycombe but also right across the country. The issue of human rights is not just a bilateral, or domestic issue for India or Pakistan; it is an international issue. He is absolutely right to say that we should, with all our partners, expect internationally recognised standards of human rights to be complied with and respected.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Following the action by the Indian Government in Kashmir, on 15 August, Indian independence day, a group of British Indians gathered outside the Indian high commission in London, but they were attacked by members of another community. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the violence and abuse targeted towards the British Indian community on that occasion are completely unacceptable, as they would be against any community on the streets of the UK?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any violence is deplorable. It should not be conducted in this country, or anywhere else for that matter, against any individual communities. We now need to try to reduce these tensions but also, on a positive side, to build confidence-building measures to allow proper dialogue between the communities in Kashmir but also between India and Pakistan.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I have met my Pakistani and Indian communities, who are very concerned about the Kashmir situation. The revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution without involving the Kashmiri people was particularly heinous. If Amnesty International is to be believed, and I think it is, we should have learned from the Rohingya crisis to know that this is another crisis emerging now. We must take the firmest steps to condemn it and do what we can.
Dominic Raab
We are aware of the implications of the revocation of article 370, which has caused interest and concern not just within India and Pakistan but among communities throughout the UK and internationally. It is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan but also an international issue, given the human rights at stake.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It has been a long-standing policy of the Government that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a bilateral issue. It has also been this House that stands up for human rights and the protection of minorities. Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of article 370, which discriminates against women and minority religions, is to be welcomed?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes the point that there are different sides to this. But the reality is that there have been widespread reports and concerns about detentions, mistreatments and the communications blackout. There was a UN Security Council discussion on Kashmir on 16 August. As well as wanting to respect the constitutional arrangements within India and in relation to Kashmir, there are implications internationally, particularly as they touch on internationally respected and recognised human rights.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I refer Members to my registered interest.
For over four years, I have stood in this place and warned Members of the ongoing persecution, oppression and injustice that the sons and daughters of Kashmir face daily. That situation has now escalated as a result of the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, and the humanitarian situation as a result of the blockade. The reality is that we see up to 10,000 people arrested without due process, and food and medicine shortages. This is a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Security Council meeting and not even agreeing a condemnation is not something that this House should welcome. What is the Minister doing to end the draconian blockade, at the very least?
Dominic Raab
I think it would be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that, as much as I sympathise with his concerns and understand the heartfelt way in which he makes his points, we cannot alone end that blockade. There has been a discussion about it within the UN Security Council. All and any allegations of human rights violations are deeply concerning, and they must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I have many constituents who are highly concerned about this. The revocation of article 35A affects property ownership and rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and many of my constituents are very frightened that this could lead to a dramatic transformation from majority Muslim to majority Hindu. The new Prime Minister is famed for being robust. Can he now be robust in defending the rights of these people and their families?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend raises the issue that others have raised, but in a particularly poignant way. The reality is that we have raised the issues around human rights. We have been clear both in our direct dealings with the Indian Government and at the international level that any reports or allegations concerning human rights must be dealt with transparently, thoroughly and rigorously, and human rights standards must be respected.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Alongside the revocation of article 370, the Indian authorities have detained more than 4,000 Kashmiris without charge in the last month—not just political activists, but ordinary civilians. There are widespread allegations of torture, and many families do not know where their loved ones are being held. This is no way for the largest democracy in the world to behave, let alone a member of the Commonwealth. Can the Secretary of State tell us what protests he has made to India about those detentions?
Dominic Raab
As I explained to the House—I am happy to repeat it—the concerns and issues that the hon. Lady has raised are very serious, and I raised them directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August.
Dominic Raab
To answer the shadow Foreign Secretary’s question, yes, specifically the issue of detentions, as well as the blackouts. We have made clear our concern and the fact that we need to see—particularly in a great democracy, as the hon. Lady says—internationally recognised human rights respected.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
On 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Mr Araújo. I will also be seeing the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Arruda, tomorrow, to reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with Brazil on a range of issues, including the environment. In response to the very serious fires, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 £10 million for protection and restoration of the rain forest. That is in addition to the £120 million of funding we provide through our other programmes.
Chris Law
While we welcome the £10 million that the UK Government have committed to help to restore the Amazonian rain forest, it is paltry compared with the amount spent on advertising for the Brexit debacle. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me whether the money is spent by local partners in a way that ensures that indigenous people will take charge of the process to reforest their homes and protect our planet? What further funding is he willing to pledge today?
Christopher Pincher
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s passion for the issue. I can confirm that we spend £120 million through our international climate finance programme. That goes to help to tackle deforestation and to help sustainable farming, and it complements the trading activities that we have with Brazil, which ensure that the Brazilian economy grows and prospers, including for those farmers, who are part and parcel of the problem, burning some of the rain forest.
Daniel Zeichner
Over 120,000 people have already petitioned this Parliament, urging trade sanctions to be used against Brazil to put pressure on it. Given that a Minister was in Brazil recently, what pressure was put on by this Government?
Christopher Pincher
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), was there as part of our international trade obligations, to ensure that we build trade with our strategic partners, such as Brazil. I will be seeing the Brazilian ambassador tomorrow and making clear that we want to help Brazil with its difficulties in these terrible fires, but also that we want to trade with it, because that is a way of building its economy and ensuring that the sorts of fires that are currently raging are put out and stay out.
Hannah Bardell
Last week, both the Taoiseach and French President said that they will attempt to block the Mercosur trade agreement if Brazil does not honour its environmental commitments. Does the Minister agree that the burning of the Amazon is a human and environmental tragedy that requires a global solution and this is no time for fragile male egos or social media spats? What steps has he taken to ensure that such situations receive an urgent and immediate multilateral response now and in the future?
Christopher Pincher
I hope that the hon. Lady will not think that my response is in any way macho. My concern is to make sure that the trade with our two countries prospers and that the Mercosur arrangement succeeds. It will result in the removal of something like 91% of present tariffs. That can only be to the benefit of Brazilian farmers and to the benefit of the Brazilian economy. If we help to ensure that these sensible trade arrangements are made, those fires can be put out and they will stay out.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been suggested that changes to trade flows between the US and China may be fuelling some of the Amazon forest fires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all leading nations should be working together to stop that devastation? What conversations are taking place with other leading countries?
Christopher Pincher
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met other Foreign Ministers at Gymnich earlier in the week. He has made clear the concern that we have about those fires. He has also made absolutely clear the importance that we believe trade has to building economies in South America and in the far east, which encourages a better response to such tragedies.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Deforestation in the Amazon is indeed a catastrophe of global and generational proportions. We must of course do the right things about it and I very much welcome the pressure that the Minister has described, but is he not also aware of the fact that the deforestation of the Amazon has decreased quite considerably over the last 20 years, and that while it was very, very bad, it is very much less bad than it was; and equally that the level of decrease, therefore, in the size of the forest has been reduced? Does the Minister therefore agree that this is a domestic matter for the Brazilian Government and that we must persuade them to do the right thing, rather than confronting or berating them?
Christopher Pincher
I certainly think it is better to talk than to engage in megaphone hectoring. Deforestation has increased over the last few years. It has in fact been increasing in Brazil since 2015—some time before the present Government took office. I think it is right that we engage with them—that we try to persuade them to use sensible methods to reduce and stop this problem. It is an international concern, and that is why we have raised it, and will continue to raise it, with the Brazilian authorities.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I have spent some of the summer in the Ecuadorian rain forest —part of the same Amazon rain forest that we are talking about. What other countries have made representations to Brazil about the damage that it is doing to the world, not just to Brazil?
Christopher Pincher
The fires that are currently raging do not just affect Brazil; they also affect, for example, Bolivia. Bolivia is concerned about this, as is Venezuela, Peru and Colombia. So I think an international response is helpful. Certainly, those neighbouring countries that can help Brazil with its difficulties should be encouraged to do so.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The fires have affected 650 million acres of Amazon rain forest. In his answer just now, the Minister revealed that he did not understand that the problem with the Mercosur trade deal is that cutting beef tariffs incentivises destruction of the rain forest. What proposals will the Government be putting forward at the Chile conference on climate change in November?
Christopher Pincher
As the hon. Lady should know, high agricultural tariffs hurt the poorest. That will only encourage them to do the easy thing, which is to burn land, rather than to farm it sustainably and protect the rain forest. Mercosur is a sensible free trade agreement which should be encouraged, and I trust that in the fullness of time we also will undertake a free trade deal with Brazil—more details of that, I am sure, are to come.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
We are seriously concerned, and increasingly concerned, about the situation in Hong Kong. Of course we condemn any violence, but we absolutely support the right to peaceful and lawful protests on Hong Kong. The route to resolution through the current situation is via meaningful political dialogue, taken forward under the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong has under the model of one country and two systems.
Mr Sharma
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his position and congratulate him on taking up the role at a time of such calm. I asked his predecessor in June whether he would extend an invitation to any Hong Kong citizens at risk of persecution. Will the Secretary of State do his moral duty under the 1984 joint declaration?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman and respect the fact that he has a longstanding interest in this issue. Under the one country, two systems model, and its manifestation through the joint declaration signed by the UK and China, which has treaty status, we gave a range of residents in Hong Kong British national (overseas) status. The importance of that is that we do not want to unpick, at least at this time, one part of the one country, two systems model. If we do that, we risk its not being respected on the Chinese side.
Stephen Hammond
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. I was pleased to hear his comments about the UK Government’s steadfast support for the joint declaration and the one country, two systems principle. Will he make sure that we continue to reiterate that very strongly, because that is a mechanism for driving peace in the solution?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. I raised those issues with the Chinese Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi, on 31 July. I also spoke to the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, on 9 August. We support the one country, two systems model. It is important, as reflected in the joint declaration and the treaty-binding obligations that have been made, including to the people of Hong Kong—and including to respect the right of lawful and peaceful protest—that that is adhered to on all sides.
Gillian Keegan
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his position. The Hong Kong police recently made further arrests, including of a 12-year-old girl. Violence is escalating, with reports that police are now using live rounds in conjunction with tear gas and water cannons. What representations has he made to the Chinese Government to ensure that violence is met with a proportional police response and that minors caught up in the protest movement are adequately safeguarded?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. I have raised those issues with both the Chinese Foreign Minister and the Chief Executive. In relation to the conduct of the police, let us recognise some of the violence on the ground that they have to deal with, but in relation to disproportionate actions and overreactions it is very clear: the Independent Police Complaints Council is carrying out an inquiry. The point that I have made is that it has to be credible, and has to command the trust of the people of Hong Kong. That is what international observers will look to see.
Mr Dunne
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the Sino-British joint declaration and how he is using it to engage with his counterparts in China. Can he give the House any information on whether international forums can be used to support the case that we are making that China should uphold its obligations to the people of Hong Kong, with the one country, two systems approach?
Dominic Raab
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern. The route through this is to de-escalate the tensions and to respect the one country, two systems model. At the international level, more and more interlocutors are expressing their concern about this matter. It is not just an issue for the people of Hong Kong, or for us, given our historical relationship with China and Hong Kong; it is now an issue of widespread international concern.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on whether in his conversation with Ms Lam on 9 August he specifically raised the question of moving towards universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council members?
Dominic Raab
I talked to Ms Lam about our short-term concerns about violence and protecting internationally recognised human rights standards, which are of course, as the hon. Lady knows, reflected in the joint declaration. We also had an exchange of views about the fact that there are such widespread protests in Hong Kong that they cannot be put down to a small number who are engaged in violence. There needs to be meaningful political dialogue that touches on people’s deeper concerns about the autonomy of Hong Kong being respected.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)
The demonstrators have acted largely peacefully, but everyone in the House will have seen the footage of the police acting in an unjustified and extremely violent manner. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that the UK is not exporting crowd control equipment—water cannons, tear gas and so on—until that independent inquiry has been carried out and adequate safeguards have been put in place, and will he encourage our international partners to do the same?
Dominic Raab
This is something we are now discussing more and more with our international partners in all parts of the world. It is not just a European issue; transatlantically there are concerns, too. We have raised the issue, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of a disproportionate response. We also recognise that there has been violence. The answer and the solution is to reduce tensions and to respect the lawful and peaceful right of protest of the people of Hong Kong, but also to have moves and stepping stones towards the dialogue that will actually resolve the issue.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in this area and I respect the fact that he has huge expertise. It is not clear, in truth, what the position in Beijing is. Actually, if we look at all its public statements, we see that it sticks and adheres to the position of one country, two systems. That provides the model that can resolve this situation, but we need to have respect for the lawful right of protest. We need to have stepping stones to build confidence towards a track of political dialogue. That is the route through the current situation and to avoid it escalating any further.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Andrew Stephenson)
We are gravely concerned at the heavy-handed response to protests in Harare on 16 August and the recent arrest and abductions of Opposition figures. President Mnangagwa must hold to account those responsible for human rights violations. We have made our position clear to the Zimbabwe Government that UK support depends on fundamental political and economic reform. Zimbabwe must now translate its commitment into actions.
Sir Nicholas Soames
Does my hon. Friend agree that President Mnangagwa and his Administration have been a grave disappointment to this country and indeed to their own countrymen? Does he nevertheless also agree that the aid we give to Zimbabwe, particularly the DFID aid that goes into education, is absolutely vital and plays an extraordinarily good role in Zimbabwean education? Will he assure me that at the same time as keeping up the pressure on human rights and making absolutely clear our horror at the behaviour of President Mnangagwa and his gang of thugs, we will continue to support the education system in Zimbabwe?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The UK provided £94 million of aid to Zimbabwe in 2018-19. None of that money is channelled through the Zimbabwe Government. I reiterate the point that the UK’s ongoing support through our DFID work depends on fundamental political and economic reform in Zimbabwe.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that any semblance of the rule of law has now broken down in Zimbabwe? We saw that just last week when a peaceful protest was banned at the very last minute by Mnangagwa. What more are Her Majesty’s Government doing to get the Southern African Development Community and the African Union on board to make their views known about the appalling way that Mnangagwa is treating the people of Zimbabwe?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she has considerable expertise as the chairman of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. We are very concerned about the current human rights issues in that country. The violations, such as those seen in January and August 2019, have no place in a democratic society. We will continue to work with all international partners to ensure that those responsible are held to account.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
I have spoken to the Chief Minister, Mr Picardo, by phone on a number of occasions in the past month and I will speak to him again later this afternoon. We have regular ministerial contact, including through the Joint Ministerial Council with Gibraltar, which has met nine times since its formation three years ago. Ministers and officials across the Government are working closely with the Government of Gibraltar in preparation for Brexit. Gibraltar is and will remain a vital part of our family, whatever the shape of our exit from the EU on 31 October.
Robert Neill
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and his early engagement with Her Majesty’s Government over Gibraltar. Will he bear in mind and make it quite clear that we fully support Gibraltar politically and in practical terms as we leave the European Union? In particular, will he deal with the practical measures relating to the vast number of foodstuffs and the workforce that currently come across the border, which must be resolved before we leave?
Christopher Pincher
No one is more doughty in his championship of Gibraltar than my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his kind words. Let me assure him—as the Prime Minister has assured the Chief Minister—that the United Kingdom will protect Gibraltar’s interests as we leave the EU. From 1967 to 2002, at all points in between and since, we have said that Gibraltar is going to remain a vital part of our family. The Government of Gibraltar are responsible for their own contingency planning, but, as I have said, the UK Government regularly speak to and meet Ministers to ensure that their robust plans are in place.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister not aware that whether it is Gibraltar, Hong Kong or Zimbabwe, people are struggling for the rights that they thought they had and that they find common cause with people in the United Kingdom who are struggling to get the political rights that they thought they had in this country? Is it not about time that we showed as an example that we believe in parliamentary and political democracy in this House?
Christopher Pincher
That was quite a wide-ranging question. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman in this way: this Government are standing up for the rights of people—the 17.5 million people of our country who voted to leave the European Union—and respecting those that did not. We will make sure that we leave—no ifs, no buts—on 31 October.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What assurances has the Minister sought from the Spanish Government that they will respect Gibraltar’s territorial waters both before we leave and after?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We reject and object robustly to all incursions into Gibraltarian waters. I think that since the start of this year, there have been 499 such incursions and we have made 499 objections. He can be confirmed in his belief that we will support the people of Gibraltar.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Minister, I believe, supports a no-deal Brexit. How will the Minister assure the people of Gibraltar that there will be no disruption of the supply of goods, including food and medicine? News about delays of four hours at the border, resulting in huge economic loss, has leaked in the Yellowhammer document. If the Minister believes that the Yellowhammer document is outdated, what is the updated solution?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I do not support no deal; I want a deal with the European Union that works for Britain and for Gibraltar, but I am prepared to leave with no deal if we cannot get the deal that is good for us by 31 October. We engage regularly with the Spanish Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Borrell very recently about this matter. As I said, I engage regularly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. He assures me that Gibraltar is ready. We will make sure that Gibraltar is ready and that we continue the dialogue with the Spanish Government to ensure that there is a free flow of traffic, people and goods across the border after we leave.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Last week, I attended the Gymnich meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. I met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Cyprus and Finland. We discussed Brexit but also the wide range of international foreign policy issues on which we will continue to co-operate beyond 31 October, from Hong Kong to Iran.
Huw Merriman
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place. Will he confirm whether the 90-strong negotiation unit has been disbanded? If that is the case, with regard to our foreign resources and diplomats what more is being done across the EU27 member states for us to get a deal to leave the European Union?
Dominic Raab
We have actually strengthened and increased the resources in Brussels and across capitals to make sure we are going to the EU with a clear and reasonable ask, backed up by the commitment and resolve to leave at the end of October, and with the staff and personnel to navigate the nuances and explain our message very clearly to our EU friends.
Anna McMorrin
Does the Secretary of State agree that trust is critical to international diplomacy? If so, does he agree that by threatening a catastrophic no deal and non-payment of the EU divorce bill, instead of a global player on the world stage, he paints us as a dishonest and disreputable nation—much like his Prime Minister?
Dominic Raab
Let us agree on trust and the importance of being very clear with our international partners on both our reasonable ask and our commitment to leave the EU at the end of October. Trust with the voters of this country is also important. Both Labour and the Conservatives said they would respect the referendum, and on our side we are serious about fulfilling that promise.
Patrick Grady
Nobody voted to leave with no deal, and the very threat of no deal is leading the pound to tank to historic lows, which is nothing to be proud of. Is it not the case that if we crash out without a deal, as the Government seem to want, it will diminish the United Kingdom economically, culturally and diplomatically?
Dominic Raab
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views. I think he would say the same whatever the Government’s position. I would point him, for example, to the views set out on the BBC, on the “Today” programme, by Mervyn King, a former Governor of the Bank of England. He is not known to be in hock to the Tories or Brexit, but he said very clearly that we should get on with it, that the short-term risks were manageable and that there were also opportunities. That is the approach we take.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I will welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place—for now, of course. Has he discovered that, as well as being particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing, we are also reliant on good relations with our other European partners? What impact will no deal have on our relations, and will he reassure our partners that this Government still respect the rule of law?
Dominic Raab
Yes, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on all counts. As well as making the reasonable offer that replaces the backstop, which would allow us to get a deal that is acceptable to this country, we have made the point to our EU partners that we are willing to co-operate on all the no-deal planning and preparation to reduce the risk on all sides. Of course, however, that will require the EU to engage to the same level.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad the Foreign Secretary says he will respect the rule of law and any legislation passed in this place, but there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. He himself was among those who told us these deals would be really easy to sort out, and a no-deal Brexit, which he never mentioned, as Channel 4 found out, was never on the cards. So it is clear. Is he willing to do this damage to our relationships with our closest partners? The Prime Minister, the Brexiteers and the Foreign Secretary have no idea what they are doing.
Dominic Raab
It is the usual froth and frenzy from the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that no deal was debated on both sides, including by me, during the referendum—and it has been sourced—and that it was an in/out referendum. We remain committed to a deal with the EU, but the one thing that would undermine our prospects of getting a deal would be passing the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It would undermine our chances at this critical moment of the negotiations.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his position, and indeed his seemingly entirely new team—it is certainly position churn—and pay tribute to his predecessor, who served for 12 months with a concern and diligence that had been so sorely lacking for the previous two years. I hope the new Foreign Secretary will follow the right example.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the concern of people across the country with health conditions such as schizophrenia and epilepsy for whom, as the Yellowhammer leaks reveal, it will not be possible to stockpile medicines. They will be left exposed and at grave risk because of the shortages that will follow a no-deal Brexit. Can I ask him a simple question? Have the Government asked for legal advice on how coroners would be expected to record the deaths of anyone who loses their life after 31 October as a result of the entirely preventable medicine shortages?
Dominic Raab
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her generous welcome to the Dispatch Box. On no deal and medicines, the UK has a long-standing relationship with pharmaceutical companies, through the NHS, involving hundreds of vaccines and medicines, whereby we do stockpile, without any context of Brexit, but in the ordinary course of events. Both the Health Secretary and the head of the NHS have made it clear that the plans and arrangements are in place to make sure that people can receive their medication supplies in all circumstances. I am sure she will not want to engage in irresponsible scaremongering. It is very important that this be a fact-driven risk analysis.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but the truth is this: the whole point of the Yellowhammer leaks is that some essential medicines—the ones about which I am asking—cannot be stockpiled, which is why there is genuine concern for these individuals.
As a lawyer, the Secretary of State knows his case law as well I do. He will know that if dependent individuals are denied their medicine and die as a result, their cases may meet all the tests in the watershed cases of Jamieson, Khan and Staffordshire and justify a coroner’s finding that they died as a result of neglect. I will submit a freedom of information request today to obtain the advice that the Government have been given to that effect.
Is it not a shameful disgrace that, in 21st-century Britain, we are having to talk about people who are denied their medicine and about people having access to “adequate’” supplies of food—the Foreign Secretary’s own words—so that this shameless, shameful Government can play games of brinkmanship with Brussels and generate the pretext for a general election? This is no way in which to run a country.
Dominic Raab
Let me gently say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that what is shameful is to take a potentially vulnerable group in our society and scaremonger in such an appalling way. I think that she should listen to what the Health Secretary and Sir Simon Stevens have said and take into account the reassurances that medical supplies will be protected in any scenario.
Mr Speaker
I will allow the next question—on the grounds that extreme brevity is required.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)
No Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are currently scheduled to attend the exhibition. However, FCO officials will attend. The Export Control Joint Unit will be on hand advise companies on the United Kingdom’s export licensing procedures, which, as the right hon. Lady will know, are among the most rigorous in the world.
Ann Clwyd
I wish that that were true, but it is not.
I note that Saudi Arabia has been invited to the arms fair once again. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are now reviewing all current arms licences to Saudi Arabia following the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal, which instructed them to determine the likelihood of the use of that equipment in serious violation of international humanitarian law, given past violations?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. The UK Government have sought leave to appeal, and we have been granted it. We disagree—with respect—with the court in its determination and note the lower court’s determination that the process was “rigorous”, “robust” and “multi-layered”. The right hon. Lady will, I believe, understand that our processes in this country are among the most robust in the world. I am proud of them, and she should be, too, because of the Export Control Act 2002 and the statement made on 26 October 2000, which underpinned the licensing process that we have—under, of course, a previous Government.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since my appointment as Foreign Secretary, I have visited six countries and met 46 Foreign Ministers. In Helsinki last week, we discussed with our EU partners the middle east, cyber-threats and the challenges relating to Iran. In Thailand, Canada, the United States and Mexico, I have set out our vision for a global Britain as we leave the EU: strong, independent and a force for good in the world.
Mr Hepburn
What actions are the Government taking, both unilaterally and in partnership, to stop the Brazilian Government wiping out their indigenous peoples, as well as poisoning the world’s environment?
Dominic Raab
We recognise the concerns about the rain forest. I have spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, and the vice-president will be here soon. We will look into supporting Brazil by taking measures to ensure that the rain forests, which rightly attract international interest, are protected in a way that works for the world—[Interruption]—but also—I say this in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary—does not undermine the economy and the poorest people in Brazil.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Dominic Raab
We were given clear assurances that the oil and the tanker would not, in breach of sanctions, reach Syria and we expect those undertakings to be complied with. We want Iran to come in from the cold; the only way it can do that is by respecting the international rule of law, whether on freedom of navigation, the nuclear deal or indeed the treatment of our dual nationals.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Can the Minister of State tell me what clause in UN resolution 2216 provides for Saudi Arabia to bomb captive inmates in a Houthi-run prison in Yemen or for the United Arab Emirates to kill forces loyal to the President that their own coalition is supposed to be there to reinstall? If the answer is that there is none, is it not time for him to bring forward a new UN resolution to replace 2216, demanding an immediate ceasefire by all parties across the whole of the country of Yemen?
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison)
This country will always stand up for the rule of law in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia and throughout the middle east. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman understands that this country is the champion of international humanitarian law, especially in relation to Yemen, where he knows full well we are the pen holder. In my recent visit to the middle east, including to discuss Yemen, that came across loud and clear; I made it clear to my interlocutors that we will continue to hold them to account for activities in Yemen.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and will know that the 2016 London anti-corruption summit agreed new commitments on ownership transparency. He will also be aware of the leadership we have shown on things like beneficial ownership, unexplained wealth orders, the seizure of criminals’ money from bank accounts and new powers to tackle onshore and offshore tax evasion. The UK is absolutely at the forefront of tackling these things and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I totally share the hon. Lady’s concerns. We will be looking to ensure internationally respected human rights are respected; they have been raised in this Chamber already in relation to detention and mistreatment but also to communication blackouts. We will also be looking to see generally on all sides a de-escalation of tensions and positive measures to build up confidence; that is the only way this issue will be resolved and calmed down.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Dominic Raab
To be very specific on the understandable question my hon. Friend asks, we have added over 100 diplomats as well as 140 locally engaged staff across capitals as well as in Brussels, and I hope that shows the seriousness with which we are approaching negotiations to get a deal.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
We are committing £120 million to international climate finance, and on top of that we are committing £10 million extra. This all helps to avoid and stop deforestation; it helps the sustainable agriculture of Brazil.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Dominic Raab
The failures of the Maduro regime and of Hugo Chávez have led to what is probably the largest displacement of people in south American history. We need a peaceful transition to democracy through free and fair presidential elections. In the meantime, the UK is providing more than £14 million in aid, and £10 million of that will go to countries around Venezuela that are seeing an increase in Venezuelans fleeing the country.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that we will raise human rights issues wherever they lie, whether in relation to Iran, to China or to Zimbabwe. We will be unflinching in doing so, even with partners with which we want to have a positive relationship.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
One sentence each, please. There are lots of Members trying to get in.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary consider the early-day motion tabled by 25 parliamentarians today calling on our Government to seek agreement with other Commonwealth countries to offer Hong Kong citizens second citizenship and a place of abode? Could this be applied for as an agenda item at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?
Dominic Raab
As I have made clear to the House, we want to see the one country, two systems model respected. Under those arrangements, reflecting the joint declaration, we have committed to the British national (overseas) status and I think it is important, for now, to stick with that.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
In line with the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report, are the Government prepared and ready to impose sanctions on the perpetrators of freedom of religion or belief abuse?
The Minister for Africa (Andrew Stephenson)
I thank my hon. Friend for consistently raising this topic. As he will know, the Government have accepted all the recommendations in the report and work is under way to take them forward. We have established an implementation team and allocated £200,000 this year to look at concrete actions that the UK can take.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am pleased to have taken over consular services, which assist British nationals travelling, living and working overseas. I appreciate her expertise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this further.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
We need five more sitting days for parliamentary approval of the accession of the Republic of North Macedonia to NATO. Will this be achieved before the next slightly premature recess?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I think that it is probably one for the Leader of the House.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Natalie Jackson has not seen or had any contact from her son Dylan, who is 11, in more than a year because her ex-partner has not returned him home after a summer holiday in 2018. The High Court has made Dylan a ward of court and ordered his immediate return, but his return was denied by the Turkish courts. I have written to the Secretary of State about this. Please will he answer, and meet me urgently so that we can deliver Dylan back to his mother?
Christopher Pincher
Given the urgency of this matter, I will of course meet the hon. Lady.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reconfigures its global representation by beefing up embassies and opening other embassies post-Brexit, will my right hon. Friend undertake to conduct an audit into other Departments that are represented abroad to ensure that they are all brought under the ambassador or high commissioner in that country?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. He is absolutely right to stress that when we speak internationally, we do so with one voice.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
With climate change becoming increasingly evident and important, what progress has been made in tackling climate change through international co-operation?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are absolutely clear that a global Britain would pursue international issues such as climate change. We are seeking to host COP 26 in 2020, which shows the leadership that we intend to take in this area.
Mr Speaker
For one sentence—in hope, not expectation —I call Alistair Burt.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Following Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif’s visit to the G7 summit, will my right hon. Friend bring me up to date on what the United Kingdom is currently doing to try to ease tensions with Iran, bearing in mind that that may have provided an opportunity?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his expertise in this area. Our approach to Iran is simple: we want it to de-escalate tensions and to come in from the cold. The Iranians can do that by respecting internationally recognised rights for consular nationals, the nuclear deal and freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz.
NEW MEMBER
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
G7 Summit
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Before I begin my statement, I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering that this country entered the second world war 80 years ago today. It is of course true that the horror of that conflict surpasses all modern controversies. It is also true that this country still stands—then as now—for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the fight against racial and religious hatred, and I know that this whole House is united in defending those values around the world.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the G7 summit in Biarritz. As I speak, vast tracts of the Amazon rain forest are on fire, free trade is in retreat, 130 million girls worldwide are not in education and our oceans are being foully polluted, so it has never been more important for a global Britain to use our voice as an agent for change and progress. It is only by exerting our influence at a global level and only by sticking up for our values and beliefs that we can create the international context for Britain to prosper and to ensure that this is the greatest place on earth to live, work, start a family, open a business, trade and invest. So at the G7, I made the case for free trade as an engine of prosperity and progress that has lifted billions out of poverty, yet the reality is that trade, as a share of the world economy, has been stagnant for the last decade. In the leaders’ declaration, the G7 unanimously endorsed open and fair world trade and was determined to reform the World Trade Organisation and to reach agreement next year to simplify regulatory barriers.
Britain is on the verge of taking back control of our trade policy and restoring our independent seat in the WTO for the first time in 46 years. Our exports to the United States—[Interruption.] I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) all the best. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask the House to have some regard to how our proceedings are viewed by people outside the Chamber. I will always facilitate the expression of opinion by this House. [Interruption.] Order. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is making a statement. That statement should be heard, and he will be heard, as will every other Member. End of subject.
The Prime Minister
Britain is on the verge of taking back control of our trade policy, as I said. [Interruption.] On the verge. We could achieve even more in our trade with the United States by using the powers we will regain to do a comprehensive free trade deal—a deal in which both President Trump and I have agreed that the NHS is not on the table. Unlike some in the House, I consider the United States to be a natural ally and a force for good in the world, and I recoil from the visceral, juvenile anti-Americanism that would do such profound damage to this country’s interest.
I know the whole House will share my concern about the gravity of the situation in Hong Kong. As a nation with a deep belief in freedom of expression and assembly, we stand firm in upholding Hong Kong’s way of life, guaranteed by one country, two systems. I welcome the unwavering support of my G7 counterparts on this vital matter.
The UK is at the forefront of a new campaign to end the tragic loss of species around the world. We cannot bequeath a planet where the Sumatran tiger and the African elephant, and entire ecosystems like the great barrier reef, live in the shadow of destruction, so I am delighted that the G7 accepted UK proposals for more ambitious targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. Britain is responsible for 2.6 million square miles of ocean, the fifth largest marine estate in the world. Our blue belt programme will ensure that marine protected areas encompass 1.5 million square miles and, at the G7, I announced a further £7 million for this vital effort.
I also announced another £10 million to protect the rain forest in Brazil, where 41,000 fires have raged so far this year—more than twice as many as in the same period in 2018. Britain is bidding to host the UN’s 26th climate change conference next year. If we succeed, we shall focus on solutions that harness the power of nature, including reforestation. There is one measure that would address all those issues. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members think that is a waste of money, it tells us all we need to know about the modern Labour party.
One measure that will address all those issues is to ensure that every girl in the world receives the education that is her right. That would not only curb infant mortality, eradicate illiteracy and reduce population pressures but would strike a blow for morality and justice. In Biarritz, the G7 therefore endorsed the UK’s campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and I announced £90 million of new funding so that 600,000 children in countries torn by conflict, where girls are twice as likely as boys to be out of the classroom, get the chance to go to school.
As well as my G7 colleagues, I was delighted to meet other leaders, including President Ramaphosa of South Africa, Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Morrison of Australia, who, heroically, masked his emotions in the face of the historic innings of Ben Stokes. In every conversation, I was struck by the enthusiasm of my colleagues to strengthen their relations with this country, whether on trade, security and defence, or science and technology. I was also able to use the G7 to follow up my conversations in Berlin and Paris with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron on Brexit, as well as with Prime Minister Conte, Prime Minister Sánchez and President Tusk. I have since spoken to Commission President Juncker and many other leaders. I was able to make it clear to them all that everyone in this Government wants a deal. [Interruption.] We do. We do. But it is a reality that the House of Commons has rejected the current withdrawal agreement three times, and it simply cannot be resurrected. [Interruption.] And that is why I wrote to President Tusk—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Sheerman, I look to you as a senior and distinguished elder statesman in the House to set an example of good behaviour, analogous to the Buddha-like calm of the Father of the House, which is exhibited at all times.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That is why I wrote to President Tusk on 19 August to set out our arguments why any future agreement must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop— [Interruption]—which, by the way, is opposed on all sides of the House. We have also been clear that we will need changes to the political declaration, to clarify that our future relationship with the EU will be based on a free trade agreement and giving us full control over our regulations, our trade, and our foreign and defence policy. This clarity has brought benefits; far from jeopardising negotiations, it is making them more straight- forward.
In the last few weeks, I believe that the chances of a deal have risen. This week, we are intensifying the pace of meetings in Brussels. Our European friends can see that we want an agreement and they are beginning to reflect that reality in their response. President Macron said—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, Opposition Members don’t want to hear the words of our counterparts across the channel. They don’t want to hear about any progress that we might be making. [Interruption.] They don’t. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I have never had any difficulty hearing the Prime Minister, but if it is necessary for him to speak up, I am certain that he will overcome his natural shyness in order to do so.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I think they are wilfully closing their ears to the reality that our friends and partners are increasingly seeing the possibilities of an agreement. Again, I quote President Macron of France, who said:
“If there are things which, as part of what was negotiated by Michel Barnier, can be adapted and are in keeping with the two objectives I’ve…mentioned, stability in Ireland”—
which we all support—
“and the integrity of the single market—we should identify them in the coming months.”
Is that the negative spirit of those on the Opposition Benches? No, it is not. And speaking in Berlin of possible alternatives to the backstop, Chancellor Merkel of Germany said:
“Once we see and say this could be a possible outcome, this could be a possible arrangement, this backstop as a sort of placeholder is no longer necessary.”
That is a positive spirit, which we are not, I am afraid, hearing echoed on the other side of the House today. I believe there are indeed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are fleeing already. There are indeed solutions—they don’t want to hear about solutions. They don’t want to hear about any of them. There are practical arrangements that we can find which avoid anyone putting infrastructure on the Irish border—I say that to the departing back of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and he knows it well. These have been well worked out and involve measures such as trusted trader schemes, transit provisions, frontier zones, reduced bureaucracy for small and local traders, and many others.
In particular, we recognise—[Interruption.] I advise Opposition Members to pay attention to what is being said. We recognise that for reasons of geography and economics, agri-food is increasingly managed on a common basis across the island of Ireland. We are ready to find a way forward that recognises this reality, provided that it clearly enjoys the consent of all parties and institutions with an interest. We will discuss that with the EU shortly, and I will discuss it with the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, when I see him in Dublin on Monday.
It is simply wrong to say that we are not making progress. There is a lot to do in the coming days, but things are moving. A major reason for that is that everyone can see that this Government are utterly determined to leave the EU on 31 October, come what may, without a deal if necessary. That is why over the summer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been leading the Government’s efforts, seven days a week, to accelerate our national preparations for that possibility. He will make a statement on that subject shortly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made all the necessary funds available. We have already reached agreements with our partners to roll over trade deals worth around £89 billion of exports and imports. We have secured air services agreements around the world. We have increased the capacity of our Border Force, strengthened the resilience of our ports, bolstered our freight capacity and worked in meticulous detail to ensure the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, including medicines. We will be ready.
I returned from the G7 with real momentum in the Brexit discussions. I want to return from next month’s European Council in a similar way, with a deal that this House can debate, scrutinise and endorse in time for our departure on 31 October. But there is one step that would jeopardise all the progress that we have made in the G7 and around the capitals of Europe, and that is if this House were to decide that it was simply impossible for us to leave without a deal and to make that step illegal. [Interruption.] That is what they want—to undermine our negotiations; to force us to beg for yet another pointless delay. If that happens, all the progress we have been making will have been for nothing.
Yesterday, a Bill was published—a Bill that the Leader of the Opposition has spent all summer working on. It is not a Bill in any normal sense of the word: it is without precedent in our history. It is a Bill that, if passed, would force me to go to Brussels and beg for an extension. It would force me to accept the terms offered. It would destroy any chance of negotiation for a new deal. It would destroy it. Indeed, it would enable our friends in Brussels to dictate the terms of the negotiation. That is what it would do. There is only one way to describe the Bill: it is Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender Bill. That is what it is. It means running up the white flag—the Bill is shameful. I want to make it clear to everybody in this House: there are no circumstances in which I will ever accept anything like it. I will never surrender the control of our negotiations in the way that the Leader of the Opposition is demanding. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. People must not keep ranting from a sedentary position. However long it takes, the statement will be heard and the response to it will be heard. That is the reality and nothing can gainsay it.
The Prime Minister
We promised the people that we would get Brexit done. We promised to respect the result of the referendum, and we must do so now. Enough is enough. The country wants this done and it wants the referendum respected. We are negotiating a deal, and though I am confident of getting a deal, we will leave by 31 October in all circumstances. There will be no further pointless delay. This House has never before voted to force the Prime Minister to surrender such a crucial decision to the discretion of our friends and neighbours overseas. What this Bill would mean is that, unless we agreed to the terms of our friends and partners, they would be able to keep us in the EU for as long as they want and on their terms. I therefore urge this House to reject the Bill tonight, so that we can get the right deal for our country, deliver Brexit and take the whole country forward. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no vote on a Bill tonight. There is a vote on a motion, and if that motion is successful there will be a Bill tomorrow. [Interruption.] Order. I say this simply because the intelligibility of our proceedings to those observing them is important, and I am sure that everybody from all parts of the House will recognise that fundamental truth.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join with him in recognising the great human suffering of world war two and the great human bravery that took place during that awful conflict that began 80 years ago, which was essential in defeating the disgusting ideology of the Nazis and of fascism at that time.
The Prime Minister met EU leaders over the summer and EU Council President Tusk at the G7 summit. After those meetings, the Prime Minister struck an optimistic note, saying that the chances of a deal were, in his words, “improving”. His optimism was not shared by those who had been at the same meetings. The Prime Minister may claim that progress is being made, but EU leaders report that the Government have so far failed to present any new proposals. Can the Prime Minister clear this up? Can he tell us whether the UK has put forward any new proposal in relation to the backstop? If it has, will he publish them so that these proposals can be scrutinised by Parliament and by the public?
It is becoming increasingly clear that this reckless Government have only one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal. The reality is exposed today in the in-house journal of the Conservative party—otherwise known as The Daily Telegraph—which reports that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has called the negotiations “a sham”, that the strategy is to “run down the clock” and that the proposal to alter the backstop is “a complete fantasy”—and those are the words of the Attorney General.
No deal will mean food shortages, reduced medical supplies and chaos at our ports. It is not me saying that; it is the Government’s own leaked analysis that says that, and it warns of chaos across the board. Today, we had expected the publication of the Government’s no- deal preparations. The Government are hiding from scrutiny and hiding from the people and they are trying to hide us from their true intentions. This is not just a Government in chaos, but a Government of cowardice. Thankfully, some in Whitehall are putting those vital documents into the public domain, but we should not have to rely on sporadic leaks. Will the Prime Minister set out today when these documents will be published so that the people and Parliament can scrutinise and debate them? Many on the Government Benches would relish a no-deal outcome. They see it as an opportunity to open up Britain to a one-sided trade deal that puts us at the mercy of Donald Trump and United States corporations and that will increase the wealth of a few at the expense of the many.
When it comes to the crunch, too many on the Government Benches who once opposed a no-deal outcome are now putting their own careers before the good of the people of this country. Just look at all those Tory leadership candidates who said that it would be wrong to suspend Parliament in order to make no deal more likely, but who sit passively as their principles of just a few short weeks ago are cast aside—I do not know what they were doing over their summer holidays, but something has changed. And it gets worse, because not only have they all stood by while the Prime Minister launches his latest attack on democracy, but some have repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility of the Government ignoring any law passed by Parliament that attempts to stop a no-deal Brexit. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity, when he responds in a moment, to assure the country that his Government will abide by any legislation passed by Parliament this week?
The attack on our democracy in order to force through a disastrous no-deal Brexit is unprecedented, anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Labour will do all we can to protect our industry, protect our democracy and protect our people against this dangerous and reckless Government.
I condemn the rhetoric that the Prime Minister used when he talked about a “surrender Bill”. I really hope that he will reflect on his use of language. We are not surrendering because we are at war with Europe; they are surely our partners. If anything, it is a no-deal exit that would mean surrendering our industry, our jobs, and our standards and protections in a trade deal with Donald Trump and the United States.
The UK should be using its position in the G7 to promote policies to tackle the climate emergency. The climate emergency is real, but instead of standing up to President Trump, it was in fact agreed this time, to save his blushes, that there would be no joint communiqué on this at the G7. That is not leadership; that is fiddling while the Amazon burns. The situation across the Amazon should be a wake-up call to the Prime Minister, who once described global warming as a “primitive fear…without foundation”. As we watch fires rage, and not only across the Amazon but in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, does he stand by those sentiments?
While funds to protect and restore the Amazon rain forest are welcome, the Prime Minister knows that this is merely a drop in the ocean, so will more money be pledged for the Amazon, and are additional funds being made available to tackle fires in sub-Saharan Africa? Will he be introducing measures to stop UK companies aiding, abetting and profiting from the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, and indeed rain forests in west Africa? On 1 May, the UK Parliament became the first state Parliament anywhere in the world to declare a climate emergency, and I was proud to move that motion. We must continue to show global leadership on the issue.
On Iran, it is notable that the Prime Minister fails to condemn President Trump’s unilateral decision to tear up the internationally agreed Iran nuclear deal, creating a crisis that now risks a slide into even deeper conflict. Does the Prime Minister plan to work with European partners to restore the Iran nuclear deal and de-escalate tensions in the Gulf? We are clear that in government Labour would work tirelessly through the UN for a negotiated reinstatement of the nuclear deal and to defuse the threat of war in the Gulf. Effective diplomacy, not threats and bluster, must prevail. Will he call on the Iranian authorities to end the unjust detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and what actions has he taken so far to ensure her release from the terrible situation that she has been plunged into?
We are all concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. No Government anywhere should get to shut down rights and freedoms, or to pick and choose which laws they adhere to. Will the Prime Minister urge the Chinese Government to stick to the joint declaration of 1984 and stand up for the rights of citizens in Hong Kong?
Later today, this House has a last chance to stop this Government riding roughshod over constitutional and democratic rights in this country, so that a cabal in Downing Street cannot crash us out without a deal, without any democratic mandate and against the majority of public opinion. The Prime Minister is not winning friends in Europe; he is losing friends at home. His is a Government with no mandate, no morals and—as of today—no majority.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this country has engaged actively with our European friends and partners to make sense of the Iran nuclear deal and to ensure that that deal continues. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to work actively not only to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but on all the very sad consular cases that we are currently dealing with in Iran. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the work of all his officials.
I am glad for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of preserving democracy in Hong Kong, and he will observe the strength of the G7 statement on that matter. But quite frankly, when it comes to the Bill that he is assisting to bring forward tomorrow, with the procedure that is coming forward tonight, let us be in no doubt that this man is a former Bennite. In fact, I believe that he is still a Bennite. He voted against every single piece of EU legislation. He voted against Maastricht. He voted against Lisbon. Time and time and time again, he has said that we must uphold the result of the EU referendum. Time and time again, he has said that he is on the side of democracy and vindicating the will of the people. And what do we see now? He has been converted—with his hordes of Momentum activists trying to take over the streets—into the agent of those who would subvert democracy and overturn the will of the people. That is what he wants to do. He wants to entrust the decision about how long this country remains in the European Union to our friends and partners in Brussels, and not to this House. That is not democracy.
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, inadvertently or not, has become the agent of further delay, further confusion and further uncertainty for business in this country and abroad. That is what he is prescribing. That is what he stands for. That is the result of his policy. I urge everybody on all sides of the House not to support his approach. Let us go forward, and not back with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s extraordinary knockabout performance today merely confirms his obvious strategy, which is to set conditions that make no deal inevitable, to make sure that as much blame as possible is attached to the EU and to this House for that consequence, and then—as quickly as he can—to fight a flag-waving general election before the consequences of no deal become too obvious to the public. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would let me know whether that clear explanation of his policy is one that he entirely accepts. Does he also accept that if he gets his way and gets no deal, we will then have to begin years of negotiations with the Europeans and the rest of the world about getting new trade, security and other arrangements in force? Does he seriously think that this approach will obtain from any other country in the world a free trade arrangement that is half as good as the Common Market that Conservative Governments have helped to put together over the years?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a keen fan and a lifelong fan of —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say in response to the question, and that response must be heard.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Father of the House knows, I am a long-standing admirer of his. Indeed, I was the only member of the 2001 intake to vote for my right hon. and learned Friend as leader of the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I was—a fact that I do not think he much thanked me for at the time. I have long been a fan of his, and indeed in many ways we are ad idem in our views. I agree with him—I do not want an election. We do not want an election. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition wants an election, by the way, as far as I can make it out. We do not want an election; we want to get the deal done, and the best way to get a deal is to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
My goodness—this is the second time the Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box, and this must be the shortest-lived honeymoon in parliamentary history; you simply have to look around his Benches. He may say that he does not want an election, and his colleagues certainly do not want one, but I will let him into a secret: we do, because we want the people of Scotland to be able to have their say on this shambolic Government. The Leader of the House talks about the strategy of the Prime Minister. We hear use of the words “collaborators” and “surrender”; the Prime Minister really should have some dignity and show some respect for the office he —temporarily—holds.
Of course, one of the most remarkable things that took place during the statement was to see the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) cross the Floor. Prime Minister: you have lost your majority.
Over the weekend, we saw commemorations across the world to mark the 80th anniversary of the second world war, when brave citizens came together and stood together against tyranny. My thoughts and those of my party are with those who suffered, the veterans and their families. We should also recognise that the European Union is the legacy of two world wars that had ripped Europe apart. The European Union has been an important vehicle for peace and stability in Europe.
Turning to the G7 summit, I wish to express my shared concern at the unrest in Hong Kong. I also associate myself with the actions on climate change and on protecting the Amazon rain forest. But I take issue with President Trump’s comments in relation to Russia. It is not acceptable to condone Russia’s military and cyber aggression around the world. Furthermore, while the summit declared its support for progress in Ukraine, the President of the United States failed to challenge Russia’s violation of international law in Ukraine—another utterly disgraceful lack of leadership from the President of the United States.
Following the summit, the Prime Minister displayed his own lack of leadership by moving to prorogue Parliament and strip power away from elected representatives—closing down Parliament by sending three Privy Counsellors to instruct the Queen to sanction the closure of Parliament. Three Privy Counsellors acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament: where is the democracy in that? While he can dance around and profess to speak for the people, we all know the truth—he is in fact doing the opposite. By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister is robbing the people of power; robbing them of a say over their future.
In true Trumpian style, the Prime Minister is acting more like a tinpot dictator than a democrat. He talks of the will of the people—but what about the will of the people of Scotland? Prime Minister, the Scottish people did not vote for Brexit. The people of Scotland did not vote for a no-deal Brexit. They did not vote for the Tory party and they certainly did not vote for this Prime Minister. The people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly against the Tory party and this Government. The people of Scotland made their choice, and they chose that the SNP should be their voice. So I ask the Prime Minister: are you a democrat, or not; do you respect the will of the Scottish people, or not? Will you, Prime Minister, if you believe yourself not to be the latter, then give the people back their say: allow Parliament to have its say; respect the will of Parliament in stopping a no-deal Brexit—a no-deal Brexit that would be devastating for jobs and communities?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the US’s attitude towards Russia. May I gently remind him that, when it came to the Skripal poisonings in Salisbury, the United States expelled 60 diplomats in support of the UK, in solidarity with the UK and to show their revulsion at Russian behaviour? As for whether or not it is right to have a Queen’s Speech, the Opposition have been calling for a Queen’s Speech just about every week—finally they get one, and they protest.
On the EU, it remains the policy of the Scottish nationalist party once we have come out of the European Union on 31 October—it is their avowed policy; they are inevitably committed to this by logic—to go back into the EU. That is what they say they want to do if they were to achieve independence: to submit to the whole panoply of EU law, to scrap the pound in favour of some unknown currency hitherto unbaptised—the Salmond, the Sturgeon or whatever it happens to be—and, above all, to hand back control of Scotland’s fisheries to the EU, just as they have been reclaimed by this country. What an extraordinary policy!
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, from 1 November, it will be the UK Government and authorities in control of our ports such as Dover? Will he confirm that it will be the Government’s policy to ensure the smooth transit of food, pharmaceuticals and other goods into our country, as today, so that there will not be shortages?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm that that is exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and others have been preparing for months and that those measures are now well in train.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister has lost his majority, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) joining the Liberal Democrats. Doctors like him tell me that they want to stop Brexit because it will plunge our NHS into deep crisis, haemorrhaging vital staff and threatening access to life-saving medicines. When will the Prime Minister stop playing with people’s lives and stop Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Lady has given me occasion to remind the House that there are now in fact 700 more doctors in the NHS since the vote to leave the EU. Just in the last six weeks, we have been able to announce another £1.8 billion going to 20 new hospital upgrades around the country, in addition to the £34 billion extra that the Conservative Government are putting into the NHS. I am grateful to her for allowing me to point that out.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has assured me that he is very keen to get a deal with the European Union, but last Friday Chancellor Merkel of Germany observed somewhat acerbically that nine days into the 30 days that the Prime Minister had requested during his visit to Berlin, she had not yet seen any proposals from the United Kingdom. Could the Prime Minister now make a commitment to publish this afternoon the UK’s proposals, so that those of us who are considering what to do later today can have had the benefit of seeing them? Will he further commit to transmitting those proposals without delay to the European Union?
The Prime Minister
Actually, as I told my right hon. Friend this morning, Chancellor Merkel was making an elementary point, which is that we could easily do a deal within 30 days, and we certainly shall. What she also said is that there is no point—[Interruption.] What my friends across the EU have said is that there is no point in having a negotiation or beginning formal talks as long as there is a risk that Parliament will make that negotiation impossible by taking away the ability of this country to negotiate. So every time we set out ideas, the first thing they ask is what Parliament will do.
So I urge my friends tonight, I urge colleagues tonight, to give us the leeway to get the deal that we need. It is very, very clear: the outlines of the deal that can be done are very clear. If Members had been listening earlier, they would have heard in my statement the rough shape of what that deal can be, both in getting the alternative arrangements and in solving the problems of the Irish backstop. I am afraid that, by their actions—I must regretfully say this to the House—they are making that deal less likely. We are working flat out to secure it, but the measures, if passed tonight, would make our prospects of success much less likely.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is not just Chancellor Merkel who has confirmed that no substantive proposals have been put forward. Last weekend, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister said that
“nothing credible has come from the British government”
on alternatives to the backstop. It is also reported that the Attorney General told the Prime Minister at the beginning of August that, if he insisted on the removal of the backstop, it would inevitably result in no deal. Is that true? If it is true, can the Prime Minister try to persuade the House why it is credible to argue that progress is being made in the negotiations, because a growing number of Members have come to the conclusion that what he really wants is a no-deal Brexit, and that is why many of us will try, over the next two days, to prevent that from happening—in the national interest.
The Prime Minister
The sad truth is that there are many Members in this House, I am afraid including the right hon. Gentleman, who simply want to block Brexit. That is the truth. That is the reality, and they are using the discussion of a so-called no-deal Brexit to conceal their real intentions. By their measures tonight and tomorrow, they would be fatally undermining this Government’s ability to negotiate a deal. That is the reality.
We can get a deal. We can remove the backstop. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what this country needs to do, because it is agreed on all sides of the House. The problem with the withdrawal agreement is not just the political declaration; it is the backstop. That makes agreement impossible on both sides of the House. But as long as this House is proposing motions such as the ones tonight and tomorrow, I am afraid we have no chance of getting progress from our EU friends.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend had about the green climate change fund and what progress has been made? Will he give us an update?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are indeed, as I said at the G7—if my memory serves me correctly, we are making a contribution of another £1.4 billion to the green climate fund and it is a high priority of this Government.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the backstop because he knows, as the entire House knows, that that is one of the fundamental reasons why the withdrawal agreement could not get through this House. Not only is it anti-democratic in the sense that laws would be made for the economy of Northern Ireland and nobody in Belfast or London would have any say at all in the making of them, or even ask questions about them, but it is contrary to the principles that people say they believe in, in the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement, which requires the consent of both communities, and no member of any Unionist party in Northern Ireland supports the backstop.
I also welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a deal, because we are committed to getting a deal—a good deal for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. When he meets the Irish Prime Minister on Monday, which I welcome, can he convey to the Prime Minister, as we have tried to convey to him, that it would be entirely sensible and reasonable for him to sit down with us, and other representatives of Unionists in Northern Ireland, for direct discussions, which would be very helpful in the current atmosphere, but which the Irish Government have consistently—amazingly—refused to do, while at the same time preaching to others about the need for conciliation and movement and progress? So I appeal to the Prime Minister, on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland, to try to get some momentum into the discussions between the Irish Republic and Unionists in Northern Ireland on this vital issue.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He perfectly understands the issues, and knows that he and I are at one in seeking to get rid of the backstop. I believe that we can get rid of the backstop, and we can—[Hon. Members: “How?”] You see—they do not want to. They do not want to do it. We can make progress, but not if we take away the possibility of no deal, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to do, and not if we give the power infinitely to extend UK membership of the EU to Brussels, which is what his Bill would do.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that when the House of Commons debated the European Union Referendum Act 2015, it was passed by a majority of six to one and that, when the House debated the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, it was passed four to one by this House? What does he think a further three or six-month delay would achieve, other than betraying those people and those votes that we have already had?
The Prime Minister
I passionately agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said. I ask all those thinking tonight and tomorrow of voting to extend again, beyond 31 October, exactly what they are seeking to do in that interval and what the purpose of that extension would be. Believe me: the people of this country want to get on with it and want to come out.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am sure completely inadvertently the Prime Minister failed to answer a question that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to him earlier: if a Bill passes that makes it illegal to leave without a deal, will he and his Government abide by the rule of law?
The Prime Minister
We will of course uphold the constitution and obey the law.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given the huge amount of political repression going on in Russia at the moment, does my right hon. Friend agree with President Trump that now is the right time to bring Russia back into the G7?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is good to hear the Prime Minister say that he will uphold the constitution and the rule of law, because of course it is essential that the United Kingdom upholds the rule of law for effective working with the G7 in future. Will he give the House his word that he and his Government will respect legislation passed by this House and decisions made by the two legal jurisdictions in this Union—the jurisdiction in Scotland and the jurisdiction in England?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. and learned Lady to the answer that I gave just a moment ago.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm his determination to keep up the pressure on Russia, which continues to illegally occupy Crimea, and whose involvement in the occupied territories in east Ukraine led to further deaths this weekend? I strongly welcome his statement at the Dispatch Box that he agrees that it is not appropriate for Russia to rejoin the G7. Will he continue to give every support to the newly elected President Zelensky and the members of the Ukrainian Parliament?
The Prime Minister
I know the great interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in Ukraine and the fortunes of that wonderful country. I assure him that President Zelensky rang me before the G7 particularly to insist on his continued concerns about the Russian activities. I am sure that those concerns are shared across the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
In the Prime Minister’s answer to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he referred only to the “rough shape” of an alternative deal. Does he have any detailed proposals, and can he confirm that he has not sent any detailed proposals to the EU?
The Prime Minister
We have been in extensive talks. As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, it does not make sense to negotiate in public, but it has been clear from what I have said already that the backstop is unacceptable and so is the political declaration as currently written. We have detailed proposals of how to address both issues and we are making progress. I say respectfully to friends on both sides of the House that now is the time to allow UK negotiators to get on with their job.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s discussions with the German Chancellor and the French President, was there discussion on the need for compromise? After all, the issue of the backstop is resolvable with compromise on all sides and there are many people in this House—moderate Brexiteers and remainers—who want to compromise. When it comes to a solution, if the EU will not change the deal and if this House will not pass the present deal, will the Prime Minister reflect on the Vienna convention and the conditional unilateral declaration, which would allow us to unilaterally state our determination to exit from the backstop?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has pursued this line of thinking for many months. I must say that I think there is a better and more elegant way of doing this. We can excise the offending bits of the treaty. We can make a great deal of progress. We can have a new treaty. It will be a vast improvement. I think that Opposition Members should look forward to that and should be encouraging and supportive of this Government’s efforts in getting us out of the EU in a way that they voted for time and time and time again.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister insists the UK will be ready for no deal, while at the same time duplicitously using threat to force the European Union to cave in to his non-existent alternative arrangements. Will he admit that a no-deal scenario would be catastrophic, or will he continue to face both ways—deceive the public and use no deal for his own electoral gain?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I do not agree with what the right hon. Lady said about no deal. As I said on the steps of Downing Street, I think there will be bumps on the road, but this is a very great country and a very great economy, and we will get it done. I am afraid that the most fatal thing to getting a deal is for this country to show that it is so apprehensive about coming out on other terms as to accept anything that the EU prescribes. That is, I am afraid, the course down which the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is beckoning us to go. That would be a disaster.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement at the G7 to give more money to Education Cannot Wait and the leadership he has consistently shown on the importance of girls’ education around the world. Will he commit to continuing to champion this cause and seek for more of our aid budget to be spent on global education?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for everything she has done, both on the development front and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to champion female education around the world. I believe that 12 years of quality education is the single most effective policy for solving most of the ills of the world.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has made a number of wild and unsubstantiated claims about the negotiations. Can I ask him directly: did the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, Frost, in a Tuesday 27 August EU sub-committee meeting, link the rationale for talks with the EU article 50 taskforce to “domestic political handling reasons”? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I do not comment on leaks. Even if I did, I have got no idea, quite frankly. I think it is highly unlikely.
Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that many of us are concerned that we are currently on course to leave the European Union without a deal on 31 October and that we will not have time to negotiate and legislate for a new deal. Those concerns were not allayed by reports in The Daily Telegraph this morning that suggested that it was stated in a strategy meeting on 29 July that the Government were going to run down the clock. Nor are our concerns allayed by the suggestion that the Attorney General, on 1 August, said that removing the backstop altogether would mean that we would not be able to reach a deal. Are those reports accurate?
The Prime Minister
I do not comment on leaks—[Interruption.] Even in pages as hallowed as the ones described. What I can tell my right hon. Friend—he asked me exactly the same question this morning—is that we are working for a deal, and I believe that we will get a deal. It should be a deal that I think everybody in this House would want to support and that, above all, their constituents would want to support. They want and we want this business to be over and for us to leave the EU on 31 October.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), will the Prime Minister confirm that Dominic Cummings described the renegotiations as a “sham”? Will he also tell the House—a simple yes or no will do—whether it is true that he rang the editor of The Daily Telegraph and remonstrated with him about those reports, of which we have all now heard? Yes or no, Prime Minister—did you ring him up?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but I do not comment on leaks. As I say, I saw the story on the front of the Telegraph this morning. It seemed to me wholly implausible, but—I can happily answer her question on that—I have not seen fit to ring any journalist today on any matter, because as you can imagine, I have been working flat out to get out of the EU on 31 October.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
When it comes to alternative arrangements to the backstop, the commission that I co-chair is making real progress. Yesterday, we published a revised withdrawal agreement and a political declaration. We are hosting a conference in Dundalk next week, bringing together parliamentarians from across these islands. I thank the Prime Minister for the meetings that I have had with his team and I assure him that our proposals are in very good shape going forward.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the fantastic work that he has done with many colleagues to prepare for the alternative arrangements that really do hold out the prospect of a solution to the problem of the Northern Irish border—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would care to study the report, he might elucidate himself on that matter. There are a number of proposals that have been made, and indeed, many others, that hold out real hope of progress, but those are not the only areas in which we are making progress. There are several areas in which we are now discussing how the UK can retire whole and perfect from the EU while retaining the integrity of the market in Ireland. That is a hard thing to achieve, but it can be done.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I apologise to the Prime Minister because I did explode a little when he said something about loyalty and I thought about the loyalty that was sometimes deficient when we had a different Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). My apologies for that, but the one thing that I really welcome out of the G7 statement he made is what he said about girls’ education. My daughter was a special adviser to a former Foreign Secretary. Will he tell me whether it is right that a special adviser could be treated like the young woman was in No. 10—to be sacked on the spot and marched out of No. 10 by an armed police officer? Is that the way to treat women in work, or is it not?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gives to our campaign and the UK cause of 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and indeed, I thank members of his family for what they have done to support that campaign. On staffing matters, I will not comment, as he would expect.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal at all, but will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that of the top 10 of the EU’s trading partners, half trade on WTO no-deal terms? Will he therefore continue to put to the sword this ludicrous suggestion that Britain would be incapable of trading on such terms? We would prosper.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right. There is a huge opportunity for the UK to recover its standing, which it used to have before 1973, as a great individual actor and campaigner for global free trade. That is what we are going to do, not just with a great free trade deal with our EU friends, which of course will be the centrepiece of our negotiations, but with free trade deals around the world.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Ten million pounds to protect the rain forest is welcome, but far more effective would be to stand up to President Bolsonaro, who is deliberately accelerating and encouraging these fires to open up more of the Amazon, threatening indigenous communities and accelerating the climate crisis. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and refuse any future trading arrangements with Brazil unless and until high environmental and human rights standards are properly and fully enforced?
The Prime Minister
I would be reluctant to encourage any measure now that did anything to reduce free trade around the world. It would be much better to support the reforestation of Brazil in the way we are. We have a campaign to plant 1 trillion trees.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As the Prime Minister knows, my constituents are passionately pro-deal, and I think he is too; in fact I know he is—he has told me that personally and he has told the House many times. But can I bust one of the most dishonest myths of all, which is that one cannot respect the referendum result and be in favour of leaving with a deal? That is where I and, I think, all my constituents are. The Prime Minister has said today that the chances of a deal have increased and that things are moving. What evidence of progress can he put before the House before the vote this week? It could be critical to where people such as me go.
The Prime Minister
I would just make one point: before we began our efforts, it was common ground with the EU27 that every dot and comma of the withdrawal agreement was immutable and could not be changed, but that is no longer the case. We are already shifting them, in Ireland, in Berlin and in France. Progress is being made, and now is not the time to slacken that work.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Ruth Davidson walked last week, the Prime Minister’s majority in this place has gone this week, and he might even expel his hero Churchill’s grandson from his own party. I do not care what he does to his own party, but I take exception to the impact of his policy on Scotland. Would Scots not be better to vote for independence so as to maintain our place in the EU?
The Prime Minister
Scots did not swallow that argument in 2014—[Interruption.] No, they rejected it by a thumping majority. They could see that they were better off together with the rest of the UK, and so it remains.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing we hear about in this place is the democratic will of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU? Make no mistake: the motion, if passed tonight, and the Bill on Wednesday would mean nothing less than revocation of article 50, because they would bind his hands to the point that we would never ever be able to leave?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am afraid that too many people who want to vote for the motions tonight and tomorrow really seek to frustrate the will of the people and to overturn and cancel the result of the referendum.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity at the G7 to discuss the steel industry? I ask this on behalf of the 380 employees of Cogent Orb in Newport who yesterday received the devastating news that Tata is to close its plant. It is tragic for them, and tragic as it is the only plant in the UK that produces electrical steel that could, with Government encouragement, be a part of the supply chain for electric vehicles.
The Prime Minister
A huge amount of work is going on at the moment in respect of the Tata investments. The hon. Lady will have seen what was achieved recently with British Steel in Scunthorpe and Skinningrove. I thank my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary for that, and indeed the previous Business Secretary for his work in getting the deal done. We will indeed ensure that British steel—UK steel—is used in the supply chain for electric vehicles.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Canada is in the Commonwealth, and is a close friend, ally and defence to trade. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the nature of his discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Biarritz?
The Prime Minister
My discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau were extremely friendly. We look forward to rolling over the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—the free trade deal—with Canada and taking our relations to new heights.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Once again we have heard bluff and bluster from the Prime Minister, after a summer during which he found a veritable forest of magic money trees. Can he tell me where he will find the money—or has he found a pot of gold?
The Prime Minister
May I invite the hon. Lady to listen to the Chancellor’s spending review statement tomorrow? If she is seriously opposing this spending on schools, hospitals and police when it is well within the limits of fiscal prudence—if that is really what the Labour party is all about now—I think she should say so.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, during his various conversations over the past few weeks, he has made it absolutely clear to all our neighbours and partners that we will establish complete sovereign control over our exclusive economic zone from 1 November and that we will negotiate, like a perfectly normal, independent maritime nation, reciprocal arrangements with our neighbours? In that context, has he already begun negotiations with our Nordic neighbours, given that arrangements with them would normally be settled over the coming few weeks with a view to a 1 January start?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that we will be out of the common fisheries policy by 2020. We will take back control of our fisheries—unlike the Scottish National party, which, in a supine and invertebrate way, would hand them back to Brussels.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I beg the Prime Minister to answer the question that I am going to ask, rather than just saying “No comment” as if this were a magazine interview.
Along with others, I have filed papers for a legal case against the Prorogation of Parliament, because I do not want the Domestic Abuse Bill—for which so many people in this House have worked so hard—to fall. I signed my witness statements yesterday. I had to go to my mother-in-law’s to print them, because I do not have a printer, but I think that they probably have one at No. 10.
Is it true that senior civil servants have refused to sign witness statements for ongoing legal proceedings relating to the Prorogation? Were the director of legislative affairs and the Cabinet Secretary asked to do so, and did they agree? I signed mine; did they?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady would imagine, the proper processes were gone through to ensure that we were able to announce a Queen’s Speech. Opposition Members have been calling for a Queen’s Speech for week after week, and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has demanded one. [Interruption.] She has. We will also ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill and other Bills receive proper consideration and are rolled over.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This is, of course, a G7 statement, and the Prime Minister is a celebrated internationalist, but may I make a local point? The people of Shropshire, in five constituencies, voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. Can my right hon. Friend make a slight departure from great matters of state and reassure the good people of Shropshire that Brexit will be delivered?
The Prime Minister
I can, and the surest way to deliver Brexit with a deal is to vote with the Government, both tonight and tomorrow.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
For automotive manufacturers in my constituency and beyond, the WTO tariffs that would apply in the case of a no-deal Brexit would not only wipe out their profits but often exceed them. Why should anyone take what the Prime Minister says about jobs and investment seriously when he has been so reckless with people’s livelihoods?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all sectors, including automotive supply chains, to protect their interests, but of course the best way to ensure that we do not have a no-deal Brexit is to support the Government and to oppose the measures that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning Ben Stokes in his speech? I was lucky enough to be there that day, and it reminded me that sometimes even the most difficult of challenges can be achieved. I do believe it will be possible to achieve an agreed negotiation with the EU, although it is difficult. If it is achieved on 17 October, is there sufficient time for this House to approve all the necessary legislation before the end of that month?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed there is time, and we have gone over that thoroughly. I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s confidence; she speaks as someone well-acquainted with the ways of Brussels and the EU, and she will know that the deals are always done, as it were, on the steps of the court in the final furlong. That is where we will get the deal.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister completely set the record straight on this? If Parliament passes legislation requiring him to request an extension of article 50 beyond 31 October, will he abide by the law?
The Prime Minister
I have answered this question twice before. We will abide by the law, but I have to say I think it is a quite incredible thing to propose, deleterious to the interests of this country and this Government, and it will make it impossible for us to get the deal this country needs.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain in greater detail the steps taken at the G7 to protect endangered species?
The Prime Minister
I can indeed explain. My hon. Friend will recall that under the Kyoto protocol, targets were set for the reduction of greenhouse gases; what the world now wants to see is specific targets—quanta—for the protection of endangered species, whether flora or fauna. It is a tragedy that the number of elephants in the wild is down now to about 300,000 and the number of lions down to perhaps 15,000; we are seeing the tragic reduction of species around the world, and the world needs to work together to prevent that loss of habitat and loss of species, and that is what we agreed to do at G7. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not care about it, but, believe me, the people of this country care passionately—they care passionately about what is happening to animals around the world. She is totally indifferent to it, but my constituents certainly are not.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister tells us he is going to Dublin on Monday to see the Taoiseach where no doubt he will be asked, as he has been asked today, about his proposals for the backstop, so may I ask if he has seen the comment from former Member of this House Gavin Barwell, who says that he has
“had same reports re ‘sham negotiations’ from multiple govt sources”
and that if it is not true, the Government should publish their proposals to replace the backstop? Why will he not do that?
The Prime Minister
We do not negotiate in public, but I think I have given the House quite a lot already about what we want and what we want to do. The one thing that will stop us achieving this is if our negotiating ability is neutralised by this House of Commons.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In order to get the leverage to get this great deal through that the Prime Minister is working on, he has said that any Member on these Benches who does not vote tonight in support of the Government will lose the Whip and indeed not be able to stand again as a Conservative MP. Working on that basis, in the event that a deal is reached, which I very much hope it will be, will that treatment apply to those MPs who do not vote for his great deal?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend can take it that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Your argument seems to be that you have a plan but that you just cannot share it with the House, or indeed with Chancellor Merkel, and that we just have to trust you; and that Parliament, which has a mandate—unlike your Government, who no longer have a majority—should not legislate against a no deal because that would somehow scupper your plans, which nobody knows. Prime Minister, why should we trust that you have a plan and, indeed, that you can deliver it?
The Prime Minister
I will tell you why, Mr Speaker. It is because the alternative is more delay, more chaos, more confusion and uncertainty for British business, and the infinite protraction of UK membership of the EU at the behest of the EU itself. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the leaders of Europe are willing to give the Government time to bring forward new proposals for leaving the EU with a deal, ahead of the crucial summit on 17 October, so should this House?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. We need time to get this deal over the line. The crucial summit will be on 17 October—that is when the deal is generally expected to be done—and I would kindly ask the House not to fetter the ability of our negotiators to do that deal.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to the suggestion by Chancellor Merkel that a deal could be done in 30 days and that alternative proposals could be put forward, the Prime Minister said:
“You rightly say the onus is on us to produce those solutions…You have set a very blistering timetable of 30 days—if I understood you correctly, I am more than happy with that.”
Given that the Prime Minister accepted the 30-day challenge and said that the onus was on this place and this country to come up with solutions, why will he not answer the question from the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)? [Interruption.] Wait for it, Prime Minister! That is the question that we are all asking: where is the evidence that, halfway towards his own deadline, he has done anything at all?
The Prime Minister
I really think that the hon. Lady should learn to count. The 30-day timetable may have begun, but it has not elapsed. What our friends and partners want to see is that the House of Commons is not going to block Brexit. They are not going to make a concession to this side, to our country, until they know that the House of Commons is not going to block Brexit. We will be bringing forward our proposals in due time, long before the 30 days are up, but what we want to see is that the UK Parliament stands behind our negotiators. And that is what they want to see in Brussels.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I voted for the withdrawal agreement three times, so I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister expects to make progress throughout September and October. He will know that it was the policy of the previous Prime Minister to keep this House regularly updated. For those of us who are considering how to vote tonight, were he to reconsider his decision and make statements throughout the whole of September and October, that would be a material factor.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; we have battled together on many fronts. I can commit, of course, to updating the House regularly on this matter. It is highly unlikely that you could keep me away—when the House is sitting—and that is what I will do. Indeed, my hon. Friend can expect a statement right now from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, so he does not have to wait until September.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has described the consequences of a no-deal exit as a few “bumps in the road”. If that is the case, is not the right time to have a general election after his few bumps in the road have been implemented, when he can fully own the consequences, rather than relying on making statements about them before they have actually happened?
The Prime Minister
I do not want an election; I want to deliver Brexit on 31 October, and I think that that is what the people of this country want.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The United Kingdom already has close links with India, not least because of the valuable contribution made by the 1.6 million who make up the British-Indian diaspora. What discussions did my right hon. Friend have at the G7 with Prime Minister Modi of India about strengthening those ties post Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I did indeed have an extremely good conversation with Prime Minister Modi, and we agreed to strengthen our co-operation not just on the security side, where clearly the UK and India stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terror, but on military co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region, where we share many interests, and, of course, on free trade as well—doing a big free trade deal with India. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to promote that incredibly important relationship.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The G7 has delivered great things for the Global Fund’s fight against AIDS, saving an estimated 27 million lives worldwide, but does the Prime Minister agree that its primary function is to see countries come together for mutual benefit? What benefit does the Prime Minister believe the 2019 G7 summit brought to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
As I said in my statement, the UK depends on a global trading system that is open. One of the most important things agreed at the G7—in the face of rising tensions between China and America—was to support the WTO and the rules-based international system. I was delighted that Washington actually made a commitment, which I hope will be followed through, to return their member to the appellate body of the WTO in Geneva, which is important for global free trade.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), when the Prime Minister brings this deal to us next month—I very much hope and I am sure he will—will he explain whether plans are in place to pass all the legislation between 19 October and 31 October? That seems an awful lot to do in that time, so it is vital that we get that assurance.
The Prime Minister
Of course. Other hon. Members have asked exactly the same question today. I can certainly make this offer: we would be very happy to brief my hon. Friend on exactly how that can be done. We are sure it can be done.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
When there is a conflict between what the people of this country voted for after being asked a question by this Parliament and the many Members in this Parliament who seem to want to stop the people’s decision being implemented, whose side is he on?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady has been very valiant on this issue for many years, and I support and agree with her. After 45 years of EU membership—the institution has changed radically since the British people were last consulted—it was right to ask people whether they thought that their future belonged in that federalising, tightly integrating body, because that went to the questions of their identity, their future and what they thought of their country. When they returned their verdict, it was absolutely right for us to agree with and implement that verdict, and this House of Commons has promised many times to do so. I hope we now get on and do it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My constituents, 68% of whom voted to leave, are incredibly dismayed about what they see as shenanigans in Westminster to try to stop Brexit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we do not deliver Brexit by 31 October, constituents in Harlow and across the country will have incredible mistrust in our Parliament and our democracy?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue. If we fail to deliver Brexit, we risk incurring a fatal lack of trust not just in the major parties—in all parties—but in our democracy itself.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I think the Prime Minister owes the people of Northern Ireland some explanation of why he and his Government have treated the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—in such a careless and cavalier manner. That agreement has kept stability and peace in Northern Ireland since it was signed 21 years ago.
It is reported that the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Belfast has advised the Government that a no-deal Brexit would be in contravention of the Good Friday agreement, so I call upon the Prime Minister to publish today, in full—he owes that to the people of Northern Ireland, and certainly to this House—any legal advice he has received from the Crown Solicitor’s Office about how a no-deal Brexit would contravene the agreement.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, and I know she has been a long-standing campaigner for peace in Northern Ireland. However, I must respectfully say to her that, actually, it is the backstop and the withdrawal agreement itself that undermine the balance of the Good Friday agreement because, in important matters, they give a greater preponderance to the voice of Dublin in the affairs of Northern Ireland than they do to the UK—the UK having left the EU. That is a simple fact, and I do not think it is widely enough understood. That is one of the reasons the withdrawal agreement itself is in conflict with the Good Friday agreement.
As for the advice the hon. Lady asks about, I have not seen any such advice.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I once took a train to Manchester to negotiate the price and purchase of a Morris Minor, having purchased only a one-way ticket. It was not a sensible negotiating strategy, was it?
The Prime Minister
No, it was not. I do not know what happened to my right hon. Friend and his Morris Minor, but we intend to do a much better deal in Brussels over the next few weeks.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister admonishes this House that the EU is looking to see whether we will block Brexit, but he is almost oblivious to the fact that he twice voted against the deal that the EU signed off. Why is it okay for him to vote against it, but not us?
The Prime Minister
I think what everybody in this House wants to do—I hope it is what they want to do—is to bring Brexit to a conclusion and to get this thing done. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deliver Brexit with a deal, the best thing he can do is support the Government tonight and tomorrow.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to getting us out of the EU on 31 October, for which 62% of my constituents in Redditch voted. Does he agree that the greatest damage to our democracy, in the eyes of the silent majority of our constituents out in the country, is to fail to honour that promise?
The Prime Minister
I could not have put it better myself. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
If a police officer in Tonypandy or Maerdy arrests a suspect, he or she can immediately, and in real time, consult all the EU databases of criminality, which is essential to being able to send criminals to prison. Border officers can also consult those databases when a person hands over their passport. If we leave without a deal, as the former Prime Minister rightly said, there will be no deal on security. How will we make sure that the people are safe if we leave without a deal on 31 October?
The Prime Minister
I have no doubt that we will continue bilateral arrangements with our EU friends to ensure that both of our populations are protected, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind the House that we are recruiting another 20,000 police officers to make this country safer and one of the safest in the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. [Interruption.] I am sorry. We have heard 53 Back Benchers, and we must move on to the next statement.
Leaving the EU: Preparations
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)
This is the first time I have appeared at the Dispatch Box since I moved on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the superb team of civil servants at that Department, who do so much to improve the lives of so many across this country.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about preparations for our departure from the European Union. More than three years ago, in the biggest exercise in democracy in our country’s history, the British people voted to leave the EU, but so far this Parliament has failed to honour that instruction. Now, our Prime Minister has made it clear that we must leave by 31 October, and so we must. Trust in this House depends on it and trust in our democracy depends on it.
Of course, this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal, one that paves the way for a bright future outside the single market and the customs union, and the response the Prime Minister has received from European leaders shows that they are ready to move—they want a deal, too. And they are moving because the Prime Minister has been clear that matters must be resolved by 31 October. If we drift, the incentive on them to deliver will quickly dissipate, so I hope that my colleagues in the House of Commons will give the Prime Minister the time and the space he needs to pursue the opening he has secured and to get a good deal that we can all support.
But of course we must be prepared for every eventuality; the European Union may not change its position sufficiently before 31 October, and it may be that a deal is not secured. So we must be ready to leave without a deal on 31 October. Leaving without a deal does not mean that talks with our European partners end altogether. In those circumstances, after we depart without a deal in place, we will all want to discuss how we can reach new arrangements on trade and other issues. But while those conversations go on, we must ensure that we are ready for life outside the EU as a third country, trading on World Trade Organisation terms.
There has been extensive speculation about what leaving without a deal might mean for businesses and individuals. Moving to a new set of customs procedures, adjusting to new border checks and dealing with new tariffs all pose significant challenges, and nobody can be blithe or blasé about the challenges we face or the scale of work required. But provided the right preparations are undertaken by government, business and individuals, risks can be mitigated, significant challenges can be met and we can be ready. Leaving without a deal is, of course, not an event whose consequences are unalterable; it is a change for which we can all prepare, and our preparations will determine the impact of the change and help us also to take advantage of the opportunities that exist outside the EU.
We have, of course, to prepare for every eventuality, and that is the function of Operation Yellowhammer. It is an exercise in anticipating what a reasonable worst-case scenario might involve and how we can then mitigate any risks. Operation Yellowhammer assumptions are not a prediction of what is likely to happen; they are not a base-case scenario or a list of probable outcomes. They are projections of what may happen in a worst-case scenario, and they are designed to help government to take the necessary steps to ensure that we can all be ready in every situation.
Since the new Government were formed, at the end of July, new structures have been put in place to ensure that we can be ready in every situation and that we can accelerate our preparations for exit. Two new Cabinet Committees have been set up—XS and XO—to discuss negotiating strategy and to make operational decisions about exit respectively. XO meets every working day to expedite preparations for exit, and we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland civil service, and thousands of the best civil servants across the UK are working to ensure the smoothest possible exit.
We have all been helped by the Chancellor’s move to double Brexit funding for this year, announcing an additional £2.1 billion, on top of expenditure already committed. So £6.3 billion in total has been allocated to prepare for life outside the EU. That money is being used to provide practical help to businesses and to individuals.
Guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across our border with the EU is, of course, central to our preparations, and that will require action by business, to adjust to new customs procedures, and intervention by government, to ensure the freest flow of traffic to our ports. That is why Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced an additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, so that trade with the EU continues as smoothly as possible. It is also why today we are announcing £20 million more to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and trucks arriving at Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU.
On business, we have automatically allocated an economic operator registration indicator—EORI—number to 88,000 companies across the UK, and businesses can also register for transitional simplified procedures to delay the submissions of customs declarations and postpone the payments of duties. New transit sites have been built in Kent to smooth the flow of goods into the EU, and we are recruiting 1,000 new staff to help to maintain security and to support flows at the border.
The Government will do all that we can to support businesses to get ready, but many of the steps required to ensure the smooth flow of trade fall to business. We will provide advice, finance and flexibility over how revenue payments may be settled, but it is important that businesses familiarise themselves with the new requirements that exit will involve. That is why we have launched a public information campaign, “Get ready for Brexit”, to give everyone the clear actions that they need to prepare. As well as TV and radio advertising, there is now a straightforward, step-by-step checker tool, available on the Government’s website at gov.uk/brexit, so we can all identify quickly what we may need to do to get ready.
The Government have also acted to provide assurance that business and individuals can have the maximum level of confidence about the future. We have signed continuity agreements with countries, covering more than £90 billion in trade. We have replacement civil nuclear energy trading agreements with Canada, America, Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have secured aviation agreements with 14 countries, including the US and Canada, and we also have arrangements with the EU on aviation, roads and rail to ensure smooth travel between the UK and European nations. We also have arrangements on education exchanges, social security, fisheries, climate change and a number of other areas. Agreements are in place covering financial services, so that transactions can continue to take place and financial and market stability can be underpinned. Of course, we have a robust legal framework in place: six exit-related Bills that cater for different scenarios have been passed, and the Government have also laid more than 580 EU-exit statutory instruments.
Of course, the Government are determined to ensure that we protect the rights both of UK nationals in the EU and of EU citizens in the UK. I personally want to thank the more than 3 million EU citizens who live and work here for their positive contribution to our society: you are our friends, family and neighbours—we want you to stay and we value your presence. Under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million EU citizens have already been granted status. Let me be clear: EU citizens and their family members will continue to be able to work, study and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis as now after we exit the EU.
The Government will of course do everything in our power to make sure that UK nationals can continue to live in the EU as they do now, but the Government cannot protect the rights of UK nationals unilaterally. We welcome the fact that member states have drafted or enacted legislation to protect the rights of UK nationals; today, we call on member states to go further and fully reciprocate our generous commitment to EU citizens, so that UK nationals can get the certainty they deserve.
There are other decisions that the EU and member states have said they will take that will have an impact on us all if we leave without a deal. The EU’s commitment that we will be subject to its common external tariff in a no-deal scenario will impose new costs, particularly on those who export food to Europe. Indeed, the EU’s current approach to the rules of the single market will, as things stand, require the Republic of Ireland to impose new checks on goods coming from Northern Ireland. For our part, we will do everything that we can to support the Belfast agreement, to ensure the free flow of goods into Northern Ireland and to mitigate the impacts on Northern Ireland, including by providing targeted support for our agriculture sector and for Northern Ireland’s economy.
Although there are risks that we must deal with, there are also opportunities for life outside the EU. We can reform Government procurement rules, get a better deal for taxpayers and forge new trade relationships. We can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, develop crops that yield more food and contribute to better environmental outcomes, manage our seas and fisheries in a way that revives coastal communities, and restore our oceans to health. We can introduce an immigration policy that is fairer, more efficient and more humane, improve our border security, deal better with human trafficking and organised crime, open new free ports throughout the country to boost undervalued communities, and support business more flexibly than ever before.
There are undoubted risks and real challenges in leaving without a deal on 31 October, but there are also opportunities and new possibilities for our country outside the EU. It is my job to mitigate those risks, overcome those challenges and enable this country to exploit those opportunities and extend to every citizen those new possibilities. That is why I commend this statement to the House and why I am confident that as a nation our best days lie ahead.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He may regard it as a poisoned chalice, but no doubt the Prime Minister thought it appropriate that he took it.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in providing advance sight of the statement—it was rather vacuous, but we did have a good chance to study it carefully. He makes much of the work that has been carried out by civil servants who have been working under intense pressure preparing businesses, individuals and wider society for Brexit. We acknowledge the very hard work of all those civil servants and thank them for their service, and we welcome the work that the Government are doing in that respect. However, the truth is that £6.3 billion is being spent on Brexit preparations, yet it is too little now, because it is too late. Even if all the preparations had been carried out in time and in a more comprehensive way, the country would still have no idea whether we will leave with a deal or with no deal.
Let me come straight to the point, because there are significant omissions in the Minister’s statement. There is no mention, for example, of medical supplies, but in the past 24 hours serious-minded health leaders have warned that no deal could result directly in medical shortages, affect treatment for UK nationals in Europe and exacerbate the already difficult NHS crisis. It has been reported that the Government are now stockpiling body bags because of concerns that there may be an increase in the mortality rate. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, but if it is, will he explain what he is doing about it?
The statement mentions that 1 million EU citizens have been given settled status. We welcome that, but there are more than 3 million here. The Government’s prevarication over time and their inadequate preparations right from the beginning have caused great anxiety and left millions of people who live here, pay taxes here, have made their lives here and have their children here wondering what their future holds. It is a mark of the slow progress that is being made that the Government still have not resolved the status of UK citizens who are living in Europe, as the Minister said.
The Minister talks about getting businesses ready, yet it is only a few weeks ago that these serious-minded business leaders demanded an independent inquiry into what a no-deal Brexit would consist of, amid accusations that vital information about potential problems was deliberately being held back by the Government—that was from the business community itself.
In the early part of his statement, the Minister made much of trust—trust in this House and trust in democracy—but the truth is that the Government are playing fast and loose both with democracy and with the House. I say that because of the proposal that the House be prorogued and because the Prime Minister’s staff are now hinting at a possible cynical general election, which we are ready for. One way or another, the Government are set on closing down the House of Commons for weeks when the country is facing one of the most difficult times in our recent history. If there is an election—this is a very important point—the direction of the country and its relationship with the EU will be hotly debated. We and the country will need full access to all the relevant information. The Minister’s statement conceals more than it reveals, but can he confirm that, during an election period or a Prorogation period, whichever it is, civil service preparations for Brexit will continue through the election purdah if necessary? Can he confirm whether, during the purdah, Ministers will continue to provide political guidance to civil servants on Brexit? I give notice now that the Opposition will seek immediate access to the civil service and ask to be kept fully informed, as is the convention, of all the information that the House and the country have been denied about all developments. That request must be responded to the minute the election is called.
Just eight weeks ago, the current Prime Minister told his party and the country that the chances of a no-deal Brexit were a million to one against. Yet this morning, the former Chancellor, who is no longer in his place, stated that no progress has been made and that there are no substantive negotiations going on. Is that true? The two positions cannot be easily reconciled. Either there is progress or there is not. Having heard the Prime Minister in the Chamber just now, it is clear that most people still have no idea.
To most informed observers, however, it appears that the Government’s favoured deal—whatever they say—is no deal, so let us listen to the Minister’s own words from earlier this year. He said:
“Leaving without a deal…would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence. Almost everyone in this debate accepts that.”
He went on to say:
“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal”.
That was from the man who led the whole campaign to leave the European Union. He was for May’s deal and against no deal, but now he is the Minister for no deal. How does he reconcile the progress of his career?
The House must be allowed to see the detailed assessments contained in the Yellowhammer dossier. The truth is that the Minister is hiding it, but why? The media are reporting that the Yellowhammer papers—even the watered-down versions that he is working on—paint such a disastrous picture of the country after no deal that the Government dare not publish them. Yet shockingly, leaked excerpts talk of potential shortages, delays and even protests on the streets.
Is it not a disgrace that the Government intend to close Parliament down for five weeks without allowing the House to scrutinise their detailed preparations for no deal? Members have a right to know what those preparations are, as has the country. After all, it was this Minister who said:
“We are a parliamentary democracy, and”—
listen to this—
“proroguing Parliament in order to try to get no deal through…would be wrong.”
Those were his exact words. But that is precisely what the Government are now trying to do. How can he justify the amount of resources being spent on preparations for no deal without any scrutiny or accountability to this House? It is simply unacceptable.
Under normal purdah rules, the Select Committees looking at Brexit preparations and Yellowhammer could also be suspended, leaving absolutely no scrutiny by Members of the Government’s plans. When it comes to Yellowhammer, the media appear to be better informed than the House, so let me briefly ask the Minister some questions.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is well in excess of his time, can ask two or three questions, but they need to be in a sentence or two.
Jon Trickett
What assessments has the Minister received about disruption at the ports? What assessments have been made and reported to him about the situation in Ireland? What assessments has he received about the impact of no deal on food prices? All these matters must be addressed by the House, so let him place the documents in the Library so that we all can explore them.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am also grateful to him for asking me how I reconcile the progress of my career—it is a question my wife asks me every night, so I am grateful to him for repeating it. I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman. We both represent constituencies that voted to leave the European Union, and both of us are impatient to see us do so. When a Brexit delay was suggested in January 2019, he said that it
“sounds like the British establishment doing what it always does, which is ignoring the views of millions of ordinary folk, and that I am not prepared to tolerate.”
Comrades, neither am I, which is why we have to leave on 31 October.
The hon. Gentleman said that civil servants are doing a fantastic job in the preparations, and I join him in paying tribute to them for their work. He asked about medical shortages. Sadly, medical shortages sometimes occur, whether we are in or out of the European Union, as we have seen recently with the hormone replacement therapy shortages, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is doing so much to help counter. But that is a shared issue for us all. Two thirds of the medical supplies that reach the Republic of Ireland pass through the narrow straits. That is why it is so important that we secure a deal, not only to safeguard our superb NHS, but to help citizens in Ireland, who are our brothers and sisters, too.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the EU settled status scheme. He made the point that 1 million people have received the status so far, and he asked about progress. Every day, 15,000 more people are applying. The settled status scheme is working. He is absolutely right that now is the time for our European partners to extend the same generosity to UK citizens as we are extending to EU citizens.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the money being spent. At the beginning of his questions, he said that £6.3 billion was too little, too late, but subsequently at the end of his statement he asked how we can justify such expenditure. I think that is the fastest U-turn in history, in the course of just six minutes. He also talked about our contemplation of a “cynical” general election. I thought it was the policy of the Opposition—certainly the Leader of the Opposition—to welcome a general election at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.] I see the Leader of the Opposition seeking guidance on this question from Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know the Minister will not want to mislead the House. The Leader of the Opposition was simply alerting me to his experience of visiting Romania, which is somewhat tangential to—indeed, entirely divorced from—the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s ruminations and lucubrations, which we do not need.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We all know how much the Leader of the Opposition enjoyed seeing Celtic play in Romania.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) asked me about the extent of our negotiations, and they are extensive; the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister’s sherpa have been visiting every single European capital to ensure that we can advance our negotiations. But one thing is critical: if we are to succeed in these negotiations, we need to get behind the Prime Minister. If the motion before the House is passed tonight and the legislation that it gives effect to is passed tomorrow, we will be allowing the European Union to dictate the length of any extension and to put any conditions it wishes to on that extension. That would totally undermine the Government’s capacity to negotiate in the national interest.
It has been said of some in the past that they sent out the captain to the wicket and broke his bat beforehand. Well, Labour’s approach to negotiations is not just breaking the bat; it is blowing up the whole pavilion. It is no surprise that Labour Members want to sabotage our negotiations, because they also want to sabotage their own negotiations. Labour’s policy on negotiation is to have an infinitely long extension, to negotiate a new deal with Europe, to bring it back to this country, and then to argue that people should vote against that deal and vote to remain. How can we possibly have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition to negotiate in Europe when his own party does not have confidence in him to secure a good deal for the British people?
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Those of us who live in east Kent, where the efficient operation of the Dover-Calais route is essential for the smooth running of our entire road network, have a particular reason to wish my right hon. Friend well in his new task, particularly if we end up with the very undesirable outcome of a no-deal Brexit. In that spirit, I welcome the extra £20 million that he has announced today to ensure the increasingly smooth running of the road network, but can he tell the House what arrangements Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has put in place for customs clearance of lorries coming into this country? Specifically, where is that going to happen?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are two aspects to this issue: lorries coming into this country and lorries leaving this country. When it comes to lorries coming into this country, thanks to the application of transitional simplified procedures, any duty that needs to be paid can be deferred. Of course, we will be prioritising flow over revenue, which means that we will not be imposing new checks, certainly in the first months after any no-deal exit. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a no-deal exit is undesirable. For lorries that are leaving the country, there will be six new transit sites—five in Kent and one in Essex—to ensure that hauliers leaving the UK can take advantage of the common transit convention and its provisions.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
May I put on record my thanks to the officials who have been given the impossible task of trying to make sense of this Government’s plans and to do something that they should never have been asked to do when it comes to no deal? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) may laugh, but these officials are working incredibly hard because of the Government’s ineptitude.
Today in Holyrood, we see a tale of two Governments. Today, the Scottish Government have set out their programme for government to tackle a climate emergency, improve public services and introduce a fairer economy. Yet here we debate food shortages, medicine stockpiling, price increases and job losses; the height of Government ambition is hoping that it will not be as bad as the experts tell them it will.
The Minister talked about a general election. We would welcome a general election. In fact, I am going to take the unusual step of inviting the Minister to come and campaign in my constituency. I would love him to do that, so that people could ask him why he is putting them out of work, why he is hitting our food and drink industry and why he is hitting our university sector. This is the height of political failure. It was only apt that the Minister quoted Geoffrey Howe earlier, who of course was attacking his own Prime Minister during an ongoing Tory civil war. I notice that nobody is arguing that this is a good idea any more. This is a Government who have no idea what they are doing and making it up as they go along. No wonder they want to duck, dive and dodge any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
We were warned before that Parliament would need to sit. Does the Minister agree with the Health Secretary that prorogation goes against everything that the men who waded on to those beaches in Normandy fought and died for? The Minister likes to quote others; does he still agree with that?
On food prices, what will the impact be on food banks—on the most vulnerable, already hit by austerity from this disastrous Tory Government? What level of medicine shortages is acceptable to the Government? On the £6.5 billion, from which public services is that to be taken? Finally—I cannot quite believe I am asking this question—does the Minister still believe in the rule of law, and will he accept laws passed by this Parliament?
Michael Gove
May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position? May I also say that I am very grateful for his invitation to campaign in his constituency at the next general election? Given that he has a majority of just two, he is a brave as well as a principled man.
Michael Gove
I think my hon. Friend is right. In Crail and Anstruther, as well as in St Andrews, I think people are looking forward to Conservative representation in North East Fife in due course.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a tale of two Governments. Even as the Scottish Government are unveiling their programme today, they are doing so, after 10 years in government, with education standards declining and the number of people in the health service, including doctors, declining—and unfortunately, as the recent “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures show, Scotland, were it an independent country, would have the biggest deficit of any nation in Europe. That is hardly a record of success.
The hon. Gentleman asks about Prorogation. Prorogation is necessary before every Queen’s Speech. One can no more be against Prorogation in order to ensure a Queen’s Speech than one can be against the functioning of this Parliament, properly constituted.
The hon. Gentleman asks about food prices. Of course food prices fluctuate—some go up and some go down—but the temporary tariff schedule that we have put in place will protect consumers and ensure that in many cases food prices are either stable or drop.
Ultimately, the problem for the hon. Gentleman is that Scottish National party Members may talk about democracy, but we have had two major referendums in this country, both of which they seek to overturn. They want to ignore the vote to stay in the United Kingdom and they want to ignore the vote to leave the European Union. Their policy is take us back into the EU. That would mean abandoning the pound, abandoning coastal communities in Scotland, and once more recognising that the Scottish National party wants separatism and Brussels rule ahead of a strong United Kingdom and the benefits that it brings to the citizens of the whole UK.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that trust—trust in this Parliament and trust in politicians—is the most important thing in any democracy, and that any party that goes out on a manifesto saying that it wants to leave the European Union and does not honour that cannot be trusted ever again in government?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Labour party said on page 24 of its 2017 manifesto that it was committed to leaving the European Union and respecting the referendum result, and the overwhelming majority of Labour Members—not all—voted for article 50, which set this year as the legal default date for departure from the European Union. I absolutely respect the rule of law, and so should the Labour Members who voted to leave the EU.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There are widespread reports that the Secretary of State is seeking to sanitise the Operation Yellowhammer documents. Can he confirm that any ministerial demand that civil servants water down Operation Yellowhammer would break the ministerial code, that no civil servants risk being disciplined if they refuse to undertake this work and that they will be covered by whistleblower legislation?
Michael Gove
Of course we want to make sure that any documents we publish accurately reflect the range of possibilities that leaving the European Union might entail. Thousands of pages of information were published in the technical notices that were published by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary. It is also the case that on gov.uk/brexit there is much information about what leaving the European Union would entail. The right hon. Gentleman specifically refers to the Yellowhammer document. The point about the Yellowhammer document is that it is an aid to Ministers in order to ensure that we can deal with the reasonable worst-case scenario. Of course, the assumptions in the Yellowhammer document are arrived at independently by civil servants, and rightly so.
Daniel Kawczynski
The BBC is constantly engaging with Polish diaspora groups in this country to accentuate potential problems over the EU resettlement scheme. Could the Secretary of State give me an assurance of what money has been afforded to ensure that the maximum number of EU citizens are processed as quickly and efficiently as possible in the event of no deal?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is a consistent champion for the rights of Polish people in the UK and elsewhere. The largest single community of EU citizens in our country is composed of Polish citizens. We were remembering earlier the anniversary of the second world war. We honour the sacrifice of those Polish soldiers, airmen and sailors who fought alongside us for democracy, and it is our moral duty to ensure that Polish citizens in this country are given the opportunity to stay and to enjoy the rights of which we are all proud and for which their forebears fought so proudly.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
A no-deal Brexit, according to Government messaging, is something we can completely prepare for as long as we spend enough money on advertising, while at the same time so crucial and fundamental that it must be kept on the table as part of the negotiations. It cannot be both. Which is it?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The legal default position is that we leave on 31 October. If the EU will not move and we do not secure a good deal, we need to be prepared for that eventuality. That is the necessary outworking of article 50, for which I think the hon. Lady voted, along with many other colleagues across the House.
Michael Gove
If she did not, I can only apologise. I think a majority of her Labour colleagues did, but I salute her independence of mind on that issue.
The broader point I would make is that, because it is an eventuality for which we have to prepare, it is prudent that we should prepare, but one thing that I think the hon. Lady and I agree on is that it is infinitely preferable that we leave with a deal. That is why we should give the Prime Minister the space and time to negotiate, which is why I hope that she, along with me, will decline to vote for any motion today that would fetter the Prime Minister’s discretion.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Last week, I visited a logistics business in my constituency that sends parcels to the Republic of Ireland, and I heard about the concerns of its customers about the need for paperwork. The business has offered to do it and charge for the time spent—about 20 minutes per form—but I understand that many businesses simply will not bother, which will lead to a loss of valuable export sales. Clearly, the best thing is to keep the existing arrangements, but what further advice can my right hon. Friend give to my constituent and his customers?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are some specific proposals that help to deal with parcels of a lower value and can facilitate their flow across borders, but I suggest that his constituents contact gov.uk/brexit—the Government Digital Service website—or, indeed, HMRC. If he would care to write to me, I can ensure that all the facilitations and easements available are in place for his constituency’s firms and employees.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Why should anyone believe Government claims that meaningful talks are taking place in Brussels to avoid no deal when the rest of Europe flatly denies that and the Prime Minister’s own chief of staff has said that that claim is a deliberate sham to run down the clock to a no-deal Brexit?
Michael Gove
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were to look at the number of air miles clocked up by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and talk to those involved in the negotiations with the Brexit Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s official negotiator, David Frost, he would see that there has been intensive negotiation with our EU partners. For example, the Prime Minister just last week spent five days in France talking to not only Emmanuel Macron but other European leaders to ensure that we can leave with a deal.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
As 36,000 delegates gather in Aberdeen to discuss and debate the future of the energy industry, can my right hon. Friend confirm that plans will be put in place in the event of no deal to maintain our just-in-time customs model, on which that industry and so many others in Scotland depend?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the oil and gas sector, which does so much to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is an economic powerhouse. We are working intensively with those in the energy sector and elsewhere to ensure that their business models can be robust for the future.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It was reported yesterday that analysis done for the Department for Transport in the last fortnight says that in the worst case, the average delay for lorries and freight at Dover would be one and a half days, and in the best case, there would be a wait of two to three hours—either of which would cause chaos. Can the Secretary of State confirm for the House that the Government have received that analysis? What has the freight industry had to say to him about it? It has been warning for some time that it does not think the Government are prepared.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that representatives of the freight industry have asked us to accelerate preparations for no deal. That is something that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport have done. On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Calais to talk to Ministers and the president of the regional assembly. They said that they proposed to take a pragmatic approach to ensure the maximum flow, and we shall be revisiting those assumptions in the light, not just of those talks, but of the other steps we are taking.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Farming and the food and drinks manufacturing sector matter to the economy of Carlisle and Cumbria. Clearly, future relations with the EU will also be significant to those industries. Can the Minister confirm that he believes that adequate preparations are being made for the eventuality of a no deal, to ensure that both those industries can function properly?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the sectors that we most need to help and support is of course the haulage sector—this follows on from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—and we are moving at pace to meet many of its concerns. However, as I have said at the Dispatch Box today and previously, the sector that faces some of the biggest challenges in the event of a no-deal exit is undoubtedly agriculture, and within agriculture, undoubtedly upland farmers, particularly sheep farmers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on steps to ensure that if, as we anticipate, a common external tariff is placed on sheepmeat exports, and therefore the price of sheepmeat falls, we can support hill farmers, who do so much for our country by producing high-quality food and safeguarding the environment we love.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have been contacted by local manufacturers and food producers who are deeply worried about no-deal tariffs. One, an exporter, says that the price of his exports to the EU will go up by 30%, and he called it “manufacturing suicide.” Another is an importer; the price of his imports will go up by 50%. A third told me that they might have to close down altogether. Can the Secretary of State confirm that all his preparations about public information and committees will not mitigate the impact of those no-deal tariffs? What is the total cost to British industry of those no-deal tariffs?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady makes a very fair point, actually. The single biggest challenge in a no-deal exit is of course the existence of those tariffs—a requirement of the European Union’s single market rules. The common external tariff, which I just alluded to, is particularly high when it comes to the agricultural sector, and therefore, when it comes to exporting food into the European Union, that is a significant barrier. However, the temporary tariff regime that we are consulting on would ensure that in many cases tariffs were lower, to help business and consumers.
On the broader question about attempting to put a figure on the specific costs, that cannot be done in isolation, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady asks that question.
More broadly, I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the right hon. Lady’s constituents about what we can do, because the Treasury is making money available for companies that are fundamentally viable but may face particular turbulence in the event of no deal, to ensure their survival in the future. I would be more than happy to talk to her about that.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Thousands of people in the UK, and in my constituency, are dependent on the chemical industry. Much of that, of course, has been previously governed by regulation in compliance with the EU. As we leave, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with those companies and with Europe about UK REACH and its implementation?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who work in the chemicals industry are absolutely vital to the health of our economy. Hitherto, the regulation of chemicals within the European Union has been governed by the operation of the REACH directive. We are replicating that in UK law and we have had extensive discussions and are putting in place steps to ensure that the chemicals industry can continue to manufacture and export as before. It is one of those industries whose business model, as we leave the European Union, necessarily requires Government support to ensure its continued health.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Great mention has been made of the freight industry and the importance of guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across the border. Can the Secretary of State explain what has been done since February with regard to the ISPM—international standard for phytosanitary measures—on wood pallets? Two thirds of the pallets in this country do not comply with European Union requirements.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the nature of wood pallets, and we have been working with the industry to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Earlier today, the chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland went on record to say that there are shortages of medical supplies in Scotland due to Brexit. Can my right hon. Friend give assurances that that is not the case and that the Cabinet Office is engaging directly with the devolved Administration, local government and all Government bodies to ensure that no shortages are caused by Brexit?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. To the anguish of many, but to the joy of some, we have not actually left the European Union yet, so it is hard to see how any shortages could be caused by Brexit. The Department of Health and Social Care and others have worked to ensure that in the event of a no-deal Brexit we can continue to have all the medicines and medical supplies that people need. I will look closely at what the Scottish BMA has said and investigate it, but sometimes—I am sure this is not the case with the Scottish BMA—one or two figures attribute to Brexit responsibility for matters that are absolutely nothing to do with our departure from the European Union.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
The Minister caused some concern at the weekend about whether the Government would comply with legislation if it were passed and enacted. Can he, without dodging the question, confirm that if the law requires Her Majesty’s Government to request an extension to article 50, they will comply with the law?
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that the integrity of our fishing waters can be maintained and enforced regardless of our method of leaving the European Union, and can he give Cornish fishermen an assurance on that point?
Michael Gove
That is a very important point. Steps have been taken, including working with the devolved Administrations, to make sure that we have strong maritime security and that the rights of our fishermen can be respected. We want to work in a co-operative way with other European countries, and indeed with countries outside the European Union such as Norway and the Faroes, to ensure that we can manage stocks sustainably and revive coastal communities.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
There have been reports in the newspapers that the reunification of families will cease if we leave the European Union without a deal. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on that and confirm that all children who are stranded without family in the UK will be able to apply as now, under the Dublin agreement, to be reunited with their families?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question, and I am disturbed by reporting to that effect. The rights of EU citizens in this country, and of course their dependants, will be protected, but if she wants to furnish me with the report to which she refers, I will look closely into it and, of course, write to her.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It would be infinitely preferable to secure a deal, which is why I and many hon. Members have voted three times to do exactly that. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in any circumstances the security of supply of medicines will be assured and that those medicines will be flown into the UK if necessary?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes two characteristically acute points. I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every opportunity presented to the House. I had hoped that more colleagues on the Opposition Benches would have done so. I am grateful to those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have done so, because it will be infinitely preferable if we leave with a deal. However, my hon. Friend is also right that, as well as ensuring the freest possible flow of goods—including medicines—over the short straits, there should be additional capacity, both at sea and in the air, to safeguard citizens in this country.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
For the last couple of years, along with the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, I have been raising the issue of radioisotopes. I was ignored and patronised, and then reassured at the beginning of this year that it was all sorted and that they had been flown in. However, on 23 July a new contract was put out to tender with a closing date last week, which means that it is not sorted at all. Could the Minister possibly explain what is going to happen about radioisotopes on 1 November?
Michael Gove
I would hope that no one would ignore or patronise the hon. Lady, who had a very distinguished record as a physician even before she came into the House. She speaks with great authority on these issues. Unless I misunderstood it, her point refers to the fact that the Department for Transport has issued a new tender for sea freight. I understand that that tender has been well subscribed, and we should have sea freight in place. We will also have air freight in place, as I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that not just radioisotopes but all medical supplies necessary for the effective functioning of the NHS across the United Kingdom are available. I hope to stay in regular touch with the hon. Lady, because her commitment to the health of our NHS is second to none.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making time to meet me during the recess and for today’s statement. Returning to the issue of medicine supply, one constituent wrote to me recently asking about her epilepsy medication. She said, “If we can’t get it easily, it will tip my life upside down.” She and I, as her MP, do not need ifs and buts or scare stories; we need hard facts. This is not a “nice to have and we’ll do our best to have in the awful event of a no deal Brexit.” This is absolutely critical. We need categorical assurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that there will not be a shortage of medicine supply in addition to the shortages there are at the moment—I know that as a former Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care—after Brexit.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend was a brilliant Health Minister and he knows that medical supplies have been termed as category 1 goods. As I mentioned earlier, as well as making sure that we have the freest possible flow across the short straits, there is additional maritime freight capacity and air capacity to ensure that vital drugs will be in place. I can therefore reassure him, his constituent and those living with epilepsy who need that medicine that it will be there.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Having previously worked as a supermarket fruit and vegetable assistant, I know how perishable and fragile supply chains are. I was therefore surprised to hear the Minister say on Sunday that a no-deal Brexit would cause no shortage of fresh food. Sure enough, soon afterwards the British Retail Consortium and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said that that, quite simply, was not true. It said:
“it is impossible to mitigate”
as stockpiling is not possible with such perishable produce. Will the Minister therefore accept that his statement on Sunday was inaccurate?
Michael Gove
I express my solidarity with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, worked with fresh fruit and vegetables when I was a food hall porter in the Aberdeen branch of British Home Stores in the 1980s, so I absolutely appreciate how important it is to ensure we have a ready supply of fresh fruit of vegetables and a wide range of them. The British Retail Consortium, with which I have worked, has been working incredibly hard to make sure we have access to the full range of foods we currently enjoy. It is the case that while the price of some commodities may rise, the price of other commodities may fall, but I am absolutely certain that consumers will continue to have a wide choice of quality of fresh foodstuffs in the event of no-deal Brexit.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that business leaders and business associations will be listening intently to this afternoon’s debate. They have suffered three years of uncertainty, and endless and pointless Brexit debate. What certainty and reassurance going forward can the Minister give to business leaders who have suffered uncertainty?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that business wants certainty. The best certainty we can give is to make sure we secure a good deal with the European Union, which is why I hope everyone across the House will give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the time and space necessary to secure that good deal on which he has been working so hard.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Ind)
Further to the question we have just heard about food shortages, on Sunday the Minister said that there will be no shortages of fresh food. He has just told us that there will be a wide choice. Does he accept what the British Retail Consortium said, which is that his initial claim was “categorically untrue” and that a no-deal Brexit would be
“the worst of all worlds for our high streets and those who shop there”?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady, like me, wants to avoid a no-deal Brexit if at all possible. The British Retail Consortium, supermarkets and others involved in providing our food have been doing important work to make sure we continue to have a wide choice and a ready supply of the fresh food that we all enjoy.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Earlier in the year, when it appeared momentarily that we might leave without a deal, Mr Barnier announced that there would not, after all, be a hard border and that other arrangements would be relied upon. Where could he have possibly got that idea?
Michael Gove
I think very possibly from some of the wise and thoughtful speeches that have been made by my right hon. Friend.
Education Funding
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
With permission Mr Speaker, I am delighted to make a statement today confirming the Prime Minister’s weekend announcement. The Government have committed an extra £14 billion to our schools across England over the next three years, ensuring that funding for all schools can rise at least in line with inflation next year. I take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for all the groundwork he did ahead of this settlement.
The funding announcement includes a cash increase, compared with 2019-20, of £2.6 billion to core schools funding next year, with increases of £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23. That is in addition to the £1.5 billion per year that we will continue to provide to fund additional pension costs for teachers over the next three years. The additional investment delivers on the Prime Minister’s pledge to ensure every secondary school will be allocated at least £5,000 per pupil next year and that every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750, putting primary schools on the path to receiving at least £4,000 per pupil the following year.
We are allocating funding so that every school’s per pupil funding can rise at least in line with inflation and to accelerate gains for areas of the country that have been historically underfunded, with most areas seeing significant gains above inflation. We will ensure that all schools are allocated their gains under the formula in full next year by removing the cap on gains that underfunded schools have seen over the past two years. This underpins our historic reforms to the overall schools funding system, so that a child with the same needs benefits from the same funding, wherever they live in the country.
I can reaffirm our intention to move to a hard national funding formula, where schools’ budgets are set on the basis of a single national formula, as soon as possible. We recognise that this will represent a significant change and we will work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make the transition as smooth as possible. We are determined that no pupil will be held back from reaching their full potential. This additional investment includes over £700 million to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can access the education that is right for them and the education they need. That is an increase of over 11% on the funding available this year.
Since 2010, education standards in this country have been transformed, but we are determined to go further still. On top of this funding investment, we have announced a package of measures that will intensify our efforts to support all schools in delivering consistently high standards to every single pupil in this country. We will begin a consultation to lift the inspection exemption for outstanding schools, so that parents have up-to-date information and reassurance about the education in their child’s school. We will also provide additional funding to allow strong academy trusts to expand, building on the success of the academy programme as a powerful vehicle to deliver excellence and school improvement in every school. We will increase the level of support available to some of the most challenging schools that require improvement —those that have not been judged good by Ofsted in over a decade—by giving them more support from experienced school leaders so they can deliver for the children that turn to them and expect the very best in their education. To ensure the extra funding for schools delivers better outcomes and improves efficiency, we will continue to expand the school resource management programme, supporting schools in making every single pound count. We will also work closely with Ofsted and others to make sure that parents have the information they need about how schools are utilising their funding.
There are no great schools without great teachers and this settlement underlines our determination to recognise teaching as the high-value, prestigious profession that it is. The £14 billion investment announced last week will ensure that pay can be increased for all teachers. Subject to the school teachers’ review body process, the investment will make it possible to increase teachers starting salaries by up to £6,000, with the aim of reaching a £30,000 starting salary by 2022-23. This would make starting salaries for teachers among the most competitive in the graduate labour market. That sits alongside reforms to ensure that our teachers have the highest-quality training, not only supporting those already in the profession but attracting even more brilliant graduates into the classroom to make a difference to children’s lives. We will make sure that teaching continues to be attractive throughout a teacher’s career, launching a group of ambassador schools to champion flexible working and share good practice.
A key element in supporting our teachers and leaders is to ensure that they have the tools and support to create safe and disciplined school environments. That is why we have made £10 million available to establish national behaviour hubs. The hubs programme will be led by Tom Bennett and will enable schools that have already achieved an excellent behaviour culture to work with other schools that have struggled to drive improvement. In addition to that investment, we will consult on revised behaviour and exclusions guidance to provide clarity and consistency to headteachers on the action that they can take when pupils do not follow rules. It is vital that we ensure that every child succeeds in their school environment and make sure that schools are a safe place for pupils to study.
We will also be investing an extra £400 million in 16-to-19 education. This total includes £190 million to raise the base rate of funding, from £4,000 at present to £4,188 next year. The additional investment is a 7% increase in overall 16-to-19 funding. The total also includes £120 million for colleges and school sixth forms so that they can deliver crucial subjects, such as engineering, that are so vital to our nation’s future. Colleges and further education providers will receive an extra £25 million to deliver T-levels and an extra £10 million through the advanced maths premium.
A new £20 million investment will also help the sector to continue to recruit and retain brilliant teachers and leaders and provide more support to ensure high-quality teaching of T-levels. There will be £35 million more for targeted interventions to support students on level 3— A-level equivalent—courses who failed their GCSE maths and English. Together, this package will ensure that we are building the skills that our country needs to thrive in the future.
I am sure that many in the House will be eager to know what this announcement means for their local area and constituents. When the information is ready, I will write to Members with further details on the impact on schools in their local areas. Now more than ever is the time to invest in the next generation. That is what this party and this Government are doing, making sure that our children get the very best. I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Let me welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for advance sight of the statement. Of course, we already had some advance sight of it thanks to the norm now being that the press get the information before this House, but unfortunately today’s announcements do not quite live up to their billing. The new Prime Minister said, “I will reverse the education cuts.” Judging from his performance today, he has a tendency to over-promise.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm just how much funding has been cut since 2010 and how many of those cuts are left in place. As welcome as it is that the Government have finally accepted the failures of austerity, they will not fool anyone into thinking that it is over. As teachers and parents start term this week, too many will be in schools that are facing an immediate financial crisis. Will he tell the House why there is nothing for this year and why next year’s funding falls a full £1 billion short of reversing the cuts to school budgets? Is it not the case that this commitment will benefit the most affluent areas while disadvantaged schools get less? The Education Policy Institute found that a pupil eligible for free school meals would receive less than half the funding of their affluent peers. How fair is that? How can the Secretary of State start his tenure by refusing resources for those who need it most? Perhaps it is about starting as they mean to go on—no more nice Conservatives, but the same old nasty party, trying to hoodwink the public.
On teachers’ pay, I am glad that, after six years running of missed recruitment targets, the Government have finally recognised the damage done by austerity, but the devil is in the detail. Will the Secretary of State assure us that this will not be funded by flattening or cutting the pay of more experienced teachers—the very people, I am sure he will agree, we need to keep in the classroom? Will he increase the teachers’ pay grant or will schools have to fund it? Are academies still exempt or does he now accept that national pay must apply to all schools?
Above all, will the Secretary of State reassure us that support staff will not pay the price? The leaked document in the media was rather revealing. It admitted that
“No 10 and…the Treasury… have been keen to…express concerns about the rising number”
of teaching assistants. Let me say that I join parents, teachers, heads and those who care for our children with special educational needs and disabilities—I, too, value teaching assistants—and I declare a direct interest because my son started a mainstream secondary school today. With the help of valued teaching assistants, he was able to do that. The question is: do the Government value them, too? Will the Education Secretary promise us now that he will defend school support staff who do such a vital job? That is all the more important, given the work that they do with children with SEND. He has promised £700 million next year, but that is the shortfall that councils already face. The Local Government Association has put next year’s deficit at £1.2 billion, so will he tell us whether he accepts that estimate and whether there will be any further funding on top of that amount in future years?
The Government have finally admitted that there is a crisis in further education, but we know that the Education Secretary came back from the Treasury with just half of what he thought was needed. Will he confirm that there is less than £200 million for increasing the base rate, little more than a real-terms freeze? Other funding is ring-fenced for certain courses—will he tell us which subjects and how that will be distributed? The Secretary of State has made welcome commitments on teachers’ pension costs, but will those commitments extend to further and higher education? Is there any sign of an increase in pay for further education staff, or will they continue to fall behind teachers in schools?
Why was there not a single penny for adult education? The same goes for early years. The hourly rate for providers has not increased since 2017. Sure Start funding has collapsed and the additional funding for maintained nursery schools runs out at the end of the next financial year. Will that be addressed tomorrow, or have the youngest children been forgotten? It is the same story with this Prime Minister: empty promises, hollow words and numbers so dodgy he would probably put them on the side of a bus. If he thinks he will fool anyone, he better think again.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for such a kind and warm welcome to me in my new role; it was very generous of her. She raises a number of important points. We are talking about cash and a total settlement—including pensions— for schools that is worth £18.9 billion over three years. That does not even touch upon the Barnett consequentials for the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The issue of 16-to-19 education is one close to my heart, and the hon. Lady was right to highlight the fact that we are delivering an extra half a billion pounds—the £400 million plus £100 million to deal with pension pressures. I think most people would welcome such an announcement. She is right to highlight the important issue of children with special educational needs and making sure they get the right level of support and everything they need in the classroom, which is why, in the next financial year, we will deliver more than £700 million extra for those children. Even Opposition Members should recognise that is a significant increase, and those increases will continue over the following three years.
We have set out a three-year settlement for schools to give them the confidence to plan for and invest in their future. The hon. Lady raises the important issue of teaching assistants. I absolutely agree with her: they are incredibly important. My wife, who is a teaching assistant, tells me repeatedly how important they are, and I would never disagree with my wife.
Gavin Williamson
I might have to declare an interest.
I have seen the impact that teaching assistants have had on so many children’s lives. We all know that teachers can transform what a child can achieve in a classroom, and teaching assistants are an important part of that. I hoped the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) would welcome the new £30,000 starting salary for those coming into teaching. It is an important and bold move that shows the value we put on the teaching profession, as we value all those who teach—not just those just joining the profession, but those who have been in it for many years, which is why in my statement I made it clear that part of that money was to ensure they benefit from pay rises as well. As the hon. Lady will know, 85% of the spend of a school is on its workforce, which is why we have ensured such an important and large financial settlement over the next three years.
Let us look at what the Opposition have done. They have opposed every reform that has driven up standards, driven up attainment, driven up the life chances of children in this country. What will they do in the future? They will oppose every reform and change that we introduce to drive up the life chances of children in this country. Even when we bring forward the largest funding announcement for schools in a generation, they do not have the good grace to welcome it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome this spending settlement. We should celebrate it, not denigrate it. It is incredibly important. The Education Committee did some work on school funding. My right hon. Friend mentioned the excellent three-year funding settlement. The Department of Health and Social Care has a 10-year strategic plan. Does he not agree that, as we suggested in our report, there should be a 10-year strategic plan for education to give further stability to the education system? Will he also please support more funding for apprenticeships for people from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—the Education Committee’s report was an important reference point for me when I came into this role—and is right that setting out as long a term education strategy as possible gives the best chance for everyone in the education sector to plan in the best possible way. That is why I was so keen to land a three-year funding deal. We will certainly strive to give as much certainty as possible. He also raises the important point of apprenticeships, especially for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We need to see what more we can do to encourage those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to take up this brilliant route into work and success, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss in greater detail how we can achieve this as swiftly as possible.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
While I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, I find it extraordinary that he is standing at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State once again.
The announcement of any additional funding for schools is welcome, but there has to be more clarity and detail about the money. Teachers in England have been undervalued and underpaid for far too long, and while the Government’s announcement on teachers’ pay is positive, far more could be done. In Scotland, the starting salary for teachers is already £26,700, rising to £32,000 after one year, which is £7,000 more than for their counterparts in England. When will the Secretary of State match that level of funding? Moreover, rather than in 2022-23, will he give teachers in England the uplift they deserve now?
Academies in England are not bound by nationally agreed pay scales, and teachers are often paid at far lower levels, so will the Secretary of State now ensure that academy teachers in England are paid at the nationally negotiated pay levels, at a bare minimum? While increased primary funding is welcome—it is rising to £4,000, I think—it is still £1,000 less than the average funding in Scotland. It is simply not good enough. Scotland has the highest rates of positive destinations for young people anywhere in the UK—a sign of the success of Scottish education. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking at good practice in Scotland?
Finally, the impact of a no-deal exit on schools cannot be underestimated. The leaked document from the Department for Education in August outlined that rising food costs could mean free school meals costing £40 million to £85 million more than at present. Will the Secretary of State detail the contingency planning he has done to ensure that schools can provide free school meals?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristically warm welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. A lot of people in Scotland will be very interested to know whether the £1.9 billion extra that the Scottish Government will get will go directly to schools, or whether it will go to more pet projects of the SNP. Teachers and parents will be fascinated to know whether the SNP will guarantee that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I point out to the House that there is important business of various kinds to follow erelong, and there is, as a result, a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike. Moreover, unusually, I cannot guarantee that everybody who wishes to take part in the statement will be able to do so.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement on education funding. It is really good news. We must ensure that our young people have the skills they need to succeed in our modern economy. Does he agree that investing in further education is the best way to achieve this?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a critical point and the reason we were so keen to secure such a significant increase in funding for the 16-to-19 sector. The FE sector provides us with many opportunities to look at how we can invest more, create more opportunities for young people and ensure that people understand that pursuing a vocational career is just as important as pursuing academic interests.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the Education Secretary‘s figure of £14 billion extra for schools as
“somewhere between meaningless and misleading.”
It calculates that the real-terms increase will be more like £4.3 billion by 2022-3. That is just enough to reverse the cuts that have been made since 2015, so eight years later schools will, in essence, receive nothing. Given the importance of numeracy to the national curriculum, does the Secretary of State regret not doing his sums properly?
Gavin Williamson
I know that the hon. Lady has long campaigned in the f40 group for changes in school funding, and I thought that my statement might give her an opportunity to welcome the changes that we have implemented, which will benefit her constituents so much. We have been very clear about the amount of money that we are providing: a total of £18.9 billion for schools, of which £4.5 billion will cover pension costs, with the additional half a billion pounds going to 16-to-19 education. We will of course work closely with the Institute for Fiscal Studies in explaining our figures.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Extra money for our schools would ordinarily be welcomed, but I suppose we are in quite unusual times.
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and thank him for his announcement on behalf of the schools in Stockport, but may I ask him a slightly technical question? Would he consider increasing the minimum per pupil funding block as a proportion of the national funding formula?
Gavin Williamson
We always keep that issue under review, and I will come back to my hon. Friend when we have made further decisions on it. Let me take this opportunity to thank him for being such a doughty campaigner for the schools in his constituency, fighting to ensure that they receive extra funds and continue the brilliant work that they are doing.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We need to beware the smoke and mirrors. There has been an 8% cut in per pupil funding, and it will take a while for an inflation-linked increase year on year to catch up with that. The Secretary of State said that Ofsted might have a role in looking into how schools spent the money. Is he giving Ofsted new powers and new funding to enable it to investigate the way in which schools spend their funds, which is currently not its responsibility?
Gavin Williamson
We will update the House in due course on how we will work with Ofsted in that regard, but I think that one of our most important reforms has been ensuring that Ofsted can inspect outstanding schools, because I had picked up some concern among unions, parents and teachers about the fact that a number of schools had not been inspected for a long time.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many good schools, such as William de Ferrers School in my constituency, had made heroic efforts to find savings in recent years, to eliminate budget deficits, and were now, very reluctantly, having to consider increasing class sizes and dropping subjects? May I therefore thank him for recognising the need for extra funds? Will he confirm that in areas such as mine where substantial development is taking place, these funds will allow pupils who are moving into the constituency to enjoy a good education?
Gavin Williamson
An important element of the funding settlement that we have agreed with the Treasury is a recognition of demographic change that different parts of the country are experiencing, so that we can ensure that enough school places are provided. More than 1 million places have been created in the last nine years, and there is no doubt that more will be needed in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is invariably the winner of the “biggest smile” competition.
Lucy Powell
I do try, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. We in the Education Committee look forward to giving him a good grilling, hopefully fairly soon. I also welcome his announcement, which is long overdue, but may I ask him about the crucial early years and, in particular, about our maintained nursery schools, about which he has said nothing? Their funds will run out very soon, but they are the jewel in the crown of social mobility, and the amount that they need is a tiny fraction of what he has announced today.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She has raised an important point. I took the opportunity to visit a maintained nursery school in Sheffield to gain a proper understanding of the value that those schools bring and their impact on children in the early years. Obviously, my statement concerned school funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, but we constantly keep that issue under review, and I am examining it very closely.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I welcome the investment and the package to support schools and further education colleges in Cornwall, but how much will each of our schools and colleges receive over the next three years? The three-year multi-year settlement is very important.
Gavin Williamson
I know that my hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for schools and further education colleges in her constituency. One of the first pieces of correspondence I received was from her, demanding more for Cornwall, as we would expect of her. I shall write to the Members of Parliament who are affected, including my hon. Friend, and explain in detail the impact on the funding settlement in October, when we have finalised the figures. We received the broad settlement from the Treasury only last week.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The £200 uplift in 16-to-18 funding is welcome—but it is only a start; it is for only one year; and it falls short of the £760 per student for which Raise the Rate campaigners asked. Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to put that right?
Gavin Williamson
This is a 4.7% increase. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lecturer, and that he inspired many pupils in the course of his career before entering the House. I look forward to discussing with him how we make the best possible investment to deliver the best possible outcomes for all those children in further education.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s announcement of additional funds is very welcome, but as governors and head teachers need to plan in advance does he agree that what he said about the predictability and understandability of the funding system is almost as significant? Will he ensure that as the system is designed in detail he keeps an eye on ensuring that it stays so?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. I know that he represents a county that has historically faced funding challenges and that he has always campaigned for them to be addressed, and I am pleased to be able to do that. I will take his words very much to heart and ensure that we retain clarity and simplicity, as well as always ensuring that schools have a view as long-term as the funds that they will be receiving.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
We in Barnsley have lost nearly a third of our teaching assistants and school support staff. As a former teacher, I am aware of the vital job that they do, but the Secretary of State did not mention them once in his statement, and, despite his warm words in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we have still not been given any firm commitments. Will he rule out funding his plans by cutting school support staff further?
Gavin Williamson
We are giving schools the largest funding package in a generation. I know how much all schools value the amazing work that teaching assistants do every single day throughout the year. They have always made that a key part of their investment, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. However, as the hon. Lady may know, I do not determine staffing levels, how schools spend their money, or on which staff they spend that money.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the additional school funding announced by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary, which will benefit 17 schools in Crawley, but will my right hon. Friend say a little more about support for children with special educational needs?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning with many other colleagues who have been affected by historic lower levels of school funding in certain counties, and the result of his campaigning is the settlement that we have announced today. Special educational needs are a vital issue for every school in every part of the country, and it is vital for us to ensure that the level of funding is right. The £700 million that will be provided in the first year will have a direct impact in ensuring that those children have the level of provision and support that is required.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Some of the consequences of the chronic underfunding of special educational needs have been a huge rise in the number of exclusions and an increase in the number of parents forced to home-educate their children because they cannot find school places for them. What measures will the Secretary of State attach to this funding to ensure that there are enough specialist places and enough support in mainstream education to keep children with special educational needs in schools?
Gavin Williamson
It is always vitally important that we do everything we can to support children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, but I would point out that the numbers of exclusions from schools are lower today than they were when there was last a Labour Government.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating Goole academy on going from being in special measures a few years ago to this year achieving the best results ever in the school’s history?
I know from my time in the classroom that no teacher likes to see a child excluded, but on some occasions it is appropriate, for the child and the wellbeing of other pupils, for children not to be in classroom. Will the Secretary of State therefore turn his attention to ensuring we have better and proper alternative provision for children who cannot be dealt with in mainstream school?
Gavin Williamson
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Goole college on the turnaround it has been able to achieve. I know my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this field, having taught for many years himself, and I will take on board his point, because it is absolutely vital that we ensure that every child in school is able to get the type of education that we want them to get and not be disrupted by others, so ensuring we have the right provision for those children to go to is vital.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The question is whether parents have the information they need for utilising school funding. In Bristol South, as few as a quarter of primary schools and no secondary schools will receive any of this money, so what is the Secretary of State’s message to the other 75% of schools and their parents?
Gavin Williamson
I can assure the hon. Lady that provision has been made for local authorities to deliver more money for every school in England.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I warmly welcome this huge investment and the decisive action to undo the historically unfair underfunding of areas such as Leicestershire, but if we are to have a hard formula will my right hon. Friend look closely at the position of small schools, on which I led a debate before the summer? Will he look at the lump sum so we that can have not just more funding for our schools but support for small schools, too?
Gavin Williamson
Having had the great opportunity to visit Beauchamp college and Saint George’s primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know that they have been delivering the very best education for the children in Leicestershire, but it is also important to recognise the challenge that small schools face, and we keep that constantly under review.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Special needs education is, we know, in crisis across the country, but in the county the right hon. Gentleman and I share—Staffordshire—there are woeful discrepancies between different areas. In the last academic year, no education, health and care plan was completed within the statutory time limit in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, compared with 75% elsewhere, while in the Secretary of State’s own area the proportion was only 24%. When is he going to step in and act in the interests of children with special needs in our county?
Gavin Williamson
What we always take with great seriousness is how we can enhance and support all those with special educational needs. I am looking at this very closely, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), the Minister for children, to ensure that children who have that need for support get it as swiftly as possible, and that is why we are delivering an extra £700 million in the next financial year.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
As a member of the f40 campaign, may I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and particularly the extra funding for further education? In St Austell, we face particular challenges in maintaining A-level provision, so will the Secretary of State or the appropriate Minister meet me to see how this extra money can be used to secure A-level provision?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has long campaigned for a better and fairer funding settlement for Cornwall, and it is a great pleasure to be able to deliver that. I would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues in Cornwall regarding how best we can improve A-level provision in Cornwall.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We have seen a 53% increase in school exclusions over the last few years—a 53% increase—and half of all those children have special educational needs and are not getting the support. The anger about that is a sign of distress. How on earth is a renewed emphasis on exclusion going to help those children when we need more money spent on special educational needs?
Gavin Williamson
It is absolutely vital to ensure proper discipline in every single school, but it is also vitally important that those children who need the most support have that provided either within their school setting or, if they are excluded, by ensuring proper provision is provided for them outside.
European Union (Withdrawal)
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I now call the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has up to three minutes in which to make his application.
Mr Speaker
Resume your seat. I do not require any lectures in democracy from the hon. Gentleman; I will advise him of precisely what the position is, and it will brook of no contradiction.
First, the hon. Gentleman was rather laggardly and slow in rising when I had already called the right hon. Member for West Dorset—untypically so, I readily acknowledge.
Secondly, I say to the hon. Gentleman, in terms of crystal clarity, that if he wishes to raise a point of order he will of course have an opportunity to do so; I challenge him to identify any occasion upon which I have sought to deny him, and I do not do so. I am simply saying that I will take the application first. There is subsequently a ten-minute rule motion before we proceed to any debate, if there be such. The hon. Gentleman is never knowingly understated or not heard when he wishes to be; I will hear him. Patience, sir; it will be rewarded. I call Sir Oliver Letwin.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can be brief; in the light of the Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament next week it has become an urgent matter for Parliament, and particularly this House, to discuss whether it can accept a no-deal exit. I therefore ask you to grant an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his application, which is not entirely a matter of surprise either to Members of the House or large numbers of people outside it. I have heard what he said; I am familiar with his rationale; and I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman clearly enjoys the support of the House. I will go further; I will be my normal generous self to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in advertising for those who did not hear it that he was robustly objecting, which he is absolutely entitled to do. People need be in no doubt that there was an objection. In these circumstances, it is necessary for at least 40 Members to rise in their places to support the application. There is a very much larger number than 40 Members rising in support, so the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has obtained the leave of the House.
The debate will be held today as the first item of public business. It will last for up to three hours—that is to say, if it starts before seven o’clock—and it will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the application by the right hon. Gentleman.
We now come to the ten-minute rule motion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough is gesticulating—I will not even say chuntering—in a mildly eccentric manner from a sedentary position, and I am all agog to learn more of what he wishes to raise in his point of order.
Mr Bone
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was really just a procedural point, and I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 24 on page 33 of the Standing Orders. When a Standing Order No. 24 application is notified on a Tuesday, this has to be done by 10.30 in the morning. I inquired in the Vote Office after 10.30 this morning and was told that no Standing Order No. 24 application had yet been made, although they were expecting one. So it seemed to me that in those circumstances, this application could not be heard today and that it should have been heard tomorrow. That was why I was trying to make my point so early on, so that we did not have to go through with it. That seems very clear.
Mr Speaker
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s rationale, and I thank him for explaining his agitation to raise his point at an early stage. However, I must advise him—I must admit I thought he would have known this, because he is a keen partisan of parliamentary opportunities for Back Benchers—that the responsibility of a Member seeking to make such an application is to lodge that application with the Speaker. I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the application was lodged with me and my office yesterday evening, so it was well in time. Moreover, I hope that I carry the House with me in observing that, whatever people think of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), his courtesy is unsurpassed by any other Member of this House, and it was partly on account of that courtesy and because he wanted his intentions to be entirely intelligible that he was keen that his motion, if judged orderly, should be published as early as possible. It was published some hours ago. So the hon. Member for Wellingborough has had a good try, but I think that his efforts on this occasion on that point have been exhausted. I would suggest that the courteous thing to do now would be to proceed with the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has been patiently waiting.
Clean Air
Tuesday 3rd September 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Clean Air (No. 2) Bill 2017-19 View all Clean Air (No. 2) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about mitigating air pollution, including through the use of low emission zones; to prohibit vehicle idling; to restrict the approval and sale of vehicles with certain engine types; to require local authorities to undertake tree-planting and to take steps to promote the use of electric propulsion systems in buses and taxis; and for connected purposes.
The story of—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is most unfair on the hon. Gentleman, who is raising an important matter. May I please appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are not as keenly attentive to the contents of the ten-minute rule motion as I would like to be to continue their conversations outside the Chamber? It is only fair that the hon. Gentleman, who has booked his slot, should be heard in speaking up for his cause and his constituents.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to see so many colleagues attending to hear this ten-minute rule motion this afternoon. I always knew that clean air was a topic that would command widespread interest across the House.
The story of Ella Kissi-Debrah is a tragic one. Ella lived near Lewisham, just 80 feet from the north circular, one of south London’s most congested highways. As a south London MP, I can testify to the notorious congestion and pollution on that road. Ella tragically died of asthma and acute respiratory failure in 2013 after experiencing three years of seizures. Her mother Rosamund believes that pollution caused her daughter’s death. Earlier this year, the Attorney General and the High Court gave permission for a new inquest to formally investigate the link between pollution and Ella’s death. Of course we cannot generalise from one case, but the evidence suggests that Ella’s mum is right about the serious health risks of air pollution, especially nitrous oxides and particulate matter.
In 2016, a report by the Royal College of Physicians found that air pollution cuts short an estimated 40,000 lives a year in the UK, and that the young, the old and those with medical conditions are most at risk. Evidence to a joint Select Committee in 2018 said that air pollution was the second-largest cause of avoidable death after smoking. The Committee also found that health impacts ranged from causing premature births to respiratory and heart disease and dementia. My own twins were born very prematurely at 25 weeks, and reading that Select Committee report, I wondered whether air pollution in London had contributed to their extreme prematurity. The joint Select Committee’s report findings are corroborated by academic studies, including those published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Much progress has been made since 1970, and nitrous oxide and particulate pollution has reduced by about 70%, but the truth is that we must do much more. The Government’s clean air strategy, published in January this year, recognises that. In particular, it recognises the importance of the World Health Organisation limit of 10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM 2.5 particulates, which is much lower than the EU limit of 25 micrograms per cubic metre, but it is an inescapable fact that pollution levels in the UK are too high. As a south London MP, I see that in my own constituency. The A23, which runs through Croydon and includes the Purley Way, is much too polluted, and I am sure many colleagues around the House, particularly those from urban areas, have similar problems in their own constituencies.
The Government’s clean air strategy has many commendable ideas to address this, including action to fund electric vehicle charging roll-out and measures to prohibit the most polluting wood-burning stoves. I see that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is in his place. However, the clean air strategy needs to be put on a statutory footing, and this Parliament needs to follow previous Parliaments in passing a Clean Air Act, as we did to great effect in 1956, 1968 and 1993.
We also need to go much further than the measures proposed in the clean air strategy. For example, we should be looking at vehicle idling where cars are left stationary with their engines running. The sight of cars parked with their engines running outside schools is a sight that every parent, including me, finds very worrying. Efforts to stop this on a voluntary basis have not worked, and I think that fines similar to parking tickets will be more effective at stopping this behaviour. Trees absorb huge amounts of pollution, so planting more trees in urban areas will help. Specifically, moss walls had been found to be particularly effective in absorbing airborne heavy metals, with each section absorbing emissions equivalent to 42 diesel cars per month.
Speaking of diesel cars, they play an especially damaging role in air pollution. Governments of both colours and the European Union encouraged diesel cars over the last 20 or 30 years because of their lower CO2 emissions, but they emit far more particulates and nitrous oxide emissions than petrol cars, which hugely damages air quality on the streets where those cars are driven. It is worrying that sales of new diesel cars went up from 18% of new car sales in 2001 to a peak of 50% in 2015. This is especially problematic because the real-world emissions of diesel cars are six times higher than the emissions made in laboratory conditions. The Volkswagen scandal underscored the problems, when Volkswagen intentionally cheated the emissions testing regime. It is vital that we hold manufacturers such as Volkswagen to account for the damage they have done to our clean air.
Buses and taxis should be a particular focus, because they are often regulated or operated by local authorities. In London, only 155 buses out of 9,000 are fully electric, whereas in China, every single one of the 16,000 buses in the city of Shenzhen is electric. Even Santiago in Chile has more than twice the number of electric buses that London does. I would like to see all our buses and taxis electrically operated. If we do that, it will cut London’s transport emissions by 20%.
There is a great deal more that a Clean Air Act could do, and it is of vital importance to our nation’s health that we have such an Act. If by some great misfortune this private Member’s Bill does not reach the statute book in the three or four days between now and Prorogation—extraordinary though that sounds—I very much hope that a Clean Air Act will feature in a future Queen’s Speech.
There are many issues that divide this House. I expect that we will hear a great deal of discord and disagreement in the coming hours and days, in which I may well participate, but on this issue of clean air I hope that this House may speak as one. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Philp, James Gray, Gillian Keegan, Mrs Maria Miller, Sir Henry Bellingham, Sarah Newton, Ms Harriet Harman, Ellie Reeves, Mr Steve Reed, Sir Edward Davey, Douglas Chapman and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Chris Philp accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 432).
European Union (Withdrawal)
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:50 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I remind the House—it is a case of reminding as reference was made to this matter only a few moments ago—that a paper with the terms of the motion has been distributed.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and accordingly makes provision as set out in this order:
(1) On Wednesday 4 September 2019
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and call a Member to present the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Wednesday 4 September 2019 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords on any future sitting day, the House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (10) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order), any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) If such a message is received on or before the commencement of public business on Monday 9 September and a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message, that message shall be considered before any order of the day or notice of motion which stands on the Order Paper.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted –
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) in paragraph (5), the words “subject to paragraphs (6) and (7)” were omitted.
Reasons Committee
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(15) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(18) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this order apply.
Motion under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019
(19) No motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 prior to Monday 9 September.
Royal Assent
(20) At the sittings on Monday 9 September, Tuesday 10 September and Wednesday 11 September, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.
Proceedings in next Session of Parliament
(21) The provisions of paragraphs (22) and (23) of this order apply to and in connection with proceedings on a Bill in the next Session of the present Parliament if—
(a) the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill has been read the third time in the present Session of Parliament but has not received the Royal Assent;
(b) the Speaker is satisfied that the Bill is in similar terms to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament;
(c) notice of presentation of the Bill is to be given by a designated Member.
(22) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, Standing Order No. 14(11) (which relates to precedence in respect of private Members’ Bills) shall not apply in respect of the Bill in the new Session and notice of presentation of that Bill may be given on the first day of the new Session accordingly.
(23) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, the provisions of paragraphs (1), (3) to (9) and (11) to (18) shall apply to proceedings on and in connection with the Bill in the new Session as they apply to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and any reference in this order to Wednesday 4 September shall apply as if it were a reference to the second day of the new Session.
Interpretation, etc
(24) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Member in charge of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament; and
(b) any other Member backing the Bill in the present Session of Parliament and acting on behalf of that Member.
(25) This order shall be a Standing Order of the House.
This Motion arises because of four facts. The first fact is that, over the past six weeks, the Government have not produced a single indication of any viable proposal to replace the backstop by any alternative likely to prove acceptable to the EU. The likelihood of the Government reaching a deal at the European Council meeting on 17 and 18 October on the terms that the Government themselves have set is accordingly slight.
The second fact is that this is the last week in which Parliament will have the ability to block a no-deal exit on 31 October, because the Government are proroguing us until 14 October, and they have made it clear that they will fight in the courts any legislation proposed and passed to mandate an extension of the article 50 process. There will not be time after 14 October for Parliament both to legislate and for that legislation to be enforced on a reluctant Government through the courts.
The third fact is that, in the absence of a deal with the EU on the terms that the Government themselves have set and in the absence of an order from the Supreme Court that the Government should apply to extend the article 50 period, the Government will lead our country into a no-deal exit on 31 October. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions.
The fourth and final fact is that, instead of constituting a threat to the EU that will force them to capitulate and remove the backstop, the Government’s intention or willingness to lead the country into a no-deal exit is a threat to our country. The Prime Minister is much in the position of someone standing on one side of a canyon shouting to people on the other side of the canyon that if they do not do as he wishes, he will throw himself into the abyss. That is not a credible negotiating strategy, and it is also not a responsible strategy, given that the rest of us are to be dragged over the edge with the Prime Minister.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but does he not understand that, in any negotiation, the chances of a bad deal materially increase if one signals to the other side that one is not prepared to walk away? Does he not see that?
Sir Oliver Letwin
These are difficult matters of judgment, and I respect the judgment that my hon. Friend makes, but it is different from mine. When we were negotiating the coalition between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, which gave rise to a rather good Government, we were sitting around wondering how to conduct those negotiations. We came to the conclusion that actually we should disobey the rules of negotiation that my hon. Friend is describing and offer a bold and imaginative offer to the other side, which was then accepted, and we formed a coalition on the terms on which we wished to form it by mutual accord. That is the way in which I believe these negotiations can proceed. To offer a threat that actually harms us many times more than those against whom the threat is supposedly levelled is not, as I say, a credible negotiating strategy. I accept that our judgments differ on that, but that is my judgment. It is a matter for the House to decide which of the two judgments is correct.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Before I give way, I will say that this will be the last intervention I will take before I move on a bit.
Crispin Blunt
If my right hon. Friend recalls, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on no deal two weeks before we gave notice under article 50, which was unanimously agreed across a Committee wholly split on the merits of the issue, concluded that the damage that would be done by the failure to get an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be greater for the European Union in material terms, but greater for the United Kingdom in proportionate terms. However, the absolute damage being represented on the other side is at stake, so his negotiation—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very selfish if an intervention is so long as to prevent other people from getting in.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend that the proportions are different from the absolutes, but I fear that my hon. Friend’s Committee’s report was deficient, in my view, in an important respect. There is a counterbalancing point from the EU’s perspective, and that is that actually demonstrating that it causes great pain proportionately to the country that is doing it is regarded as a significant political, ideological and geopolitical advantage. We have no similar advantage, so the threat to our prosperity and the welfare of our people is the only issue that arises, whereas for the EU there is a positive advantage in a no-deal exit to be balanced against the absolute and proportionately much smaller effect on the member states’ economies. Again, my hon. Friend and I may differ in that judgment, but that is the judgment that we are asking the House to make, and I take the view that I have espoused.
In the light of the four facts—the slender chance of a deal being struck on the Government’s terms; the fact that this is Parliament’s last chance to block a no-deal exit on 31 October; the fact that without a parliamentary block the Government are willing to take us into a no deal exit; and the fact that prospect of such a disorderly and undemocratic no-deal exit is a threat to our prosperity and our Union, rather than an effective negotiating strategy with the EU—we are putting forward to the House today a motion, the sole purpose of which is to enable the House tomorrow to debate and vote on a Bill in the names of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If the House votes for this motion tonight, it will give itself the ability to vote for that Bill tomorrow. That Bill will mandate the Prime Minister to seek an extension to 31 January unless he has either got a deal in place at the end of the European Council meeting in October and has got it agreed by Parliament or has got Parliament to agree to a no-deal exit by 19 October.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He said just now that he thinks there is only a very slender chance of a deal—I disagree with him on that point—and also that he wishes to block no deal. If he sees little or no chance of a deal and little or no chance of no deal, what is the point of an extension to 31 January just to do this again and again? Can he not see the damage that would be done to businesses by having this process repeated every three months ad infinitum?
Sir Oliver Letwin
Uncertainty does create difficulty for business. A no-deal exit will create a great deal more difficulty for business, in my judgment.
The purpose of the extension, which will no doubt be debated extensively if this motion is passed and there is a debate on the Bill tomorrow, is very clear. It is to provide the Government with the time to seek to solve this problem and to enable Parliament to help to resolve an issue that has proved very difficult.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am afraid that I will not give way again.
I do not say it is easy to do it by 31 January, but I am sure it will not be done by 31 October. We are between a rock and a hard place, and in this instance the hard place is better than the rock—it is as simple as that. It is decision time. If hon. Members across the House want to prevent a no-deal exit on 31 October, they will have the opportunity to do so if, but only if, they vote for this motion this evening. I hope they will do so.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
During my time in this House, every Prime Minister has accepted that there can be honourable disagreements, and I have had many disagreements with each and every one of them. That has led to many votes in this House, which have not always been entered into with certainty on the outcome or on victory, but both sides have always done so safe in the knowledge that this Parliament is sovereign and can act as an effective block on any abuse of power. I therefore urge all MPs on all sides to stand up for what is right and for what they believe in and to support this cross-party move.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to trust the Prime Minister that a deal is in sight, he should do all he can to show evidence of the progress he has made in the negotiations over the summer and publish the Government’s proposals?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point because, in the six weeks or so since the Prime Minister took office, apparently no proposals have been put to the European Union and there have been no substantive negotiations. He keeps talking about the prospect of progress being made. Well, one would have thought he would have something practical to report to the House by this stage, and, so far, he has not.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
If a motion for an October general election comes forward before the end of the week, will the right hon. Gentleman vote for it? Yes or no.
Jeremy Corbyn
We are ready for a general election, ready to take on this Government and ready to win a general election to end austerity and poverty across this country, but just look at what we face: a Government determined to subvert the democratic process and to force through a policy that a majority of this House do not support and that has been defeated emphatically twice in this House; a Government who are so determined to continue on their reckless path that they are willing to use every trick in the book and to find every loophole to try to silence this House, and we cannot stand idly by.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I think I am correct in saying that, in 2015, the Leader of the Opposition voted for the referendum. Did he mean to abide by the result?
Jeremy Corbyn
Yes, the Labour Opposition did support the referendum and did take part in the referendum campaign. We also made it very clear at the general election that we would not countenance a no-deal exit from the European Union because of the damage it would do. We cannot hope for another opportunity further down the line to stop this Government’s destructive course. There is no more time—they have taken it away—and this may be our last opportunity. Today we must act.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Many constituents and businesses in Midlothian have contacted me, and they are very worried about the grave danger of a no-deal Brexit and the effect it would have. What does my right hon. Friend think about the effect of a no-deal Brexit on our people and businesses across the country?
Jeremy Corbyn
I was with my hon. Friend in Scotland last week, and we heard concerns from many people, particularly those who trade extensively with Europe, about the effect of a no-deal Brexit and the damage it would do to their businesses and the jobs that go with them.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to avoid a no-deal exit, but he voted against the deal three times. Exactly what changes to the withdrawal agreement would he like to see if he were ever to vote for it?
Jeremy Corbyn
I think I am right in saying that on two occasions I voted alongside the Prime Minister against those deals.
I understand that Members on both sides of the House are under a great deal of pressure in what is, regrettably, an extremely volatile political climate, but if you truly trust in what all the analysis shows—including the Government’s own analysis, as was demonstrated earlier—if you believe in what the experts say and if you understand that a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for this country, you must act now.
With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have shown the political courage to boldly stand up for what they believe in by bringing this debate to the House. The bullying and the threats to Conservative Members from their own side is unprecedented, but let me offer some words of encouragement. [Interruption.] It is all right; I am trying to help. Standing by your principles does not always damage your future prospects.
Mr Baron
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I suggest that he should be careful with his selection of evidence? The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016. They said there would be economic disaster by Christmas 2016, and they were all wrong. Since then there has been record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment, in the full knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only problem is that it flies in the face of all the facts that are published day in, day out. The value of the pound is falling and manufacturing industry is falling, and I will come on to a number of other industries that are seriously at threat.
I pay tribute to those people across all parties who have come together and continued to work to make a stand against this Government’s reckless and shambolic approach. The Prime Minister says that now is not the time for Parliament to make this stand. He says the chances of a Brexit deal are improving and that the outlines of an agreement are in the making, yet all the evidence points to the contrary. So far, in their six weeks in office, this Government have spent more time trying to avoid scrutiny and trying to silence Parliament than focusing on getting a good deal for this country. With weeks to go until we crash out of the European Union, they have failed to bring forward any new proposals, especially with regard to the Irish backstop.
Even if the Government had worked up new plans or presented a way forward, it seems very unlikely that the EU would agree to the Prime Minister’s red line of scrapping the backstop. As the Attorney General reportedly put it, such a proposition would be a “complete fantasy.” The reality is that no progress has been made in Brussels, nor is there likely to be. This reckless Government only have one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal, at whatever price to our industry, to people’s jobs and to people’s living standards.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jeremy Corbyn
I have given way many times to Conservative Members, so I will continue.
That is why so many people across this House will stand up to say no to no deal. It has been exposed today, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff called negotiations a “sham” and that the real strategy is to run down the clock. That is why it is incumbent on us, as Members of Parliament, to act today. Voting to block no deal will not kill the positive momentum in Brexit negotiations, because there is no momentum in the Brexit negotiations to kill. What we are asking MPs today to do is to rule out playing Russian roulette with this country’s future, with our industry, our national health service and people’s jobs and livelihoods all at stake for the Government’s trying to retain power.
Let us not forget what no deal means for this country. No deal will decimate our manufacturing industry. No deal will destroy our agricultural sector.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that the west midlands group of MPs has undertaken lots of consultations. We have another meeting tomorrow with businesses in the west midlands, because they are concerned about the implications of no deal. Does he agree that it is imperative that we get a proper deal to safeguard the millions of jobs up and down the country, particularly those in the west midlands and Coventry?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend is right to say that the west midlands will be particularly hard hit, because so much of its industry relies on just-in-time deliveries from the continent, as well as exports to it, and on a manufacturing process that means that, if any interruption whatsoever happens, there is chaos immediately at the point of production, as well as at the transport system that supplies those places. There has to be some realistic understanding in this House of the implications of a no-deal Brexit for the west midlands, as well as for other parts of this country.
Jeremy Corbyn
I have given way many times to many people, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make a wonderful contribution when he gets to make his speech.
No deal threatens peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and threatens our policing and counter-terrorism co-operation with Europe. No deal will mean food shortages and medical shortages, and it will bring chaos to our ports and transport networks. Earlier, we had a Minister at the Dispatch Box proudly telling us that 1,000 more staff have been employed to deal with congestion that will be happening at the channel ports. Is that not an indication of the Government’s own admission of what the problems are going to be if we leave with no deal?
Our economy is already fragile—the economy contracted in the last quarter and manufacturing has contracted at the fastest pace for seven years—and no deal would accelerate that decline. As I said, now is not the time to play Russian roulette with our economy. These are not the warnings of some ultra-remain group. These are warnings outlined in the Government’s own assessments and the warnings of leading industry figures. Members do not have to take my word for it. They do not have to listen to me if they do not want to. Instead, they can listen to the likes of Make UK, which represents 20,000 British manufacturing companies and has said that leaving without a deal would be
“the height of economic lunacy”.
They can listen to the National Farmers Union, which has said that no deal would have a “devastating impact” on British food and farming and
“must be avoided at all costs”.
Or they can listen to the British Medical Association, which has made clear:
“The consequences of ‘no deal’ could have potentially catastrophic consequences for patients, the health workforce and services, and the nation’s health.”
We must listen to what every sector of society is telling us regarding the damage of a no-deal Brexit and what it will do to our society and our economy. If we, as a Parliament, do not make this stand today, there may not be another opportunity—it may simply be too late. We must listen to those warnings, If people in this House know better than the BMA, the NFU or Make UK about their own sectors, or know better than the trade unions that represent the people working in those plants and delivery facilities all over the country, they should say so now. I have met trade unionists all over the country in the past few months and spoken to the TUC about this. They are all deeply worried about the continued job losses in manufacturing because of the uncertainty that no deal will bring.
I understand that there will be some concern about the Bill that may follow this debate—some concern from Members across the House that supporting such a Bill would be an attempt to block Brexit or reverse the results of the 2016 referendum. That is not the case; this Bill does not close other options to resolve the Brexit impasse. The Bill is about preventing a damaging no deal, for which this Government have no mandate and for which there is very little public support. The Bill is designed purely to provide vital breathing space in order to find an alternative way through the Brexit mess that this and the previous Government have created.
Today is another historic day in Parliament. It is our chance to seize this last opportunity and to stand up to a bullying Government who have shown themselves ready to dodge scrutiny and silence debate. If we do not act today, we may not get another chance. Whether people voted leave or remain, they did not vote to shut down democracy. The very large number of people who were on the streets last Saturday, from both the leave and remain views, were very concerned about the way in which this Government are trying to shut down debate, shut down democracy and lead us into what I believe would be the problems of a no-deal Brexit. So I urge all MPs today to do what they believe to be right for their constituents—for their jobs, their living standards and their communities—and support the proposal today that we may debate the Bill tomorrow and prevent a no-deal Brexit, with all the damage it would do to our community and to our society.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, brought to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and to follow the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
The Prime Minister has said, including in his statement earlier, that this Government are absolutely committed to delivering Brexit on 31 October. We must deliver the largest democratic mandate in this nation’s history. Delivering the referendum result requires this House to respect the voice of the people as expressed in that historic vote—so far, the House has failed to do so. And now, instead of backing the Prime Minister and giving him the best possible chance of securing a deal before the UK leaves the European Union on 31 October, we find ourselves debating a proposition that seeks to confound the referendum result again. Mr Speaker, I wish to be clear: what is proposed today is constitutionally irregular.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Would the right hon. Gentleman remind the House: how many times did he vote against the deal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The deal is dreadful, which is why the Prime Minister is getting a better one—if only the House would let him. However, this is irregular, both in terms of the approach to allowing SO 24s on substantive motions and in terms of the subversion of Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman will know the importance of the Good Friday agreement to the people of Northern Ireland. He will also know, as a Unionist, that without a deal there will be an inevitable hardening of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which will incentivise Sinn Féin to agitate for a border poll to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland—into a united Ireland. How on earth could he defend the indefensible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Because I simply disagree with the hon. Lady—there would have to be a political desire to impose a hard border, and neither the United Kingdom nor the Government of the Republic of Ireland have such a desire.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I have a certain fondness for the right hon. Gentleman, stemming from our time on the restoration and renewal Committee some years ago. I will tell him what is constitutionally irregular: shutting down Parliament, shutting down debate and shutting down the ability of MPs to hold this Government to account. Can he therefore tell me when he became aware of the Prime Minister’s plan to shut down Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit? Papers in the Court of Session today suggest that this was the Prime Minister’s plan on 16 August.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As Parliament is not being shut down—cannot be shut down—I could not be aware of plans to do something that is not happening, so the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.
Mr Baron
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of Members—colleagues—who will vote against the Government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the EU with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they now do not understand?
Mr Rees-Mogg
They do not like losing referendums and never accepted the result.
I must come back to the constitutional issue, because this motion risks subverting Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating. You in particular, Mr Speaker, have a grave responsibility, of which I know you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play, and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce—to hinder rather than to polish—our constitution.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House is talking about the alleged subversion of democracy. He seemed not to answer the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), so I ask clearly: first, on what date did the Leader of the House first become aware of the plan to prorogue Parliament? Secondly, have any officials from his office, 10 Downing Street or elsewhere, whether political advisers or civil servants, been conducting communications away from the normal channels, in such a way that would not comply with the terms of candour and disclosure necessary for the court proceedings that are currently taking place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If people were carrying out discussions without candour, I would not know about them so would not be able to tell the hon. Gentleman whether they had happened. I carry out all my discussions with candour and—if anybody is interested—the Privy Council’s function is reported in the Court Circular.
Mr Vara
Were we to leave the EU on a no-deal basis, in effect that would mean that we would operate on World Trade Organisation rules. Given that the EU currently operates on WTO rules with a number of countries—including the US, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and many others—does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be fearful of trading on WTO rules outside the EU? We already trade on WTO rules in the EU.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant and incisive point and is absolutely right.
We need to examine what is being put forward to the House and to consider the concerning and odd fact that it is actually being permitted in the first place. Let us look at Standing Order No. 24 and the approach we are taking. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take an interest in the rules of the House.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend agree that we would be perfectly all right to proceed on WTO rules. Does he accept that WTO rules will require the European Union to apply tariffs against our agriculture, fisheries and much of our manufacturing, in line with the tariffs it imposes against other third-party countries, and that WTO rules will require us to have a closed border in Ireland to enforce those restrictions? We cannot have it one way and another: we either obey the WTO rules or we ignore those as well and pretend we are going into some never-never land, but my right hon. Friend cannot simply accept calmly the argument that WTO rules would do no damage to our economy.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I must confess that I am surprised by my right hon. and learned Friend’s astonishment because I have been making the case for WTO rules for some time. It has been a sensible way to proceed and will allow us to carry on trading as we do with many other countries.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that the House’s role is one of scrutiny, and I agree, yet does he not see that there is an incompatibility between that scrutiny and in fact taking steps through Prorogation to deprive us of the effective opportunity to carry it out? When considering that, he may also agree with me that so much in this House depends on trust. How can we have trust when there have already been a number of examples of the Government’s making inaccurate statements, such as, first, that the papers prepared for its Yellowhammer briefing were the product of a previous Administration when they were not; and secondly, and perhaps most pertinently, when it appears that the facts as stated by the Government as to the reasons for Prorogation have turned out to be entirely inaccurate and are now causing the Government considerable difficulties over their duty of candour in litigation? When he aggregates all that together, perhaps my right hon. Friend might begin to understand why many of us have finally decided that this House must take action.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. and learned Friend is very learned but his learning does not always lead him in the right direction. The Prorogation is completely routine. When I was first—and, indeed, last—at this Dispatch Box, Opposition Front Benchers were asking for the Session to be brought to an end. We were merely being our obliging selves in leading forth to a new Queen’s Speech in the general course of events.
Mr Rees-Mogg
In due course, because we always like to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who informs and educates us when he speaks—
Mr Rees-Mogg
No. We are going to have to wait for this informing and educating. We are all bating our breath for it, but I like to keep people on tenterhooks for the time being, because I wish to talk about our old friend “Erskine May”, which sets out your role, Mr Speaker. The chief characteristics attached the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. It would be disorderly, wrong and not my intention to question your impartiality, Mr Speaker, but, as with the umpires at Edgbaston who saw eight of their decisions sent for review and overturned, accepting somebody’s impartiality is not the same as accepting their infallibility.
It is worth noting what a wise and scholarly Speaker once said—indeed, this wise and scholarly Speaker said as recently as last year that a debate held under Standing Order No. 24 could be held on a substantive and amendable motion only if the Standing Order is itself amended. In April 2018, in the light of two emergency debates on the UK’s decision to take military action in Syria, you yourself, Mr Speaker, said that
“it is perfectly open to the House to amend Standing Order No. 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often incomprehension. It could be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions in circumstances of emergency, which could also be amendable and on which the House could vote. If there are Members who are interested in that line of inquiry, they could usefully raise it with the Chair of the Procedure Committee”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 475.]
As far as I am aware, no change has been made to Standing Order No. 24, yet the decision has changed—varius et mutabilis semper dictor.
Chris Bryant
The Leader of the House said earlier that Parliament is not being suspended, but in this case it is. He knows perfectly well that Select Committees will not be able to sit, and as according to the Bill of Rights, there will be absolutely no proceedings of Parliament while Parliament is prorogued. I want Parliament to prorogue, but I want it to prorogue only for four or five days so that we can do our job of scrutinising the Government through proceedings in Parliament. That is the point: we want a Queen’s Speech but we also want to be able to come back and do our job.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House only too well. He knows that we are about to go, in some cases, to the seaside for party conferences—in the case of my party, to a major city centre. That is why we are taking four or five days of parliamentary time and simply going over the normal recess. That is not in any sense an abuse.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House go back to his point about Standing Order No. 24? It seems to me that he is absolutely correct—as Mr Speaker was correct in his previous statement—that this could not be on a substantive motion. If the motion, which appears to be substantive, is carried tonight, it seems to me that the Government would have every right to declare it ultra vires and ignore it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the Chair, entitled as he is to the possession and expression of his opinion. What I say to him in order to help him and to assist the Leader of the House is this: if, in the judgment of the Chair, a motion under Standing Order No. 24 is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment—if it is judged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is that there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order No. 24 motion debates which have contained what I would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably on 18 March 2013 and on 11 December 2018 with which I feel sure the Leader of the House is familiar. It is in conformity with that practice that I have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind, and I am entirely satisfied that the judgment that I have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the House. The Leader of the House rightly referred to my responsibility as grave and solemn, and I completely accept that as well as I accept his right to his own view about my judgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons—to facilitate the legislature. I have done it; I am doing it; and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour—or, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful, as always, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to the debate. It is always very useful that your words are referred to and that the House should be reminded of them. It was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and that the motion should be amended, which it has not been.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is so much to say and so little time, and others want to speak.
This motion is extraordinary in a number of ways.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether I might go back to the matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). It was revealed in court this morning in a case raised in my name and that of 70 other Members of this House that on 16 August the Prime Minister agreed to a suggestion that Parliament should be prorogued on 9 September, but on 25 August a No. 10 spokesperson said
“the claim that the Government is considering proroguing Parliament in September in order to stop MPs debating Brexit is entirely false.”
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the spokesperson misled MPs and the public on 25 August?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say that the most obvious understanding of the ordinary use of the English language, which normally the hon. and learned Lady is pretty good at, makes it quite clear that the two statements are entirely compatible. The Prorogation is the normal Prorogation to have a new Session; it is not to stop debate on matters related to the European Union.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is, of course, a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He spoke earlier about candour. The need for candour means that he has to accept that, when it comes to WTO, all countries bar about three in the world are in regional trade associations—the three that are not are South Sudan, Somalia and East Timor, and they will probably soon be joined by the UK if we have a hard Brexit. The fact that all these countries, bar three, are in regional trade associations means that they do not exclusively trade on WTO terms. Therefore, when he talks about taking the UK to a place where we exclusively trade on WTO terms, he is talking about moving us away from free trade with 500 million people, making trade more expensive. That is his policy. The other question is this: did he know about the Prorogation on 16 August?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On 16 August, I was at Lords watching a game of cricket, unless it was one of the days when it rained. On the WTO issue, our trade with the United States on WTO terms—I know that the hon. Gentleman is expert in these matters—has grown faster since the creation of the single market than our trade with European Union.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand his views and his concerns about the supposed constitutional irregularity of these proceedings, and no doubt in the future all these things can be debated. Will he accept that, as a nation, we stand at present at a moment that will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people, that the sovereign Parliament of this country clearly deserves an opportunity to be able to decide whether it will accept a policy of no-deal exit or not and that that overwhelmingly matters more than whether the Standing Order No. 24B, which has “where” in it—misdrafted in all probability by the then Leader of the House—has a particular meaning or does not have a particular meaning?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
Order. I recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House on all aspects of this matter, but the Leader of the House must be heard.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Sovereignty in this House comes from the British people. The idea that we can overrule 17.4 million people is preposterous, and the idea that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have given way so many times and to many distinguished Members, and it is now time to come on to this extraordinary and unprecedented motion.
Parliament is attempting to set aside Standing Order No. 14 to give precedence to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill. This motion goes further and seeks to claim an unknown and unquantified number of subsequent days for consideration of Lords amendments and messages. It is a fundamental principle that the Government are able to transact their business in this House—a principle that this House has long accepted in Standing Order No. 14. This motion also sets aside, in a new parliamentary Session, the Standing Orders that apply in relation to the presentation of private Members’ Bills. The motion would allow a designated Member—or a few of the Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves—to give notice of the presentation of this Bill on the first day of a new Session and then provide time for debate on this Bill on the second day of the new Session, interrupting the Queen’s Speech debate.
There is an established process for the House debating the Queen’s Speech—a process that this Bill would undermine. Although the Outlawries Bill has its First Reading just before the start of the Queen’s Speech debate, this Bill is only read the First time as a formality and not debated. To interrupt the Queen’s Speech debate to debate a Back-Bench Bill, such as the one proposed in this motion, would be unprecedented. The Government have an obligation to bring forward their business, and the Queen’s Speech and the debate that follows form one of the great set pieces of the parliamentary calendar, where the Government are rightly scrutinised and held to account, and that is being interrupted.
David Linden
I want to come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). He has said quite a lot, as a Brexiteer, that we would be taking back control of our laws. Can the Leader of the House be crystal clear at the Dispatch Box tonight that if the Bill passes in this House and in the other place, the Government will not stop it getting Royal Assent—if we are taking back control of our laws?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The law will be followed. We are a country that follows the rule of law and this Government assiduously follow constitutional conventions, unlike some other Members of this House.
Sir William Cash
The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) can only be described as breathtaking. In support of the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it was weighted with great arrogance, may I ask him to be good enough to confirm that in fact the European Union Referendum Bill, as enacted, was a sovereign Act of Parliament, which deliberately gave the right to the British people, and not to the British Parliament, to make the decision on the question of remain or leave?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is of course right. We report to the British people; they are our bosses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who has been so patient.
Vicky Ford
I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Getting back to the bigger picture, the Prime Minister made it very clear in his speech last night and in his statement today that his preferred outcome is to leave with a deal. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that is also his preferred outcome and that, if a deal is agreed at the next European Council, sufficient time will be made in this Chamber to ensure that we legislate for that deal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can say, both personally and as bound by collective responsibility, that I am in favour of a deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
We must allow other Members to speak. I see that time’s wingèd chariot is speeding away, and therefore I must get on to the separation of powers. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to carry on all night, I will do my best.
Today’s debate goes to the heart of our constitution and the roles of the Executive and of Parliament. These are matters of careful balance. It is for the Government, by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of this House, to exercise Executive power. That includes the order of business and the bringing forward of legislation. It is for Parliament to scrutinise, to amend, to reject or to approve. Indeed, the scrutiny of the Executive is one of the core functions of Parliament. These complementary and distinctive roles are essential to the functioning of the constitution.
Ministers are of course accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions, and Parliament can make clear its views. It is not, however, for Parliament to undertake the role and functions of the Executive. The constitutional convention is that Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government, who have a democratic mandate to govern. That mandate is derived from the British people and represented through this House.
Mr Speaker, when we look at this constitution, we see that we are protected by our rules, our orders and our conventions. We will remember from “A Man for All Seasons” that it is those rules, laws and conventions that protect us from the winds of tyranny, and if we take away those protections, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset proposes to do, we lose our protections. It is therefore on the basis of this convention that the Government, not Parliament, are responsible for negotiations with the European Union. Parliament as a whole cannot negotiate for the UK; that is the role of the Government, in exercising Executive power to give effect to the will of the nation.
These roles are fundamental and underpin the country’s uncodified constitution. The Government draw power from Parliament, but the Government may at any time be removed by the tried and tested motion of a confidence debate. The fact is that Parliament has not been willing to go down that route, and the reason is that the Opposition are afraid of that route and run away from it, because they do not dare have the Leader of the Opposition as the Head of Government. They are frightened. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that there is time. Let me say, as Leader of the House, that if the Opposition want a motion of confidence, this Government will always obey the constitutional convention and make time for it. But they are afraid—they are white with fear—because they do not want the right hon. Gentleman in No. 10 Downing Street.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the House succeeds in stripping our Prime Minister of the key negotiating card of no deal, the likelihood of that outcome will be that much accentuated?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it would make the negotiations that much harder.
Let us now turn to the substance of what we are debating. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Bill is to stop no deal. But the Government want a deal. We are willing to sit down with the Commission and EU member states to talk about what needs to be done and to achieve a deal. That must involve the excision of the anti-democratic backstop. The Government have also been clear that we must respect the referendum result and that the UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. Unless and until the EU agrees to negotiate, we will be leaving with no deal on 31 October.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement earlier today, in which he informed the House of all that is being done to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. The good boy scouts that we are, we are prepared.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will definitely give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise that, in proroguing Parliament for five weeks—the longest Prorogation, right in the middle of a political crisis, since 1945—he and his Government have deliberately prevented scrutiny that would be legitimate in this House, hence the situation we find ourselves in now? Will he now confirm at the Dispatch Box that if the Bill passes through this House and the other place, he will speed Royal Assent and that his Government will not act against the law?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not wish to be pedantic, but one of the constitutional niceties is that we are Her Majesty’s Government, not mine, and we are led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The important issue here is that Prorogation is a routine start for a new Session, and we are losing a similar number of days to the number we would lose in a normal Prorogation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will give way to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), but she is trumped, momentarily, by the Chair of the Brexit Committee.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Now that Mr Speaker has made it clear that there is nothing at all irregular about his acceptance of this motion, and given that the Leader of the House accepts, as I presume he does, that the House is in charge of its own procedures, how can there be anything constitutionally irregular in the House choosing—if it passes the motion and then the Bill tomorrow—to instruct the Government that there is an outcome to the Brexit negotiations that it is not prepared to accept, which is leaving without a deal on 31 October?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman conflates irregular and improper. The motion is unquestionably irregular, even though it is not improper—the two are different concepts, as I am sure he fully understands. It is of course for the House to regulate its own proceedings, but a fundamental principle of our constitution is that the Government command the confidence of the House. [Interruption.] Ah! From a sedentary position an hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not. Now, that is the lock that would undo this constitutional conundrum, because the House dare not say that it has no confidence in the Government—it is frightened of that—and therefore it tries to take away confidence on specifics while maintaining confidence in the generality. That is not a proper constitutional position to be in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is very difficult to choose to whom to give way, but I did promise the hon. Lady.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has referred many times in his speech to accountability. Within that vein of accountability, may I ask him a simple question: on what date did he become aware of the Prime Minister’s intention to prorogue Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have been asked that question, and I understand that there are papers in court. I do not know when I was told that it was happening, although I did have to take a flight out to Aberdeen for a meeting of the Privy Council. I would need to consult my diary and my telephone records, and I would not wish to say something that was inaccurate.
Let us get back to what is happening here. I was saying that we, being good boy scouts, are well prepared for leaving with or without a deal, and it is absurd for MPs to attempt to bind the Prime Minister’s hands as he seeks to agree a deal that they can support ahead of the European Council.
The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill would make it harder to deliver the two things that the public want from Brexit: certainty and for it to be delivered. The Bill does not do this. It is nothing but legislative legerdemain and a vehicle for extension after extension.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham voted overwhelmingly to leave and are very concerned about this proposed Bill, which, as they see it, would block Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that if the Bill were to pass, the options available would be to the EU and that those options would be to agree a largely pointless three-month extension, which would almost certainly be repeated; to offer a deal of the EU’s choice, not negotiated by our Government; or no deal? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not taking back control for this Parliament or this Government, but ceding it entirely to Brussels?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is happening is a deliberate attempt to sow the seed for an extension long enough for a second referendum or simply to stop us leaving at all. It is about denying Brexit, and the fact that the Bill mandates updates on negotiations and motions on those updates on a rolling 28-day basis clearly envisages either a lengthy extension or possibly indefinite vassalage. These seeds could grow into legislation to be introduced on 15 January, 12 February and every 28 days thereafter to command the Government to take specific actions. The aim is to create a marionette Government in which there is only nominal confidence, and it defies the convention in what we are doing today—a convention of great importance, that emergency legislation is passed only when there is a consensus.
Governments less benign than this one may in future learn from this process and ram through any legislation they feel like. Without consensus, those on the Opposition Benches should be very careful about emergency legislation, for they may find they are at the wrong end of it in the future. We should be trying to help the Prime Minister in his chance to negotiate, not trying to bind him hand and foot: not only do we want to be the vassal state of the European Union; we wish to send the Prime Minister, bound hand and foot, to go and negotiate with the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing gently to a close, and therefore I fear that time for interventions, except from my very old friend, the right hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the very distinguished Committee that she is the Chair of. [Laughter.]
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.
There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady, and I must confess that I am astonished that she is not a right hon. Member. Something must have gone wrong with the Privy Council, of which I am now Lord President, for that not to be the case. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) feels that he has also not been justly promoted; I am sorry.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong because there is a routine constitutional procedure to deal with the situation she describes, and that is the vote of confidence. Yes, we are a representative body, but where does our sovereignty come from? Here I am in agreement with the Scots: sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. We hold it in trust for them and they gave us an instruction. If we follow this route, we are left with but three options: we have to accept the deal with its anti-democratic backstop; we have to keep on extending, because Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave; or we could simply revoke and tell 17.4 million people that they were wrong.
The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this House since the days of Charles Stewart Parnell, when he tried to bung up Parliament. Usurping the Executive’s right is unconstitutional; the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional; and the Bill itself is yet more unconstitutional. A. V. Dicey said that all conventions have
“one ultimate object, to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet…shall in the long run give effect to the will…of the nation”.
These conventions are being disregarded today, and so, by extension, is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. It does not come to Parliament out of a void. If Parliament tries to challenge the people, this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are our masters and show ourselves to be their lieges and servants, not place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today, I hope that all Members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and consider the chaos that this concatenation of circumstances could create.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House. I remind him that Lord Cooper in the Court of Session said that parliamentary sovereignty is a purely English concept that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional history. In Scotland, the people are sovereign, and that, of course, will be a matter of importance as the people of Scotland decide what their future will be.
I am rather surprised by the right hon. Gentleman, who has always been a student of the rights of the House, because the harsh reality is that the reason we are in this situation—that Parliament is to be prorogued—is that the Prime Minister has instructed three stooges to go to Balmoral to give an instruction to the Queen to shut this place down. For all the pronouncements that this is normal, it most certainly is not normal for Parliament to be prorogued for five weeks, and we know that the simple reason is that the Government are running away from the powers and responsibilities that this House has. It is shameful and disgraceful, and in that regard I am deeply honoured and privileged to endorse the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
The Scottish Government have today launched an ambitious programme for government that is aimed at tackling climate change, building a fairer economy, reducing inequality and improving the lives of citizens across Scotland—a Government getting on with their day job, 12 years into government yet still focused on making life better for those in Scotland. But while the Government in Holyrood are stepping up to meet the challenges facing both Scotland and the world, Westminster is quite literally shutting down. It is very much a tale of two Governments. While the Scottish National party is doing everything here and in Edinburgh to move Scotland forward, the threat to our economy and society from the right-wing Brexiteer cabal occupying Downing Street cannot be mitigated. They must—they will—be stopped.
“A sham” is what reports say one of the Prime Minister’s advisers has called his EU negotiation strategy. “Running down the clock” is what the Telegraph is reporting those close to the Prime Minister as saying his strategy is. A “complete fantasy” is how reports say the Attorney General advised the Prime Minister over his approach to the backstop. The tall tales of this Prime Minister are being exposed by the media by the minute. Sources are exposing the smoke and mirrors behind those playing games in No. 10. Does the Prime Minister think this is a game? If so, it is a very, very dangerous game. Make no mistake, the Prime Minister is acting like a dictator—shutting down Parliament, ripping up democracy and silencing the people.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is making some very strong points. Does he agree that if the Government were serious about negotiating and there were serious negotiations going on, the negotiation team would not have been cut to a quarter of the size that it was under the previous Prime Minister, and there would not be meetings happening where the chief negotiator is saying that the rationale for talking to the Brexit team in the EU is “domestic political” handling?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is a complete sham to say that negotiations are taking place. This is simply a Government who are driving us towards no deal, and Parliament, thankfully, is standing up for its rights.
The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that we in this place have been elected to represent the will of our constituents, and we on the SNP Benches have been elected to serve the people of Scotland—the people of Scotland who have overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union. Yet this Prime Minister, by proroguing Parliament, has decided to ignore the will of the Scottish people, sidelined their interests and silenced their voices. I say to Scottish Conservative Members: do not stab Scotland in the back tonight; stand together with us. For once—for once—stand up for Scotland’s interests. The Prime Minister clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants with Scotland and get away with it. The SNP is here today to tell him that we are not having it.
Since coming to office, the Prime Minister has not given Parliament the opportunity to debate the constitutional crisis facing these islands. Despite Parliament previously ruling out leaving on a no-deal basis, the Prime Minister is pedalling us towards the cliff edge, risking a no-deal Brexit that risks jobs and food and medicine supplies. The population of the United Kingdom is being threatened by this Government.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The first observation I would make about this Government is that it is amazing how much they are in thrall to the date of 31 October given to them by Donald Tusk—the EU date that has now become sacrosanct for Brexiteers. The other thing that strikes me about this Government is that they are looking to have a jingoistic pre-hard-Brexit election, but they fear a post-Brexit election when there are empty shelves and a lack of medicines, because a lack of food on the shelves and a lack of medicines do not election victories make. They will be decimated after they do the damage, so they want to cut and run and see if they can get it over the line before they do the damage.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct.
The responsibility of this House is to make sure that we do not have the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit—to protect us from that risk. Yes, we want an election, but we want an election safe in the knowledge that we have protected our citizens from a no-deal Brexit. That is the right thing to do. Let us remind ourselves that the Prime Minister has not been elected by the people; he has been put in power by Conservative party members. He should put himself in front of the people. But let us, in the first case, work together—work collectively—to remove the cliff edge of 31 October.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Does my right hon. Friend recall very clearly, as I do, that on 6 April 2016 we were told by the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, “The day after we vote to leave the EU, we will hold all the cards.”? Does that not simply show that this Government are being run by a hopeless, naive group of fantasists?
Ian Blackford
It grieves me to see what is taking place, because, in effect, what has happened with the election of the Prime Minister is that the Vote Leave campaign now runs the Government. The harsh reality is that Conservative Back Benchers who are prepared to put our national interests before party interests are going to be forced out of their party. The Tory party has been taken over by a cult, and that does nothing—absolutely nothing—for our democracy.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that Scotland would be harmed by no deal, just as my constituents in Nottingham would be harmed by no deal. He is absolutely right to say that this Bill is required as an insurance policy against no deal. Does he also agree that anything that dissolves Parliament before 31 October, whether through Prorogation or a jingoistic election—as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) said—would put our constituents at risk, because there simply is not the time to put all the legislation and preparations in place for that insurance policy before 31 October?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is right to signify that we are facing a constitutional crisis.
I applaud Members of Parliament right across this House who have worked together collectively over the course of the past few weeks because we understand the risk to our economy and to our communities. Thank goodness that Members of Parliament have shown that desire to work across the House. We in the SNP have made it clear that we will work with everyone else to make sure that we remove the cliff edge. We have done that consistently ever since 2016. We want an election, but when we can get to the safe landing place where we have no deal taken off the table for 31 October.
But I say—in no way do I mean it as a threat to anyone in this House—that the people of Scotland deserve the right to be able to determine their own future. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken out of the European Union against our will. We have a mandate from the 2016 Scottish elections to deliver a referendum for the people of Scotland. It is absolutely right that the people of my country who want to remain as a European nation should have that choice. The Prime Minister and his Brexiteer cohorts are not going to drive Scotland out of the European Union against its will.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (IGC)
Does the right hon. Gentleman, like me, feel somewhat disrespected by the Leader of the House, who disrespected our Speaker and his decisions and everybody who has supported this motion? I am proud to have my name on it and proud to stand with people who are willing to put country before party, country before self. I was not sent here by my constituents to make them poorer or to put their jobs and their healthcare at risk. That is our overriding priority—we are here to stop a no-deal Brexit. This is not about whether we are remainers or Brexiteers. Many people who voted for Brexit would continue to do so, but not for a no-deal Brexit. There is no majority in the country or in this House for a no-deal Brexit, which is a disaster for the people of this country—of all four nations.
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Lady makes a very passionate case.
We must reflect on what is in the Yellowhammer document. It is not made up. It is not by anybody on this side of the House. It is the Government recognising the risks to the people of the United Kingdom. We have a Government who are telling us that there is a potential risk to food supplies and to medical supplies, particularly for those who need epilepsy drugs. Good grief—contained within the document is talk about a limited risk to water supplies for hundreds of thousands of people. Just think about this: think about a Government who are telling the people of the United Kingdom, “We cannot guarantee that you’re going to have a water supply.” What on earth are we doing?
The nub of this is that it is about ideology. However people voted in the Brexit referendum, they certainly did not vote for this. The Treasury published a document last year showing that a no-deal Brexit could reduce GDP over a 15-year period by something close to 10%. Just dwell on this: we are talking about an impact on the economy that is four times greater than the economic crisis of 2008—the economic crisis that ushered in a decade of austerity. It is the height of irresponsibility for any politician to think that we should be supporting no deal, putting constituents on the dole. Unemployment is never a price worth paying, but this Government are prepared to put the people of the United Kingdom on the dole. We will not sit back and allow that to happen.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very passionate case as to why no deal will be such a disaster. Does he agree that we must once and for all dispense with the notion that it is some kind of bargaining chip in these negotiations? Shooting yourself in the foot because you do not get what you want is not a negotiating position.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely correct. It is delusional, and the Government should start telling the truth to people.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we hear from Europe is that there is not actually any proposal on the table from the Government, so there has been no serious negotiation to get a deal, and it is all a fairy tale and a sham?
Ian Blackford
I do not know what the Prime Minister believes, but he was asked several times today by Members in this House to tell us what proposition the Government are making. There is none. It is a sham. This Government are heading us towards the cliff edge of no deal. That is the reality.
The deepening of the democratic deficit under the Prime Minister is despicable. This decision is an outrageous assault on basic democratic principles, yet the Prime Minister and his cronies will argue that this is normal. A suspension, he argues, is quite right and proper —what ridiculousness. I know that the Prime Minister has never been one to deal in facts, but let me make it clear for Members. In the last 40 years, Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks. In most cases, it has been prorogued for only a week or less. To try to argue that five weeks is normal is, if we are being polite, disingenuous.
The reason we are here today—the reason why we, for want of a better phrase, are taking back control of the Order Paper on a cross-party basis—is to stop the Prime Minister running down the clock and obstructing the democratic right of MPs to debate, vote and represent the will of the people who sent us to this place. This shameful act from the Prime Minister is because he knows there is no majority here for a no-deal Brexit, because he knows there is no support from the public for a no-deal Brexit and because he knows what we all know: that a no-deal Brexit is catastrophic for the lives of citizens across these islands.
Just in office, the Prime Minister is toying with our democratic processes. Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society, said that it was an “affront to parliamentary democracy”. Why? Because the Prime Minister wants things his own way, and at any cost. The real reason he cannot bear for Parliament to sit and debate is that he knows he does not have the majority to support his disastrous plans to destroy our economy with a no-deal Brexit. What an embarrassment to parliamentary democracy. Well, the Prime Minister cannot stop MPs doing their jobs. We will be heard, and democracy must be respected.
Just last week, I was proud that my party signed a declaration alongside MPs from across the parties in Church House, warning the Government:
“Any attempt to prevent parliament sitting, to force through a no-deal Brexit, will be met by strong and widespread democratic resistance.”
Has the Prime Minister still not listened? Even today, a cross-party group of politicians is in Edinburgh for a full hearing in the Court of Session, attempting to prevent the Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has already called on the Prime Minister to swear on oath his reasons for the Prorogation of Parliament. Will the Prime Minister do so? I think we know the answer to that. We also have a group of experts in constitutional law, human rights and justice arguing in The Times that the recent decision to prorogue Parliament sets a dangerous precedent and, furthermore, is incompatible with Executive accountability to Parliament as prescribed by the constitution.
Has the Prime Minister no shame? This is a blind power grab, showing total arrogance and contempt for the electorate. Instead of giving the people a new Prime Minister who listens to their wishes, he has robbed the people of all power. What does shutting down Parliament on a whim mean for this Prime Minister or a future Prime Minister? For us from Scotland, what protection do we have if any UK Prime Minister sought to shut down the Scottish Parliament? We need to protect our Parliament from this Prime Minister.
It is clear that this House is not supportive of the Prime Minister’s actions. This emergency debate is crucial, as MPs today need to carve a way forward to allow emergency legislation against no deal to be passed. The cross-party Bill seeks to ensure that the UK will not leave the EU without a deal unless Parliament consents to such an outcome. It will also require the Prime Minister to then extend article 50. That is a crucial step to prevent a catastrophic no deal, to protect our economy and our communities. This is how we can come together to avoid a no-deal Brexit, to protect the interests of citizens across these islands and, fundamentally to protect not simply the rights of Parliament or parliamentarians but the rights of the people.
The denial of Parliament having its say denies people in Scotland and across the UK their say against a no-deal Brexit. We in the SNP cannot countenance that. I urge Members to unite to stop a no-deal Brexit, to stop this Prime Minister and this dictatorship, and to restore democracy. Tonight, it is our turn to take back control. Tonight, the Prime Minister is going to be stopped in his tracks. The Prime Minister has tried to rob the people of their power. Now it is our time to rob him of his.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After we have heard from the Father of the House, whom I intend shall speak next, it will be necessary for there to be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, imposed by me in the name of trying to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues in this important debate. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you are very generous to me. I will try to be extremely brief. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has just enabled me to be briefer, because he made the key point in the last few moments of his speech when he talked about what really lies behind this Bill, from the point of view of Parliament and parliamentary democracy.
We all know that we are in the middle of an historic crisis, and we all know that our duty is to take the decision that will be best for future generations and will do least damage to our political standing in the world and to our economy. This horrendous debate, which is tearing the country apart, is doing great harm to our political institutions, and particularly Parliament. A large number of the population on either side of the European debate are beginning to hold Parliament almost in contempt. Fanatic leavers are convinced that it is wicked MPs who are undermining the people’s will and that we are solely responsible for the appalling deadlock we are in.
I am very glad that, with your help, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friends and others have found this way of enabling Parliament to assert itself, give its view and face the fundamental challenge from a constitutional point of view which will determine the political relationship between Governments of all colours and Parliaments for quite a long time to come.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
With great respect, I would love to debate with my right hon. Friend, and I often have, but my speech will get longer and longer once I give way. As Mr Speaker has not put me under the time limit, I will try to avoid giving way, to be fair to others.
The reason for this motion and the underlying reason for the opposition to it is simply that the Government are insisting on pursuing a policy that they know a majority in Parliament is opposed to. There is no precedent for it that I can think of—certainly not in modern times. I have been around for long enough, but 10 years ago, if a Government had attempted to implement a policy that they knew the majority of Parliament were against, it would have created outrage.
Parliament has twice voted against leaving with no deal. This Prime Minister has plainly determined that he has put himself in a position where he has got to have no deal. We have seen the most extraordinary attempts to avoid this House having opportunities to vote on that, to debate it and to play a role in it. If Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, the precedent that we will create for future generations and for the behaviour of future Governments of all complexions vis-à-vis Parliament will be quite horrendous.
We have heard arguments about the importance of limiting these emergency debates. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very good at keeping a straight face when he is coming out with arguments that are almost incredible. The benefits of trading solely within the WTO I will leave on one side. I am sure the North Koreans thrive under that in every conceivable way. [Laughter] I think it is only the North Koreans, the Algerians and perhaps the Serbians who do that. When the Leader of the House says how important it is that this House defends its traditions by making sure that in no circumstances can it ever debate business of its own choice, even in an emergency—and I know that he is a profound parliamentarian and deeply committed to the wellbeing of this place—his ability to keep a straight face is quite remarkable. However, I am being deflected from the serious point I was making.
Prorogation was the final, almost charmingly naive, attempt to make sure that there was not even an opportunity by mistake for something on the Order Paper to enable anybody here to express their opinion. Apparently, it is suddenly frightfully important that the Government’s whole new policy package—which seems to be emerging at an extraordinary rate, in figures anyway—is put before Parliament before the end of October, when we have not really bothered with policy of that kind for a very long time. It is plainly impossible to put it off until the beginning of November!
Most importantly, apparently the reason for the extremely long break is that it is extremely important that we do not distract the public from paying proper attention to the party conferences! [Laughter.] We have to be respectful to the Trades Union Congress; we cannot distract the television sets of the nation from the Liberal assembly; apparently every Conservative MP is dying to go to the Conservative conference. [Laughter.] We know there are people who will have engagements there, but I am sure the pairing system can cope with that. The idea that at the moment of such historic crisis, such momentous decisions, the House can be faced with arguments of that kind, I find quite preposterous and very saddening.
Given that we are being treated in this way, it is quite obvious that the House must seize its own agenda—that is all that this evening’s vote is about—and make the most of the opportunity in the next few days. Then the House can make key decisions on what it will legally require the Government to pursue in the national interest: most importantly being strongly against just leaving with no deal. I would be amazed if a majority does not emerge, yet again. It is not that anybody really wants that—I think about 20 Members of the House of Commons really think it is a good idea to leave with no deal. It is the right of my party, that has given up and decided to get it over with: “Leave with no deal; it’s all the fault of the Germans, the French and particularly the Commissioners—all the fault of Parliament. Have a quick election, wave a Union Jack and then we will sort out the bumps that will come when we have left.” The House must stop that, and use the opportunity.
Tomorrow we will debate the merits of the arguments. We will go on and on. I am dying to intervene in more of the arguments—I have already spoken in this House more than most on Europe, and we all know where we stand on the leave/remain arguments—but there is one point of real substance that I would like to address tonight, on which I am afraid for the first time ever the Leader of the House was slightly annoying me. He was using what is currently the cliché, extreme right-winger argument, that anybody who wants to stop a no-deal Brexit is actually reversing the referendum. I think we exactly reflect the public; Parliament, in its paralysed confusion, entirely reflects the division of the public, where there is no clear majority for anything, so far, except that we are against leaving with no deal. We cannot get a majority for anything else; everything else has so far been blocked by hard-line right-wing people who do not want any deal with foreigners, and people’s vote people, who will not vote for anything that involves leaving the European Union because they want another referendum. I am afraid they have, so far, outnumbered the middle. I think more of them should join the middle, because I believe, with great reluctance, that the obvious compromise, to bring together both public opinion and this House, is a soft Brexit where we keep the present economic ties.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that I am just defying 17 million people. Well, I have not defied 17 million people. I have already compromised. I was not in favour of the referendum. I feel very self-justified, looking back on it. I did not vote for it; I made it clear that I was not going to change my lifelong opinions because of one day’s vote on a simple question on the terribly complicated subject of our national destiny. I even voted against invoking article 50; I was guilty of that. Since then, I have accepted that the only way to proceed is a soft Brexit: to leave the political union and stay in those superbly free trade arrangements, which British Conservative Governments took a leading role in creating. I have voted for Brexit three times. If the Bill gets passed, and if we get on to the substance of the thing, I will vote for Brexit again. I have had the privilege of at least once voting alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House in favour of Brexit, on terms which they now treat with derision.
I do not want to listen to conspiracy theories about the Irish backstop. Sadly, I do not think any of the English public take any interest in Irish political affairs; nine out of 10 have no idea what the Irish backstop is. It is an entirely closed little debate—but a very important one, I concede. I am strongly in favour of the Irish backstop unless we could replace it with something that is, equally, absolutely guaranteed to preserve the Good Friday agreement. At the root, we have to deliver to the people, and I think we could get a broad mass of the public together on something that keeps our economic ties together and attempts—as the EU keeps doing under British leadership—to extend free trade through more and more EU trade agreements, which we took the leading part in pressing for and which we are now about to walk out of to go back to WTO terms all over again, with South Korea and Mercosur and so on. That must be stopped.
I would like to see a Bill in which we put more positive steers from this House. We all know what we are against—no deal—but we cannot agree on what we are for. I do not think that making it a legal obligation to seek a customs union or to have some regulatory alignment would make the Prime Minister’s position more difficult in Europe; they would just wonder why on earth no British leader had asked for that before. I will leave that until the proceedings on the Bill.
If this Parliament does not pass this motion, it will be looked back upon with total derision. What sort of a Parliament was it, in the middle of this crisis, that said to the Government—this new Government, this populist Government, storming away as it is—“Oh yes, we quite agree with you: we should not be troubled with this. The Executive, as we have just been told, have absolute powers. We are only a debating society, only commenting when we are allowed. Feel free to deliver what you wish by 31 October.”? Then we go back to our constituents and say, “It is very important that you have us to represent you in Parliament, to look after your interests, but as it happens we have given unbridled powers to Boris for the next few months on the European question.”
You may gather, Mr Speaker, that I am going to vote for this motion, with more passion than I usually go through the Lobby. It is an extremely important evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion not only on behalf of the 1.7 million people who have signed a petition on our website against a Prorogation of Parliament until we have made decisions on Europe, but as someone who is profoundly disturbed by the contempt for parliamentary democracy that the Prime Minister has shown in seeking a five-week Prorogation of Parliament. It is profoundly dangerous to our democracy because, as we all know, democracy never disappears with a bang: it disappears by small, incremental steps, each one justified by saying, “Things need to be sorted out, things need to be done, and people are blocking the way.” I say that as someone who believes that we should implement the decision of the referendum, but in a representative democracy it is for Parliament to decide how that decision should be implemented.
We are struggling to reconcile a plebiscite with a representative democracy. That struggle has not been made any easier by the misleading statements made during the referendum—that we would get the easiest trade deal ever, and so on. Brexit cannot be accomplished, as the Prime Minister seeks to tell us, by a few slogans from a self-help book and a rousing chorus of “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”. It is complicated, and Parliament has to deal with those complications.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister sees himself as a democrat. I am told that he keeps a bust of Pericles in Downing Street. I do not know whether he chose Pericles because his foreign policy alienated most of the other Greek states or because he prorogued the Athenian assembly, but although the Prime Minister sees himself as a democrat he speaks like a demagogue. He has called parliamentarians “collaborators” with Europe in seeking to block no deal: he uses the language of a war. There are far too many people here trying to relive a war that they were not only too young to take part in but too young even to remember. That demeans the sacrifices of those who fought in that war.
Our job is to take the difficult decisions, and one of the things that we must do is to block a no-deal Brexit, which would be disastrous for this country and for most of our constituents. It would damage not just this generation but generations to come. Where are all the members of the Cabinet who told us that Prorogation would be an affront to parliamentary democracy, mad or a ridiculous suggestion? They are silent as the grave. If Cabinet Government no longer exists, and it seems not to, it is for Parliament to ensure that the Government are properly scrutinised.
I know that it will be difficult for many on the Government Benches tonight. They have been threatened with the loss of the Whip and of their jobs. Many will have to break the bonds of loyalty to their own party, which we all have, but I beg them tonight to act not in their own interests or those of their party, but in those of the country. They should remember what Clem Attlee once said:
“If you begin to consider yourself solely responsible to a political party, you’re half-way to a dictatorship.”
The country expects us tonight to act in the national interest, and it is vital that we do so.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have heard an enormous amount over the last few weeks about the way in which the Government are undermining democracy and our sovereignty. We have just heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) rubbishing a lot of the arguments that the Government have put forward over the last few weeks.
I will simply say this: there are those in this House, however much they like to dress it up—I think I said this on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—who have never accepted the idea that we should leave the European Union, with or without a deal. They just do not want to leave. I understand that, and I actually pay tribute to some of those who have been entirely consistent about these arguments, in particular my right hon. and learned Friend. He knows that I genuinely feel that.
Having said that, I am afraid that I simply cannot accept, under any circumstances, the burden of the argument made by, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). This House, as I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House, made a decision in the European Union Referendum Act 2015—a sovereign Act of Parliament—that deliberately gave the British people the right to make the decision, not this House. Under the Lisbon treaty, which was enacted in 2008, we also agreed the article 50 process in our domestic law, which provided that, once it had commenced, if there was no decision within two years, we would leave on exit day. That was expressed, ultimately, in the withdrawal Act, section 1 of which said that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would take place on exit day.
It is impossible, in my judgment, to argue that this debate, all the ripping up of conventions and all the things my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons said, which I entirely agree with, about this improper procedure for the purposes of achieving an objective, can just be washed away on the grounds that, somehow or other, there is an argument about our not having any possibility of leaving without a deal. I simply say this, Mr Speaker, if I may: this is certainly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, a matter of unbelievably important historical significance.
We came into the European Union in 1972 on the basis of a White Paper. I got out that White Paper only today and it clearly states that we will never give up the veto. Furthermore, not only would we never give up the veto—that was the basis on which we entered into the European Communities Act 1972, which is still the governing enactment—but to do so would endanger the very fabric of the Community. That is why so many people across the whole of Europe are voting with their feet against this system. Look at what is going on in Italy, in Greece and in many other countries. So why would anyone want to remain in this European Union? It is autocratic. It is dominated by one country in particular and by the French as well. The bottom line is that it is not a system that allows us to govern ourselves.
I simply say this, Mr Speaker. It is clear that the government that takes place under the Council of Ministers is a system that enables us to be governed by 27 other member states. The withdrawal agreement, which was never signed, would allow us to be kept in that system of vassalage, governed by another 27 member states. It is an unacceptable system. Yet if we were to leave with no deal—although, I prefer to have a deal—we would be able to trade globally on our own terms. We would no longer be constrained by the deficit that we run with the European Union. We would be able to govern ourselves and we would also ensure that we retain Northern Ireland as part of our constitutional status.
These are matters that transcend the arguments being pushed around in the House today. These are simple questions of principle. These are the questions that we need to address. We must be allowed, as we did for centuries before we entered the European Community, to govern ourselves. The competences have been so grossly extended that we do not govern ourselves. If we stay in this European Union, we will never be able to do so. I am against this motion. I hope that the House will vote against it.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)
I rise to support the motion in the name of my friend, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
On the morning of 7 February 2017, I woke up in an isolation room at King’s College Hospital, where I was receiving chemotherapy. My blood counts were rock bottom and the chances of an infection high. Weak as a kitten, I got dressed. My friend and parliamentary neighbour the Brexit Secretary, who was then a Government Whip, met me at the entrance to the ward with a hospital porter and a wheelchair. He took me out to the Chief Whip’s car and we were driven to Parliament so that I could vote for the article 50 Bill.
Since that moment, I have done everything in my power to deliver Brexit with a deal that protects jobs and livelihoods and preserves our national unity and our international standing. I voted for the former Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement on three separate occasions, while the current Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House were all breaking the Conservative Whip and voting with the Leader of the Opposition. I worked with colleagues across the House to promote an alternative Brexit deal, common market 2.0, and secured the support of Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru for a plan that would have taken us out of the European Union’s political arrangements, but kept us in the single market. I am ready to vote for a revised withdrawal agreement if the Prime Minister can secure changes through a negotiation with the EU. Like many hon. Members from the Labour Benches and elsewhere in this House, I still believe that we need to deliver what a majority of my constituents and of the British people voted for in the referendum of 2016.
What I will not do is allow a no-deal Brexit. It would devastate sheep farmers in my constituency. It would be a hammer blow for automotive businesses in my constituency and across the country. It would put our Union with Scotland and Northern Ireland in jeopardy, and it would be the single most protectionist step taken by any democratic country since the great depression, raising tariffs and trade barriers between us and our largest market.
Taking this stand cost me the support of my local party and in April led me to leave the Conservative party, but I have no regrets. I can look people in the eye, knowing that I have done what I believe to be right and put the interests of the country before my own comfort or career. How many members of the Cabinet can say the same?
At the moment, I am the only independent progressive Conservative in Parliament. To those brave souls on the Conservative Benches who face expulsion from the party for voting for the motion today, I say this: your country needs you. Do what you know to be right. Join me on these Benches and together let us build a new force in British politics, and a true home in Parliament for those who believe in one nation.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I commend you for ensuring that new Back Benchers are able to take part in the debate at such an early stage, Mr Speaker.
I echo the objections raised by the Leader of the House on constitutional grounds to this motion. I believe that denying the Executive the right to uniquely institute legislation is fraught with danger. Many of the debates and some of the changes that we have seen in Parliament in recent times show the fragility of a system that is based on convention. Whether we want them to or not, they are propelling us down the route towards a written constitution, which is something that none of us should want to do without taking due care and attention.
However, my main objection is political. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who is no longer in her place, raised the tension that we have effectively between a public who voted to leave the European Union and a Parliament that—let us face it—if it had its way freely, would want to remain in the EU. I do not doubt for a moment the legal legitimacy of a sovereign Parliament to make laws as it sees fit. What I doubt is the moral legitimacy of a Parliament that called a referendum, promised to honour the result of it and then, three years later, still has not done so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said that we have all made different judgments. Some have voted for a deal, unenthusiastically —I number myself among those who had strong reservations but felt that it was the best way to move forward. Some have voted against the deal because they want no deal to be the outcome. Some have voted against it because they want there to be no Brexit at all, and I want to address one or two questions to that latter group, because this is about the political reputation of Parliament.
Those who have had a premeditated campaign to try to thwart the Brexit result, hiding behind the arguments that it is just the deal that they are opposed to, do themselves, Parliament and politics no credit at all. That position is worsened if they stood at the general election on a manifesto that explicitly said that they would honour the result of the referendum, but they had absolutely no intention of doing so. That will result in the contempt of voters. I look forward to the moment when those Members who have taken that path meet their voters at the next general election, whenever that comes.
I am concerned about where this places us in EU negotiations. To be successful in a negotiation, both sides have to regard it as providing mutual self-interest. This does not do that. This process will cast us in the role of supplicants, not taking control back to this House, but giving it to the EU negotiators. That is not in our national interest. We in this political bubble often argue about process and the minutiae and fail to see the big picture, which is what our voters are looking at. We did not ask for an opinion from voters; we asked for an instruction. We said we would honour it, and we are honour bound to do so. I urge colleagues not to cast their vote tonight with the coalition of chaos—for that will be the result: delay will follow delay. It is time, one way or another, to deliver Brexit.
I make one further point. One of our senior French colleagues said to me, “Liam, you need to leave the EU following your referendum.” That was a senior pro-European politician. He said, “The problems of political fragmentation in France began when we did not honour the result of the referendum on the European constitution. It was the beginning of the end of the major parties and the beginning of the rise of the political fringe.” I fear that, if we go down the path suggested tonight, we will open up a chasm of distrust between Parliament and the British people, and that will play only into the hands of the political fringes, which is something we will all come to regret.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), but at a time when our country should be coming together to find a way through this terrible crisis—the biggest since the second world war—it is no longer acceptable to continue to seek to divide. We have to bring people back together, and we will not do that by imputing to people views and motives that are simply not true.
I do not think that my dear friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I disagree on anything, except Brexit. As he has rightly pointed out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) also pointed out—I do not mean this in a derogatory sense—they are of course Brexiteers. On three occasions, as they perfectly properly say, they have voted for us to leave the EU. The reason I did not join them in the Lobby—I take grave exception to this suggestion—is not that I wanted to stop Brexit. That will upset many millions of people in this country, some of whom have come on people’s vote marches and rallies because they want us to stop Brexit, but I have always taken the view that it is not my role, having voted for the referendum, for triggering article 50 and for the withdrawal agreement, to stop Brexit. I would have voted for the former Prime Minister’s deal had we agreed to send it back to the British people, who I believe are entitled to have the final say, now that we know what Brexit looks like.
I have to chide the right hon. Member for North Somerset. The reason that so many people of my view are so fed up is that right hon. and hon. Members such as him said that this would be the easiest deal this country had ever done—in fact the easiest in the history of all deals. That is what we were told. In fact the withdrawal agreement was anything but a deal. It was a blind Brexit. That is why so many of us did not vote for it—we did not get the deal we were promised. The second reason we did not vote for it—certainly in my case, but I suspect in the case of most who chose not to vote for the former Prime Minister’s deal—is that on the Government’s own assessments it would have made my constituents poorer. It would have reduced the economic prospects of my constituents, including, most importantly, young people, who will bear the brunt of Brexit. I did not come to this place positively to vote in the full knowledge that it would make my constituents’ jobs less valuable—that it would make them risky. I make no bones about this: I am quite happy and willing to lose my job, but I am damned if I am going to see the jobs of my constituents, and the life chances of their children and grandchildren, reduced.
The final thing that I would say is this. I do not want to repeat all the excellent words about why no deal is so bad for our country: bad for jobs, bad for peace and trade in Northern Ireland, bad for our economy. I just want to pay tribute to dear friends with whom I sat on those Benches as a member of the Conservative party.
Today marks a very bleak and, I believe, momentous day for the Conservative party. What you are seeing, Mr Speaker, is a group of fine parliamentarians, excellent Members of Parliament, who have been bullied and blackmailed, by contrast to some members of the Cabinet with long histories of defying three-line whips. Notwithstanding that, this bunch of honourable people, most of whom—most of the Conservatives who signed this motion; I have checked the list—have voted three times for Brexit, have found themselves today in the most disgraceful of situations. They have been bullied and blackmailed and have put their political careers to an end to do the right thing by our country.
As I think was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, this is about our country, but it is also about our self-respect. It is about whether we can look ourselves in the mirror in the morning and not be ashamed of what looks back at us. That moment when our children, and grandchildren, ask us, “How on earth did you stand by and let this disaster of a no deal happen?”, we, at least, will say that we did the right thing: we put our country, and not our careers, first.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I also listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) had to say. He made an important point, which has come up again, about the will of the people.
It is absolutely right that most of us in the House voted to trigger article 50. We did so out of respect for the result of the referendum, even if we did not like it. Three and a half years down the track, however, it is perfectly obvious to many of us that this country is going towards a very bad outcome. The longer the period that passes since the referendum, the more unclear it is, in truth, what the will of the people is. We have no idea. While I have always been willing to see a deal go through, I want it to go back to the public, because I am left with a compelling sense that we are actually taking people to a destination that they do not want at all.
Unfortunately, a section of my party has become hijacked by a narrow sector of those who voted to leave and who are simply using the will of the people as an instrument of potential tyranny against any of those who disagree with them. That is clear to me from the stream of emails that I routinely receive. I am afraid that it has now been fuelled by the words of the Prime Minister, and, indeed—I regret to have to say this, but I will—by the words of the Leader of the House today.
It was fascinating to listen to the Leader of the House. I had always imagined that he had marketed himself in politics as an individual who formed part of the grandest tradition of old-fashioned Conservatism, so I was rather surprised when I heard him say that one of his objections to why the House should do its duty was that it would interfere with the great set pieces that followed a state opening of Parliament. Of course, as a Conservative, I love the great set pieces of our constitution, but I do not think that, at a time of national emergency, my constituents in Beaconsfield would have much regard for me if I said that those great set pieces must come before my doing my duty.
I must also say to the Leader of the House, with regret—it was the first time that I had heard him speak at the Dispatch Box—that I regretted his rather cheap sarcasm at the expense of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Let me gently point out that he has more months of experience of high office than my right hon. Friend has days in his job. The truth is that the Government have decided to pursue a ruthless policy of trying to shut down all debate—debate of the most legitimate kind about the future of our country and its wellbeing—and in doing so the unconstitutional acts come wholly from the Government. I disagree totally with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he says that in some way this House is acting unconstitutionally in what it does: our constitution is adaptable, and I am afraid it is having to adapt to the reality that the Government do not have a majority and have not had one for some time. And that is just one of those things that happens, and it is doing it, actually, in a fairly reasonable fashion, although it would be better if we listened politely to each other and stopped trying to beat each other over the head, as I detect is the practice the Government are now adopting.
Finally, I say this. Obviously I believe that this motion is entirely desirable and entirely in keeping with the House’s proper traditions and is something that should be passed, and the Bill that follows it, so that the evils of a no-deal Brexit are avoided, because I believe passionately that evil will follow. But I was struck that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suddenly referred to “A Man for All Seasons”, I think because Sir Thomas More is one of his heroes. He will recollect that Sir Thomas said, when told that opposition to the King would mean death, “Well, these are but devices to frighten children.” So I am afraid that if he thinks the device of withdrawing the Whip this evening is going to change my mind or that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he has got another thing coming, because it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I and my party have been consistent over the last four years in voting against this country leaving the European Union. We do that for many reasons, but most of all because that is what the people who elected us to speak for them in this place want: Scotland did not vote for this and Scotland does not want this. But we have never in these debates suggested that the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum should be ignored, set aside or overturned by this Parliament. What we have said is that it is the legitimate and proper role of an elected Parliament to consider the consequences of this course of action, and if in our judgment we believe those consequences to be sufficiently dire, we should allow the opportunity the people of the country to reconsider the decision they took in 2016, in full knowledge of the facts we now have available.
What is at risk now is the right of this Parliament to exercise that degree of judgment. It is a shame in many ways that we have to move this motion tonight and we have to pass emergency legislation tomorrow. It ought to be the other way around: a Government, particularly a minority Government, ought to be coming to this Chamber trying to find consensus, trying to explain themselves and trying to get us behind them, but that is not happening. The reason why so many people find it necessary to do what we are going to do tonight is simply that we have lost faith in this Government. Not only have the Government today lost their majority, but they have also lost the trust of this House. We do not believe the Prime Minister when he says he is trying to get a deal—we see no evidence of that whatsoever—and we do not believe the Prime Minister when he says he respects parliamentary democracy, because he is trying to shut down the ability of this House to debate his actions and their consequences.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about compromise; we had an opportunity to compromise back in spring in a vote on the customs union, and we lost by only three votes. Where were the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleagues then? Given the SNP policy on the single market and customs union, we could have had a compromise and avoided this. This is not about time; it is about compromise—show us you are willing to do it.
Tommy Sheppard
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the seeds of the problem were sown long before that. They were sown when a right-wing Conservative Government decided to seize on the result of the referendum and use that narrow majority and interpret it for their own ends to restructure the country and its international relationships and its economy. Even now, we see a situation in which the Government are committed to pursuing the hardest of Brexits, crashing out without a deal if they deem it necessary, and even believing that that is the preferred course of action. They know that there is no majority for that course of action not only in this House but in the country.
That brings me to the topic of the election, which is an associated matter. There have been suggestions that if we pass this legislation, the Prime Minister will immediately throw his toys out of the pram, go to the country and demand a general election. We have already had an echo from the Leader of the House of the gross populism that may well come to be reflected in that campaign—something that does his character no great service, to be honest. But if that election is going to come, let us be quite clear that we need to have it before this country crashes out of the European Union without a deal. We are ready for election: bring it on! But we must either have it before 31 October or extend that deadline so that we can make a decision as a people and elect a Parliament before this fait accompli is presented to them.
That would be the legitimate thing to do, and I say to the Prime Minister that if he really wants to have an election, he should not engage in these procedural shenanigans and this duplicity in trying to game Parliament. He should put the proposal for a no-deal Brexit to the electorate and explain the consequences, and see if that is what they vote for. When that happens, I will relish the prospect of contesting that election, because we shall not only be contesting that election to stop Brexit and have a reconsideration of that strategy; we shall also be explaining to the people of Scotland that this is their chance to consider having a different course of action from the one laid down by the current Prime Minister. I am confident that when we go to the people of Scotland, many more than ever before will now understand the attractiveness of having political independence over their own affairs and of being able to control their own destiny and establish their own relationships with the rest of the countries in Britain, Europe and the world. That is what is coming down the track, and I warn the Government to be aware of it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I put it to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that the very question that he wants to put to the British people again is the question that was on the ballot paper in the 2016 referendum. The then Prime Minister made it clear in debates on television that if the country voted to leave, that decision would be implemented: article 50 would be invoked and after two years we would be out—out of the single market and out of the customs union. That is what he said, so I do not see any need to run the thing again.
I merely rise on the occasion of this debate to observe that what some people, including you, Mr Speaker, call a “constitutional outrage”—it is a little novel for the Speaker to enter into the debate quite so openly, but there we are; that is another novelty taking place in our constitution—other people refer to as a perfectly normal decision.
In truth it is neither, but this controversy reflects the evolving and changing nature of the relationship between Parliament, Government and people. That is a permanent evolution in our constitution, and two measures in particular have led to a substantial sea change in the relationship between Parliament and the Government. The first is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was sold to a perhaps rather unsuspecting House as a means of limiting Executive power, but in the event of a statutory no-confidence vote the Act is silent on what happens afterwards, except for the 14-day period. The Prime Minister may no longer be able to call a general election, but he is no longer obliged to resign either—at least not for 14 days. That has the effect of strengthening the incumbency of a sitting Prime Minister. Of course, that is exactly what it was intended to do—it was intended to cement the coalition in place—but it has left the House with the option to wound rather than kill Governments. I do not think that that has improved the accountability of Governments to Parliament in any way at all.
The second thing that has happened to cause this sea change is the increase in the frequency of the use of referendums. That has consequences too, as many warned, not for the sovereignty of Parliament but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, for legitimacy, because we now have competing legitimacies in our constitution. What we are hearing is a bitter dispute about whether the representative nature of our democracy is a superior legitimacy to the direct—
Antoinette Sandbach
Does my hon. Friend recall that the Vote Leave campaign said that MPs in this Parliament would decide which Brexit model—Norway, Switzerland or so on—would apply and that that was part of taking back control? The 17.4 million people were not speaking with a single voice, because they believed that there was a menu of options.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think there was also a menu of options available to those who voted remain, and I know many people who voted remain who wish that we would now just get on and leave. I do not think the hon. Lady makes a valid point or, indeed, undermines the fundamental point that we now have a constitution in which there are competing legitimacies. Some people are resting the authority of their argument on the representative mandate and some—the Government in particular—on the popular vote.
It is at least as much a constitutional outrage that we are still in the European Union three years after the referendum, and that tomorrow’s potential Bill should propose to hand the question of how we leave not back to this House, but to the European Union to decide—[Interruption.] It is absolutely true, because that is exactly what clause 3(2) of the draft Bill says.
The bitterness of tonight’s exchanges reflects the breakdown of our shared understanding about which mandate is legitimate: the representative or the direct. We now have a constitution containing competing ideas of legitimacy, and unless we are to abandon referendums this House should be ready to implement popular decisions that it does not like, but it has shown some reluctance to do so. If we refuse to do so, I again agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that that will have consequences for the credibility of Parliament in the eyes of our electors. We will see the revival of alternative political parties, and I fear that this House is taking politics in that direction. The sovereignty of Parliament is not at risk, but our democratic legitimacy certainly is.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
So, it has come to this tonight: the new Prime Minister and his Ministers have had not just their competence, but their good faith so destroyed across the House that this radical but necessary step to preserve parliamentary democracy and our futures has been taken. Anyone who heard either the Leader of the House or, indeed, the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rattled away at a merry pace will recall the old words:
“The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”
The truth of the matter is that no deal would drive the NHS into the arms of Donald Trump. No deal would be no good for the people in my constituency who are now experiencing unemployment at twice the national average. No deal would be no good for the people with the desperate medical issues that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about earlier.
The list of warnings about a no-deal Brexit grows longer. Warnings about the supply and prices of fresh food, essential medicines, and chaos on the roads and at ports after Halloween come not from Marxists, Trotskyists, or left-wingers, but from such radical organisations as the British Retail Consortium and the Road Haulage Association.
This is no longer just about Brexit or even whether people voted leave or remain; it is about the United Kingdom’s future as a progressive democracy. We really must take that into account, but we also have to take into account the situation of individual constituents. A man wrote to me and said:
“My father is rather ill these days and relies on a variety of medication. I am concerned what the impact of a no-deal Brexit would have on the supply of this medication.”
We have heard from those who have no axe to grind that that is absolutely the case.
I have had a letter, as many of us will have had, from an ordinary constituent:
“Please can you help with a no deal Brexit as having our NHS is as important to us as food on our plates. It’s hard to survive as it is…I cut back on food and power, have no holidays. Please sort this out”.
That is an ordinary constituent who is engaged not with the finer constitutional points that the Leader of the House manages to trim on a sixpence, but with the everyday bread and butter of daily living in a town like many others in the north of England where people feel left behind and vulnerable, and where to satisfy the interests of a small group of cronies around the Prime Minister this Government are trying to stamp down on everything that is said.
There is no evidence, not even a sniff, of the Government having presented any proposals to the EU. The Prime Minister fancies himself a classicist. Well, what he has been doing and the way in which he has treated his own Back Benchers is in the tradition of the proscriptions of ancient Rome.
The Prime Minister also fancies himself an admirer of Churchill. He should remember that Churchill told us that the first duty of a Member is to do what he thinks, in his faithful and disinterested judgment to the honour and safety of this Britain. That is what patriotism, real patriotism, is about, and the way in which this Prime Minister has disgracefully used the Prorogation process blunts the interests of this House and of the British people.
Those are not the attributes of a British Prime Minister. I would say they are the attributes of a tinpot despot or autocrat, except this Prime Minister might think it flattered him. No, he is a petulant man-child who is unable to get his way with this House, which is why he is trying to shut down debate through Prorogation. That is why we should support this motion tonight.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
This Parliament is at the very heart of our national story and our shared history, and it is what the Prime Minister’s great idol, Winston Churchill, called the “cockpit of the nation.” To seek to bar the door to that cockpit as the nation flies into one of the biggest constitutional storms in its history is an unsettling thing for a Government to do. It may not be illegal or unconstitutional, but it is not how a strong, responsible Government would conduct themselves.
Europhobic conspiracy theorists occasionally claim that the EU wants to reduce the House of Commons to a mere council chamber. I am afraid that if the Government achieve their aims this week, they will have gone further and reduced us from a proud sovereign Parliament to a mere debating club to be dismissed when it becomes inconvenient.
If the Government succeed this week, what is to stop the Prime Minister doing it again in the future? What is to stop the Leader of the Opposition, should he come to power, and I hope that never comes to pass? Precedent matters, and so does motive. The Government’s claim that Prorogation is to enable them to put forward new domestic legislation is clearly nonsense—a fig leaf to hide their attempt to evade accountability.
This House has stood as the defender of our liberties for centuries. The historian Robert Saunders put it best:
“the UK government shines with borrowed light: a light that comes *solely* from the consent of our elected representatives. Shut that down, and our democracy is plunged into darkness.”
It has indeed been plunged into darkness. We are in darkness.
It is claimed that this Prorogation is a normal Prorogation, but it is not. This Parliament would have expected the Leader of the House to table a recess motion, which would have asked us to agree to the party conference recess. That motion has never been put to us. As Members of Parliament, we have never been asked to agree to the recess, and it is highly likely that we would not have done so given the scale of the crisis that faces our country.
The Leader of the House claims to speak for 17.4 million people. Well, I want to tell him about a constituent of mine. I was on the train, going back to my constituency, when a constituent approached me and said, “You’re my MP. I voted for leave, because I wanted to give David Cameron a kicking. I did not really think it would go through. Please, now, do something to change that.”
I have voted three times for the withdrawal agreement. Three times I have seen Members from my party vote that agreement down, even though their Conservative Prime Minister told them that it complied with our manifesto commitment to an orderly exit. A constituent has written to me this evening to say, “The Leader of the House has rebelled against a Conservative-led Government more than 100 times and he has been rewarded with a place on the Front Bench.” Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), who has never voted against the Government, is going to be expelled from the party. What times we live in. I will be voting for this motion.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I will not support this motion, just as I did not support the motion the last time Parliament tried to change the way we work constitutionally. We were told then that it was a one-off, but we are now in our second or third one-off. If this goes through tonight, we will be debating a Bill tomorrow. If we look at it in detail—I know we will have that debate tomorrow—we will see that it makes it clear that it will give even more power to the European Union over how long we should have any kind of extension.
I know this is only a rumour but there is usually some truth in rumours, so I was concerned to hear today that some of the people who drafted this motion for the Bill took advice from EU lawyers. If that happened, it is shocking. I know there will be people in this House who think that there is nothing wrong with that, as they want to be as close as possible to the EU and there is nothing wrong in taking advice from it, but I believe that if this motion is passed tonight the Bill tomorrow will humiliate this Parliament.
We heard a lot about constitutional outrage when the announcement was made about the Queen’s Speech. Four or five extra days have been added to a recess that we all knew about just before the House got up. If people had felt strongly about this, they could have acted and got that discussion then. I genuinely believe that those four or five extra days are much less of a constitutional outrage than what we are setting a precedent for today, which would take away powers from the Government. Our side will be in government one day—perhaps a general election is coming; we will be in that same position, and people should be careful. What we are saying today to people is, “What is the point of voting?” They voted to leave and leave won. As many people have said, there was nothing on the ballot paper that said, “We did not vote with a no-deal.” But there was also nothing on that ballot paper that said we wanted to be half in or half out, that we wanted to pay £39 billion or that we wanted to do all those things that were in the withdrawal agreement. We voted to leave. People voted to leave. I know that many people who will vote in this House tonight are remainers who have accepted the result, but the reality is that many colleagues, particularly on my side, actually want to stop Brexit. They see now using “no deal” as almost being synonymous with stopping Brexit—that is the real truth about what is going on.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has been honest from the beginning. He is not in his seat now but he talked tonight about “tearing the country apart”. What on earth is another extension going to do, other than tear the country apart even more? What on earth are we going to gain by another extension that we have not already been able to achieve in the past two and a half years? What will this actually achieve?
If we vote for the motion tonight, we will send a signal to all those people who voted to leave that we know best—that we are being arrogant and that we know best about how the future outside the European Union will work. That is going to come home and hit right through, particularly to my party, but to the Conservative party as well, when we get a general election. Any Labour party Member who did not vote for a general election would look absolutely ridiculous. Bring on an election and let the people show what they really want.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
I rise to oppose the motion, and I shall do so by considering what it sets out to achieve. The motion does not prevent no deal; it simply requires the Prime Minister, if a deal is not agreed, to ask for an extension and to accept it. That does not avoid no deal; it simply pushes further away the point at which we in this House have to make a decision. The people we represent are expecting us to make a decision. It is what we are here for. It is what they are crying out for us to do. I say to Members of all parties: we cannot legislate no deal away; we can only vote for a deal or revoke article 50. If revocation is what is sought—I know that some Members would favour that—let us have that debate and say so. Those who voted as part of the overwhelming majority for the referendum and to trigger article 50 can then explain why they have changed their minds. The question of revocation was tested in the indicative votes and heavily defeated. I venture to say that there is no majority for revocation in the House, so all that this procedure seeks to do is to delay—to kick the can further down the road in the hope that something will turn up.
In essence, no plan is proposed in the motion. By contrast, the Government are pursuing a strategy based on the only thing that has commanded a majority in this House: the Brady amendment on alternative arrangements to replace the backstop. It will be said that the EU has no intention of replacing it, but the EU is watching and waiting to see what we do here. It has no incentive to move for as long as it thinks that Parliament will destroy the Government’s negotiating position or cancel Brexit altogether. If we in this House declare in advance that we must come to an agreement, the Government’s negotiating position is destroyed and the EU will never have an incentive to move. Rather than banishing no deal, then, this whole scheme makes it impossible to achieve one, and in so doing puts off the day of reckoning even further. But that day cannot be avoided forever.
There is only one way to avoid no deal and to achieve a deal, and paradoxically that is to be ready and willing to leave without one. Only if we are clear about that does the Prime Minister stand a chance. I accept that that readiness causes disquiet among so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, but I urge all those friends who, like me, want to see a deal, to come with us and give the Prime Minister the unequivocal backing that he needs, because that is the only path to the deal that we all want to see. To vote against the Government tonight is not to vote against no deal; to vote against the Government tonight is to vote against even the possibility of a deal—against the chance of a deal and even the glimmer of a deal. The motion and the Bill it foreshadows achieve nothing more than a delay, which in turn achieves nothing more than to sow more division and discord—the division and discord that is doing such damage to our country’s social fabric.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, which would enable us to pass a Bill tomorrow to prevent our crashing out of the EU with no deal at the end of October.
Let us remember why we are at this point. This discussion is happening now because the Prime Minister is running scared of democracy. The Prime Minister knows that his reckless no-deal Brexit will never get the support of this House, but instead of his having the courage to make his case here and put himself up to scrutiny, Parliament is going to be suspended—brushed aside as an inconvenience to an Executive who are, frankly, lurching out of control.
I am proud that so many brave colleagues inside this House and so many of the public outside it are saying so loudly and clearly that they will not stand for this Prime Minister’s blatant power grab, that they will not stand for a no-deal Brexit being rammed through this House and that they will stand up to make sure that this legislature does what it is meant to do, which is to hold this Executive—this feral, out-of-control Executive—to account.
There has been a lot of talk about democracy tonight. [Interruption.] I have to say that the body language of the Leader of the House this evening has been so contemptuous of this House and of the people. For the benefit of Hansard, he has been spread out across three seats. He is laid out as if this is something that is very boring for him to listen to. He has been lecturing us about democracy, but we will have none of it. This Government have no mandate for the vicious form of Brexit they are pursuing. It was never on the ballot paper. More than that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said as recently as March:
“We did not vote to leave without a deal: that wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped to lead.”
Let us hear no more of this posturing that, somehow, those on the Government Benches are standing up for the people and that we are not. Those of us on the Opposition Benches, particularly those who have been arguing for a people’s vote from the very start, are precisely the ones who are standing up for the people and want their voices to be heard in this debate.
Time is short, and I want to make two more very quick points. The first is that, in all of this debate about process and procedure, we are in danger of forgetting what a no-deal outcome actually means for the people of this country. What it means, as we know from Operation Yellowhammer, is shortages of food and fuel. It means people unable to get their life-saving medicines. It also means a nightmare for people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who has made that case so many times. How dare we, in this Chamber, think that we are going to rip up the Good Friday agreement and that it is nothing to be concerned about. There is everything to be concerned about in that.
I also want to say a word about the 3 million—the people who have made their lives here in this country expecting that their contribution would be valued, instead of which they are now in an intolerable limbo, not knowing whether their rights will be upheld.
Finally, I want to make a point that I think is important, but that some may feel is boring. One of the many reasons why we are in this crisis is that we do not have a codified written constitution. It is only the unwritten, uncodified understandings that protect the body politic from regressing to government with minimal checks, balances and accountability. Up to now we have had to depend on people playing by the rules. Well, now we have a Government who are not playing by the rules. We now need more than ever a written constitution drawn up by a democratic citizens’ convention that will put people at the heart of our politics for the first time in UK history.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The crux of the debate tonight is whether we seek to bind and obstruct our Government in a critical period, as they seek options between the current withdrawal deal, which has been rejected three times by lots of people in this House, and no deal, which is actually a series of mini deals. I am sure that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) have been engaged in negotiations at a far more senior level than I, but I do find it a little bizarre that we could seek to bind the hands of our Government at this point if those right hon. Gentlemen trust the people in power, and I have to say that I do.
I was engaged a bit in some of the negotiations with tribal Afghan leaders. I also conducted village negotiations in the Basra marshes in 2008 and 2009. Showing the limits of our negotiating power and showing what we were willing or not willing to do would have fatally undermined some of the conversations that happened to try to protect British troops and to try to stop ourselves being attacked. Therefore, binding the hands of the Government as they seek to negotiate a better deal is counterproductive, although I understand the concerns. The reason why this debate is so bad tempered is that it has gone on for three years. We hear tedious clichés, such as “a blind Brexit”, “a Tory Brexit” and “I’m not here to stop Brexit, but…”. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that many people on the Opposition Benches were using this no-deal Brexit motion simply as another means to stop Brexit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) quoted Thomas More. I have been in this House for two years, and I feel like quoting Macbeth:
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day”.
That is how I feel, because all we talk about is Brexit. I want us to get on and talk about lots of other things that are important to us. In fact—if Members do not mind me mixing my cultural references—it feels like groundhog day.
Pro-EU campaigners are concerned about protecting the rights of Parliament. I find that slightly ironic coming from people who want to stay in the European Union, which would do far more damage to the rights of Parliament than this Government ever would.
I want a deal, but I accept that the most important thing is to deliver, in order to have trust in politics. I am also aware that neither side is perfect, and that there are people now sitting on the Government Front Bench who could have voted for a deal but did not, just as there are people on the Opposition Benches who could have voted for a deal but did not. But we need to deliver on a deal. The reason I am against the motion is that it would provide another extension, and then we would simply continue in a debate that would become endless and tedious. We need to bring this to an end so that we can deliver on our manifesto commitments in other areas to the British people.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Following the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I am sure that it would be possible to provide the Leader of the House with a pillow to make him more comfortable, as he seems to be struggling during the debate.
I rise to support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We have a simple objective: to block no deal and secure a resolution to the crisis and chaos that the country faces. A series of Government reports have set out the consequences of no deal, the most recent of which is on Operation Yellowhammer. It refers to medicine, fuel and food shortages, and increased risks on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Government have been so shocked and embarrassed that they have attempted to sanitise the report—in fact, they have tried to make it disappear. However, it is in the interests of all our constituents—apart, of course, from those who are busy shorting the pound—to block no deal. We are not talking, as Ministers do, about bumps in the road; we are talking about job losses and business closures.
The Government claim that taking no deal off the table would damage our prospects of securing a deal. The first problem I have with that argument is that walking away without a deal is not like walking out of the car showroom without a car; in a no-deal scenario, we will be forced to leave with the banger with bald tyres and a chipped windscreen. The second problem, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, is that no deal will damage us far more than it will our EU friends. With no deal, the EU will get a headache, but we will get severe angina.
The final problem is that there is no evidence that the Government are seeking a deal. The EU-UK website lists three documents since June that touch on the issue. There have been a couple of calls between our Prime Minister and Jean-Claude Juncker. There has been our chief negotiator, David Frost, going to Brussels, but he has said that under no circumstances would he even allow a technical extension to article 50, which of course we all know would be required if the Government were in fact to secure a deal. I have asked colleagues in the European Parliament, and we have asked Guy Verhofstadt, whether there is any evidence whatsoever that the Government are seeking a deal, and the answer is that there is total radio silence from the UK Government on deal negotiations. Of course, the charming Dominic Cummings—the man who has staff escorted off the premises by armed police officers—let the cat out of the bag when he said that the negotiations are a “sham”.
In conclusion, tonight we must act, first, to stop a calamitous, jobs-destroying, influence-sapping no-deal Brexit; secondly, to force the Government to find a way out of a paralysis that is destroying our country’s credibility, tearing communities apart and stopping the Government dealing with the real problems we face as a nation; thirdly, to allow the people to express their views on the appropriateness of a no-deal Brexit; and finally, to demonstrate that the UK Parliament will resist the shutdown of our democracy and the authoritarian power grab of a rogue minority Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It has been quite a long time since I have had the opportunity to speak in the Chamber. Well, I have spoken—as I am sure you will attest, Mr Speaker—but mainly from a sedentary position. The reason, of course, is that for the vast majority of the past year, I had the privilege of serving the former Prime Minister as her Parliamentary Private Secretary, meaning that for the majority of the past 259 days, I have lived and breathed Brexit: deal, no deal, indicative votes, Cooper-Letwin, Boles, the withdrawal agreement, the negotiations, the renegotiations and all the attempts by the former Prime Minister, along with a group of utterly brilliant and dedicated colleagues, Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to ensure that this country left the EU with a deal. I did so not just because it was my job, but because I genuinely, completely and utterly believed that for my constituents, for this country, for our Union, for its businesses and for our economy, it was the only rational and sensible thing to do, and I still do. But I do not support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I cannot vote for it this evening.
In my opinion, if we MPs—from all parts of this House—truly want to act in the national interest, as I know most of us do, we must support the Prime Minister and this Government in their efforts to renegotiate the deal and leave the European Union on 31 October. To be able to do that, the EU must know that we are serious about leaving, and that means keeping no deal on the table. If we support the motion before us tonight, we will know—the world will know—that we are not serious at all, and where then is the motivation and impetus to get this done?
To those on the Opposition Benches who claim that they would do anything to stop no deal, I ask this simple question: why didn’t you? When the question was brought before the House three times, why didn’t you? It is no good protesting that the deal was not good enough, that there were no guarantees or that, “If only we had known what was going to be in the withdrawal agreement Bill, we would have voted for it.” If those Members were genuinely serious about doing anything to stop no deal, they would have voted for a deal, so I ask them to stop pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and to be honest with voters.
To my friends and colleagues on the Government Benches, for whom I have so much respect and for whose support for the former Prime Minister over the last year I am personally very grateful, I say this: please do not undermine this Prime Minister as so often this House of Commons undermined the last; please give our negotiators the support they need to get the changes to the deal that we need; and please do not allow to be taken off the table the one thing that is pushing both sides towards achieving just that.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I fondly remember being in the room with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions, and I very much look forward to his memoirs on all these subjects.
Andrew Bowie
I will give my hon. Friend a signed copy when I get around to writing them. I know that many of my friends will be voting against the Government and against their party tonight.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Bowie
I will not give way; there is far too little time.
For many Members, this will be the first time they have ever voted against this party, after decades of loyal service to it. I know that many have wrestled with their consciences as I have wrestled with mine, and I hear their arguments. This is not an easy decision for anybody, but I will be supporting my Prime Minister this evening. We need to get this deal renegotiated. We need to get this done. We need to leave the EU. Then we can at long last move the country forward.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I rise in opposition to this motion and in support of my Prime Minister, essentially for two reasons. The first is that there is more than a whiff of arrogance in this motion. Too many remain MPs in this place will use any device to try to block Brexit. There are honourable remain Members, but I am afraid that there are too many who are not. The decision was delegated by this place to the people, and they made their decision very clearly. We have been kicking this can down the road for three years and to many outside this Westminster bubble, enough is enough. I remind the House that the majority of Members who are going to support the motion voted in favour of triggering article 50, which said, very simply, that we would be leaving the EU with or without a deal. We have twice extended that time line, and that is why people outside this place are getting very frustrated with many colleagues here tonight.
Apart from the arrogance, this decision is ill-informed. It will make a bad deal more likely. Anyone who has negotiated in business or with any organisations will know that if the other side believes that one is not prepared to walk away, it will make for a worse deal—it is a simple fact of life. Most of us in this place prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but the guaranteed way of getting a bad deal is to take no deal off the table. Business people in this House, and many who have negotiated deals, will understand that.
This decision is also ill-informed from an economic point of view. No deal has been derided without examining a lot of the economic facts. Time does not allow here and now for those points to be made—[Interruption]—and too many people are talking anyway, so they would not hear them. I would merely suggest that people reflect on the fact that half of the EU’s top 10 trading partners trade on WTO no-deal terms with parties outside the EU—it is a simple fact of life.
Jamie Stone
I sincerely hope that I am not seen to be an arrogant Member of this House. I always try to represent the interests of the far north of Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman, and others in the Chamber, at least accept that a no-deal Brexit would ruin the crofters and sheep farmers in my constituency, and that would lead to the second highland clearances?
Mr Baron
If there is no deal—most of us in this place want a good trade deal—there would be tens of billions of pounds to help those sectors of the economy and industry to readjust, as we have seen in previous economic cycles. It is a fact of life.
Too many people, not just in this place but outside, ignore the fact that investment and jobs are about comparative advantage. It is about how competitive our tax rates are and how flexible our labour markets are, and what our financial expertise is like—we have London and we have Edinburgh. What about our R&D and top universities? In aggregate, those are more important than WTO tariffs of 3% to 5%.
If proof of the pudding were required, with all the talk in the past few years about no deal being better than a bad deal, industry has been fully aware that no deal has been a distinct possibility and what have we seen economically? We have seen record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment. This country attracted more inward investment last year than France and Germany put together. It comes down to economic reality. I am afraid that some Members of the House, in coming to their decision tonight, have not considered the economic facts.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I have been a member of my party for 50 years, and throughout that time, I have believed in our membership of the European Union. I campaigned for that in the referendum. My constituency voted to remain in the European Union, albeit by the very narrowest of margins, but my side lost and I accept therefore that we need to leave the European Union. I want to leave with a deal. People in my constituency and businesses—those who work hard to build wealth in this country—are genuinely concerned about the impacts of leaving without a deal. Their concerns are not illegitimate: they are real, and they need to be addressed. Equally, they have real and genuine concerns about prolonged uncertainty, and we as politicians need to weigh heavily the damage perhaps done reputationally to our body politic.
These are not easy matters. We have had a great many statements of bold certainty in this debate and too many other things—perhaps too much hyperbole and not enough pragmatism. My conclusion, to try to reconcile that narrow margin in my constituency and those conflicting but genuine concerns of my constituents, has been to vote three times to leave with a deal. I wish others had done so as well.
If I believed that passing this motion today would make it easier for us to achieve a deal, I would support it, but I do not believe that it does. You will know, Mr Speaker, that I have not been afraid to defy the Whip of my party in the past when I thought it right and proper to do so. But after real heart searching and thought, I have concluded that it would not have that effect, and that it might, regrettably, have the contrary effect, of reducing the Government’s leverage in negotiations. If we are to get a deal, the only point that we will realistically do that now is at the Council on 17 and 18 October. I do not wish to bind the hands of the Government in the run-up to that.
It may be a narrowing window of opportunity to get a deal. We may not succeed, but for the sake of my constituents, and to reflect that narrow margin in my constituency and in the country and try to find a means of us moving on together, I believe that we should try to seize that opportunity. I do not impugn for one second the motives or the integrity of those who have proposed this motion—many of them are among my dearest and best friends in this House—but I believe it would be mistaken to support it. For that reason, I will support the Government. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think again before we cross the Rubicon. For 50 years, many of us have worked together. I hope we can continue to do so in the future, and I hope that they will reflect one last time before taking the step of voting against the Government tonight.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
For three long years, we have talked about, debated and voted repeatedly on Brexit in this House, and yet here we stand after three years not having reached any firm resolution. In supporting the motion before the House this evening, we would simply prolong even further the uncertainty that our country and our businesses are experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) described in his excellent speech. We have a responsibility, having been elected in 2017 on manifestos to respect the referendum result, to do so, to stop prevaricating, to stop kicking the can down the road and, one way or another, to reach a definitive conclusion. The motion before the House does not do that. It simply prevaricates even further.
Some Opposition Members have been very clear about what they want, and I respect that. My neighbour, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have both been clear previously and this evening that they would rather remain in the European Union and that they certainly do not want a no-deal exit. I disagree with that view, but at least they have clarity in expressing it. They also say that they do not want to leave with no deal, but those who adopt that view have only two choices: either to accept any deal that is offered up, no matter how bad, or to remain, and I do not think either of those options is acceptable. Remaining, when the country voted to leave and the main two parties were elected on manifestos to leave, is wholly unacceptable. There is only one sensible option, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently pointed out—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Points of Order
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let there be no doubt about the consequences of this vote tonight. It means that Parliament is on the brink of wrecking any deal that we might be able to strike with Brussels, because tomorrow’s Bill would hand control of the negotiations to the EU. That would mean more dither, more delay and more confusion, and it would mean that the EU itself would be able to decide how long to keep this country in the EU.
Since I refuse to go along with that plan, we are going to have to make a choice. I do not want an election. The public do not want an election. I do not believe the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) wants an election. But if the House votes for the Bill tomorrow, the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on 17 October to sort this out and take this country forward. Everybody knows that, if the right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister, he will go to Brussels and beg for an extension, he will accept whatever Brussels demands, and we will have years more arguments over Brexit. By contrast, everyone knows that, if this Government are in charge and I go to Brussels, I will go for a deal and I believe I will get a deal, and we will leave anyway—even if we do not, we will leave anyway on 31 October.
The people of this country will have to choose. The Leader of the Opposition has been begging for an election for two years. He has crowds of supporters outside calling for an election. I do not want an election, but if MPs vote tomorrow to stop negotiations and to compel another pointless delay to Brexit, potentially for years, that would be the only way to resolve this, and I can confirm that we are tonight tabling a motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome tonight’s vote. We live in a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidency; we have a Prime Minister. Prime Ministers govern with the consent of the House of Commons representing the people in whom sovereignty rests. There is no consent in this House to leave the EU without a deal. There is no majority for no deal in the country. As I have said before, if the Prime Minister has confidence in his Brexit policy—when he has one he can put forward—he should put it before the people in a public vote. So he wants to table a motion for a general election. Fine—get the Bill through first in order to take no deal off the table. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very rude for Members—[Interruption.] Order. I say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, when he turns up at our children’s school as a parent, he is a very well-behaved fellow. He would not dare to behave like that in front of Colin Hall, and neither would I. Do not gesticulate. Do not rant. Spare us the theatrics. Behave yourself. Be a good boy, young man. Be a good boy. [Interruption.] Yes, we know the theatrics that the right hon. Gentleman perfected in the Oxford Union. We are not interested. Be quiet.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that the public will be watching these deliberations tonight, and what they will make of the baying and shouting that is coming from the Conservative side, heaven only knows.
This Prime Minister has a 100% record of losing votes in the House of Commons, and one would have thought that he would have some humility tonight, but that is sadly lacking. Prime Minister, perhaps you might consider acting as a Prime Minister should. Respect the vote that has taken place in the House tonight. Let us have a Bill tomorrow. The House will be able to express its opinion that it wishes to remove no deal as an option. Do not give us this nonsense of a fantasy that there is a deal to come from the Government, because it is simply not true.
The Government must respect the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. They must allow the Bill to be enacted—they must allow it to have Royal Assent—and yes, let us have an election, but let us have an election that respects the democracy of this House and the desire of parliamentarians to ensure that we do not crash out on a no-deal basis.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Across the country, people have been protesting because they are worried. They are worried about the Prime Minister’s riding roughshod over our parliamentary democracy. Tonight the House of Commons has spoken: it has said that we will not let that happen.
Much as I relish the opportunity to take on the Prime Minister in a general election, it is vital—[Interruption.] It is vital that this House acts with responsibility, and does not take our country into an election at a point at which there is any risk that we will crash out of the European Union during that election campaign or immediately afterwards. We must act responsibly.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down, especially by any man.
Mr Speaker, tonight’s vote made even the Leader of the House sit up. This Parliament has spoken, and we have spoken on behalf of the jobs, livelihoods and futures of our constituents. Yet again, we have shown that we do not want a no-deal Brexit, and tomorrow we shall have the opportunity to make sure, yet again, that we do not crash out without a deal.
I remind the Prime Minister that, as one of the so-called leaders of the Leave campaign, he promised the people of this country that we would not leave the European Union without a deal. I think that this House now has the right to know the following. The rumour is that the whip will be withdrawn from every single member of the Conservative party who voted against their Government tonight. If that is the case, Mr Speaker, it must be the first time, and it would involve right hon. and hon. Members who have served their party—and, many would say, their country—for decades. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether they will have the whip withdrawn—yes or no?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think we need to conduct a debate on that matter across the Floor of the House—it is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair—but the right hon. Lady has made her own point in her own way, with her customary force. It is on the record, and she will doubtless wish to return to it in times to come.
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords]
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I must inform the House that Nicky Morgan has given me notice of her resignation as Chair of the Treasury Committee. I declare the Chair vacant. Nominations should be submitted by 12 noon on Tuesday 10 September. Only members of the Conservative party may be candidates in this Select Committee Chair election. The ballot will take place on Wednesday 11 September from 10 am to 1.30 pm.
Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
When I was first elected to this place in 2010, I never thought I would find myself standing up to challenge the Government about the decimation of the UK’s sheep industry. The ancient practice of shepherding is as old as the hills, but it is now facing an unprecedented challenge brought by the threat of a no-deal Brexit. The threat of no deal brings with it a man-made, Boris-built disaster that could harm so many sectors from chemicals to cars, food to pharmaceuticals, and steel to services—virtually every area of economic activity in this country would be hit, and that includes the sheep industry. The idea that the rearing of lambs could be so comprehensively, cruelly and deliberately threatened by our own Government’s decision is beyond belief.
Keeping sheep is already a vulnerable business and a no-deal Brexit will just add to the problems. The unprecedented loss of markets and the imposition of tariffs and barriers will severely harm this industry.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of privileged, idle old Etonians who could not care less about the lives and livelihoods of our working hill farmers in Wales and across the UK?
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I represent an urban constituency, but even in urban Darlington there are agricultural workers whose jobs would be affected by the effect of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House for consideration. I spoke to her earlier today and perhaps her opinion on Brexit is very different from mine, but the Conservative Government have indicated that as long as they have the power to do so, they will maintain the grants that are available for farmers, and for sheep farmers in particular. Does she agree that the problems and the deficits there might be in lamb prices could be offset by the Government’s commitment to give what the EU gives now?
Jenny Chapman
If it was that simple, we would not need to have this debate. This is not just about farm payments; it is about loss of markets. That is something that has not been properly understood, and the Government have not given a decent account of what they intend to do to address it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The hon. Lady will know that Scotland is home to one fifth of the entire UK sheep flock and that much of that work is being done by farmers and crofters in less favoured areas such as my own constituency. Leaving the European Union with no deal would have a devastating effect on farmers and crofters, so will she join me in urging the Government to listen to the words of Andrew McCornick of the Scottish National Farmers Union, who has said unequivocally that a no deal must be avoided because our farmers need security and fair access to European markets?
Jenny Chapman
I agree with that. One of the specific problems faced by the farmers the hon. Gentleman describes is the fact that those flocks possess unique characteristics and that once they are gone they may never be able to be bred back into our national flock.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Is not the heart of the problem the fact that lamb would not be competitive if it had a 48% tariff placed on it? That would be an absolutely ridiculous situation. The Government might talk about short-term subsidies to help the immediate situation, but that is no way to save the industry as a whole.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)
This will certainly devastate the hill farmers in my constituency, but we must also consider the impact that it would have on the landscape. Many people do not realise that our landscapes are the way they are because of grazing.
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and that is why even my constituents in urban Darlington care about what happens to our national flock and to the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of people who work so hard to keep our landscape the way that it is.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady was as disturbed as I was to hear the Leader of the House speak so casually earlier this evening of trading purely under WTO rules, given that analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board suggests that WTO tariffs could add anything from 38% to 91% to the price of sheepmeat for EU buyers, which would be catastrophic for the sector.
Jenny Chapman
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will refer later in my speech to the report that she has mentioned.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Last week, I went to the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Service. Its concern is that because the Government have failed to bring forward the Agriculture Bill, it is not clear whether the Government have the legal powers to make payments in the event of no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must answer that point this evening?
Jenny Chapman
That is the first time I have heard that point made in the House; it is one that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier today. She is absolutely right: farmers need to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about their payments, and we need to ensure that he has the power to make those payments. The principal problem for the sheep sector is that, according to the report the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned, under no deal the export of sheepmeat to the EU27 would be almost entirely wiped out, with the only exports being those via a tariff rate quota of less than 400 tonnes. Of course non-EU exports could increase over time, although the possible rise of around 5% would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss of EU trade. Reduced trade with the EU would leave around one third of UK meat without a market.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend. She is absolutely correct to raise concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry in Britain, and nowhere will that impact be felt more than in Wales. In acknowledging the work that the NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales do on behalf of Welsh farmers, may I point out that 96% of all the Welsh lamb sent out of the UK goes to the 27 other nations in the EU? If we do not get this right, sheep farmers in Wales will be pushed to breaking point, and we cannot allow that.
Jenny Chapman
This affects every region of the country, from the Lakeland fells, to Exmoor, to Teesdale, where I live. People are saying, “Why does this matter? Surely this just means that there will be more lamb for the UK market, the price will be cut, and we can all enjoy more lamb this Christmas,” but the problem is that we just do not have the facilities to safely slaughter, store and freeze that volume of lamb in the UK. If the Minister plans to introduce such facilities, he needs to say so tonight, because knowing that this year’s yield of around 15 million lambs can be safely stored and enjoyed by consumers, and therefore paid for, would be of huge benefit to the 34,000 people currently employed in the industry. If that meat cannot be stored and sold—even at a knock-down price—the sector will be decimated.
The Government have said that they are aware of the special circumstances that would lead to a substantial negative effect on the income of UK sheep farmers and that they would compensate farmers. To their credit, the Government have pledged to continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament—although obviously that might be coming sooner than was anticipated. Financial support is already included in farmers’ business plans, but it does not compensate farmers for a sudden loss of market or for feed costs for animals that they cannot now slaughter. It does not ensure that sufficient feed is available to keep lambs bred for slaughter alive. It does not create abattoir or cold-storage capacity. It certainly does not create new export markets or offset tariffs, because that would be against WTO rules.
In answer to one of my written parliamentary questions on 18 July, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:
“We are doing all we can to mitigate the challenges our farmers will face and we have contingency plans in place to minimise disruption.”
But Ministers have not explained, and continue to refuse to explain, what those contingency plans are. The Minister’s predecessor offered from the Dispatch Box to meet me, but the current Minister then declined that invitation and has refused to discuss the issue. If a wasteful cull of millions of lambs and breeding ewes is to be avoided, measures need to be put in place now. If the slaughter and storage facilities are not in place and no deal happens, farmers will have little option but to cull their flocks. The meat will not be eaten, and the waste will be shameful.
The lack of new trading arrangements and an implementation period would mean that farmers will set about drastically reducing the size of their flocks. Chillingly, the AHDB says:
“Culling rates would record significant uplift driving the increase in adult sheep slaughterings. Quarter one of year two”—
of a no-deal Brexit—
“records a year-on-year uplift in slaughterings as the remainder of the year-one lamb crop are slaughtered.”
The estimate of 3 million lambs is at the lower end of the estimates.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Perhaps she can enlighten us or confirm this, but my understanding is that the breeding season is probably just about to start, because sheep gestation is typically around 150 days, if I well recall, so farmers must be planning now exactly what their programmes will be.
Jenny Chapman
That is exactly right. I think the phrase is “In with a bang and out like fools,” because sheep breed at the end of October or the beginning of November, and the lambs arrive in the spring. As the Minister well knows, farmers make their arrangements and plan such things a long way in advance, which is why, according to farming bodies, we need at least a two to three-year transitional period. The AHDB report I was referring to goes on to say that
“under a rapid response scenario, the national flock would be culled to reduce size”.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Welsh Secretary said over the summer that we could start exporting to Japan and that that market has opened up? They do not eat lamb in Japan at the moment, and they are certainly not going to start eating it on 1 November just to oblige us.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, in theory and given enough time, it may be possible to find new markets, but it will be too late by then, because our flock will have been decimated and will take decades to rebuild. Should the situation improve in future years, with new markets, it might just be possible to re-establish the flock, but it really is not likely. Once the breeding ewes have gone and their special characteristics have been lost, it will take years to recreate the unique features of our national flock. Tens of thousands of jobs and our treasured landscape would be lost, and this is all so preventable.
A minimum of a two to three-year transitional deal is needed, and we need agreements that recognise the safety and quality of our produce. Critically, we must increase the capacity of essential cold storage facilities now. When Ministers reassure me and try to reassure farmers, they need to explain what precisely they intend to do.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This is an important debate, particularly for my Gower constituency, where the lamb industry is very vibrant. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the amount of cold storage that will be needed and about the Government’s plans to meet that need? Does this country have enough cold storage for medicines post Brexit?
Jenny Chapman
If any of us were in the business of cold storage or large-scale fridges, we would be doing quite well at the moment. My understanding from the trade body that represents such businesses is that there is no additional capacity, so should we suddenly need to store this volume of meat, those facilities will not be there and the safe consumption of that meat will not be a possible solution to this issue.
I did not believe it when I first heard about the mass culling of millions of lambs that would be rendered inedible, but then I read the reports, listened to the National Farmers Union and spoke to agricultural workers and farmers across the country. It is very clear that this is not “Project Fear”.
I ask the Minister to get out from behind his ministerial desk and deal with this now, before it is too late.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this important debate on a day when we have already had a lot of discussion about our EU exit. She has raised this issue in a series of parliamentary questions, and a little later I will address some of the concerns and issues she raises.
The UK sheep sector is incredibly large and important. Combined, our upland and lowland sheep production had an annual production value of around £1.26 billion in 2018, accounting for around 4.5% of all agriculture output in the UK. As a number of hon. Members have said, the sector is also responsible for some of the most iconic landscapes in the UK.
There are 16 million breeding ewes and some 70,000 sheep farms across the UK, and the sector is particularly important in some of the devolved regions. For instance, around 50% of UK sheep production and the national flock is in Wales and Scotland. The UK is the largest producer of sheepmeat in the EU, producing around 38% of all the sheepmeat and goatmeat produced in the EU last year. The UK is also the world’s third largest exporter of sheepmeat, behind New Zealand and Australia, so we are a truly global player in this sector.
Around a third of our annual production of lamb is exported, and as the hon. Member for Darlington said, over 95% of it goes to the European Union. Total lamb exports in 2018 were valued at around £384 million, with a large amount of that coming from the European Union. The main export destination for lamb in 2018 was France, followed by Germany and Belgium, but for certain parts of the industry, notably those in Wales that tend to produce smaller lambs, some of the Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Portugal are also important purchasers of our goods. Some of our heavier lamb, predominantly from lowland areas, is more sought after in northern Europe. We recognise that, because of all those factors, in the event of a no-deal exit the sheep sector is the most exposed in its trading relationship with the EU, and we have always acknowledged that.
In managing those risks, we have two important factors going for us. First, we have a large domestic market for food in general and for lamb in particular. Measured by import value, the UK is the world’s third largest market for food and drink, coming after only China and Japan, so there are many opportunities for import substitution, as we currently source a significant quantity of lamb from New Zealand.
Secondly, we have an independent exchange rate—an independent currency and a floating exchange rate. That is incredibly important for the agriculture sector. It helps as an automatic stabiliser when we have shocks. We now contemplate the prospect of having to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, although that is not our preference, as all hon. Members know. Having a floating exchange rate makes that easier for the farming sector than it would have been had we become trapped in the euro some years ago.
Helen Goodman
I am astounded by what the Minister has just said. The pound has fallen by 20% since the referendum, which means that for every export the farmers are getting 20% less money. How can that be good for them?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady has it the wrong way round, as it is always the case that for sectors that are producing goods, such as agriculture, a weaker exchange rate against the euro leads to higher prices. It is no secret that since the referendum result in 2016, when there was an adjustment of sterling against the euro, agriculture commodity prices in the UK have been at highs, and that has helped farm incomes. That is a recognised fact; exchange rates are a key driver of agriculture commodity prices.
We recognise that even with those important factors going in our favour, the sector is still exposed. Some modelling has been done by a number of different organisations, including the NFU. It is important to recognise that tariffs are a tax on consumers first and foremost. Some estimates therefore anticipate that were the EU to apply full most favoured nation tariffs on lamb, there would likely be an increase in consumer prices in the EU of up to about 20%. That reflects the fact that the UK is the dominant lamb producer in the EU and there are limited other options for it to source its lamb from.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentions choosing to apply MFN tariffs. I profess not to be an expert on the sheep industry, but in the ceramics industry we have been told that there is no choice over MFN and it is the tariff that has to be applied to abide by World Trade Organisation rules. Is the Minister now saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government can apply discretion on that? If so, will he outline what that plan is?
George Eustice
Yes, absolutely, there is discretion, and the UK Government have already indicated what our tariff schedule would be in a no-deal scenario. Governments have the opportunity to have a lower applied tariff—lower than the bound tariff set in the WTO. The option is also open to any Government unilaterally to suspend tariffs. Indeed, should it wish, tariff suspension would be open to the EU, which I think is unlikely. Alternatively, and more likely, is the creation of an autonomous tariff rate quota for lamb that would be open to the whole world, including the UK. There are many options that both the EU and the British Government have unilaterally to apply tariffs that are lower than the WTO bound tariff.
However, as I said, it is important to recognise that we are the dominant producer. The EU could source more product from New Zealand, provided it had access to the ceiling currently set under the EU tariff rate quota. In the medium term, countries such as Spain could increase their production, but they are unlikely to be able to do that in the short term. For those reasons, it is likely that there would be an increase in consumer prices in the European Union as a result of its applying the full MFN tariff.
It is important to recognise that that increase in price would dampen demand in the European Union. Modelling suggests that that would increase supply in the domestic market and that as a result prices in the UK could fall by up to 30%. To put that into context, that means prices going back down to roughly where they were in 2015, which was a difficult year for the sheep sector. We are talking about a significant potential reduction, but it is not unprecedented. It would simply be going back to levels prior to the referendum result.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The Welsh Affairs Committee recently went to New Zealand and visited the sheep and beef industry, which was very interesting. Our farmers worry that our markets are going to be flooded with cheap New Zealand lamb. What can the Minister say to allay our farmers’ fears?
George Eustice
The Government have already made it clear that because of the particular sensitivity, we will apply full MFN tariffs on lamb, so there will not be any additional imports to the UK beyond those we already have. There is a splitting of the existing TRQ for New Zealand lamb between the UK and New Zealand—a combined total of around 250,000 tonnes—but there will be no additional lamb because we will apply full MFN tariffs outside that TRQ.
Tonia Antoniazzi
How is the tariff going to work between Europe and the UK? Has it been decided what percentage of the tariff is going to go to the UK or to Europe?
George Eustice
Yes, that has been decided. One of the few areas in which the European Union has from the very beginning being willing to work with the UK is on agreeing a splitting of the tariff rate quota schedules, and those have already been lodged with the World Trade Organisation.
As I said, we recognise that in a no-deal scenario we will have to show some solidarity with the sector, which will nevertheless face potentially significant falls in prices to levels not seen since 2015.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. He is giving a strong account for this important sector. On my summer surgery tour, farmers from Tomintoul to Rothiemay expressed their concerns about the future of the industry. What reassurance can the Minister give, on behalf of the Government, that this issue is being given the utmost priority? What can he say tonight to reassure sheep farmers in Moray, across Scotland and throughout the UK?
George Eustice
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. He will be aware that the Government are seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union in the medium to long term and, if we can get it, in the short term. In the short term, the Prime Minister has already made it clear that in the event of a no-deal exit we will show solidarity with the sheep industry and make interventions, where necessary, to support farmers’ incomes.
George Eustice
I am going to conclude because we are running out of time.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the important issue of whether we have the legal vires to make those interventions, and I can confirm that we do. The Government have a number of legislative vehicles with which to do so, including elements of retained EU law, and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 also includes general grant-making powers that give us the ability to do so. We are considering two possible options. One is a headage payment on breeding ewes, should that be necessary. That would be important in the event that farmers producing lambs are the ones who have the shock to their income. The second option would be something called a slaughterhouse premium, which would in effect involve a supplementary top-up payment for lambs at the point of slaughter. We could use a combination of those options but, broadly speaking, a headage payment and income-support approach would be the right approach to adopt.
George Eustice
I want to conclude now as we are running out of time.
The scale of, or need for, any intervention is difficult to judge at this point, because it will depend quite considerably on the approach that the European Union finally takes. As I said earlier, it is open to it to create an autonomous tariff rate quota, but it is also highly dependent on the extent of exchange rates. I can give hon. Members an undertaking tonight to reassure them that the Rural Payments Agency has already been told to design the administrative procedures necessary to make such headage payments. Discussions with the Treasury are at an advanced stage about what support may need to be set aside, while recognising that no final decisions can be taken until we actually leave the European Union.
I know that the hon. Member for Darlington has previously raised the issue of culling sheep, and she raised it again tonight. I can confirm that that is not under consideration. We regard any problems as being potentially short term and the correct approach would be to supplement farmers’ incomes through the headage payment schemes that I have described. We do not want to reduce the capacity of our flock.
We are a global player in this sector and we believe that there is a bright future for our sheep sector. However, in the unlikely event that it is not possible to get a longer-term free trade agreement with the European Union, there are, of course, other approaches that we can take. Our existing tariff-rate policy is set for just 12 months. It is open to us in future to review that and to apply certain tariffs to other EU sectors, to give our farmers opportunities to diversify into different sectors such as beef. Many of our sheep producers are mixed beef and sheep enterprises. It is also open to us to support the opening of new markets through, for instance, the deployment of new attachés to our embassy to help gain that market access. I know that the hon. Lady said that that was against WTO rules, but that is not correct. Certain types of export refunds are against WTO convention, but there is no rule against investment to support market access.
In conclusion, we recognise that the sheep sector more than any other agriculture sector is exposed because of the scale of its exports to the European Union, but the Government have been working for the past two years on modelling the potential impacts and planning the types of interventions that we may need to make to ensure that our sheep farmers are protected from any no-deal exit.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Trade
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart
To put the FDI numbers into further context, UNCTAD’s figures show that FDI flows—flows not stocks; I hope the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) knows the difference—fell by 19% globally in 2018. [Interruption.] I am now talking about flows as opposed to stocks, so it is repetition, but about a different aspect of something that I hope the hon. Gentleman would take an interest in. FDI flows fell by 19% globally and by 73% in continental Europe. What happened to FDI into the UK? The flows increased by 20%. So much for the negative effects of Brexit uncertainty.
[Official Report, 23 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 519WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).
Errors have been identified in my response to the debate on the UK Trade and Investment Strategy.
The correct statement should have been:
Graham Stuart
To put the FDI numbers into further context, UNCTAD’s figures show that FDI flows—flows not stocks; I hope the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) knows the difference—fell by 13% globally in 2018. [Interruption.] I am now talking about flows as opposed to stocks, so it is repetition, but about a different aspect of something that I hope the hon. Gentleman would take an interest in. FDI flows fell by 13% globally and by 55% in continental Europe. What happened to FDI into the UK? The flows fell at a slower rate than in Europe, at 36%. So much for the negative effects of Brexit uncertainty.
Petitions
Proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges south of Northampton
Heywood Post Office
Ceasefire in Yemen
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
EU Settlement Scheme: Looked-after Children and Care Leavers
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the EU Settlement Scheme and looked-after children and care leavers.
Good morning, Mr Bone. It is nice to be back and a pleasure to see you in the Chair. May I take this opportunity also to welcome the Minister to her post?
I want to raise today an issue that has the potential to become a serious immigration problem, but one that there is still plenty of time to avoid. The EU settlement scheme is the largest registration programme that the UK has ever known and poses the challenge of regularising the status of about 3.7 million people, including about 700,000 children, 74,000 of whom live in the west midlands.
The quarterly EU settlement scheme statistics show that only 12% of the applications to the scheme received by the end of June 2019 came from children under 16. I am sure that we all want to prevent vulnerable children from falling foul of problems associated with these plans as we prepare to leave the EU. I believe that there is significant cross-party support in both Houses on this issue, and I hope that today the Minister can provide some reassurance.
The Government have estimated that there are currently about 5,000 EU children in the British care system and perhaps a further 4,000 care leavers across the UK. We do not know the exact figure, because local authorities do not record that information, so I am relying on Government estimates. The figure does not include children classified as “in need” and therefore in receipt of considerable support from children’s services, but where the Department has not assumed parental rights. The Minister will be aware, I am sure, that there is quite a fine distinction between a child in need and therefore in informal care and a child in the formal system. It really relies on the point at which intervention is required. Therefore, I would submit that all these children need to be registered.
If previous registration is anything to judge by, it seems impossible to believe that 100% registration can ever be achieved. If just 15% of children are not properly registered, we may find ourselves doubling the number of undocumented children in this country. Recent pilot exercises suggest that there will be significant problems for local authorities in obtaining critical documentation such as birth certificates.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case on why we need to address this issue. I speak as the MP for one of the pilot areas, in Waltham Forest. One challenge was simply getting hold of documentation, because embassies will not release documentation to a child; they will release it to a parent, but of course if the child is in care, the relationship with their parent is strained. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that we need a specific scheme and way of dealing with children in care who are EU citizens, if Brexit is to go ahead?
Steve McCabe
I entirely agree with the points that my hon. Friend has raised. That was part of the purpose of calling this debate: I do not think that the scheme as currently designed will cope with these difficulties. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the pilots demonstrated the difficulties of obtaining documentation—particularly birth certificates, on which the Home Office puts a very high premium when determining these cases. Like her, I am concerned that many children and young people will not be able to access these documents and, as a result, will be wrongly denied settled status.
The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), did indicate that the Home Office planned to show a degree of leniency in this respect, but unfortunately she did not spell out what she had in mind. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to enlighten us today. No doubt she will tell us that in these cases the children will be eligible for pre-settled status, but what that actually means is that they will get temporary rights and be denied their legitimate legal rights. That is why there is a problem and why we are raising it. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities are protected and that children for whom the state is responsible receive the highest levels of protection.
It seems to me that the issue is not just documentation; there are several challenges with the proposals. It is extremely doubtful that social workers will have the time, expertise or legal knowledge to register these children.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. His comments raise a number of questions. The first is the final status of these children—ultimately—because we have seen problems in that regard before, but in addition, because of a lack of social workers, it will always be difficult for local authorities to get the accurate documentation that is needed. The lack of social workers and of funding for local authorities has been raised many times in the House. Does my hon. Friend think it is about time that central Government showed a bit of humanity and did something about that?
Steve McCabe
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I hope that, in the course of this debate, it will be possible to demonstrate that this is not scaremongering, that these are real issues and that there are solutions, but that does require the Government to recognise the problems that my hon. Friend has raised and to agree to act on them.
As I was saying, it seems unlikely that social workers will have the time, expertise or legal knowledge to deal with these issues, particularly if they begin to encounter problems in the process. The Children’s Society, along with other charities, has repeatedly highlighted the problems that this group of children is facing and the challenges that exist in trying to process an EUSS application. There is no evidence that I am aware of that additional support will be made available to local authorities—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) raises.
During the pilot phase, every application that Coram Children’s Legal Centre made on behalf of a child in care or a care leaver included detailed nationality advice—nationality advice that requires expert legal advice and understanding—and social workers had to be supported at each stage during the process. That is the evidence from the pilots.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the case that he is making. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has been working with directors of children’s services in Greater Manchester to try to offer the support to which my hon. Friend refers. Does he agree with me that we urgently need the Government to get the resolution currently before the House on extending legal aid to children in immigration cases through the House and on to the statute book? If the Government did that, social workers would be absolutely clear that legal aid was available for these cases and that they would not have to rely just on the chances of getting exceptional case funding.
Steve McCabe
My understanding is that that is an outstanding Government promise; as my hon. Friend says, there is a resolution to that effect. If there are any plans to curtail the time that we will spend here in the coming days, one good use of the time here would be in dealing with this simple issue. That would certainly raise the prospects of our being able to deal with the whole issue in a much more satisfactory manner, and I would certainly support it.
The current guidance states that local authorities can make applications on behalf of children where they have full parental responsibility, but, as I mentioned earlier, for care leavers or children in care under a section 20 order they are instructed simply to raise awareness or to signpost those young people to the scheme. Children in care under section 20 orders include children with disabilities, the children of prisoners, children involved in the criminal justice system and victims of child trafficking. It seems unrealistic to think that those children will be able to gather the correct documentation, make the application for themselves and challenge any incorrect decision the Home Office might arrive at.
Looked-after children are starkly over-represented in the criminal justice system, as I am sure the Minister knows. Around half of children currently in custody in England and Wales have been in care at some point. The Government have provided no clarity as to how these children will be treated when they apply for the scheme and, if they are offending, whether that will be used against them, as in the adult scheme. I raise that point because in this country we normally take the view that juvenile criminal behaviour should be treated differently from adult criminal behaviour.
Many looked-after children and care leavers may be eligible for British citizenship, but the social worker will need to know the law in order to recognise that. Local authorities would have to pay the application fee, which is currently £1,012 per child. That is a significant disincentive for cash-strapped local authorities. As I said earlier, we are working on estimates because local authorities do not record EU nationals who are in their care or classed as children in need, but the Government estimate that around 5,000 EU children are currently in care, and there are perhaps a further 4,000 care leavers across the UK, who need to be registered. At the present time, it is virtually impossible to estimate the number of children in need, which is a broader group.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of citizenship fees. I hope the Minister has seen the fantastic work done by Citizens UK, particularly Anne-Marie Canning, who is my constituent in Walthamstow. We deal very closely with those children and having documentation opens up doors for some of them, but I am worried about cases where they do not have it.
If we have done the right thing as corporate parents, helped these children to achieve new goals and dealt with some of the damage that led to them being in care, then watching them be denied access to university or further education colleges because they cannot sort out their status would be a horrific blow. These are some of the most vulnerable children in our country.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just these children’s status, but their future, and that is why it is so important that the Government recognise that this particular group of vulnerable young people needs a specific scheme?
Steve McCabe
That is absolutely the point. If we do not deal with this now, there will be a whole host of young people wandering around this country, sleeping on streets and unable to get jobs or to travel. That is what we will be subjecting them to for the next few years. That is why it is important that we get on top of this and deal with it now.
I checked the figures kept by Birmingham Children’s Trust. It has around 50 children whom it believes are EU citizens and will need to apply for some kind of settled status. It also has about 24 care leavers, who also fall into that category. However, at this point, the trust has not made any applications and it was not entirely clear about how the process should operate. That is in the second largest city in the country; if that trust is not sure how to operate the scheme, what will happen elsewhere?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) indicated, there are many future problems to consider, but there will also be some simple problems for children in the care system in the months ahead. Will they be able to go on school trips abroad with their peers after 31 October, or will they be stigmatised and refused that opportunity because they will not have access to proper travel rights? As my hon. Friend asked, what will happen to them when they are seeking housing, benefits and other support? They will be denied that support. We see enough problems on our streets at the present time; we certainly do not need to add to them by ignoring children for whose care we have taken responsibility. That seems the worst possible thing that any group of MPs could do.
The simplest and most cost-effective solution to these problems would be to grant automatic settled status to all looked-after children and care leavers. I do not think the number is so massive that it would impose great strains on the immigration system. However, it would tidy up one straightforward issue with one straightforward group of children. At the very least, the Government ought to extend the deadline for applying for the settled status scheme until we have really understood how some of these issues will operate in practice and what kinds of problems will arise.
If the Home Office is not willing to make changes of that order itself, it needs to instruct all local authorities to ensure that all eligible looked-after children are supported to make an application, not just children under a section 31 care order. If the Home Office is really serious about making this work, it will not leave those children exposed to such risks.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, the Government urgently need to bring forward parliamentary time for the amendment allowing looked-after children to have access to legal aid. That seems to be essential, if there is to be any sincerity to this process. The Government must communicate to all local authorities exactly how this legal aid will be accessed. It is not enough to place an obligation on the local authorities and then leave them with all the difficulties—we have seen that happen all too often in recent times; it is not good enough. The Home Office should also consider waiving the fee for citizenship applications for those children who qualify. As I said, the current fee is £1,012. That is a disincentive to local authorities. If the children are eligible and already in care, we should agree to waive that fee.
This issue has all the signs of a disaster in the making. Of all the people we are concerned about, I cannot believe that I am here talking about children in the care system—we say that we will look after and protect them, and give them a better chance in the future. This has all the makings of a disaster, but it is a disaster that could be avoided. If the Minister will agree to meet with those of us working on the issue and the relevant organisations, which have the knowledge and the advice, there is still time to stop it from happening.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Bone, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to be back and to serve under your chairmanship.
This debate is on a subject that I fear might be slightly overshadowed by other events in Parliament today and for the rest of the week, but it is no less important in the impact that it could have on a small group of very vulnerable children, and it is absolutely right that we should be considering it. I congratulate my co-applicant for this debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), on the way he set out the case and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate on the first day back.
I welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), and I hope that we will have as positive an engagement with her on these sorts of issues as we had with her predecessors. In the past, I had many discussions with those predecessors, and they recognised some of the practical implications of immigration policy on some of the most vulnerable children to whom we provide a home in this country. I am sure that dialogue will continue with the new Minister and I look forward to that.
In this country we have a great tradition of looking after children in the care system. There has been gradual progress on improving outcomes, but we need to go an awful lot further. Nevertheless, this is something that we in this country do well. One only has to go to a number of other countries that just do not have the sort of sophisticated and advanced children’s social care system that we take for granted, even with all the problems that we hear about, to realise that it is still one of the best such systems in the world.
Of course, we also have a great and proud record of giving safe refuge to vulnerable families and children from overseas, particularly unaccompanied minors fleeing from the most unimaginable danger, and it is absolutely right that we should continue to do that. Our recent record of helping those very vulnerable children from Syria and other conflict zones who have lost family, which includes participation in the family reunion schemes that I will allude to shortly, is certainly one that we should be very proud of.
I will just refer to the correspondence that the Home Affairs Committee had with the previous Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think we take credit for this enough, but under the Dublin scheme there has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of children arriving in the UK to be reunited with members of their family who are already here. In 2015, just 24 children arrived in the UK under articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the Dublin regulation, but by 2018—last year —that figure had risen to 159.
It is also important that we are looking after those children appropriately, so I was pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that the Home Office, in partnership with the Department for Education, had developed and adapted its processes to ensure that Dublin transfers are conducted in a safe and secure way, and that there are new processes in place now that were not there just a few years ago.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is right that Dublin has helped us to support some of the most vulnerable children in our communities. Does he share my grave concern about the reports that if there is a no-deal Brexit, that scheme will be abandoned, and about what that means for the children we already have in this country and indeed for some of the vulnerable children who we know may try to get safe passage to this country? Does he agree that it is important to protect Dublin and the principles that it espouses in terms of our ability to safeguard children in our own country?
Tim Loughton
I appreciate that very important point. It has been the subject of some of the discussions we have had with previous Home Secretaries. We have discussed not only what happens if there is a no-deal scenario but what happens if there is an agreement. If there is an agreement, the terms that should apply to children seeking to be reunited with families need to be at least as generous as those under the Dublin scheme, because under our domestic terms a range of family members are not included. We need to overhaul our own laws and increase the flexibility with which we can take on unaccompanied children who seek to be united with relatives who are often distant relatives but are nevertheless the only remaining members of their family, such has been the danger and the terror that they have had to escape from.
So, whatever happens in the next few weeks and months and goodness knows when, this issue needs to be looked at separately. As I say, I have had very positive discussions. When I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have approached the Home Secretary before, having been on trips to Greece with UNICEF to see some of the children who are applying for these schemes, we have had a very positive response and I very much hope that that will continue under new Ministers within the Home Office. But the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) makes a very pertinent point. Therefore, whatever happens, we need clarification under Dublin.
However, there is a problem closer to home, which is what we are discussing today, as a direct result of Brexit. It has not received the level of attention that many other aspects of the immigration scheme have, and it is a cause for concern. I have an interest in it, both as a former children’s Minister, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak very admirably chairs. These sorts of issues come up with the children who we see.
As we know, the EU settlement registration scheme aims to establish the immigration status of EU citizens legally residing in the UK after we have left the EU. It grants settled or pre-settled status, with rights to work, travel, use public services, access public benefits and so on. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is the largest registration system ever planned in the UK. It has been a huge challenge and not without its problems, certainly early on. It needs to progress smoothly, to avoid another Windrush scandal, which has been mentioned. It has been subject to a lot of scrutiny and some criticism by the Home Affairs Committee, which I sit on. We produced a report in May on the scheme. In fact, we will take evidence again tomorrow—with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) there, too—on how our preparedness for Brexit has hopefully improved since we last heard from witnesses on this subject.
Over a million people have now registered under that scheme; I gather that nobody has been refused. I myself have had just one complaint from constituents about the way it works, so things are better, if still not ideal.
Kate Green
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many people have been able to access the scheme successfully and it has been very helpful that the Home Office has begun to publish the data on the number of people going through the scheme. However, does he agree that we need one particular piece of data to be disentangled, which is in relation to 16 to 18-year-olds going through the scheme? Currently, they are being included in the number of adults going through the scheme, but nowhere in our law is a 16 or 17-year-old treated as an adult.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; in fact, she has pre-empted what I will now not bother to say later. As she says, 16 and 17-year-olds have been assimilated with adults, but children in this country are those under the age of 18. So, it is absolutely essential that that definition is applied to all children, not least those most vulnerable of children. And as a result of schemes such as Staying Put, what is effectively the definition of the children who come within that remit will expand to include those aged up to 21, 23 and even 25 in the case of some, including those children with disabilities. Therefore, those figures that she referred to absolutely need to be disassembled, because these children are probably the largest group within the cohort that we are talking about today.
The Children’s Society has been very vociferous on the issue that we are considering today and it has done a lot of work on it; I pay tribute to that work, and the Children’s Society has also helped us to prepare for this debate. It has made a calculation—it is not about children in care, but it allows us to put things in context—that between the end of August 2018 and the end of June this year, 107,110 children under the age of 16 applied to the EU settlement scheme. So far, 86% of those children have had a conclusion to their application; 65% have got settled status and 35% have got pre-settled status; 180 applications were withdrawn, or were void or invalid; and no applications have been refused. However, that still leaves 14,510 children, who are presumably waiting for their applications to be concluded. So there is also a group of children coming through the normal scheme who are slightly in limbo.
Again, the whole point about the 16 and 17-year-olds is that we do not know how that group is broken down. So I repeat the call from the Children’s Society to see the ages of applicants broken down further, so that under-18s—as well as 18 to 25-year-olds, who are another potentially vulnerable subset of children not of “child age” but who are equally important and vulnerable—can be properly identified and, as a result, supported.
The Children’s Society also says:
“Additionally, only 12% of the applications to the EU Settlement Scheme have come from children aged under 16. But analysis from the Migration Observatory suggests that there were 700,000 EU children under 18 in the UK in 2018, meaning hundreds of thousands of children may still need to apply for settled status or secure British citizenship. If they do not, they risk being left without a lawful status in the UK which means being unable to access education, employment, healthcare, housing and other vital services.”
Therefore, this is still a big problem for those children in the care system and for those who, though not looked after, are unaccounted for in the applications that have come through so far. There is still an awful lot of work to do.
That group of up to about 5,000 looked-after children who will need to apply to the EU settlement scheme does not include care leavers—some of whom may be subject to “staying put” arrangements and other special support measures—or children who are classified as in need and who receive support services and vital help from local authority children’s services departments. That figure represents something like 6% of all children in care in this country—five years ago it was 3%, so there has been a rapid increase. Those individuals are an important part of the looked-after children estate and potentially some of the most problematic children to identify, support and register.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, it is a sad fact of life that children in the care system are still much too disproportionately represented in the youth justice system. Many are victims of people traffickers, many have English as a second language, and many rely on being able to access benefits and other support that we take for granted. Our children’s services departments are hugely overstretched, and the all-party parliamentary group for children has recently produced a number of reports on the issue.
I welcome hugely the announcement of an additional £14 billion for schools. I hope it will be confirmed tomorrow in the comprehensive spending review, although goodness knows what will happen tomorrow. It will be very well received, particularly in my part of the world of Sussex and other shire counties, but I want to ensure that children’s social care services are not excluded. Those services are within the remit of the Department for Education and have faced huge funding challenges, yet it is the local authority departments that provide them that will be responsible for looking out for these children, for identifying and registering them, and for the legal expertise for cases that are not as straightforward as those involving other children. For example, if children are here with a French or German family, they will be able to make the application on their behalf.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic and well-informed speech. Of the £14 billion going to education, £2 billion is due to go to Scotland, where the issue is devolved. I am concerned about how central Government will work with devolved and local government to ensure that no EU citizen, and certainly no child in care, is left behind, and I hope the Minister will clarify that in her closing speech. Scotland has only about 8% of the UK population but about 14% of the UK’s children in care. That is a problem for us, and every single level of government needs to work together to ensure that no one is left behind.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although we are talking primarily about the looked-after children population in England and Wales, there is a particular issue in Scotland. I had not realised that the proportion was that high. It is really important that money going into education, which is also for the wider benefit of children in the social care system, is targeted at those children who need it most. If the issue is not dealt with, the problem in Scotland could be greater even than that in England and Wales. I hope that the Minister and the Scottish Administration are listening to my hon. Friend’s case.
Many of the children in this potentially most problematic group will have come here in difficult circumstances and gone into care, and it is highly likely that they lack birth certificates and passports and will find it difficult to prove their length of stay in the UK. They may have been moved around the whole system, as so often happens. Yet these children—I repeat that they are children—are expected to produce documentation in order to qualify under the scheme, even though they may not have that documentation. Moreover, the local authorities responsible for them could face huge challenges and detective work, requiring their buying in legal expertise and acting as advocates at a time when they are already hard pressed to look after the record number of children from the indigenous population who have recently entered the care system.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pre-empted what I was going to say about the citizenship fees, which have been flagged up by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The increase in fees over recent years, at all levels, has been extravagant, to put it mildly—the fees go well beyond recovering the cost of the service offered. In the past, it was always the principle that the charge should be equivalent to the cost of recovery, not that it should exceed it in order to subsidise services elsewhere in the Home Office. It is difficult to justify the high fee of £1,012 for a child to whom we have given safety and refuge. In most cases the cost will come out of local authority budgets—namely, children’s social care budgets, which are already greatly pressed—meaning less money to spend on social workers and on care placings for other children. Mr Bone, I should have mentioned my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before I conclude with my asks, I wish to reinforce what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said about the situation of children coming over from France. There has been recent correspondence between the previous Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—and the Home Affairs Committee, because we were concerned about what was happening to children in very vulnerable and dangerous situations in some of the camps in France, in particular those with a claim to come to the UK through the family reunion and other schemes, the processing of which seems to be taking an interminably long time. Part of the reason for that, as I found out when I went to Greece, is that, while potential candidates are lined up by charities and authorities, the process relies on social workers back in the UK doing the investigative work to ensure that the placements properly take care of the children’s welfare. However, due to the current recruitment situation, social workers are being pulled in all directions.
The previous Home Secretary provided some reassurance in his letter:
“I am pleased to confirm that the vast majority of the cases involving children in France awaiting transfer to the UK have been resolved, with many of the children having already transferred, under either the Dublin III Regulation…or section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, or shortly about to; others are pursuing their asylum claim in France.”
These are some of the most vulnerable children and, frankly, if they were in camps outside Dover our local authority children’s services departments and our Government would have taken care of them. It is extraordinary that that has not happened in other countries. I am pleased that we have now accelerated the process to ensure that those who qualify are brought to a place of safety.
In conclusion, I have two asks. The first is that automatic settled status be granted to all looked-after children and care leavers. The very fact that those children are being looked after by local authorities in what are recognised as legitimate placements, paid for by the United Kingdom taxpayer and the local council tax payer, is an endorsement of their legitimacy and of our responsibility to look after them in the first place. Surely, therefore, the assumption should be that they absolutely have a rightful place in this country. If there is a problem with that, we should argue the toss later on, but let us give them protection at the outset.
Secondly, the issue of fees needs to be looked at—an ask of the Home Affairs Committee to the previous Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). It is such a complicated system, as the Windrush issue threw up, with many different avenues to qualifying for citizenship. It is a complete minefield that needs to be simplified and the charges need to be reduced. The complicated nature of the system also makes it very expensive. For goodness’ sake, on behalf of this small but vulnerable group of looked-after children and care leavers, I urge the Government to waive their fees for citizenship applications. That is essential, whether or not we have a deal to come out of the EU—which matters not a jot to those children. They need our help and support. This country has recognised their need and has provided support. Let us not let bureaucracy stand in the way of continuing to do the right thing by those children, as we have a proud record of doing.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It might be useful for the House to know that the wind-up speeches will have to start no later than 12.30. I have two Members trying to catch my eye, so perhaps they will bear that in mind.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the chance to contribute, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. I welcome the Minister to her post and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate.
I share the concerns that have been expressed today. It is estimated that in the north-west there are around 700 looked-after children of European economic area or Swiss nationality, but we do not know the numbers for sure. It is vital that we gather the data, so I was pleased to see in a written answer to Lord Russell on 9 July that the Home Office will survey local authorities to benchmark the current uptake of the scheme and to baseline cohorts of EEA citizen looked-after children and care leavers, and that the survey will take place at set intervals throughout the lifetime of the European Union settled status scheme.
Is the Minister able to update us about progress on gathering the survey data? Will she confirm that it will include children in need—a vulnerable group not encompassed by the provisions of the settled status scheme and special help from local authorities, as my hon. Friend pointed out? Will she also confirm that there will be an opportunity to disentangle data from the statistics in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds?
As others have said, we are talking about the most vulnerable children in the country who may have suffered appalling abuse or neglect. As we have also heard, securing status for those children is absolutely vital for them to thrive and maximise their potential in adult life. I share the concerns expressed about local authorities only being required to ensure that applications are made for children under section 31 care orders. I invite the Minister to explain why other children looked after in the ambit of section 20 —or those, for example, who are privately fostered or are care leavers—are not also included within the obligation on local authorities: they, too, are very vulnerable young people and children.
The Government intended the application process for settled status to be straightforward and simple. However, as we have heard, that will not be the case for many looked-after children because of the difficulties they might have in accessing documentation to support their applications, because their carers might not understand the need for them to apply or because local authorities might be overstretched and not able to give them the support that they need to do so.
As I have said, many such children will be reliant on legal aid to support them in making a sufficiently strong application. Social workers do not have the expertise, training, capacity, or indeed the legal right to give advice on immigration matters; they would be in breach of immigration law if they tried to. So it is vital that the Government, having finally tabled, after a year, the order to bring immigration cases for looked-after children within the ambit of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, get the order put through in good time before 31 October. I hope the Minister will be able to commit today that the Government will ensure that that happens.
I want to mention a couple of other points: first, the issue of children’s best interests. I recognise that the Children Act 2004 requires that local authorities discharge their functions having regard to the welfare of children, and I also recognise that section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires immigration authorities to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. However, the lack of systems and processes to embed children’s best interests into the settled status decision-making process means that those issues might not be properly addressed. What guarantees can the Minister give us that the EU settled status scheme will operate so that children’s best interests are always paramount? Will it be made explicit in the settled status scheme, and will she undertake to carry out a child rights impact assessment of the operation of the scheme?
I, too, want to highlight particular concerns in relation to EEA and Swiss national looked-after children in the criminal justice system. As we have heard, looked-after children are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Half of children in custody have been in care. As with local authorities, there is a dearth of data on the nationality and status of children in the criminal justice system. Will the Government put in place arrangements to collect centrally nationality data for children in youth offending services and in detention as a matter of urgency, so that where applications need to be expedited for those children, that can take place?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has said, our criminal justice system recognises the difference between childhood and adult offending, for example, in sentencing or in the time that it takes for a conviction to become spent. However, that difference is not clearly recognised in the EU settled status scheme. Any child or young person over the age of criminal responsibility—in other words, over the age of 10— will be subject to criminality checks. Where checks reveal “serious or persistent” offending, a referral will be made to immigration enforcement for a case-by-case determination as to whether an applicant should be refused status on the basis of “suitability”. I recognise that the Government have stated that those under 18 will not be required to answer questions relating to suitability and that children under 18 will be deported only on imperative grounds of public security, but there is no single definition of what kinds of offences are likely to be captured in that exception. It would be useful if Ministers could guarantee to set out the higher threshold that will apply in guidance, and also confirm that both the non-disclosure requirements and the higher threshold applying to under-18s will continue after 31 October, even in the event of no deal.
The settled status scheme also fails to differentiate between adults and children in relation to the continuous residence criteria: the general caseworker guidance makes no distinction between adults and children in terms of resetting the clock on residence following a period of imprisonment or detention. Will the Government look at amending the scheme to ensure that a custodial sentence imposed on a child does not impact on the calculation of their continuous residence for the purpose of making an application for settled status?
Finally, may I invite the Government to publish specific guidance on children and young people applying to the settled status scheme from within the secure estate or the wider criminal justice scheme? Will the Government consider granting settled status to all children irrespective of their criminal history? I echo the calls made in this Chamber this morning and invite the Government to supply settled status to all looked-after children and children in care. We risk those children being left in a limbo that will affect them all through their adult lives if we do not make their status absolutely clear and safe now. As we have heard, those children have already demonstrated their right to our protection. We cannot afford to let them down as a result of a decision to leave the European Union, which was in no way any of their making.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I thank her for her contribution. I give a special thanks to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and also the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who secured the debate and set the scene so well. All their contributions have been excellent and I congratulate them. It is also nice to see the Minister in her place. She has had a tour of many ministerial positions over the last while, and I look forward to her response to this debate. If it follows in line with responses that she has given when holding responsibility for other portfolios, it will be a good one.
I was happy to support the application for today’s debate, and spoke to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about it beforehand. I have been contacted by many people in relation to this issue; I will specifically mention The Children’s Society, which has real concerns that we must seek to address in this place, whether there is a deal—I sincerely hope there will be—or there is not a deal, which, speaking as a Brexiteer, will not be a disappointment either. The fact is that we are leaving Europe, and we must do the business for those looked-after children. We cannot ignore that. Whether we are in or out of Europe, this issue has to be addressed; everyone has said so, but it is important that we put it on the record. That is the reason for today’s debate.
An email sent to me by The Children’s Society expressed a very clear concern:
“the estimated 700,000 EU national children living in the UK are lost within public debate about the EUSS. The quarterly immigration statistics show that only 12% of the applications to the EU Settlement Scheme received by the end of June 2019 came from children under 16, meaning an estimated 600,000 EU national children still need to regularise their status before the deadline.”
Some of the background information that we have been given endorses that. The Migration Observatory’s report on settled status suggested that upwards of 661,000 non-Irish EU citizen children could be living in the UK, which indicates that at least half a million children who could be eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme are yet to make an application. I ask the Minister what has been done to address that figure in relation to those who have not applied. That clearly needs to be looked at.
I also ask the Minister how many of those children are in local authority care. Among the European population, there will be thousands of children and young people who are currently looked after by local authorities. Although those children make up a fraction of the overall population, I believe that we owe that fraction a special set of responsibilities, so I endorse what The Children’s Society has said. There is a real concern that we are not meeting our obligations to that admittedly small number of children; another purpose of today’s debate is to highlight that issue to the Minister and hopefully receive a response that addresses some of our concerns. I am sure that she is aware of the issue and that her Department is working on it—perhaps the Minister will indicate the contrary—but I am anxious to hear how it is being taken care of. I am sure the Minister will be happy to outline that detail in her response.
Again from the background information about British citizenship, some concerns have been raised that although it might be more advantageous for eligible looked-after children to apply for British citizenship instead of settled status, they could be unaware of their rights or face difficulty paying the fee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to the £1,012 that it takes to register a child as a British citizen, and under the present system it is not clear how those who may automatically be British will be identified. There are likely to be significant numbers of European national children and young people who could fall under those nationality provisions, but who do not know their rights. Again, I look to the Minister for a response.
I hope that looked-after children are not completing settlement scheme applications on their own, without legal advice. However, it is quite possible that they are, and if so, they will not be fully aware of their options. That could result in an incorrect grant of pre-settled status, or their being refused outright or potentially missing another legal avenue available to them, such as applying for British citizenship. We must make sure that applicants have all the help they need to fill in those applications. Again, it is so important that we address these issues.
As Members know, I am a firm Brexiteer. I remain of that opinion, but that does not in any way diminish the sense of compassion or obligation that I have as an individual, or this Parliament should have. Although I do not agree with many parliamentary colleagues regarding the merits of staying in Europe, I sincerely agree that we must do what we can to ensure that those who need special status are able to access it, especially those who are children and not aware of what all this Brexit talk actually means for them. It may be lost on them.
Combined data from the four nations highlights that there were over 95,000 looked-after children in UK local authorities in 2017—a figure that has probably increased over the past couple of years. Although the Government do not currently collect and publish data centrally about looked-after children’s nationality, only their ethnicity, a recent parliamentary response highlighted that the Home Office has estimated that some 5,000 EU children are currently in care in the UK, not including care leavers or children classified as in need.
We must ensure that those children’s social workers are crystal clear about the steps that must be taken to ensure their place here post 31 October. Social workers have a key role, and it is important that they are enabled to carry out their responsibility on behalf of those young people. Again, there is no centrally collected and publicly available data about European national care leavers, although the Government estimate that 4,000 care leavers to age 25 are in scope. I believe that steps could be taken to ensure that this group of people are made aware of anything that they must do to ensure they remain post 31 October.
I have another quick question about care leavers, whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to in his introduction, and others have referred to as well. Figures from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are clear that in the year ending 31 March 2018, local authorities were in touch with 88% of 19 to 21-year-old care leavers. To be counted as “in touch”, there should be contact between the local authority and the young person about three months before, and one month after, the young person’s birthday. Local authorities therefore do not necessarily maintain contact with all care leavers, and it is possible that some will fall between the cracks. I ask the Minister, honestly and respectfully, what has been done to make sure those young people do not fall between the cracks; to address the 12% who have not been contacted; and to ensure that those young care leavers do not find themselves without the opportunity to advance their applications.
I ask the Minister to outline in her response what the current situation is in relation to the questions that I and others have asked, and whether she believes that more can reasonably be done to ensure that all the support that those vulnerable children and young adults need is available. To me, it is important that those who need help get it and that those who need support get that support. It is part of my responsibility as a Member of Parliament, and a collective responsibility of all of us in this House, to ensure that this issue is addressed. We look to the Minister for a response.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for pursuing this issue and securing this debate via the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to all hon. Members who have contributed today; a tremendous range of expertise has been on show. I was slightly surprised that no hon. Member wanted to pay tribute to, and thank, our munificent Prime Minister for giving us humble MPs the opportunity to actually debate a Brexit issue today, because apparently that is something we cannot take for granted anymore. Perhaps we can address that issue later today in the main Chamber.
Luke Graham
Would the hon. Gentleman confirm the number of hours that were given to the Scottish Parliament to discuss emergency legislation that was rushed through in Holyrood?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have to say that I do not know the answer to that question. I am sure that it was perfectly adequate. [Interruption.]
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. It is probably good that you do not know the answer, because it would be totally out of order.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you very much for coming to my assistance, Mr Bone.
I join hon. Members in welcoming the Minister to her place, but I do have to start with a slightly cheeky question: is she actually the immigration Minister? This settlement scheme is being rolled out and huge reform of the immigration system is ahead, but we spent the summer not knowing who was actually responsible for immigration matters and where I should send my angry letters—or, indeed, my very constructive and helpful letters. If she is the immigration Minister, she can look forward to lots of correspondence in the weeks ahead.
Turning to the issue at hand, other hon. Members have eloquently and persuasively set out the significant challenges that looked-after children and care leavers will face in accessing either the immigration status that is in their best interest, or the citizenship status that they are entitled to and will be in their best interest. I have also heard concerns about the under-representation of children among those who have already applied for settled status.
On the settled status scheme, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, even though the Home Office is pulling out all the stops—I appreciate it is putting a lot of work and resource into it—hundreds of thousands of EU citizens or their family members will almost certainly not apply for or achieve settled status, or even pre-settled status, by the deadline. As we have heard, for some, that will be due to a lack of awareness or to legal complexities that mean that they do not understand that they need to apply; for others, there will be barriers in relation to the evidence that needs to be sent in.
Looked-after children, care leavers and other vulnerable persons will be over-represented in those groups and the consequences for them of failing to apply in time will be dire, as they will be for everyone affected. Overnight, they will be deemed to be in the country illegally and the full weight of the hostile environment will kick in: university, education, some healthcare, bank accounts, driving licences, employment and social security will all be put out of reach.
What can we do to stop that? From my party’s point of view, the solution is to keep the free movement of people by abandoning Brexit altogether or by securing a deal that includes retaining all the advantages of free movement. It would be brave and surprising if the new Minister were to announce that she accepted that proposition, so if that is not possible, the Prime Minister should do what he, the new Home Secretary and the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised during the referendum campaign, which is to enshrine the rights of EU citizens in law.
In a declaratory system, EU nationals would not be required to apply to retain their right to live here, but would be granted that right in an Act of Parliament. They would have to apply to the settled status scheme simply for a document to prove their position in future. Professor Stijn Smismans and the3million have worked extensively on proposals about how to do that; the Home Office should engage with them.
It is not a perfect solution because, of course, after the deadline, hundreds of thousands of people would still not have applied for the necessary evidence of their settled or pre-settled status. However, the simple truth is that they would have the right to be here, and would therefore still be able to provide proof of that right and to secure the necessary documents or other means of proof as soon as it became apparent to them that they were required to do that.
The Home Office’s refusal to listen or understand that simple fact is infuriating. It has made various nonsensical arguments about a declaratory system being responsible for the Windrush fiasco, but that is not what a single inquiry into that horrible episode has determined —it is simply not true. Under a declaratory system, those who missed the deadline would have a chance to rectify their position. Under the Home Office system as established, hundreds of thousands of people—thousands of whom might be looked-after children, care leavers and other vulnerable citizens—will be left here without legal status, which would be an absolute disaster. I call for a declaratory system for everyone, but if that is not possible, I absolutely join other hon. Members in calling for a declaratory system for looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that the Home Office will think about changing paths now.
In the meantime, has the Minister or the Department made any attempt to estimate how many people they expect not to apply before the deadline? Will she make it clear today what will happen to those who miss the deadline, including looked-after children and care leavers? How will they be treated? There has been an incredible lack of clarity on that. If the Home Office will not change tack, MPs should be allowed to debate and vote on the issue. We debated it during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. What has happened to that Bill and what will happen to it now?
Regardless of whether the Home Office chooses to change its fundamental approach, or, more likely, is forced to by legislation, or whether it presses ahead with its current model, hon. Members have raised other issues to address and actions to pursue. The Home Office must ensure that there is sufficient funding for awareness-raising programmes, with a particular focus on making sure that local authorities have a clear understanding of what is required of them in relation to looked-after children and care leavers, and the resources to ensure that those groups can obtain all the advice and support they need.
As has been said, the position of many of those youngsters is incredibly complicated. For a child, choosing the right application to make or whether to make an application at all, or knowing whether they might have a right to citizenship, is hugely complicated but has profound implications. We cannot expect social workers to do all that. All those young people must have access to specialist legal advice and support, which should be funded by the Home Office.
The duty of local authorities must be to do everything possible to secure that expert advice, not to provide makeshift alternative advice that they are not qualified to deliver. As other hon. Members have said, that duty must extend to all looked-after children and care leavers, not just those for whom the local authorities have parental responsibility.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about legal aid. The announcement in July 2018 that legal aid for separated children with immigration issues would be reintroduced, including for children who need advice and support to secure EU settled status or understand their right to British citizenship, is yet to be implemented. It is essential that we know what will happen to that proposed change, given that Parliament may not be sitting for much longer. More broadly, immigration and citizenship should be brought within the scope of legal aid, as they are in Scotland.
The distinct issue of citizenship is relevant to many care leavers and looked-after children, because a significant number of them will be entitled to register as British citizens. The key barriers are, again, a lack of awareness and the extortionate cost of vindicating those rights via the registration process, as other hon. Members have said. I repeat, therefore, that we need measures to ensure access to legal advice and to address the outrageous fees being charged by the Home Office. The new Chancellor, when he was Home Secretary, acknowledged that the £1,000 fee was a huge sum of money to charge children; I would say it is disgraceful, particularly when we are talking about looked-after children and care leavers.
At the end of the day, those kids are every bit as entitled to citizenship as anybody in this Chamber and they should not be prevented from obtaining it by extraordinary fees. I urge the Minister not to do what other Immigration Ministers have done, which is to conflate the issue with migration fees or the adult naturalisation processes—they are completely different. We are talking about a group of children for whom Parliament expressly protected the right of citizenship when it ended the general provision of citizenship by birth in 1981. If Home Office officials demanded £1,000 from every mother leaving the maternity ward to secure their kid’s citizenship, there would rightly be outrage, but to charge those kids for theirs is as morally reprehensible. In the case of looked-after children and care leavers, at least, the Home Office must see how outrageous its position has been up to this point and act accordingly.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Birmingham, Selly Oak on securing the debate. I support them in what they are trying to achieve and will happily work with them to attempt to persuade the Home Office to listen.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I, too, congratulate the Minister on her post and look forward to working constructively with her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing this important debate and bringing this serious issue to the fore. I also thank The Children’s Society, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium and the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit for their comprehensive briefings.
As we head ever closer to a disastrous no-deal Brexit, the rights of the 3.8 million EU nationals living in the UK are still in jeopardy. By a conservative estimate, 5,000 EU children live in care in the UK and a further 4,000 care leavers will be affected by the EU settlement scheme. Across the UK, our already stretched local authorities are now responsible for safeguarding the rights of thousands of European looked-after children and care leavers.
If that already vulnerable group of children does not secure their rights after Brexit, we could easily double the number of undocumented children living in the UK, which is a situation that none of us want to see, as I am sure the Minister agrees. Those undocumented children and young people would then be subjected to all the Government’s hostile environment policies: they will be unable to work, drive or open a bank account, and they will effectively be barred from college, university and secondary healthcare.
That is why Labour supports a declaratory scheme, as opposed to the Government’s constitutive scheme. A declaratory scheme would ensure that all EU citizens living in the UK automatically retained their rights after Brexit. I had many discussions with the previous Minister about the issue and I hope that the new ministerial team will look again at the proposal. Without reforming the system entirely, it is imperative that the Government look again at the problems faced by children in care and care leavers in applying for settled status.
I want to outline my three most pressing concerns about children in local authority care and care leavers who need to secure settled status. A number of other Members have also touched on these points.
First, many looked-after children and care leavers lack the documentation necessary to complete their application under the settlement scheme. Many children in care will not have the identity documents that the Home Office requires for settled status. If a child is born in the UK, they will more than likely not have a passport or identity card to prove their nationality. It is estimated that more than half a million children fall into this category.
As the largest-scale registration programme the Home Office has ever embarked on, the settlement scheme has brought into stark relief how little we know about the immigration status of the children in the care of the state. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that these children do not fall through the gaps just because they are unable to prove their nationality?
My second concern is the lack of information available to local authorities. The Government have spent the last 10 years slashing local authority budgets and now they expect those cash-strapped councils to take responsibility for registering the thousands of EU national children in their care. Earlier in the year, following the roll-out of the settlement scheme, the Government issued guidance to all local authorities on how they should be supporting children in their care and care leavers, which stated that there is no general duty on local authorities to ensure that immigration status is secured for looked-after children. Does the Minister not consider securing a looked-after child’s immigration status to be a fundamental part of the state’s corporate parenting responsibilities?
Thirdly, I am concerned about the legal advice being offered to looked-after children. There is potential for children with the right to apply for British citizenship being advised to pursue settled status in the rush to ensure they are protected. Does the Minister agree that only those with sufficient expertise should be giving immigration advice to children in care and care leavers?
All looked-after children have the right to seek legal aid in applying for their settled status. What steps is the Minister taking to make local authorities aware of their right to apply for exceptional immigration case funding for children in their care? Will the Minister also guarantee parliamentary time in what remains of this Session for the amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that would cement that right in legislation? Labour is committed to providing early legal advice for all immigration cases. Legal aid is not just a force for good, but could also save the Treasury millions in the long run.
As we all know, there are a multitude of problems at every stage in the immigration process for children in care, and for just about all other vulnerable groups in our society. That includes the cost of citizenship applications, the time it takes to apply and the hostile environment. There are many issues I have not had time to touch on today. I hope the Minister will answer the questions we have raised. It is vital that no vulnerable child or young person is allowed to fall through the gaps of the settled status scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Kennedy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this extremely important debate on the EU settlement scheme and looked-after children and care leavers. The co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group are great champions for children and it is right to discuss this issue today.
The EU settlement scheme is designed to deliver on the Government’s aim that EU citizens can obtain their status quickly and easily. The principle behind it is the presumption of granting status. The Prime Minister has made it clear that EU citizens living in this country will have the absolute certainty of the right to live and remain in this country. Ensuring that those who are most vulnerable, such as looked-after children, are supported to obtain status has always been and continues to be a core element in the delivery of the scheme, and I want to assure all Members who have spoken today, including those who have left their places, that that is a cross-departmental priority for the Government.
My Department has engaged widely, including with the Department for Education, the Local Government Association—my predecessor spoke at its conference, addressing this point—and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, as well as their equivalents in the devolved Administrations and in Northern Ireland, to understand and address the needs of looked-after children and care leavers and to ensure that they are supported. Guidance has been issued regarding the role and responsibilities of local authorities for making or supporting applications for looked-after children.
The scheme was first rolled out in the spring of this year. One million people have been granted status already—that is the figure from August. If we are in a deal situation, the scheme will be open until the middle of 2021. In a no-deal situation, people will have until 31 December next year to apply.
Members have rightly raised a lot of points about the scheme in general and about the specific cohort of children. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—he has great experience both from his work in this place and from before that—on the different strata of children that we are discussing.
The system has been designed to make sure that a successor of mine who stands here in 40 years’ time will not be dealing with a system where people do not have their status. That is why we have registration—so that EU citizens, particularly children and vulnerable people who have built their lives in this country—
Seema Kennedy
Can I just finish this point? Then I will give way, to either an angry or a helpful comment.
The registration scheme exists so that citizens, particularly children and vulnerable people who have built their lives in this country, do not have difficulty evidencing their rights to live and work here. That speaks to a point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister speaks of her successor in a few years’ time being able to say that everyone has status, but only a declaratory system will do that. If we do not have a declaratory system, it is inevitable that tens of thousands—almost certainly hundreds of thousands—of EU citizens, including vulnerable people, will not have status. Does the Minister accept that? Does the Home Office have an estimate of how many people it expects not to go through the process in time?
Seema Kennedy
I profoundly disagree with that point. The registration scheme ensures that those EU citizens who are here will have settled status. If not, there will be differences, because people will not necessarily be able to prove whether they were here at that point.
Focusing specifically on the cohort under discussion, hon. Members have quite rightly referred to the fact that many of those children do not have the same documentation as most of us in this Chamber, because of the life situations they have experienced. We share those concerns. They might have no identity document, as they might have had complex or chaotic lives.
It is absolutely right that local authorities and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland should obtain the necessary identity documents for a child in care to ensure that they have uninterrupted access to services, but the Home Office guidance on this scheme makes it clear that applicants can apply without an identity document, as they might be unable to provide one because of family circumstances. As far as I am aware, local authorities vouching for the fact can be adequate documentation.
Stella Creasy
One of the critical lessons from the pilot schemes in my local authority was the difficulty in getting hold of documentation, because embassies in other countries want parents to be involved. It comes down to a very simple question: do we want social workers to be chasing up embassies and parents, or working with these kids? Is the Minister providing a guarantee that if my local authority simply said, “Yes, we believe this child is an EU citizen and therefore should be entitled to status in this country,” that will be enough? If she is not, she is asking social workers—who do not have a legal background—to go chasing information that they cannot get hold of, not because of rules in this country but because of rules in other countries, and that risks the children not getting the status they urgently need.
Seema Kennedy
May I please finish my point? For some of the children we are talking about, the local authority is the parent. A second group might be the parents of section 20 children, and another group includes children in need. The problem is that some children still have their parents, who, perhaps at a later point, might come back in order to make the application for them. We are talking about three distinct groups of children. It is important that we recognise that, although some children might temporarily be under a section 20 order, they might return to their parents afterwards.
Seema Kennedy
I must finish this point. I have asked officials to look at the hon. Lady’s point about the local authority giving the evidence, and I will write to her in more detail.
Seema Kennedy
It is important to note that not all the children we are talking about have local authorities that are in loco parentis.
On the role of local authorities, a new burdens assessment has been made. It will take into account the important work of identifying the cohort of children and their parents. We have asked local authorities to return figures by the end of August—I think the hon. Lady referred to that—and we are currently co-ordinating those returns, which came in only a few days ago. That is how we are supporting local authorities.
We have given £9 million to 57 voluntary and community sector organisations across the country, to help us reach an estimated 200,000 vulnerable or at-risk EU citizens and help them apply. Of course, it is not only children who might be in a vulnerable cohort; the Home Office is very aware of that. Additional support is available to people who do not have the appropriate access, skills or confidence to apply online. There are more than 300 assisted digital locations across the UK, and there is an opportunity for a paper application in some circumstances.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for giving way again—she is being very generous with her time. Charities are telling us that they do not have the resources to do all the work that is required. Has she put in a request to the new Chancellor for additional funding, so that we can leave absolutely no stone unturned in ensuring that we help each and every vulnerable person in this country who needs to apply?
Seema Kennedy
The scheme is not designed to require a lawyer or legal advice, so it is simple to use. I recognise that there might be complications in some of the cases involving vulnerable and non-EEA dependents. However, the fact that more than one third of the eligible people have already signed up in six months is a testament to its design as a simple system.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She might be right to say that the overall scheme was designed not to require great legal expertise, but the evidence of the Coram pilot shows that that is exactly what was required for the group of children that this debate is about. Surely that is the point she needs to address.
Seema Kennedy
On the Coram report and the Department’s contact with all the important groups that assist vulnerable people, guidance has been published. Most importantly, guidance is being refreshed—this debate is part of that, to ensure the guidance is relevant. There has been a series of teleconferences for social workers and local authority staff, and they will continue monthly until next March. There is a designated telephone number for local authorities to call the Settlement Resolution Centre.
I will touch on an important issue that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned, namely legal aid. She has quite rightly mentioned the fact that the order has not been debated, and I will speak urgently to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice in order to bring that forward. Until then, applicants can apply through the exceptional case funding scheme.
Luke Graham
The Minister is making earnest promises to work with local government to ensure that no child is left behind. Can she assure me and other colleagues that her Department will work with the devolved Administrations and local authorities in Scotland to ensure that all children are cared for, and that the opportunities provided in England are provided elsewhere in the UK?
Seema Kennedy
I am very committed to working with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. It is a testament to the importance of this debate that hon. Members from all four nations are present—well, not the Welsh, unfortunately—which shows how strongly we feel about protecting vulnerable children in this situation.
Colleagues asked what would happen should children fail to make an application by the deadline, which, as I have said, will be either the end of December next year in a no-deal situation, or the summer of 2021 under the withdrawal agreement. The Government have a special responsibility for these children and care leavers. With these measures in place, I am confident that we will ensure that they secure a permanent status under the scheme.
I will touch on citizenship fees, because all hon. Members who have spoken have talked about them. Settled status gives indefinite leave to remain in the UK, but some countries do not allow dual citizenship. It is a personal choice; citizenship is not mandatory. However, we have committed to reviewing fees for child registration applications and will keep the House updated.
On the issue of asylum, which I think was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston or my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the UK takes extremely seriously its responsibilities to unaccompanied children. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the numbers have been increasing. In the past 12 months, we gave protection to more than 7,000 children. Whether we have a deal or not, co-operation on asylum will continue with EU countries, which is why we have taken proactive action to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, Dublin requests that relate to family reunification and that have not been resolved on the date we leave the EU will continue to be considered under existing rules.
I will touch quickly on the issue of criminality thresholds. I, too, queried why there was a 16-to-18 gap. Applicants under 18 are now not asked about criminality, but a police national computer check is still conducted if they are aged over 10. Only serious criminality, which forms consideration of deportation, is taken into account—serious persistent offenders with extended custodial sentences.
This has been a very important debate. Highlighting the issue at this earlyish stage of the EU settlement scheme is very pertinent, and I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak for securing the debate. We will continue to engage with relevant stakeholders, to understand and address the needs of looked-after children in care. I reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we look after children and care leavers, and that they are supported to obtain their status under the EU settlement scheme.
Steve McCabe
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for her comments. I hope she will appreciate, as I said at the outset, that this is a cross-party matter. The hon. Members raising it are doing so not because of our views on Brexit, but because of the risk to this particular group of children. I ask her to focus on that. Although I recognise that the intention is not to make the scheme complicated, I implore her to look again at some of the legal complexities that local authorities are raising, because they look as if they will adversely impact on her good intentions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the EU Settlement Scheme and looked-after children and care leavers.
Kettering General Hospital Urgent Care Hub
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the urgent care hub at Kettering General Hospital.
May I say what an unexpected pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I am sure that we will all benefit from your wise guidance and counsel. I thank the Speaker for granting me this debate and welcome the Minister to his place. We are joined today by Mr Simon Weldon, the outstanding chief executive of Kettering General Hospital, our very popular local hospital. Of course, you will know him as well as I do, Mr Bone.
Kettering General Hospital is an extremely popular and well-liked local hospital. It is 122 years old this year, and still occupies the site that it first occupied in 1897. There cannot be many hospitals in the country that are still based almost entirely in their original locations from more than a century ago.
Today, we are talking about the urgent need for an urgent care hub on the Kettering General Hospital site. We need the urgent care hub because the hospital is such a popular one that it simply cannot cope with the number of patients admitted to A&E at the moment. Everyone—all the local NHS professionals in every NHS organisation in Northamptonshire—agrees that the best solution to the challenges the hospital faces is £49 million for the development of an urgent care hub on the site, which the hospital needs.
An urgent care hub would basically be a one-stop shop for GP services and out-of-hours-care, an onsite pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, facilities for social services and mental health care, access to community care services for the frail elderly, and a replacement for our A&E department. The most crucial aspect of that is the A&E department, which was built 25 years ago in 1994 to cope with 40,000 attendances each year. Last year, 91,200 patients came through that very same A&E. This year, we are on track to pass the 100,000-mark for patient attendances, which is well over 150% of the department’s capacity. By 2045, 170,000 attendances are expected at the same site
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not only Kettering General Hospital—A&Es across many constituencies suffer from similar problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would all benefit if, in A&Es—particularly that of Kettering General Hospital, which the debate is about—there were better patient care and a better working environment for health professionals? In A&Es, it is important that health professionals are happy in their work and feel that they can move forward in what is possibly the most stressful specialty. In the long run, the investment to which the hon. Gentleman referred will pay for itself in better patient outcomes and better staffing capacity.
Mr Hollobone
I am most grateful for that unexpected contribution from Northern Ireland—it is always a delight to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I thank him for his support. Of course, I agree that A&E facilities across the country are under pressure, but that pressure is particularly acute in Kettering, not least due to the number of houses that are being built locally, the increase in the local population and the fact that—thank goodness—we are all living longer. In Northamptonshire, there has been a particular increase in the number of elderly patients who are served by the local hospital. I thank the hon. Gentleman for attending and for his support.
In 2016, Dr Kevin Reynard of the national NHS emergency care improvement programme visited Kettering’s A&E and concluded that:
“The current emergency department is the most cramped and limiting emergency department I have ever come across in the UK, USA, Australia or India. I cannot see how the team, irrespective of crowding, can deliver a safe, modern emergency medicine service within the current footprint.”
Simon Weldon is also extremely concerned about patient safety. He said to me that unless we get the situation sorted, sooner or later there would be a patient death in Kettering’s A&E.
An impact of the incredibly cramped department is that staff do not have clear lines of sight on some of the most unwell patients to monitor their conditions appropriately. Privacy and dignity for patients cannot be maintained due to overcrowding and cramped spaces. Patients wait longer than the national limits, as there is physically not enough space to treat the numbers coming through the door. Children have to wait in open corridors and go through adult areas to receive treatment. A lack of space to offload ambulances often results in long queues and inhibits ambulance response times to 999 calls. The A&E rooms do not comply with many current health building standards and there is a lack of natural daylight.
The Care Quality Commission and other inspections have consistently raised multiple concerns, for both adult and paediatric patients, about the size and limitations of the estate. Most importantly, as I have described, the number of patients has now reached a critical point and staff need to manage safety daily, patient by patient. For health professionals who take pride in their job, the challenges of working in Kettering A&E are becoming unbearable.
In the next 10 years, local population growth is expected to far exceed the national average and our catchment includes the fastest growing borough outside London, in our neighbouring constituency of Corby. In the last census, out of 348 districts across the country, Kettering was sixth for growth in the number of households and 31st for population increase, while Corby has the country’s highest birth rate. Our local area has been included as part of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor, in which there is a commitment to build 35,000 new homes in the next 10 years.
Kettering General Hospital expects a 21% increase in over-80s and 10,000 more A&E attendances in the next five years alone. Despite some temporary modifications over recent years, including moving other patient services off the hospital site to accommodate delivering safe emergency care, detailed surveys show that there now remain no further opportunities to extend the current department and that a new building is required on the site.
Following those safety reviews and surveys, the hospital has developed a business case for a fit-for-purpose emergency care facility that will meet local population growth for the next 30 years. It was developed with all health and social care partners across Northamptonshire, so that patients can get a local urgent care service that meets all government guidance on good practice, ensuring that they get the care they need to keep them safely outside of hospital and that they are cared for by the right clinician at the right time, first time.
The urgent care hub would be a central cog in a whole-system approach to delivering urgent care services to meet the needs of the population, and it would work alongside GP, mental health, community and social care services. The hub continues to be identified as the highest clinical safety priority across the whole of the county by Northamptonshire sustainability and transformation partnership. It was also approved by the NHS Improvement midlands and east regional team as the highest priority submission for central capital funding.
We are talking about £49 million and about Northamptonshire being the only one of all 44 STP areas in the country not to receive any capital funding at all in the past four waves of such funding from the Department. Why is that the case? If the Minister were to agree to the urgent hub proposal, he would put that wrong right. The trust can access only £3.5 million annual capital through its own funding, and the county, Northamptonshire, has only £20 million, but that is used simply to maintain essential equipment and to repair heating and lighting systems. Kettering General Hospital therefore requires central funding or some form of private financing to build the facility.
A bid has been submitted as the highest clinical priority for funding across the whole of the NHS in Northamptonshire, and for NHS Improvement regionally, but Government capital allocation announcements over the past few weeks have not included the urgent care hub, nor any other moneys for Northampton or our local region. I simply do not understand why Kettering General Hospital has been missed off the list. The national NHS Improvement team has indicated that no further STP capital funding will be announced until spring 2020, although I understand that the Government are now reviewing all spending allocations across all Departments in the comprehensive spending review expected later this week. Local people will be very surprised if Kettering General Hospital is not included somewhere in that review.
Given the clear patient safety concerns at Kettering that have been recognised locally, regionally and nationally by NHS experts, what process did the Government follow to award schemes the central NHS capital allocations in recent weeks? Why was Kettering not included? Why were some awards made to areas with no apparent clear and worked-up business case, when Kettering has such a case? Given the lack of access to further NHS capital funding, what are the alternatives for Kettering General Hospital without a central grant of funding from the Department of Health? Furthermore, how are the Government correlating healthcare decisions with the locations of planned growth in housing?
I do my humble best as the local elected representative to express such concerns. The chief executive of the hospital, Simon Weldon, would have made a far better job in this debate than me, but I will quote some of the dedicated healthcare professionals in our local hospital. They will outline the challenges that they face far better than anyone else.
The head of children’s safeguarding at the hospital, Tabby Tantawi-Basra, said:
“Children have to wait in corridors alongside seriously unwell, drunk or mentally unwell adults. This causes a serious safeguarding concern as our staff are not always able to have line of sight on them.”
Sarah Parry, who is a nurse in end-of-life care at the hospital, said:
“When a patient is brought into A&E dying or already passed away, there is no space where relatives can sit quietly to receive the news and grieve. We can’t even make them a cup of tea—they have to share a facility with the staff room!”
Jacquie Barker, the head of adult safeguarding, said:
“We know from the Winterbourne View scandal that the lack of privacy and dignity for vulnerable adults seriously impacts their mental wellbeing. Sadly our facilities mean even our most vulnerable adults are looked after in very cramped conditions, sometimes next to disruptive or aggressive other adult patients.”
Claire Beattie, the head of nursing medicine at the hospital, said:
“Our staff work tirelessly to keep patients safe under the most difficult of conditions. The way the treatment areas are configured means they struggle to easily communicate or ask for help, and if patients are deteriorating then it isn’t always easy to see that quickly and give the urgent help they need.”
Leanne Hackshall, the director of nursing, said:
“Patients are so close together they can almost hold hands. And if someone is being sick or coughing badly in the next space then every other patient worries about who they are so close to.”
Polly Grimmett, the director of strategy, said:
“As Director on call in August, we had over 100 patients in the department for most of the night and it’s only safely meant to fit 40—there were 10 ambulances with patients queuing. This is meant to be our quietest month so who knows how bad it will be in December!”
Nicola Briggs, the director of finance, said:
“If we stopped spending any money at all on necessary things like replacing light bulbs or fixing equipment, then it would still take us nearly 15 years to save up enough money ourselves.”
The urgent care hub is, as far I am concerned, the No. 1 priority for local people in Kettering. The general hospital is much loved, and we need more investment to cope with the growth in the local population and to care for our increasingly aged population. I invite the Minister to visit the hospital and to see the A&E department for himself. If he does so, he will follow in the footsteps of two previous Ministers with responsibility for hospitals and the previous Secretary of State.
The problems are well known in the Department of Health, and I simply do not understand why £49 million—not very much in the context of the size of the whole NHS budget—cannot be allocated to fund the badly needed urgent care hub at Kettering General Hospital. All the local NHS bodies agrees that the hub is the answer to the difficulties and challenges faced by the hospital.
More patients are being treated at Kettering General Hospital than ever before. Their treatment is increasingly world-class, and I thank all the dedicated NHS professionals in our local hospital for their magnificent work. In order to help them face the challenges ahead, we urgently require £49 million from the Government for this badly needed urgent care hub facility.
The Minister for Health (Chris Skidmore)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, in my first debate as the new Minister of State for health.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate on the proposed urgent care hub at Kettering General Hospital. This is an important issue for not only my hon. Friend but his constituents in the wider Kettering community, and it is one on which he campaigns tirelessly. I congratulate him on his diligence and determination to continue that, bringing it before the House today.
Kettering General Hospital, as my hon. Friend mentioned, has stood on the same site for nearly 122 years. It plays a vital role in the community, and he set out eloquently the importance of the hospital to that community. In January this year, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), discussed the urgent care hub proposal with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and visited the hospital, following the foundation trust’s unsuccessful £45.7 million sustainability and transformation partnership bid in July 2018. My hon. Friend set out clearly the need to cope with rising demand, with which the urgent care hub could assist.
Given the unsuccessful bid, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the sustainability and transformation partnership programme has been the main funding route for strategic capital development projects. Under that programme, capital has been allocated to more than 170 STP schemes since July 2017, which now amounts to about £3.3 billion. STP investments will modernise and transform NHS buildings and services across the country, including new urgent care centres, integrated care hubs that bring together primary and community services, and investment in new mental health facilities.
On 5 August this year, the Government announced a £1.8 billion increase in NHS capital spending, on top of the additional £3.9 billion announced in the 2017 spring and autumn budgets. Of the increase in NHS capital spending, £1 billion will allow existing upgrade programmes to proceed, to tackle the most urgent infrastructure projects. Some £850 million will allow 20 new hospital upgrades to start as soon as possible. Those hospitals were chosen because they applied for funding in tranche 4 of the sustainability and transformation partnerships, but narrowly missed out. I will set out the short process that we go through to designate the waves, whereby the 20 hospitals that narrowly missed out on upgrades previously will receive funding this time.
Mr Hollobone
Kettering General Hospital narrowly missed out on previous funding allocations. Northamptonshire is the only one of the 44 STPs in the country never to have received any capital funding in the four waves that have taken place. I find that staggering, given the overwhelming support from the local NHS for the urgent care hub proposals.
Chris Skidmore
NHS Improvement and NHS England follow an independent assessment process. Previous waves, and the allocation of the 20 hospital upgrades that were announced last month, were assessed on the following six criteria: deliverability; patient benefit and demand management; service need and transformation; financial sustainability that delivers savings to both the organisation and the sustainability and transformation partnership; value for money, including return on investment; and estates.
As well as the top-scoring schemes, a number of schemes of critical service importance have been included, such as mental health and learning disability schemes, drawing on the advice from sustainability and transformation partnerships and national and regional NHS leadership. Together, the schemes demonstrate that they will deliver clear improvements to services. That may not be the answer that my hon. Friend wants to hear, but let me reassure him that I am happy for NHS England and NHS Improvement to discuss how the process and the scoring of requirements operate in greater detail with the chief executive, Simon Welden, who is sitting in the Public Gallery. If the trust would like to have that meeting, I will happily help to arrange that feedback for the hospital and my hon. Friend.
On future capital funding, an extra £1.8 billion was announced in August. That money, to enable investments in critical infrastructure, was not previously available, and gives new spending power to the NHS to fund new projects. The £1.8 billion is a brand-new capital injection on top of money announced in previous Budgets and spending reviews. The Department’s capital spending limit has increased accordingly: following the announcement on 5 August, the capital spend on health for 2019-20 has gone up from £5.92 billion to £7.02 billion. It is important to make that clear, given some wish to look for bad news in any good news announcement. It is important to recognise that the £1 billion boost, and the £100 million of the £850 million allocated this year, will be spent on that capital allocation.
Mr Hollobone
I join the Minister in welcoming the £1.8 billion of extra capital funding for the NHS and the £1 billion wave of funding at the end of 2018. That is all very good news, but given there is almost £3 billion of extra capital injection, we simply cannot understand why £49 million of that could not find its way to Kettering, particularly as there is already a worked-up business case, to get the project up and running quickly.
Chris Skidmore
As a new Health Minister, I have found that the wave approach to the sustainability and transformation partnerships programme has highlighted a wider issue with NHS capital. My hon. Friend’s point about geographical distribution applies not just to bricks and mortar but to diagnostic equipment. We must make sure that our national health service is truly national, by giving every trust equal opportunities to apply for and receive funding. That is why the Secretary of State recently set out that, as a Government, we will establish a new health infrastructure plan. The plan will mean that we take a strategic approach when looking at hospitals that need upgrades, and how that will fit into a wider strategy that will be organised in the Department, taking into account local needs and NHS clinical requirements.
We will put in place a long-term strategy to upgrade and improve our NHS. That will deliver a major strategic hospital rebuilding programme that will provide the necessary health infrastructure across the country. I cannot go into any further detail, apart from to say that the shape of that will be confirmed in due course. To offer a comparison, the road investment strategy—RIS 1 and RIS 2—has a longer term process by which we can move away from a succession of waves. We have waves 1, 2, 3 and 4 of funding as part of the STP processes: some of those projects are further along and more developed than others; some have more advanced business cases than others, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to take a strategic approach for the future.
I understand that my hon. Friend was disappointed that Kettering General Hospital was not selected for funding this time. However, as he mentioned, the trust secured £6 million in emergency capital funding this year, to deal with safety-related estates work. In addition, between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the trust received more than £14 million in capital to fund improvements to the hospital, including £12 million to tackle the urgent capital backlog and other essential capital expenditure. It received £2.4 million for winter pressures and £820,000 for electronic prescribing. That does not make up for what my hon. Friend recognises as an important development and improvement to the estate, but in Kettering the trust has improved enormously and has made great strides in recent years.
I note that while the Care Quality Commission rated the hospital as “needs improvement” after its inspection earlier this year, the trust has been taken out of special measures for quality following the CQC report published in May 2019. I am pleased that, despite the rising demand my hon. Friend mentioned, it is still providing patients with safe and good quality care and is focused on embedding a culture of continuous quality improvement. I am delighted that Kettering General Hospital is participating in a national urgent and emergency care standards pilot, and I await information and learnings on that this year.
Mr Hollobone
I am glad that the Minister highlights the huge improvements made at the hospital and the superb leadership we now have in place. Will he accept an invitation to visit the hospital and see the A&E department at first hand?
Chris Skidmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that invitation; I would be delighted to visit the hospital. I pay tribute to the staff at Kettering General Hospital, who continue to work hard and who contributed to the hospital’s receiving a good rating for care. I hope we will continue discussions during my visit.
I hope that, if my hon. Friend and the trust are willing, I can arrange the meeting to go through the criteria for STP wave 4 in finer detail. I hope that he understands that we are looking at setting up a new process by which capital infrastructure projects will be delivered. The Government have made significant investments in the NHS as part of their long-term plan. We recognise that we need to mirror that investment in NHS capital. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I look forward to working with him.
Question put and agreed to.
School Funding: East Anglia
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school funding in East Anglia.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. We are here to talk a little about why the £14 billion package of schools funding promised by the new Government is too little and too late for schools in my constituency and across East Anglia.
My constituency boasts many very good, often outstanding schools run by hard-working headteachers, teachers and support staff, but school funding has fallen by 8% in real terms since 2015. The workforce has been cut systematically year on year because funding has not been available to replace valuable staff members who retire or move on. That has resulted in bigger classes, teachers teaching out of specialism, and a fundamental reduction in the quality of the service schools can provide to both children and parents.
Nine out of 10 schools have suffered Government cuts to per-pupil funding since 2015, and a parliamentary petition calling for increased funding for schools received more than 113,000 signatures. In response, the Government stated simply that they recognised that schools faced “budgeting challenges” and were
“asking them to do more.”
That has been taken more literally than any of us could have predicted, with schools asking parents to donate hundreds of pounds a year to buy textbooks and equipment and to repair leaking buildings.
Only last week, a school in my constituency made a plea to parents and guardians to come in during the holidays to prepare the grounds for the school term because it could not afford a caretaker. The headteacher said contractors would usually work over the summer but this year there was no room in the budget to cover the expense. Thanks to the good will of those already hard-working parents, the repairs will be done in time and the school will be safe and ready to welcome its pupils. However, schools across my constituency and the whole of East Anglia have had to go cap in hand to parents and carers, begging for help to cover basic supplies, when they should be focusing their energies on providing the best possible education.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and important debate. He and I have been working with Educate Norfolk and Norfolk heads over the past year or so. When we asked them what funding increases would make a significant difference, they came up with the sorts of figures the Government have just announced. I appreciate there is a long lead-in time, but does he agree that that is at least a welcome start to restoring funding levels?
Clive Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being supportive of the debate and for the work he has done with me and local headteachers. That money is welcome, but it is not enough. I will come on to the details of that. I agree that any increase is welcome, but we need to ensure that it is the right increase.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree—he probably does not—that although Norfolk faces a difficult situation, the situation in Cambridgeshire is even worse? Tony Davies, the headteacher of St Matthew’s Primary School, tells us that the school will run out of money at the end of this year so it, too, is seeking contributions from parents. How is it that fantastically successful schools are literally running out of money?
Clive Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for his input. We have to accept that our schools are running out of money for the same reason that our public services are underfunded: because of a damaging political choice. I will come on to that, but let me add that one of the reasons I sought the debate was that, as I understood it, every school in Norfolk was potentially going to put in a cost-overrun budget—an illegal budget—because of the funding shortfall. That is happening across the eastern region, and definitely across Norfolk.
Only last week, a local trust in Norfolk announced that it had had to cut 35% of its teaching assistants. That means the ratio of children to staff is bigger, creating myriad potential risks and increasing exponentially the lost learning time for children who need extra help in the classroom.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems we have with underfunding in education, certainly in Suffolk, is that there are not enough facilities and not enough staff to cope with children with special educational needs, especially attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Some children receive no more than one hour’s education a day and are losing all their self-respect. We are storing up problems for the future in those cases.
Clive Lewis
I will address that in detail shortly, but there is indeed a crisis in special educational needs teaching.
Every parent and teacher knows how vital teaching assistants are to aiding our young people’s learning, yet a briefing meant only for Ministers and officials at the Department for Education, which was leaked last week, was clear that the Government still intend to slash the number of teaching assistants. The briefing stated:
“We recommend we continue to push No 10 not to include this publicly.”
Can the Minister tell us whether that is true? If it is, why do the Government not recognise the value of support staff in helping our children to learn and thrive?
Headteachers across the country have not been able to balance the books. It is no wonder they have had to make cuts: the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that if it were not for the sudden promise of new funding, school funding would have been £1.7 billion lower in real terms in 2020 than in 2015. The newly promised figure is not additional funding; it is to plug a hole that appeared due to the fact that total school spending per pupil fell by 8% in real terms in 2017-18. Even if headteachers trust the Government’s motives, that funding will go only a small way towards repairing the damage caused by years of continued cuts. In the face of such damning statistics, will the Government concede that the past nine years of austerity—a political choice by consecutive Conservative Governments—have crippled our schools?
The alleged new money for schools announced this week is something of a confession in itself. I happily acknowledge that that money—£14 billion over three years from 2020—is a significant and welcome change of direction. Finally, we can stop listening to Ministers continually claiming that schools have more funding than ever before. The centrepiece of the announcement was a one-off £2.8 billion cash injection, but I am sorry to say that that does not even come close to reversing the cuts made by the Conservatives over the course of this decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies believes that to do that, £3.8 billion would need to be shared out among schools across the country every year.
This is where things seem to get even more controversial. Sadly, following the analysis in The Sunday Times this weekend, I am forced to question whether any schools in my constituency will receive any increase in funding at all. The supposed cash boost is nothing more than an election bribe, with the overwhelming majority to be spent on grammar schools and schools in Conservative MPs’ constituencies, helping the party target marginal seats as we build up to an almost inevitable general election in the coming weeks, months or perhaps even days.
Do the Government really believe that this is how our children’s future should be decided? Is this really the best way to educate the next generation and close the gap between rich and poor? From where I am standing, it simply plays into the same old Conservative rhetoric that sees inequality increase year on year. This is not sorting out our schools crisis; it is neutralising an electoral image problem. It is retrofitting policy to suit the polling objectives. Most of all, it is feigning concern while failing children.
Over this decade of cuts, our classrooms have been turned into the new frontline of the welfare state, with staff filling in for councils in financial collapse and for parents in precarious jobs or inadequate housing. Any serious attempt to fix our schools must be combined with money to rebuild our public services and our welfare state. I am afraid that the new Government do not seem interested in that.
To put the situation in perspective, a headteacher from my constituency recently told me that on top of the inescapable loss of teaching staff due to budget cuts, the school has had to cut back on support for students, reducing or removing core support in the form of counselling, behaviour support and mental health support. That, alongside the significant cuts to external support services such as child and adolescent mental health services, social services and special school support, has been disastrous for many vulnerable students in my constituency who have nowhere to turn for help. That, somewhat inevitably, has resulted in an increase in the number of permanent exclusions that schools have had to make, a pattern sadly replicated across the UK, leaving both students and parents desperate and with nowhere to turn.
Consider also the renewed focus of the new Government on headteachers being encouraged to use “reasonable force” on misbehaving students. Education officials caution that such a policy will
“impact disproportionately on children in need of a social worker, children with special needs and...Black Caribbean Boys”.
In other words, as summarised by The Guardian,
“it will be state-led discrimination against minority groups. Ensuring that more kids are excluded will simply feed them into pupil referral units or lead to them getting schooled by gangs.”
So much so that police and crime commissioners worry about rates of exclusion driving knife crime even higher. I would say, “Don’t worry—the Home Office has a plan: anti-knife crime advertising on fried chicken boxes,” but we will not go into that. Is this really the big society that the Government want to create? Does the Minister really believe that these devastating cuts and archaic forms of punishment will impact positively on our children?
The Prime Minister recently stated that there should be no winners or losers when it comes to our children’s futures, but I find it hard to see how the decimation of state school funding and the services it pays for helps to level the playing field between students educated in our state schools and those who can afford to be educated at elite private schools such as Eton and Harrow.
I turn to an issue of huge local importance. The funding crisis in East Anglia has had huge knock-on implications for our children with special educational needs. In Norfolk alone, there are 21,000 children with special educational needs and disabilities. Of those, 15,000 children with SEND are in mainstream schools and only 6,000 have an education health and care plan. Only 1,000 referrals for EHCPs are received by Norfolk County Council each year, and 150 children with SEND are still waiting for a special school place. Nationally, that figure is 8,500, and only 3% of children in England have SEND statements or EHCPs.
I recently met a group of parents who have been severely affected by the lack of provision for their children. I have constituents whose children, despite having EHCPs that clearly state that they cannot cope with mainstream schools, still cannot be provided with places in specialised schools. Staff cuts in mainstream schools have had a significant impact on all pupils but particularly those with SEND. The cuts have seen a reduction in specialist teaching assistants, counsellors and speech and language therapists, all of whom pupils with special educational needs and disabilities rely on for their needs to be properly met.
I also know of children who have been forced to stay at home due to lack of staff and spaces in specialised settings, meaning that they are effectively excluded through no fault of their own. There is nowhere else they can go, and the impact on their families is catastrophic: parents have to give up work and livelihoods are lost. Sometimes, even homes are lost and marriages fail.
Specialised schools provide invaluable support and education that these children are legally entitled to, but, without sufficient money from central Government—I assure the Minister that the £700 million announced for SEND children is not sufficient—they cannot get that, and there is nothing that parents or teachers can do. More parents are taking Norfolk County Council to tribunal over SEND provisions, and winning, because they are right: their children are not getting the education they have a right to as set out in legislation. Does the Minister accept that unless there is a significant increase in high-needs funding, the Government will fail to deliver on the reforms they introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014? These devastating cuts have, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), brought services for children with special educational needs and disabilities to a “dangerous tipping point”.
Last year, I met headteachers at the Educate Norfolk annual conference, and some of the statistics they gave me were staggering. Eighty-two of our schools have reported that they have cut their support staff budgets and 39 had to reduce SEN support for no reason other than funding. In real terms, that means teachers having to administer medicines to children with medical needs and perform other tasks usually carried out by support staff. Can the Minister answer how those same staff can also adequately support children with special educational needs?
It is not just about provision for SEN. Overall, changes to the benefit system have resulted in a reduction in the number of households eligible for free school meals. That, in turn, reduces the amount of pupil premium funding that a school receives. Increases in staffing costs from increased national insurance and pension contributions and pay increases, which are not fully funded by central Government beyond 2020, come out of school budgets. That will get worse, with staff having to work longer and retire later.
This is completely unsustainable. We need a better strategy, based on inclusivity—not a theoretical idea of inclusivity—that ensures that there is more SEND training for teachers and non-teaching staff, so that staff, children and parents are properly supported. Labour pledges to deliver a strategy for children with special educational needs and disabilities, putting more money into those services while working more strategically with schools and SEND providers. We want to introduce a fairer funding formula that leaves no school worse off.
The years that children spend at school should not just be time that they must get through. They should be a wonderful time of learning. We know so much more about the psychology of childhood and what makes children thrive in education. That must apply to all children so that they can leave full-time education with a real chance in life, not a chance restricted by Government cuts. Joint general-secretary of the National Education Union, Mary Bousted, said:
“Teachers know that their working lives would be more fulfilling and less conflicted if fewer of the children and young people they teach were not themselves suffering from the devastating effects of increasing child poverty caused by…deliberate policies.”
In 2015, I campaigned against the academisation of some of our Norfolk schools, which is yet another example of the mismanagement and greed of the Government, with reports of headteachers and executives being paid five-figure sums. Money is floating to the top, with schools left in deficit, and spending on buildings and learning resources is being cut. Similarly, free schools, aimed at the middle classes, and which the Government want more of, are diverting money from existing state schools and are being run like private companies.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I think the hon. Gentleman misspoke—at least, I hope he did. Will he confirm that since £10,000 is a five-figure sum, he meant to say “six-figure sums”?
Clive Lewis
Yes. As ever, the hon. Gentleman has spotted a small mistake, and I am glad that he rectified it. Maths was never my strong point; I have always been a history man myself. I now see what he was sniggering about earlier—[Laughter.]
Sir Henry Bellingham
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem in Norfolk with some schools that went into major building programmes under PPI? We heard at one school that we visited in Taverham that after 6.30 pm the school does not belong to the teachers and that they cannot have outside events there because it is in the hands of PPI managers.
Clive Lewis
I might get my figures wrong, but I get my acronyms right. I think we are talking about the private finance initiative. I was with the hon. Gentleman at a fantastic school in Taverham where the PFI contract stated that its vast resources, including the gym and the swimming pool, could not be used by the local community. Once the school gates were locked, that fantastic resource could not be used by the rest of the community. Given that taxpayers’ money from that community is paying for that school, that is a complete outrage and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
In 2017, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) won her seat as a result of a campaign based on school funding, not Brexit. That was the issue her constituents were up in arms about because it was their children, jobs and livelihoods at stake. The Prime Minster is in trouble on schools, and he knows it. When, last week, the Government announced that they would be providing £14 billion in one-off funding between now and 2022, headteachers responded by saying it was not enough. As I said earlier, we will continue to need an extra £3.8 billion every year to keep our schools afloat and £12.6 billion to reverse the effects of austerity altogether, not a one-off pre-election bribe.
The National Education Union says that headteachers are unlikely to
“trust the motives, or the professed support, of ministers who have, time after time, voted through measures that have made families poorer. Teachers deal every day with the effects of increased child poverty in children’s inattention and distress and know that it is these causes that need to be addressed if pupils are to behave better and achieve more in schools.”
The Government need to stop their panicky pre-election promises to increase school finances and give schools the funding they need, when they need it, not because there is a general election looming. A whole generation of young people have already been failed because of cuts to education funding, and simply announcing a specialist academy trust in the north of England does not count as trialling a new approach. We have already been there and done that; it did not work.
Here is a suggestion: rather than prorogue Parliament to get a no-deal Brexit through, let us ensure that that does not happen, save the £2.1 billion it is said that we will spend in the event of a no-deal Brexit and spend that on education. We can put that hard-earned taxpayer money towards keeping our schools open and our school buildings safe and maintained, and giving our children the education and the childhood that they deserve.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again on securing the debate.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, I should have said that the question is that this House has considered school funding in East Anglia.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Thank you, Mr Gapes. I made exactly the same mistake when I was chairing in here the other day, so I have every sympathy.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South. He and I have worked closely on this agenda. We may differ in our outlook on various matters concerning education, but we have a shared sense of complete and utter respect for the teaching profession in Norfolk, and for the hard-working headteachers and teachers in schools across the county; they have an incredibly important task.
This debate is timely because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have had an ongoing dialogue with Educate Norfolk, which is a group of secondary and primary headteachers. Those meetings have been excellent and have given MPs first-class briefings on most aspects of schooling in Norfolk. As my colleagues from Norfolk and elsewhere in East Anglia will know, one of Educate Norfolk’s consistent demands was for more funding—not just in penny packets, but as a significant uplift in school funding.
I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Norwich South on this point. We have a new Prime Minister who has a new agenda and has his priorities, and he has made it clear that school funding is one of those priorities.
Mr Bacon
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). Would he agree with me that to say that the new Prime Minister is in trouble on schools is an exaggeration at the very least, if not a distorted caricature? With other Norfolk MP colleagues, I have attended meetings with the excellent headteachers at Educate Norfolk. They were making a careful and balanced case for more funding, which was well explained. The Government have responded by giving the education budget more or less what they asked for.
Sir Henry Bellingham
There is a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says: Educate Norfolk asked for a significant real-terms increase. I made a note at the time that one of the figures they pointed out was that the schools budget in 2017-18—that is two financial years ago—was £41 billion. They felt that over the next four financial years it should go up by at least £10 billion. As we know, under the announcement made a few days ago, the increase will be £2.6 billion next financial year, £4.8 billion the following year and £7.1 billion in 2022-23. That brings the schools budget up to £52.2 billion in 2022-23; the Minister may correct me on this, but I think I am right. That is not just some increase in the future; it is an increase next year and the following year. It is extremely significant given the context that we still have a budget deficit and a national debt, which will carry on going up in actual if not real terms.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)
We all agree that any money is welcome, but it is not right to say that our schools can wait for one, two or three years. There is a school in south Cambridgeshire—admittedly not in my constituency, but that of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—that now has to close on one day a week; it cannot open its doors every day any more. Accepting that money will not flow so freely—particularly if we have a no-deal Brexit; we all know we will be short of cash then—is it appropriate for the Minister to look at an interim solution? For example, did the hon. Gentleman know that schools across the UK are sitting on surplus reserves of £1.7 billion? To balance the deficit between schools that are underfunded, in counties such as mine, and where they should be, we need £223 million; that figure is more than covered. Would the hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps that is an interim solution, while we are waiting for the money to flow through?
Sir Henry Bellingham
The devil will be in the detail, but it is incredibly important to get the money flowing quickly. The Minister can look at that, but, as I understand it, this is new money coming into the Department. It will mean that every school will get a real-terms funding rise next year, and hopefully that will have a significant impact on our schools. Secondary schools will receive an increased minimum of £5,000 per pupil and primary schools will get the minimum of £3,750, going up to £4,000 per pupil in 2021-22. There will also be an extra £700 million for special educational needs and disabilities. It is significant and I welcome it.
I also welcome the announcement made by both the Education Secretary and the Chancellor regarding teachers’ pensions. As the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, having high morale in the profession is crucial in terms of retention, managing mental health, the welfare of teachers and making sure we get the absolute best out of all our pupils.
I welcome the announcement on pensions and the pledge to meet the £4.5 billion requirement from outside the education budget; maybe the Minister can clarify that. I look forward to hearing what he says about this, as my understanding is that it will not impact on the extra money for schools. The employer contribution of 23.6% will be on top of the salary, which will ensure that the scheme is fully funded. One can link that to teachers’ pay, which again is crucial to morale and retention.
I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Norwich South said, but I hope that many of his concerns and the examples he gave will soon be historical, because they will be overtaken by the new funding that will become available. It is important that teachers are well rewarded. A starting salary of £30,000 by 2022-23 will help to make teaching salaries among the most competitive in the graduate labour market.
I have a specific question for the Minister: in July, he announced that teachers would have a 2.75% pay increase, but that his Department would only fund it to the tune of 0.75%. The understanding was that schools would have to pick up the rest. Can he clarify the situation? Obviously, we do not want school budgets to have to in any way subsidise the increase in teachers’ pay. I very much hope that the announcement made last week will cover that key point.
As I mentioned, the devil will mostly be in the detail. How quickly will the funding reach the schools? I am optimistic, on the basis of what the Minister has said in his interviews; I congratulate him on his performances in the media over the past week or so. He has been very clear and upbeat about this, and very passionate as well, because this funding will enable him to move forward in some of the key areas of priority within his portfolio.
Sandy Martin
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the majority—more than half—of the promised money will be paid after the next general election, even if the next general election takes place at the latest possible time, and so this is a promise of money that the current Government have no way of controlling?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that, yes, it is not all coming in one go, but there will be a £2.6 billion increase next year in 2020-21 and, if this Parliament goes its full five years, in 2021-22 it will be £4.8 billion and then up to £7.1 billion.
This is new, real money, now. It is incredibly important that we recognise that point. We can argue that it will not be enough, but I have also heard hon. Members talking about social care, the health service, the A47 and other priorities. It is a question of balancing priorities, and I am pleased that this Prime Minister has recognised that schooling and our young children are a key priority.
Heidi Allen
I suppose the question I have is: what on earth are my schools supposed to do now? Compared with, for example, a Westminster school, we get roughly £1,600 less per head per year, £400 less than the average across the UK. What on earth are we supposed to do now?
Sir Henry Bellingham
What I would say to the hon. Lady is very simple: the fairer funding for schools formula did indeed discriminate against a lot of small schools. I will come on to that in a moment, because what we need to know is whether the small schools in my constituency, in her constituency and in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends will see significant benefits. I would suggest, on the figures being put out by the Department, that that definitely will be the case. It is exactly what different teaching groups have been asking for.
I would also like the Minister to comment on one announcement that he made, which is relevant to the small schools that the hon. Lady has mentioned: the £700 million extra for special educational needs and disabilities, the so-called SEND pupils. There is a shortage of special educational needs co-ordinators in Norfolk and a significant lead-in time to get more in place. How quickly does the Minister think this extra money will be available? What impact will it make, and when will it make that impact?
I also ask the Minister another question about small schools, because we have in Norfolk—as I am sure we also do in Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and other counties in the country—the sparsity factor, which is designed to assist very small rural schools in areas that are sparsely populated. In my constituency, I have a number of federations of small schools, which have been a great innovation, because they can leverage their success and capabilities in different areas and put extra resources into individual schools when they need it. Working together in a federation is often a really good way of going forward, rather than closing a small school. However, we have a situation in which some small schools in a federation get the sparsity factor money, but schools nearby, in next-door villages, do not. I have never yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes some good points on the challenges faced by smaller rural schools, particularly on special educational needs. I am sure that we all welcome the extra £700 million being put into special educational needs funding nationally, but it is important that that money gets to the frontline and to pupils. Does he agree that it is important that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that county councils such as Suffolk give that money rapidly to schools that need it, and to ensure that there is no delay in allowing those schools to recruit the extra number of SENCOs that they need to recruit?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Maybe the Minister can comment on how quickly we can get those extra SENCOs in place and what extra support there will be for their training.
Like the hon. Member for Norwich South, I have come across many schools around my constituency that are extremely concerned about the problems and challenges they have faced. Quite a few of the extra financial challenges have been on the back of Government-imposed costs—for example, the teachers’ pay increase awards in 2017 and 2018, which had to be partly funded by schools, the apprenticeship levy imposition and additional human resources, pension and rural bus costs. Hopefully, many of those costs will now be taken on board by the Department and therefore not imposed directly on schools. Can the Minister also confirm that?
We hear from dedicated headteachers—I have heard from many in my constituency—who have had to make savings by, for example, increasing class sizes, reducing teaching hours, cutting pastoral support, asking parents to contribute to the running costs of their children’s school and so on. No teacher should have to face that type of challenge. I am confident that this funding, which we should not be churlish about, will really make a fundamental difference, so I thank the Minister for that and look forward to his comments.
Finally, I was going to say something about further education colleges, but I think that that is a story and a subject for another day. I will say something about mental health in schools, because there is a real issue with both teachers’ and pupils’ mental health. This has been a recurring theme in the meetings we have had with Educate Norfolk. A number of headteachers have said to me that even though the Government talk quite a positive story about helping teachers with mental health, not a great deal actually happens. For example, there is no Government data on mental health problems among teachers, or indeed among pupils.
I ask the Minister whether, when he moves forward with the teacher recruitment and retention strategy, there will be specific measures in that strategy to help teachers with mental health. As far as pupils are concerned, does he agree that every single school should have a lead individual who can give mental health support? Can he tell the House what percentage of schools, both secondary and primary, have a lead person in place to handle this important matter?
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this announcement. We should recognise it as not a penny-packet sum, nor a sum that is way out into the blue sky in the distance, but a sum of money that will be available next year, the following year and the year after that, and that, if properly spent—and if the framework around it, addressing some of the issues that I have flagged up, is got right—can make a fundamental difference, both to the schools across our constituencies and, above all, to the future of those children in the schools.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate.
East Anglian schools have had a raw funding deal for many years. The Government’s announcement last week of an additional £14 billion for schools nationally provides an opportunity to put right that unfairness, which so wrongly penalises pupils in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. It is important that that money is spent wisely, in a pinpointed and targeted way, and that priority is given to underfunded areas such as East Anglia. To be fair, the Government do recognise the latter need.
Time is short, so from a Waveney and Suffolk perspective I shall briefly highlight the four issues that I believe need to be addressed. First, the national funding formula needs to be made fairer, simpler and more transparent. Suffolk is a member of f40, a group of education authorities that receive the lowest per-pupil funding settlements. At present, the formula does not give enough basic entitlement to schools and allows too much for add-ons, resulting in big funding differences between different local authorities and schools across the country. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, as local authorities have faced ever tighter budgets, schools have been asked to take on more and more work traditionally undertaken by others, including youth work and parental and mental health support, as we have heard.
Secondly, it is also necessary to ensure that pre-school early years funding gets through to those organisations and groups—often from the private and voluntary sectors—that do great work in deprived areas where there are gaps in the provision of primary schools. A good example is Little Buddies in Lowestoft, which has suffered significant funding cuts at the same time as incurring additional costs. We have heard about the pension scheme costs, and it is important to welcome the Government’s announcement that the £4.5 billion required for teachers’ pensions will be met from outside the Education budget. I urge the Government to work with local education authorities and, through them, with pre-schools such as Little Buddies, to ensure that they receive a fair share of the additional funding now being made available.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about early years funding—which is notoriously complex, it is fair to say. I am not sure about the pattern in Waveney, but certainly my area has some fantastic maintained local nursery schools, which incur additional costs and have been under considerable financial pressure. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that this additional funding will flow through to those excellent maintained nursery schools?
Peter Aldous
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. A lot of the problem is that, although the Government announced the additional funding for early years two or three years ago, the money is not getting through to several establishments, such as Little Buddies and the Rainbow Day Nursery in the Harbour ward in Lowestoft. We had meetings with the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and the county council, and we had a lot of difficulty working out where the problem arose and why the money was not getting through to those schools. The urge for simplicity and transparency in how this money is spent is very important.
The third point, as we have heard from a number of Members, is about special educational needs. This is a problem throughout the whole country, but I sense that it is a real problem in Suffolk. The county faces—I will not call it a perfect storm; that sounds awful—an imperfect storm of factors that create a real problem in SEN provision in Suffolk. The first is obviously rising demand: there is a yearly doubling of requests for education, health and care needs assessments. Secondly, complexity of need is rising, particularly for children with autism. Thirdly, the council receives historically low levels of funding for high-needs learners, compared with other local authorities.
A lot of the problem is caused by funding for specialist placements coming from the dedicated schools grant. As Suffolk is an f40 authority, its overall funding for schools is lower, and therefore its funding for higher-needs learners is also that much lower.
Sandy Martin
Will the hon. Gentleman accept a fourth point from me: the local authority’s lack of any ability to make coherent plans, because of the undermining of its ability to plan across the entire county?
Peter Aldous
The hon. Gentleman is right. I was coming on to my fourth point, which might broadly coincide with his. An historical issue in Suffolk, probably for the best part of 20 years, is the low number of special schools and special unit places in the county itself, meaning that Suffolk has to buy more places—both in the independent sector and out of area—at enormous cost. This problem needs to be put right. It has happened over a number of years and, I suspect, over a number of different administrations running Suffolk County Council. It will not be put right overnight. To be fair, the council recognises the problem, but I sense that it will be with us for a few years to come.
The fifth point, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), is about the need to ensure that sixth forms and further education colleges are properly funded. The 16-to-19 age group has been overlooked in recent years. In a town such as Lowestoft, it is important that funding for this group is put on a financially secure and long-term footing.
Colleges and sixth forms provide an important bridge from the classroom to universities and the workplace. In a coastal town such as Lowestoft, where there has been long-term economic decline, these schools, sixth forms and colleges are the cornerstone on which we can rebuild the local economy and give young people the opportunity to realise their full potential and, in doing so, to increase social mobility. The additional funding that the Government provided for sixth forms and colleges is a welcome step in the right direction, but at £200 per student, it falls short of the minimum £760 per student sought by the Sixth Form Colleges Association in its “Raise the Rate” campaign.
As we know, a lot is going on at present, but whatever the outcome of Brexit, nothing is more important than investment in the next generation. The Government have recognised this with the extra funding provided. They now need to work with schools, the regional education commissioner and the local education authorities to ensure that this money is spent prudently and properly on tackling the unfairness that has built up in East Anglia over many years.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. Unfortunately, this is not a forum where we can indulge in our usual conversation about football. However, I will try to introduce some elements.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this important debate on funding. Straight out of the gate, I join him in saying that we should all praise teachers and hard-working staff, which we sometimes forget to do in our debates. I wish the best of luck to all schools, many of which went back to work yesterday or today. He mentioned his love of history, but not so much his love of mathematics. He said that austerity had been going on for nine years, but I have to pick him up on that. Actually, school budgets were protected under the coalition Government until 2015, so the slashing and burning of budgets that we have seen has happened in only four years, not nine. That is why it has had such a huge impact.
My hon. Friend also raised the hugely important issue of off-rolling across our country. We know that this has significantly led to gang violence, county lines and, yes, the rise of horrific knife crimes under this Administration’s watch. We know that, in 2016-17, nearly 10,000 children were off-rolled by schools in our nation, and the Government did not know where those children went on to. That is a disgrace in this day and age.
I have to say that it is a joy to see the Minister, my opposite number, in his place. He has survived more regime changes, and now a change to a minority regime after the events of today, than you could shake a stick at. He must be the little-known fourth member and brother who, along with Barry, Robin and Maurice, made up the Bee Gees. The Minister’s motto, which he sings in the bath every evening, is “Stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive”. I want to know whether his superhuman power of being Minister for six years, under so many regimes, comes with tights and a cape, and will he confirm that he does wear his pants on the inside of his trousers?
I loved the Augustinian notion that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) came up with about the world as it was and the world as it should be, but all we know is the world as it is currently. Let’s just go around the counties, shall we? I have figures for Norwich school cuts between 2015 and 2019. I will be giving my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South statistics that he already knows. Tuckswood Academy?
Mike Kane
It had a £516 loss per pupil and is £430,000 down on where it should be. Clover Hill infant school had a £757 loss per pupil; it is £276,000 out of pocket. But let us go around the Chamber. Let us look at the East Anglia county average—the loss between 2015 and 2019. In Norfolk, there was £279 less per pupil. It has lost £66.6 million-worth of spending power in the last four years. Suffolk—let us go there. It had a £178 loss per pupil. It has £40.3 million less spending power since 2015. Let us go a little further south, to Essex. It is £257 down per pupil. In Essex, £134.4 million has been taken out of school budgets since 2015.
We can be in no doubt, after all that we have heard again today, about the impact that this Government’s continued austerity in our schools is having across East Anglia and the whole country. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, the new Secretary of State for Education and the long-standing—as I have pointed out—Minister for School Standards have announced over the last few days more funding for schools and teachers. Unless or until we see that new money and the magic money tree that it is coming from, we can only assume that it is business as usual for this regime.
Daniel Zeichner
I hope that my hon. Friend is coming to Cambridgeshire. If he is, I can tell him that the figure is £208 per pupil and £45 million overall.
Mike Kane
I was pleased to be at the Bury-Cambridge game last year. What a sad indictment it is that Bury has now left the Football League. I forgot to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South that I am visiting his beautiful city in just a couple of weeks to see Manchester City play and to spend some time. I can see the Ipswich Members getting a bit edgy, but we will not go there.
After sitting at the Cabinet table agreeing to years of real-terms pay cuts for teachers, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have finally admitted that austerity has failed our schools. The announcements prove the veracity of what we have heard today. Statistics from the Department for Education show that the number of children and young people with special educational needs or education, health and care plans in England rose by 34,200, an increase of 11% from 2018. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke articulately about SEN provision and how it is currently failing young people in his patch and across the country, yet research by the National Education Union has found that special needs provision in England is down by £1.2 billion as a result of shortfalls in funding increases from the Government since 2015.
The Government’s own data shows that, as of January 2018, 4,050 children and young people with an education, health and care plan, or statement, were “awaiting provision”. In other words, they were waiting for a place in education. Pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are struggling to get the help that they need, yet last week, in the school spending announcements, the Secretary of State did not even offer to cover half the funding shortfall, and not for another year. But as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk articulately pointed out, mental health is severely impacted when young people cannot get the provision that they need.
Dr Poulter
The shadow Minister makes the basic point that the challenge with special educational needs is actually a challenge in getting the educational support, but the reality for many schools in Suffolk and elsewhere in the country is that the slowdown is very often due to an inadequacy of child and adolescent mental health services, or NHS resource, to address the needs that have been identified. I hope that he will agree with me that if we are to address the problem, there needs to be significant investment, which has indeed been promised by the Government, in CAMHS, to help young people with learning disabilities and mental health problems who have special educational needs.
Mike Kane
I suspect that most hon. Members’ constituency surgeries on a Friday are now full—mine certainly is, and I hear the same when I talk to colleagues across Greater Manchester—of parents trying to get special educational needs provision for their children. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly mentions CAMHS, but again the promises are of money in the future. This is the unicorn; this is what will happen. We can only see what this Government have done to education funding since 2015.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk also mentioned class sizes, but there are now half a million children in super-size classes. There is an unquestionable recruitment crisis in our schools. It is almost a case of one teacher in, one teacher out. And it is not just because of the money. The Government have promised £30,000. I would like to hear that that will apply to all new teachers’ starting salaries and that there will not be differentiation between subjects. The Government have missed their own recruitment targets for six years; every year on the Minister’s watch, they have missed their targets, and teachers are flooding out of the classroom. We need urgent action to retain the most experienced teachers and to recruit new staff. But even now, as we have heard the Education Secretary announce higher pay, teachers will have to wait years for the promised pay rise, and there is every chance that they will never see the fruits of this Government’s promises.
On top of that, despite the Work and Pensions Secretary’s claim that no child would lose their free school meal eligibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that 160,000 children who were eligible under the legacy system will not be eligible under universal credit. We regularly hear stories of teachers buying essential supplies for their classes. We heard earlier today that schools are having to shut for a day. Even schools in the Minister’s own constituency are threatening a four-day week. The curriculum is narrowing: we see schools cutting subjects such as drama, art and music, restricting our young people’s horizons.
There is a crisis in our schools, and beyond, to which this Government are turning a blind eye. In fact, there has been a concerted effort by the Government to fudge the figures and deflect attention away from the cuts. If funding per pupil had been maintained in value since 2015, school funding overall would be £5.1 billion higher than it is now. That means that 91% of schools are still facing, as we speak here today, real-terms cuts.
Hon. Members here today know all too well the impact on the ground already. Headteachers tell us every day. The Government need to stop their sticking-plaster approach to school finances and give schools what they need. Although I am pleased to hear the Government announce more money for schools, I hope that the Minister has truly removed his head from the sand and begun to hear the voices of schools, teachers and parents. I joke that I see more of the Minister than I do of my wife—because it is not just East Anglia that is the subject of Westminster Hall debates. We are here almost weekly or twice a week. We spend hours having to debate what is happening in all our regions—the exact same problems that schools up and down our country face. I have lost count of the number of debates that there have been.
With the economic uncertainty of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, which the new Prime Minister seems so keen to pursue, it defies all logic to have a Government who are failing to invest properly in education and skills—particularly, as the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, in our coastal towns. Further education is vital to their regeneration; it will be the silver bullet for regenerating our coastal towns. We are struggling to find the teachers to go and work there.
I have said this before and will say it again. As a former primary school teacher, I know the difference that a good teacher makes. With the right support and resources, they can raise a child’s attainment and aspiration. We go into teaching because we believe in the value of education. Our schools do not want to see one-off, headline-grabbing handouts; our schools need fair funding now.
Labour’s national education service will change this situation when we come to power. The national education service will create social mobility; it will create ambition for all. Our national education service will pay teachers what they deserve. The national education service will provide the investment that our schools so desperately need.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate in the week that many schools are starting the new academic year and just days after the Government announced a giant cash boost for schools across all parts of the country. I add my thanks and admiration to all teachers and teaching assistants starting the new term this week.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out in a statement to the House just after the statement on preparations for leaving the EU, we have committed an extra £14 billion of funding to schools throughout England over the next three years. That delivers on the Prime Minister’s pledge when entering Downing Street to increase school funding by £4.6 billion over and above inflation, levelling up education funding and giving all young people the same opportunities to succeed regardless of where they grow up or go to school.
We have been able to do this because of our balanced approach to the public finances and careful stewardship of the economy, which has resulted in the lowest level of unemployment since the mid-1970s and record levels of people in employment, a state of affairs that would be wrecked by any Labour-led Government. This funding settlement means that we can continue to build a world-class education system, helping to continue to raise standards in our schools.
The funding package includes a cash increase of £2.6 billion to core schools funding next year, which increases to £4.8 billion and then £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23. That is in addition to the £1.5 billion per year that we are injecting into the school system to cover additional pensions costs for teachers over the next three years, ensuring that employer contributions to teachers’ pensions—equivalent to 23% of gross salaries—is fully funded. That addresses the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who asked whether that teacher pension employer contribution would be fully funded. The answer is yes and it will be in addition to the £14 billion that we have announced.
This is a three-year settlement. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) criticised it for going into a period beyond this Parliament, but schools are seeking a three-year settlement; most schools with which I discuss school funding have been asking for a three-year settlement. In total, across the country, core funding for schools and high needs will rise to £52.2 billion—my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk was right about that figure—by 2022-23. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this funding will reverse the reductions in real-terms per-pupil funding for five to 16-year-olds since 2015. That should address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Norwich South.
As part of this significant investment, we will also deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge to level up funding, providing increases for our lowest funded schools. Every secondary school will be allocated at least £5,000 per pupil next year, and every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750 per pupil, putting primary schools firmly on the path to receiving at least £4,000 per pupil in the following financial year. In East Anglia this means that per-pupil funding for 46% of secondary schools in the region—160 secondary schools—will level up to at least the minimum of £5,000 next year. In addition, per-pupil funding for 30% of primary schools in the region will level up to at least the minimum of £3,750 next year—that is 594 primary schools on the path to receiving at least £4,000 per pupil. We are also allocating funding so that every school’s per-pupil funding can rise at least in line with inflation and to accelerate gains for areas of the country that have been historically underfunded, with most areas seeing significant above-inflation gains.
I challenge the hon. Member for Norwich South on his characterisation of this year’s school funding. Even before this major announcement, funding in Norfolk has increased from £460.3 million in 2017-18, to £482 million, which is a 4.7% rise and equates to a 3% per-pupil rise.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister has talked about the impact on primary schools and secondary schools. Could he say a little about the impact on maintained nursery schools?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, because we have not made the announcement for early years funding. If he can be patient a little longer, we will be making that announcement.
We will continue to distribute this money through the national funding formula, which is our historic reform to the schools funding system that continues to ensure that funding is based on the needs and characteristics of schools and pupils, rather than on the accidents of history or geography.
Today we have reaffirmed our intention to move to what is called a hard formula, whereby all school budgets are set on the basis of a single national formula, guaranteeing equity among all schools, wherever they are in the country. Moving to this approach will mean that neighbouring schools that happen to sit on different sides of a local authority boundary will be funded on the same basis, and it will no longer be the case that different decisions made by different local authorities mean that similar schools receive different budgets. We intend to move to this hard formula as soon as possible. Of course, we recognise that this will represent a significant change and we will work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make this transition as smooth as possible.
The hon. Member for Norwich South said that he was opposed to academies. He has publicly expressed what I would regard as unwarranted hostility against the Inspiration Trust—a multi-academy trust that is doing huge work to raise school standards in his part of East Anglia. That probably explains why he failed in his speech to congratulate Jane Austen College in his constituency, a free school, which this year published its first GCSE results. Its provisional Progress 8 score places it in the top 10% of schools nationally. Some 75% of pupils achieved grades 9 to 4 in maths and English, and 30% of students at that school achieved a grade 8 or 9, which are the top grades that can be achieved in a GCSE. I offer huge congratulations to Jane Austen College and all the staff and teachers at that school.
My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for North West Norfolk raised the hugely important issue of special educational needs funding. We are absolutely committed to supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to reach their full potential, and we expect all schools to play their part. That funding increase therefore includes more than £700 million of extra funding to support children with special educational needs and disabilities to access the education that is right for them. We recognise that local authorities have pressures on these budgets for next year, and alongside that additional funding we will continue to work with local authorities and schools to ensure that this investment is working well for those children in greater need. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney also raised the important issue of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Will the Minister look at the point about the long lead-in time in training more SENCOs? There is obviously a shortage at the moment and that could hold things up.
Nick Gibb
I will look at that point. Ultimately these are matters for the schools themselves. The schools have an autonomous system, but we want to ensure that they have the funding they need to employ sufficient numbers of sufficiently well-trained SENCOs and teachers who are trained in helping children with special educational needs.
Dr Poulter
Despite all the positive announcements and the extra Government funding that will be passed on to local authorities to give to schools for special educational needs, there is a challenge. As we have raised previously, in many areas there is a lack of provision in the local NHS, particularly for children with moderate to severe special educational needs, and a lack of CAMHS and learning disability psychiatrists and nurses. What conversations will the Minister have to ensure a renewed focus from the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure the recruitment of these important healthcare professionals, without whose expertise many young children will not get the extra help they need?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We take the issue of mental health very seriously. He will also know, given that he is in the medical profession, that very significant extra funding was announced last year for the health service, with £20.5 billion more per year by 2023—these are huge sums of money—which will help to address many of the issues he has raised.
We also take mental health issues seriously in schools. We have published the Green Paper on the mental health of children and young people, which will put a mental health lead in every school. I think that issue was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk. At the moment, I think—this is off the top of my head, but I think my memory is right—that about half of secondary schools have such leads. We want every school to have them, supported by a mental health support unit. That is part of the Green Paper’s proposals and it will be very significantly funded as well. We also, of course, want to reduce the waiting times for children who need more specialist help with their mental health issues through CAMHS. We have given a commitment on reducing those waiting times.
On the issue of 16-to-19 funding, in addition to the schools and high needs blocks the investment also includes an additional £400 million to provide better education in colleges and school sixth forms in 2020-21. This means a 7% uplift to overall 16-to-19 funding, in addition to funding for staff pensions. We will also protect and increase the 16-to-19 base rate with funding worth £190 million, and provide a further £120 million for colleges and school sixth forms so that they can deliver those crucial but expensive subjects, such as engineering, that are vital for our future economy. This investment will help to ensure that we are building the skills that our country needs as we prepare to leave the European Union.
Of course, there are no great schools without great teachers. That is why this settlement offers a pledge to the members of this hard-working profession to put teaching where it belongs—at the top of the graduate labour market. Subject to the School Teachers Review Body process, this latest investment will make it possible to deliver the biggest reform of teacher pay in a generation, lifting teachers’ starting salaries to at least £30,000 by 2022. I reassure the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) that that will apply to all teachers; it will not differ by subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk raised the issue of sparsity funding. The national funding formula includes support for small schools, especially in rural areas, and provides a lump sum of £110,000 for every school as a contribution to the costs that do not vary with pupil numbers. That gives schools certainty that they will attract a fixed amount each year in addition to the pupil-led funding. Last year, the sparsity factor in the formula allocated additional funding of £25 million specifically to schools that are both small and remote. Last year, therefore, 161 schools in East Anglia attracted a combined total of £3.2 million of sparsity funding.
With other schools in East Anglia that do not attract sparsity funding, either because they are not among the smallest schools nationally or because they are not far enough apart to meet the distance threshold, we have been clear that we want all schools to operate as efficiently as possible, and we believe that there is scope for rural schools in close proximity to work together to get the best value from their resources. However, we of course keep the formula under review and we are always prepared to change approaches to how we calculate sparsity. For example, should it be calculated based on as the crow flies, or should it be based on the actual distance travelled between schools?
While this additional funding will provide a crucial foundation on which to continue to build an excellent education for every pupil, it will also be vital to make sure that we get the very best value from every extra pound. Therefore, the Department’s support stretches much further than providing additional funding. Our announcements sit alongside our efforts to drive greater efficiency in school spending, and the Department’s school resource management strategy, which was launched last year, supports schools to make the most of every pound of their budgets. It includes deals to help schools to save money on the things they buy regularly, such as printers and photocopiers, and the roll-out of a free teacher vacancy listing website to help schools to find teachers and drive down recruitment costs.
In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions to this debate and I am sure that many will want to know what the recent announcement means for their area and the schools in their own constituency. This information will be published early next month, once illustrative school-level allocations and provisional local authority-level allocations through the national funding formula are announced. I will end by reaffirming that this Government are committed to ensuring that all young people get the best possible start in life, and that includes ensuring the right funding for our schools. The substantial investment that we are making in our schools, the fairer distribution and levelling up of school funding, and the support to use those resources to the best effect are proof that that commitment is being delivered on in full.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all those who have contributed to this timely and interesting debate.
On the issue of Jane Austen College and the Inspiration Trust, I have always been supportive of the teachers and the pupils in such schools. My issue has never been with them; it has always been with the philosophy behind free schools and academies, and sometimes with their leadership. We should understand the philosophy of free schools, which is—to quote a member of the Department, although I am not sure whether they expected their words to go public—to bring the chaos of the free market to our public state school education system. That has been one of my key concerns about free schools and the academy system.
I will make a last couple of points. The question that many of us have now is about this new money. It is welcome, but we ask ourselves, “Will our constituencies actually see any of this money, or will it be used disproportionately and cynically in key Tory marginals?” The answer remains to be seen.
Labour Members have always claimed that cuts to public services have been a political choice. Having listened to the Minister today, I think it is quite clear—now that this money has been found—that the last four years of cuts to our education system have been a political choice. We are glad that the money has been found, but the past four years have been very difficult for schools and they are still struggling.
Regarding pupils with special educational needs, we need to understand that £700 million will simply not be enough. This is a problem that goes far and wide and deep. It is systemic, and far more than £700 million will be needed if it is to be tackled properly. I think the Minister understands how severe this problem is, so I hope that more money can be found for children with SEN, their families and the support that they and their schools need.
Finally, no amount of new funding can ever make up for the lost opportunities—the lost childhoods—of those pupils who have been failed by successive Conservative Governments for these past few years, after billions of pounds of cuts have led to underfunding. No new money can ever make up for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered school funding in East Anglia.
Hull’s Maritime City Bid
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Hull’s bid to become a maritime city.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City project is underpinned by three key bodies: Hull City Council, which works to secure the ongoing prosperity of the city; Hull Culture and Leisure Ltd, which operates the city’s museums; and Hull Maritime Foundation, an independent registered charity that aims to support, protect and promote Hull’s maritime heritage through the project.
As one of the UK’s busiest ports, Hull has come a long way since the second world war, when it was referred to only as an “unnamed costal town” despite being hit harder than any other city outside of London during the blitz. Our port industry was hit, 95% of our houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 1,200 people were killed in air raids on the city. Becoming the UK city of culture in 2017 put Hull on the map for all the right reasons, and in 2019 the scale of our ambition has not diminished.
The UK city of culture 2017 was an inspirational year: one of building confidence, showcasing our city, changing people’s minds and laying foundations for the future. Following from that success, the Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City project is a heritage-driven, city-wide cultural regeneration and place-making project that will continue to catalyse the remarkable transformation and momentum initiated by the UK city of culture 2017.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that if these proposals go ahead, they will also benefit the wider East Riding area? For that reason, she has cross-party support for what she is saying and trying to achieve.
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is absolutely right that this project’s benefits will be felt far wider than Hull; they will spill over into east Yorkshire as well.
The project will take Hull to the next level as a destination renowned for its maritime heritage and culture. Hull’s rich maritime story will take centre stage, creating a long-term legacy for decades to come. The city has already surpassed expectations and changed the perceptions of many by presenting as proud, brave, confident, and outward-looking, transformed by investment in culture, people and place.
Our connection with the sea has shaped our landscape and our culture; it touches every piece of our identity and shapes the way we see ourselves. Our fighting spirit, determination, and desire to resolve injustices has been evident through the ages, from William Wilberforce and his campaign to abolish the slave trade to the headscarf revolutionaries and their battle against the powerful establishment to change fishing safety laws. The story of those women revolutionaries is quite extraordinary: their campaign started after the triple trawler disaster in 1968, when 58 fishermen based in the port lost their lives in three separate trawler sinkings in the space of less than a month. Those women collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for reform, led protest meetings, and even came down to London to lobby politicians. Among the measures the campaign secured were safety checks before vessels left port, radio operators for all ships, improved safety equipment, and a mother ship with medical facilities for all fleets.
Today, our connection to the sea continues to define Hull’s culture and economy. Maritime images dominated the city of culture opening ceremony; The Deep aquarium remains one of our tourist hotspots; and thousands of people travel through our port each month to European cities such as Amsterdam or Zeebrugge, reflecting the European movement of the late 19th century, when trans-migrants made their way through Hull on their way to North America.
Our future economic prosperity remains tied to our future as a port and the green energy estuary. We are creating wind turbines with Siemens that will help drive forward the green energy agenda, and are developing advances in battery storage to store the energy we produce. We are not always great at advertising our achievements, and it often comes as a surprise when people learn that the Humber is Britain’s busiest trading estuary. Our maritime endeavours continue to this day.
Knowing our history roots communities and creates a strong sense of identity; it gives people pride and drives community engagement. The city’s proud maritime heritage is central to our vision, and the Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City project will restore and re-interpret our maritime treasures so that they can take centre stage and be celebrated by the community. The project is based around five key elements of our maritime heritage, which are Hull Maritime Museum, the dock office chambers, the North End shipyard, and two ships: the Arctic Corsair, the sole survivor of Hull’s distant-water sidewinder trawler fleet, and the Spurn Lightship, which played a key role in Hull’s inland trade by guiding vessels as they navigated the Humber estuary. Both those ships will receive a full restoration, increased opening hours, a new interpretation and new displays, while the Arctic Corsair will also play host to a variety of training events and opportunities.
The extent of the renovation of the buildings is even more exciting. The project in the North End shipyard will commemorate how that site once contributed to Hull’s status as a global maritime port by housing the Arctic Corsair in a permanent dry berth, creating an additional attraction near the already successful museum quarter, and highlighting the Queen’s gardens—formerly the Queen’s dock—and their significance to the maritime story of Hull. The Maritime Museum will receive an additional 390 square metres of museum space, new public access to one of the building’s domes with superb rooftop views, improved education and visitor facilities, and new displays that will tell Hull’s maritime story in a unique and immersive way. That will lead to a 50% increase in the number of items available for public view, and better conservation of those items so that more of Hull’s people can benefit from them for longer.
However, Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City is so much more than a heritage project. By taking a heritage-driven approach to place-making, it will redefine the city for residents and visitors alike and transform the life chances of its citizens. Across the city, the project will promote ambition and civic pride, and raise aspirations by working with young people, older people, unemployed people, people with disabilities, and people and communities facing isolation. The project will benefit 150,000 people through informal learning and outreach programmes, while 10,000 pupils and students will benefit directly from engagement with our formal learning programme.
The activities available through the Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City plan will offer people the chance to gain practical skills through volunteering that will boost their employment opportunities and build confidence in a variety of employment settings. Skills-building opportunities will include heritage opportunities as well as transferable, public-facing skills such as oracy, developed through opportunities such as guided tours and event stewarding. By boosting confidence and increasing civic pride, the project will help to build strong, resilient communities that are motivated and inspired by their local heritage, fostering a strong and positive sense of place.
The Hull: Yorkshire’s Maritime City project will also boost our economy. A new economic impact assessment commissioned by Hull City Council to look at the benefits of the project concluded that it represents a positive return on investment and good value for money in high, medium and low-impact scenarios. It will create 121 jobs in the local economy through its construction, operation and supply chain, and as a result of visitor spend. The transformational reach and impact of the project will far outreach the sum of its parts, fulfilling its vision of being a truly heritage-driven, city-wide cultural and place-making project with people at its core. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is a fantastic way for Hull to utilise its history to provide opportunity for the future.
Today, I ask the Minister to recognise the ambition of Hull City Council in supporting such a project, and to encourage the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to work with the council to deliver this ambitious and aspirational project, which embodies much of the thinking in the 2016 White Paper on culture and the 2017 Mendoza review. I also ask her to encourage cultural and tourism institutions sponsored by her Department to freely lend their expertise, and to offer their support and commitment to the project and engage with the team in Hull.
Finally, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Transport to work with the chief executive of Highways England, Jim O’Sullivan, to explore ways of unlocking the Highways England designated funds process at the earliest opportunity—to allow consideration of the A63 footbridge Spurn Lightship proposal, which would add so much value to this project? I hope the Minister feels she will be able to work with me to achieve this step in securing Hull’s future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Rebecca Pow)
It is a delight for my ministerial debut to happen under your auspices, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for bringing such a fascinating subject to the Chamber. As she knows, my Somerset constituency is a long way from Hull, but as a Back Bencher I always tried to champion it, as she is championing Hull. It is the right thing to do. We learned a great deal about Hull. I have not been there myself, but she whetted my appetite, because there seems to be so much going on. The plans for the Maritime City are interesting and exciting and I look forward to seeing them progress.
Few cities have had the recent dramatic transformation that Hull has had. The hon. Lady mentioned its history and how devastated it was after the war; it has undergone a massive transformation. As she also mentioned, it was a hugely successful city of culture in 2017, during which time more than 5 million visitors came to the city. That really enhanced the pride of its residents. More than half the city’s businesses reported an increased turnover because of all the effort that was put into that year. It is heartening that the city continues to capitalise on that success, so that it was not a one-off year. It has sparked something that will continue, which is very much the thinking behind the city of culture. We are thinking about the next one now, Coventry, which I hope will be as successful as Hull.
As the hon. Lady said, the Maritime City project will champion Hull’s eight centuries of fishing history, which will be encompassed in some of the projects that will come forward. I was interested to read about that history, particularly the trawlers. The fishing industry went as far afield as Iceland and the White sea, which is something that the city is proud of and that we should be proud of as a nation. The two historic ships, which are both on the national historic ships register, will be part of the project, as will the world-class maritime museum, which sounds fascinating.
The project will maximise the potential of those existing assets to bring visitors to the city, celebrate its history and use that history to enhance the future, which is the essence of place-making. The project will accomplish several milestones for the city. The investment in the Hull Maritime Museum will constitute its first major refurbishment in 40 years and will hugely expand it as a centrepiece for the city. The hon. Lady referred to the Mendoza report, which highlighted the value of our museums, the benefit they can bring and how much we should celebrate them. In Taunton, a great deal of investment was put into our museum and the number of visitors increased from 30,000 to 120,000 in the first year, which is phenomenal.
The Arctic Corsair trawler is the last vestige of the trawler industry and a real flagship. It is the last surviving sidewinder trawler—I have learned something—and it will receive a fitting final home in its own dry dock in the North End shipyard, as the hon. Lady highlighted, which will allow it to remain open and accessible to the public. The Government are keen to support that and have already provided £50,000 through the coastal revival fund. That pot of money, which came from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, already supports conservation and restoration work on the ship.
As hon. Members present are aware, my portfolio encompasses not just arts and heritage, but the tourism agenda. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) mentioned the wider benefits of the project. Indeed, there will be real benefits across the board for the wider area of increasing the offer in Hull. There is real evidence that demonstrating and doing more with the UK’s historic sites can draw in many more tourists.
Sir Greg Knight
The Minister does not know what she is missing. Will she commit to visiting Hull and the East Riding in the not-too-distant future?
Rebecca Pow
That is a lovely offer. I love Yorkshire anyway—I think it is very close to Somerset in its feel—and I would very much like to make a trip and visit all these places, particularly Hull, to see what has been gained from being the city of culture and learn the lessons for the next city of culture. I am sure my team will take that offer up.
Tourism in the wider East Yorkshire region contributed £878 million in 2017 and provided almost 20,000 jobs, so it is a valuable part of the economy. In the past two years, overseas visits to East Yorkshire and Hull have hit new heights; there were 113,000 in 2018. The region’s forthcoming tourism strategy will build on that trend, because there are great opportunities.
I am particularly excited that several elements of the Maritime City project address the issue of improved access for disabled visitors. I strongly believe that our heritage sites and visitor attractions should be accessible to everyone. It is a growing sector. As Tourism Minister—I hope it lasts—I am particularly emphasising that in the tourism sector deal. For the first time, disabled visitors will be able to get aboard the Arctic Corsair following its restoration.
It is encouraging that, when the DCMS/Wolfson Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund expert panel decided to award £150,000 to the Hull Maritime Museum refurbishment, it specifically noticed the emphasis placed on better access for visitors with disabilities, which was one of the reasons for its success. The project should be highly commended for prioritising and integrating the needs of all Hull’s visitors.
Hull’s potential was recognised by Historic England in 2017, when it was announced as one of its first heritage action zones. Through advice and financial support, that initiative aims to create partnerships that will improve economic growth and the quality of life in Hull’s old town. Ultimately, it will secure new uses for historic buildings, increase affordable housing and seek better links with the waterfront to better exploit that maritime heritage. That all chimes well with the Maritime City project.
Hull’s upward trajectory has been facilitated and enhanced by a flood of investment in arts and culture over the last few years—lots of places would be quite jealous of how much Hull has achieved. Grants from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Arts Council, many of which have focused on the importance of getting communities engaged and involved, have had a huge impact. Engaging communities in that way is so important in making a success of a place.
There has been a raft of events, such as the Freedom Festival, the Big Malarkey Festival—we would not have been allowed, Mr Hollobone, because it was a kids’ event, but it was all about books and stories, so I was interested to hear about it as I am also the Libraries Minister—and the Creative People and Places project, which have had great success in attracting new audiences to become engaged in and inspired by the arts.
I am also pleased that the Maritime City project has taken note of the need to involve people across the board. It has staged roadshows across the city to showcase the project and foster community buy-in. More than 10,000 residents have already taken part and been reached as part of the council’s integrated work that has already been referred to. Together, the Heritage Fund and the Arts Council have given more than £2 million to Absolutely Cultured to build on the legacy of Hull’s UK city of culture year, which shows a universal desire for the city not to rest on its laurels.
What has been achieved in Hull with the help of grants from those two organisations really demonstrates the importance of national lottery funding for major UK projects, which is to be particularly celebrated in this, its 25th anniversary year. Hull could be used as something of a model for funding. The Heritage Fund has given more than £7 million to projects in Hull in the last five years and its £1.4 million development grant for the Maritime City project has been catalytic in getting it to the current stage.
Of course, as a Minister, one cannot second-guess the outcome of the second round bid the project has put in to the Heritage Fund. The decision will be taken by the north area committee, which I believe has visited the site already, or is to do so later this month. However, whether or not the application is successful, there is reason to be confident that the city of Hull will find a way to bring the ambitious plans in the bid to fruition.
The Maritime City project is perfectly placed to capitalise on the momentum generated by Hull’s year as city of culture and the other factors I have mentioned. The legacy of that year can be keenly felt throughout the city. There are some truly impressive statistics. To name just a couple, in 2018 the city’s employment rate and number of businesses reached their highest ever recorded rate, including more than 550 new cultural jobs. That is a pretty extraordinary outcome.
I note with interest the opportunities in the project bid for training and skills, which I was very pleased to see. Those are particular elements in the new tourism sector deal, which hopes to build skills and apprenticeships so that our young people feel that there is a future working in tourism and such sectors in these areas. The developments in Hull will surely offer opportunities that will keep younger people there and stop them from thinking they need to go somewhere else to get good employment. I was pleased to see that as part of the bid.
As a result of all the work in Hull, I believe that civic pride is at an all-time high, with three in four residents reporting that they are proud to live in Hull—perhaps the others will be got on board with all the new projects coming to fruition! Recent VisitEngland findings show that Hull Maritime Museum has had the greatest growth among all museums and galleries nationally, with an almost 400% increase in visits. That is absolutely phenomenal and has happened even before the refurbishment of the museum. It is a great demonstration of the role that museums can hold.
As has been outlined, the Maritime City project, which involves five different sites, including the two historic vessels, will attract a further 300,000 visitors to Hull and potentially bring an additional £2.86 million to the local economy. It will be a huge boon for the city, continuing its upward trajectory to become a must-visit destination in the UK.
We want UK visitors to go to places such as Hull. We also want to attract international visitors. With our new airport links, building on, for example, the special deal in Manchester to encourage inbound tourism, or with Newcastle Airport, perhaps we can get people to use those routes—these are all good selling points for people who are going up north. We want to strengthen that, and tourism, arts, heritage and culture really help. I was so pleased to hear there is cross-party support for this project. Things are often successful with cross-party support as it demonstrates very wide interest—not, of course, that I can influence the decision.
The hon. Lady raised a point about Highways England. I will ascertain what might be holding that particular aspect up and how it might be moved forward, and report back. I urge the hon. Lady to continue championing the cause, which helps a great deal; it is always good to have a champion.
Hull has a unique place in the UK’s maritime history. We discussed the two ships in Hull—I have knowledge of the SS Great Britain in Bristol, which has very good disabled access; Bristol has an interesting maritime history as well. The SS Great Britain is a huge tourist attraction in Bristol, visited by a great many people. It is a beautiful place to visit, and so I know how attractive such ships can be to the public, who are intrigued about their history. It makes perfect sense to build on that heritage for the future.
Should the bid be successful, I am sure that Yorkshire’s Maritime City, Hull, will continue to grow and develop and maintain its unique position, that more people will hear about it, that businesses will benefit, that more visitors will come and that we will all be reminded of our glorious seafaring past, which is so much part of our history in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
High-income Child Benefit Charge
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the high-income child benefit charge.
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
One might ask why I have brought this debate; it is a fairly obscure area of tax and benefits. I have done so out of the frustration felt by a number of constituents who face the high-income child benefit tax charge and its after-effects and, as a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, anything tax-related always rattles my bell. This is a topic of great interest on mumsnet.com and moneysavingexpert.com, which have covered the issue in some depth.
I suppose we must start at the beginning—always a good place to start. Why did we implement this high-income child benefit tax charge, when child benefit had been a universal benefit, enjoyed by all, for very many years? The issue was first raised in October 2010 by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, and it was one of the measures used to try to get some more savings for the Treasury after the simply appalling state of the nation’s affairs that we were left with after the 2010 election.
The legislation was first mooted in the 2012 Budget, and it came into effect on 7 January 2013. That in itself was a bizarre date to choose, and one might ask why it was not simply started on 6 April in the next available tax year, which might have made life a little simpler. I have not found figures for how much the clawback and the lack of take-up of child benefit have saved the Treasury, but I estimate it to be somewhere in the region of £2 billion to £3 billion a year—certainly a very useful amount to fill up the hole left by Labour in 2010.
The charge applies above an adjusted net income of £50,000. Adjusted net income is not the usual measure of what we anticipate to be our taxable profit or income; it is the gross income from all sources, less gift aid and pension contributions. It does not include personal allowance. In very simple terms, if a pay-as-you-earn employee has a gross income of £50,000 before personal allowance, they would start to feel the effects of the high-income child benefit tax charge.
The way it works is that there is a clawback of 1% of child benefit for each £100 of additional income over the £50,000, so by the time someone has an adjusted net income of £60,000, all that child benefit is tapered away. It sounds complicated even trying to lay it out in the simple terms that I have, but one thing that comes out of this is that it is a salutary lesson in how not to withdraw a universal benefit through the tax system. What we have on the statute book, which runs to many tens of pages of tax law, is the truly mad basis of trying to claw back a benefit. It is not related to overall family income, which many people describe as one of the real drawbacks of the system.
Let me give an example. Family income is recognised as the measure for most other Department for Work and Pensions benefits. For instance, there is no withdrawal of child benefit for a couple both earning £50,000—the high-income child benefit tax charge does not apply, even though the family income is a generous £100,000. In another family, in which only one parent is working and earning, say, £60,000, and the other is not working, there would be a full claw-back of the child benefit given. That makes life complicated for people on pay-as-you-earn, who can do nothing about their income, and there is also the issue of fairness. Family businesses, or people in sole trade, perhaps have a greater opportunity for sharing income, splitting income or indeed creating a partnership to split the income down to the golden £50,000, so that there is no loss of child benefit.
I feel that this situation has led to an inherent unfairness in the system, which is one of my concerns. My other concern is the means of collection, and there lies the problem that we have faced. People who recognise that they will not qualify for child benefit can choose simply to disclaim the benefit and not receive it at all. That has been on the rise over the years since the charge has been in place. In 2013, 397,000 people were not claiming the benefit, and the number has now increased to 516,000. That is due to two issues, one of which is fiscal drag—the level has not been raised since January 2013, which is something I will raise later.
Some people are happy and feel that it is to the family advantage to maintain their cash flow—get the money into their bank with the monthly receipt of child benefit, then simply pay it back at the end of the year. Some people do that. However, the real madness in the system—we should have tax systems that make things easier—is that the implementation of these measures forced 500,000 more people into the requirement to fill in a self-assessment tax return. It is a huge bureaucratic cost to taxpayers, and managing the system must also be a significant cost to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is the root of the problem of collection.
Many PAYE employees have had never had to touch the tax system or fill in a self-assessment return. Luckily for them, they have been merrily ignorant of anything to do with tax. It is all done at source by their employers—if they have no further complicated tax affairs, they need do no more. The current situation has been a particular hardship for these taxpayers. They might not have spotted the advertising that was fairly extensive at the time. They perhaps received less than £50,000 at the time, but over the years their income has crept over that figure due to wage rises and better business.
I have raised this issue for a couple of my constituents and pursued it with great vigour. I have argued with HMRC that the information about which PAYE employees would face this charge is well known to Government through the real-time information system of payroll that bigger employers have had to implement since April 2012, and was rolled out gradually over time to all employers, even the smaller ones, running a PAYE system. The information was available—primarily to the DWP, so that it can assess whether people in receipt of benefits should not be, but HMRC had access to the system.
I have failed to agree with HMRC’s stance on this. It claims that the arm of Government dealing with the DWP has got no relevance to their arm, which deals with tax. The data has not been shared, even though the arms of Government had the information at their fingertips and could have advised people that they were potentially falling foul of the system. In my arguments to HMRC on behalf of my constituents, I argued for extra-statutory concession A19, which is often used when HMRC makes a mistake—often with the elderly. I saw this very regularly when I was one of the volunteers for Tax Help for Older People in Kent. HMRC has had the information and applied the wrong code across different pensions. Three years later, an assessment turns up. Extra-statutory concession A19 makes HMRC give up that tax if it has been in receipt of information but has not used it properly.
Of the constituents who have been found not to have done what they should have done—registered to do a self-assessment return, possibly for the first time in their life—they have been, well, not happy, but comfortable enough, even given what ESC A19 says: that they should pay the money back. They are quite happy with that. However, many of these people have faced a tax-geared penalty under section 97 of, and schedule 24 to, the Finance Act 2007. That penalty has generally been at the lowest rate of 15% under the careless but prompted regime, under HMRC’s fines regime. However, they have also faced statutory interest, which is currently at 3.75%. Many people understand that, if they have been in receipt of child benefit for a few years and should not have been, they should pay it back, but they feel particularly aggrieved about a 15% penalty and the statutory interest.
I argued with HMRC, for my constituents, that the suspended penalty regime, under paragraphs 1 and 14 of schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007, should be the equitable solution. This is a procedure by which HMRC, with discretion, is allowed to put those penalties on hold and effectively say, “If you are good taxpayers for the next couple of years, this will disappear”; the penalty is then discharged. HMRC responded to me with, I must say, an innovative obtuseness that I rarely see. It responded that schedule 41 of the Finance Act 2008 applies, as the taxpayer had failed to notify, in accordance with section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970. They had failed to notify, so that penalty suspension, which is allowed for other taxpayers, does not apply. The taxpayer is also in some difficulty should they wish to go to the first-tier tribunal as well, which would always result in failure on a statutory basis.
I think the pressure of mumsnet.com, moneysavingexpert.com and, hopefully, myself has made HMRC use a degree of discretion in its ability to interpret “carelessness”, which is always a vague term. My thought of carelessness might be different from yours, Mr Chairman. However, HMRC has gone back and reassessed many penalty assessments. Over the time of this new charge, there have been 97,405 penalties across 37,406 customers. As ever, thanks to the Library for pulling out that type of detail for me. The charge has raised £15 million of penalties, which is not a vast sum. A recent review—I think the Daily Mail was very much behind this, with pressure from some of its readers—shows that, of those 35,000 cases involving a failure to notify, a penalty of 15% had been charged because a reasonable excuse was not accepted. HMRC has actually recanted on that and allowed quite a number of thousands—6,000, I believe—of these penalties to be waived, with £1.8 million of penalty refunds.
As part of its work, HMRC has designed a helpful flow diagram showing two events for which penalties could be refunded. The first is for when income has increased from below £50,000 to above £50,000 since the start of the high-income child benefit tax regime, and the second is for when a taxpayer has started a new relationship, since the introduction of the charge, with a partner who is in receipt of child benefit. Those are the two cases for which HMRC has given in and agreed to the suspension of penalties, and that is to be very much applauded.
What do people do when they have a new child and make a claim? If they know that their income is over the limit, they may not bother at all—they might think, “We just won’t get involved.” For other families there is the CH2 form, which I will mention in more detail shortly. As I have laid out thus far, we have dragged half a million people into the self-assessment net. We have raised penalties under a system that I do not agree is reasonable on statutory grounds. We are learning a lesson: should we seek to withdraw universal benefits in some other field—that suggestion is not on the Conservative agenda, but it is raised from time to time, for example with winter fuel allowance—this has to be a salutary lesson in how never to use the tax system to withdraw benefits.
I will conclude by addressing five areas, which might take a little time. We have fiscal drag, because the thresholds at which the full benefit is withdrawn—namely £50,000 and £60,000—have applied unchanged for six years. We now find that as wages rise, more people are dragged annually into self-assessment. Since its inception in 2013, 370,000 more families have to fill in a self-assessment return.
I am very surprised that the House did not pick up at the time on the fact that the system completely blows away the independent status of taxation for couples. Even up to 1990, women were deemed to be the chattels of their husbands, and there was a single tax return. In 1990, that was thankfully blown away, having been overdue for a long time. I think the groundwork was laid by Geoffrey Howe and seen through by Lord Lamont. After that date, people were treated as they should be for tax: as individuals.
The system blows that away because one partner now needs to ask the other, “What do you earn, because I need to determine whether it is you or I who pays the high income child benefit tax charge?” The partner in receipt of the child benefit might not be the one paying the charge; it always falls on the higher earner. Whereas before there was decent independence and secrecy between partners should they so wish, that was blown away by the legislation, and I do not feel that could ever be right.
Subsequent tax legislation has also had an unusual and, I think, unforeseen impact, including, particularly, on buy-to-let property. At the start of my speech, I mentioned the concept of adjusted net income, which is income from PAYE, rents, dividends and whatever else one might receive. Changes to buy-to-let allowability of mortgage interest, however, have had an unforeseen impact. Years ago, rental income less expenses and mortgage interest would give a net figure, which would form the top end of the tax return and be part of the creation of the relevant net income. With the gradual restriction of the allowability of mortgage interest—I will not expand on whether that is right, wrong or indifferent—the tax return looks different. Net relevant income for rental purposes does not include the deduction for mortgage interest, which now comes at the bottom part of the tax return. Instantly, the net relevant income at the top part of the tax return is now bigger for many people with mortgage interest, even though the net effect for cash flow and everything else might be the same. There is now some relief for mortgage interest at the bottom part of the tax return, by way of a credit of tax.
I did not see the full shortcomings of that piece of legislation at the time, even though, at that Budget statement some years ago, I raised concerns about changing the whole deductibility regime, which is fundamental to tax. That legislation has caused another group of families, who are doing nothing particularly exotic, to be dragged into the high income child benefit tax charge, as their income has pitched into the £50,000-plus bracket because of the deductibility of mortgage interest, even though nothing has changed.
A real concern shared by all hon. Members in the Chamber is that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. They have been active because they have an axe to grind and I think that many of us have sympathy with some of what they have to say. We are potentially building another problem for the future—thankfully, I might be long gone from this place before it has to be solved.
Earlier I described what people might do when they have a new baby. If they have earnings of more than £60,000, they might think, “I just can’t be bothered to fill in the form. I’m not going to get anything; why would I bother?” The CH2 form is not unreasonable or too complex—it is actually quite free flowing and easy to understand—but a lot of people do not bother at all.
The other choice they have, by filling in form CH2, is to take the child benefit and then pay it back annually through their self-assessment return, or to register for a nil award so that they are in receipt of child benefit but at nil value. That is really important for those who do not follow that route. They do not want the hassle of a self-assessment return, so they decide to do nothing. The partner in that relationship, who is perhaps not working, will not be building up a national insurance record, because if someone fills in form CH2 and decides not to take any child benefit, they will at least be crediting up a national insurance contribution under class 3. My concern is that people do not know that this is there for them and are saying, as many of us do, “I can’t be bothered to fill in another form. I don’t think I will get anything. I won’t do it.”
We are potentially building up a problem of people—let us be frank, it is probably predominantly women—who will find in the future that they do not have the national insurance record that they thought they had. When they get their DWP statement with details of the award they will receive with the new state pension some six months before retirement age, they will find it is rather less than they thought.
We have to ask ourselves why we have dragged 1.2 million families into the system—and that figure is rising, due to fiscal drag and the measures for buy-to-let property mortgage interest. It is worth mentioning the perversities in the whole tax calculation. I do not know how Parliament missed that. I was not here in 2013, but had I been I might have spotted it. It is an unusual situation, but when dealing with tax systems, I think it best to flex the edges to find out where the problems are.
This is an extreme case, but it is catered for on the gov.uk website: in 2019-20 a family with 10 children—there are not too many of those around—would be in receipt of £7,500 of child benefit. Anyone earning £50,000, including a self-employed person, would be in receipt of £7,500 in child benefit, but if they had the opportunity of a great new contract to get their income up to £60,000, under this system they would have to pay back that entire £7,500. In my view, tax lost—tax paid—and benefit lost are the same thing. What lands in someone’s bank account is the same thing, whether that is through losing benefit or paying more tax. In effect, therefore, for that extreme example of a family, there would be a 75% clawback charge, because they would pay back the £7,500 child benefit owing to that £10,000 in additional income.
That is not where the matter ends, of course. People who earn £50,000 are higher-rate taxpayers, paying 40% tax and, if employed, 2% national insurance. We therefore have the perversity, which I am sure is not always seen, of a 117% tax charge and benefit loss. For that extra £10,000, that taxpayer will actually be worse off by £11,700. There should not be such perversities in the tax system.
I like a debate to end with a solution, but there is no easy solution to this one—I grant the Financial Secretary that great problem. I would like to extend the penalty suspension to all, because I think HMRC has been rather obtuse about this one. If people start to do the right thing, past penalties should be suspended and, if they do the right thing for the following two years, those penalties should disappear.
The easier option would be to restore the universality of child benefit. Nothing is simpler than that—everyone gets it without means testing or complication—but the Government and the Treasury understandably want to claw back that benefit from people in receipt of higher income. A complicated solution—or, rather, a politically difficult one—would be to reduce the personal allowance for those with children. They would get their full child benefit but pay a little more in tax. At least that could be coded out—they need not worry about the self-assessment system—and for the PAYE taxpayer with simple affairs, things would be just as they are. However, that would be a difficult way to do it.
It would be simpler, perhaps, to make a higher universal child benefit payment, which this year is £20.70 for the first child and £13.70 for subsequent children, subject to the benefits cap. Any increased child benefit, however, should be made a taxable benefit. Therefore, through coding, the Government could claw back 20% from a basic rate taxpayer, and 40% from a 40% taxpayer. For those with complicated tax affairs, adding the layer of clawing back the high income child benefit tax charge is no great difficulty. Something similar happens already. The retired have a simple coding adjustment for private pensions to reflect the level of their state pension.
We need a new and elegant solution, and to learn the lesson that whenever Governments in future claw back benefit, they should not do it in this way, through the tax system. It has created bureaucracy and angst, and I am worried that normal, law-abiding taxpayers now feel that they have done something very wrong because of those levels of penalties. That is my appeal to the Financial Secretary.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can go on until 7.30 pm. I am obliged to call the first of the Front-Bench spokespeople at no later than seven minutes past 7 o’clock. The guideline limits are five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister to respond. Mr Mackinlay will then have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Until 7.7 pm, therefore, we will still be in Back-Bench time. I see that Mr Jim Shannon wishes to contribute.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for setting the scene with such detail, informationally and correctly. I am here not because I feature in Westminster Hall so regularly but because the issue is important to me and my constituents. I deal with it regularly in my office.
The hon. Gentleman set the scene well with examples of what has happened to his constituents. I would mirror those examples, and I will express similar concerns. It is unfortunate that more Members are not present for the debate, but obviously there are enticements elsewhere and reasons for people’s attention to be committed to the main Chamber. That does not detract in any way from the importance of this issue. I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place. We look forward to hearing his comprehensive response.
The child benefit payments issue is of great concern to many of my constituents. Although many might not qualify for good reason, I will give examples of those who probably should qualify but for the paperwork, the potential penalties for getting it wrong and then having to catch up. That applies not just to child benefit but to tax credits—people fill in a form, their circumstances change in the year and they find themselves owing money back. Tax credits are not the subject of this debate, of course, but I make that comment about what puts people off. When a system is going well, it is marvellous, but when it goes wrong, it can be a real stinker.
Child benefit makes a difference to many families in my constituency. From the outset, I must say that I am an advocate of the current threshold and the importance of having that system. I know of many women who gave up their jobs or went part-time to mind their child and therefore rely almost entirely on the wage of their partner. The weekly child benefit supplement helps with the day-to-day bills that need to be paid. Without that, households would simply not function. The Government might argue that that is not the purpose of the child benefit system, but I think that its purpose is to enable parents to look after their children in whatever way they feel is right.
I am concerned about some cases in which one partner is just over the threshold and has to start to do self-assessments. I know of a few cases in which couples earn well below the £99,000 that they could earn when taken together—for example, one partner on £50,000 and the other on £15,000—but decide to forfeit their child benefit. Over-cautious, and in fear and trepidation, they would rather that than face the hassle and possibly do the paperwork incorrectly. That is wrong—people losing the benefit rather than have the hassle. I am therefore keen to endorse what the hon. Member for South Thanet said and to seek ministerial guidance on how we can help such people.
Something is wrong with a system that sets out to help people genuinely, sincerely and honestly, but fails those who could qualify. How do we enable those people to fit into the system? Some might say that they can afford to live on what they have, but as they put it to me, “We are firmly middle class.” Over the past few years in this House, I have often said that one of the categories of people to suffer greatly in society, because of everything that has happened during recent times, is the lower middle class—the ones not far enough up to qualify. For that squeezed bunch of people, the child benefit system is there to help, but unfortunately it does not. One constituent said:
“we are firmly middle class. We will never be able to afford to pay all our bills and also help our children with buying a car, or tools for their trade, or books for university”—
or student grants—
“so we attempt to save from child benefit so there is money for the child when they need it.”
They use that system with the clear and singular purpose of benefiting their children. That is an example from my office; the hon. Gentleman referred to similar examples, and I suspect that once I sit down, other hon. Members will do too. I fear that the self-assessment mechanism precludes their getting that money and, in the long term, that that disadvantages the child and the family. But that is not its purpose, so the system must improve.
HMRC issued around 97,500 penalty assessments to around 37,500 customers, amounting to almost £15 million. When people consider the penalties, the self-assessment and the amount of money, they must think, “I’m not going through that. I don’t want to get it wrong inadvertently.” People do not set out to get it wrong, but they start the process, get it wrong through no fault of their own and end up with a large bill. Those figures show that some people are paying very large bills. Although it is not the Government’s intention, people decide not to pursue their claim.
I believe there is a different way of ensuring that high earners can have access to what they are entitled to. People whom the Government say are entitled should apply. How do we help those who are entitled? Every year, the Government tell us that so much money is returned to the Treasury because it is not taken up. It could be all kinds of benefits, not just child benefit: attendance allowance, personal independence payments, employment and support allowance, community care grants or pension credit—all the things that people may qualify for. If the money is not used, it goes back. I always say to the person, “You know something? You’ve worked hard all your days. You’ve paid your national insurance stamp; you’ve paid your tax every year; you’re a contributor to society. If you qualify for something, for goodness’ sake, apply for it.” It is important that we encourage people to do that.
Some people feel that they need to see an accountant. That is fine for those who have an accountant for their business. For those who are employed with a set wage and cautious of the penalty notices, if they make overtures to an accountant to see what they can do for them, there is a cost factor that can be off-putting. People are looking at whether they can be better off; they do not want to pay a cost for something that may lead to nothing. What has been done to enable those who would qualify to receive their money?
I will conclude, and well in advance of the end of the speaking time that you indicated, Mr Hollobone. Will the Minister indicate how we can streamline the process, bearing in mind that families are entitled to this benefit? I see families who are entitled to something but do not pursue it because they are uncertain, cautious or worried that it may disadvantage them somewhere down the line. While the money may not necessarily go on nappies or similar, it does go to providing for children, which is what the Government are determined to do.
The Minister has committed to ensuring that everyone who wants the benefit can apply for it, but in my constituency, that of the hon. Member for South Thanet and the constituencies of other hon. Members, there are many examples of people who do not pursue it because of the uncertainty. The current system is overly onerous and off-putting. I believe we can and must do better.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for bringing this debate on an important issue that highlights a real gap between the Government’s intention and their delivery, which is failing a lot of people. He laid out the limitations of the policy, which was headline-grabbing but has proven to be almost entirely ineffective and bureaucratic. It takes a benefit that ought to be one of the simplest—child benefit, paid to help children as an important universal benefit—and whittles away at it until it becomes a complex bureaucratic system that people will find difficult to access.
Organisations such as the Women’s Budget Group have long argued that the UK Government’s approach to balancing the books is gendered and does not stand up to the most rudimental scrutiny from an equality perspective. This policy is a key example of that. Budgets and spending reviews come and go, but we are yet to see any real strategic direction in tackling gender inequality. The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned that it removes the independence of individuals in the tax system. In doing so, it sets the scene for universal credit, which also removes independence by treating people as a household rather than individuals, and damages women’s financial ability in a relationship. In many cases, women are left in the grips of financial coercive control, and they do not have the financial ability to get out of an abusive relationship.
Looking at this policy, it is no surprise that women, particularly mothers, are disproportionately affected. The UK Government have failed to make it clear to stay-at-home mums that even if they are not eligible to receive child benefit, they should still claim it and subsequently fill in a self-assessment tax return and pay the money back, in order to receive those national insurance contributions. This is not an intuitive process; in fact, it is quite the opposite. Self-assessment is complex and stressful. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people get lost in the complexity of the system. They are worried about getting it wrong, and they might have to get accountants involved. That should not be the case for something as simple and basic as child benefit—the money should follow the child.
When I was elected, I knew vaguely about the child benefit process. I panicked, phoned up and cancelled the child benefit I had previously received when I was a local government councillor earning considerably less than I do now. If MPs are led to panic, what chance does anyone else have? It is absurdly convoluted and beyond the reasonable expectation that most people would have of such a system. It is a very concerning prospect that this policy could store up significant problems for the future, as the hon. Member for South Thanet set out. Many of my constituents are suffering now from previous derelictions of duty in long-term pension planning. We have all heard horror stories of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign; women were not told that their pensions had changed until 14 years after the policy was introduced. There is every chance that a new generation of women will run into similar problems.
The child benefit form that is issued to parents is not particularly simple. It includes a statement that claiming child benefit can help to protect someone’s state pension, but it is not clear enough what that actually means and what the future implications will be. The Treasury believes that 200,000 parents may be affected. It fails to make it clear that a non-working parent—usually the mother—should be the one to fill out the benefit form in order to build up those credits. It has been suggested that an easy short-term fix would be to change the form, but we need to look at long-term solutions. Would the Minister consider a review of the policy in the round, to actively look for cases of error where people may have unknowingly built up a gap in their pension contributions? We need to alert those affected. The Government have a duty to make sure that people get the money back, because they have not been clear enough.
It has been suggested that a claim should be triggered automatically when a birth is registered; that may be worth exploring in more detail. Will the Minister make an interim change to the wording on the form, and order a longer term review of this whole bourach of a process? Most parents will say that when they have a newborn baby in their arms, the last thing they want to do is fill in an extensive form about incomes. Of course, incomes will change—sometimes dramatically—over the course of a child’s life. Those kinds of things have happened again and again, and now we have the effect on the economy of the chaos of Brexit coming in.
As I mentioned, it is a distressing thought, but the reality for many women is that their partners seek to exercise financial control over them. That small amount of money can be incredibly important to a woman making plans to leave an abusive relationship, so child benefit must not be removed by making it more difficult to access. The higher earning person in that household—often the father—may say, “Don’t you worry about it; you stay at home and I’ll earn the money. You don’t need to worry about this”, which removes the woman’s chance of being financially independent. The notion that a woman has to know her partner’s intimate financial details is quite unusual. My husband and I have separate bank accounts. I have no idea what he earns, but I was expected to phone up and give intimate details to someone over the phone. That will be all the more difficult for a woman in a situation of financial coercive control, and it will give the male parent a huge amount of control.
The Minister must look at this in significant detail. He must try to assess the issues and put them right before we end up with another situation like that of the WASPI women. We cannot have another situation in which women are disproportionately affected by an ill-thought-through Government policy from Westminster.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on securing the debate, which has been very good and detailed. I will not repeat all the points he made, or indeed all those made by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), because I agree with very many of them, but I want to underline some of the questions that I hope the Minister is able to answer, or at least some of the issues that his Department needs strenuously to take on board.
As was rightly mentioned, new research on the high-income child benefit charge indicates that much larger numbers of people are being drawn into the system than were initially. The Institute for Fiscal Studies indicated that since the £50,000 threshold has not shifted upwards, about 36% more people—370,000 more families— will lose child benefit in 2019-20 than in 2013-14. The system is now also interacting with changed tax systems for other sources of income, such as the system for those who eventually rely on rental income.
The Labour party has consistently objected to the removal of the universal nature of child benefit. Clearly, however, there are also practical reasons why the high-income charge is unfit. It has added unnecessary complications, many of which we have already heard about, and it has had a significant impact by requiring up to around half a million people to engage in self-assessment, which is not an easy process.
The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned that about 6,000 cases of supposed over-claiming of child benefit have been written off by HMRC, which has handed out refunds of about £1.8 million. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what work is being undertaken to ensure that all those who might benefit from some kind of refund of additional charges levied because of alleged over-claiming—I am not sure I like that term, to be honest—are aware of that.
I hope the Minister also deals with the suggestion the hon. Gentleman rightly made that the real-time information system could proactively be used to try to identify those who might be in danger of falling into this kind of trap. I am concerned to see yet again what appears to be a lack of co-ordination on what are often viewed as Department for Work and Pensions responsibilities but in practice are delivered by HMRC or in some other way by the Treasury. I was concerned just before the recess that the Minister’s Department did not seem to want to take responsibility for the clawing back of alleged overpayments of working tax credit from universal credit. It said that was a DWP issue. It is not; it is a Treasury issue. Yet again, we have a lack of co-ordination. That needs to be dealt with.
The high-income charge increases the complexity of the already incredibly complex tax system HMRC is expected to deal with, and having to deal with appeals arising from the charge increases the enormous burden that HMRC staff already face. We all know that HMRC has been cut more than any other European nation’s tax department aside from that of Greece, which I suspect is not an example we would want to follow. We see the burden on HMRC staff increasing all the time, not least given the prospect of a no-deal Brexit—we could hardly have ignored that at the beginning of the debate, given the noise from outside. Will the Minister say what resource HMRC is being given to deal with that?
I share the concerns about the impact of the high-income charge on families with sole earners, which was rightly emphasised by the hon. Member for Strangford and others. I also share the concerns about the impact of the charge on independence. It is part of what we might call a triple whammy of a whole range of measures, including what we have seen in relation to universal credit.
This debate has echoed many of the issues with childcare tax credits, where there has been a lot of confusion about things such as the relationship between parents’ incomes and who loses out as a result. The hon. Gentleman described how families often use child benefit to create an asset for their children. That has become increasingly important and relevant, as of course we no longer have the child trust fund.
It is important that the Minister explains what is being done to deal with the long-term problem of people inadvertently becoming unable to accrue state pension credits because they do not qualify for national insurance contributions or indicate that they want to be part of the system. Obviously, that disproportionately discriminates against women. There is already a huge gender pension gap. What are the Government doing to ensure that those who might be caught by this issue are not? I absolutely agree, having been through that process myself—I suppose I should declare an interest in that regard—that its impact is not obvious. There is no clear indication that it will result in a big reduction in a person’s retirement income.
It would also be useful to understand any possible disincentive effects of this measure. I am not sure that the case the hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned is as unlikely as all that. I remember from my childhood a family up the road who suddenly, very sadly, dropped down to a sole earner. They had nine children, and the father, as the sole earner, had to bring them up. What will the impact be in such cases if there is suddenly this kind of cliff edge? We have seen the impact of cliff edges with the overall family benefit cap. We are in danger of replicating that here.
I hope the Minister answers those questions. Obviously, I hope the whole high-income child benefit charge is abandoned. I do not expect him to make quite as dramatic an announcement here, but I hope he rules out any reduction in the availability of other universal benefits, given the kinds of issues we have discussed and the impact on equity.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to serve in this reconvened Parliament under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) very much for calling this debate and drawing attention to this important issue, and for his thought-provoking and expert speech, which very much reflected his professional experience as well as his political commitments. I very much welcome that. He raised a lot of issues, and a wide range of issues were raised by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I will come to all those. Let me address some of them in my opening remarks and then come to the specific questions that were raised.
As you will know, Mr Hollobone, child benefit was introduced in 1977. It has always been, and it remains, a universal benefit payable to individuals who are responsible for what is referred to as a qualifying child or children. Before 2013, there had been significant growth in the use of the benefit—rightly and importantly so; of course, that is why benefits exist—but it was recognised that, at a time of austerity, there was an anomaly, in that more than £1 billion a year was being spent in child benefit on higher-rate taxpayers. That was felt to be not merely imprudent from a financial standpoint but morally problematic. It would mean, as it were, taxing working people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those who earned considerably more.
If it is true that, as the hon. Member for Oxford East said, it is now Labour policy to remove the high-income child benefit charge—she was perfectly clear about it, so I think it is true, but she is welcome to correct me if it is not—the Labour party needs to ask itself whether it thinks it appropriate to tax the wider population, including working people on low incomes, to pay the child benefit of those who earn considerably more. We also note that the cost to the Exchequer of such a policy is of the order of £1 billion to £1.5 billion.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for giving away. He is well aware that we opposed the measure at the time, as we did many other elements of the Government’s programme. We also criticised the tax cuts given at the same time to the highest earners and to profitable corporations, which in their magnitude over time were more substantial than what we are talking about now.
Jesse Norman
That is an ingenious attempt to link two issues that, in and of themselves, are not connected. One can have a policy on high income tax earners and the payment of child benefit to them and one can have an entirely separate policy about other aspects of the tax system. The question remains whether it is morally appropriate to give the benefit to those people, and the judgment in 2013 was that it was not the right thing to do. That was an important consideration.
If the hon. Lady is concerned about the wider picture, I remind her that—I think I am right in saying this—the top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher percentage of tax now than at any other point in our history.
Jesse Norman
I am keen to press on. If the hon. Lady wants to make another intervention, we will lose time that I can use to respond to other questions.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The intervention is in the gift of the Minister, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Minister has only 5 minutes left.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I merely state that the Minister is correct in relation to income tax, but not in relation to other taxes.
Jesse Norman
The judgment made in 2013 was that it was appropriate to claw back some of the money paid to people on higher incomes and that everyone should make a fair contribution to removing the deficit while supporting those on the lowest incomes. I think that was the right judgment. Of course, for a minority of claimants where either they or their partner earn more than £50,000 in adjusted net income, there is a requirement to pay the tax charge or to opt out of receiving child benefit payments and therefore not pay the charge.
It is a fair criticism, made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and others from across the House, that the charge does not take into account overall household incomes, so it is possible—and it does happen—that a single parent earning more than £50,000 is liable to the charge while a couple each earning up to £50,000 is not. That is because, as he said, the charge is a tax, calculated in accordance with the principles of individual taxation at the individual level alongside other tax policy. Here we have one of those difficult decisions for the Government about what is the right thing to do. The judgment made in 2013 was that it was better to take that approach than to base a charge on household incomes, because that would require HMRC to assess annually both household composition and the incomes of everyone in the 8 million or so households eligible for child benefit, which would effectively introduce a new means test, creating a substantial administrative burden on both the state and families. That is the dilemma.
The effect of the charge is to introduce a high marginal tax rate. That is an unattractive aspect of the policy; we should be clear about that. If I may say so, it is not a salutary lesson in how not to withdraw a benefit, because the alternatives of not levying the charge at all or levying it on a cliff edge rather than by gradual withdrawal are worse. It is open to others to take the view that one of the alternatives is better, and my hon. Friend may do so, but not subject to the fiscal constraints in which we have operated.
A series of questions were raised about HMRC communications. As my hon. Friend recognised, the Revenue and Customs took considerable steps to raise awareness of the higher income child benefit charge. It wrote to about 800,000 affected families when the charge was introduced. It also ran a high-profile advertising media campaign and included a prominent message about the charge in 2 million letters to pay-as-you-earn-only higher rate taxpayers. There was a considerable communication process.
Today, to respond to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford, information on the charge is included in packs for new parents telling them how to claim child benefit. The front page of the child benefit application form includes a prominent message about the charge to help people make a decision on whether they should claim and be paid child benefit, about the importance of claiming even if they do not receive payments, and about the important issue of eligibility, which was rightly highlighted in the debate. Guidelines are available online formally through gov.uk and through innumerable organisations and groups.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mentioned, individuals who pay the charge need to make a self-assessment tax return and may face a failure to notify penalty if they do not. I think he will know that HMRC announced a review of cases where a failure to notify penalty was issued for three tax years. It reviewed 35,000 cases and responded by reviewing the amount for over 6,000 people.
There are many other points to cover in the short time that remains. My hon. Friend said that 500,000 people have been forced into self-assessment. I am happy to write to him on that. As he will be aware, the current number paying the charge through tax returns is 293,000. Of course, there are some 40 million people in pay-as-you-earn. He also said that the charge has dragged 1.2 million people into the system. I am not quite sure about that, but if he wants to contact me, I will be happy to assist him further.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central said that the charge is a gendered policy. I do not think that is true at all, and many other aspects of Government policy do not reflect anything like that position, as she will be aware. For example, there is extensive work in supporting women as entrepreneurs and women in business.
Jesse Norman
I really cannot; I have two seconds left.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned fiscal drag. That is an important issue, but I do not think she is right that the charge has removed the universal nature of child benefit; it merely allows for a charge against it.
Craig Mackinlay
I am delighted to have the final say. I thank hon. Members who attended the debate. There were contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, as well as the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Oxford East (Annelise Dodds). We spar regularly on tax matters across whichever Chamber we are in, but I think we are broadly in agreement that the system is complex, that it could have been made easier and that there are problems that need to be solved.
I am pleased to receive a degree of assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He accepted that the charge was a measure of its time, when urgent measures were needed to respond to the state of the country’s finances. It has not been part of my argument that such a clawback should not exist. My observation has been that, if we are to have methods of clawback, we need to design systems that are more elegant than this one. I hope he will pass on to HMRC my issues regarding the penalty regime. Perhaps this can be the last of it, with people made aware that, yes, if they do wrong in the future, a penalty regime may apply. However, I would like to see a softer touch, given the modest amounts involved, for those stuck in cases at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the high income child benefit charge.
Written Statements
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Steel
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
I want to update the House on the latest developments regarding British Steel Limited.
On 22 May British Steel entered insolvency, and control of the company passed to the court appointed official receiver. The Government provided an indemnity to the official receiver which enabled British Steel to continue to trade, customers to receive orders, key suppliers to maintain their services, and staff to continue to be employed.
Since then, the official receiver has been running an independent sales process with a view to finding a secure future for British Steel. The Government have worked tirelessly with the official receiver and all interested parties to leave no stone unturned to find a suitable buyer for the company and to keep steel coming off the production line.
Following several weeks of discussions with a number of interested parties, on the 16 August the official receiver confirmed it had accepted a bid from Ataer Holding AS for the whole business. This is an important and positive step towards protecting thousands of direct jobs and many more in the supply chain, and to securing steelmaking operations at British Steel’s sites in Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside.
Work is now continuing to seek to finalise the details of a sale and the Government will continue to work closely with the official receiver and the preferred bidder during this process.
This has been a worrying time for British Steel’s dedicated workers, their families, those in the supply chain and their wider communities. Throughout this process their welfare has been paramount. This positive step, and the ability to secure a new owner, is due in large part to their commitment to securing the future of the company. This commitment and drive was abundantly clear in my visit to the site in Scunthorpe with the Industry Minister, during my first week as Business Secretary.
The Government’s determination, coupled with the support of Members from across the House of Commons, ensured every possible step was taken to secure a buyer and throughout the process our focus remained firmly on securing a buyer who could take the whole business forward.
While much remains to be achieved, Ataer has a long-term, strategic vision for growing British Steel with their parent company OYAK publicly stating that if this sale goes through their priority will be to increase production capacity and investment. Ataer is already in the steel industry, as the largest shareholder in Erdermir, Turkey’s largest flat steel producer. ln the first three months of this year alone, Erdermir posted profits of $186 million and 2.4 million tonnes of liquid steel production.
While the completion of the sale is by no means certain, the Government will continue to fully engage with all relevant parties as the sales process continues.
I would like to pay special tribute to the excellent work and dedication of the British Steel Support Group as well as that of my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The support group includes Members from across the House of Commons, local political leaders, local enterprise partnerships, trade union representatives, British Steel management, in addition to Make UK and the FSB. Working constructively with the Government, this body has been instrumental in helping to move to the next stage of this process.
While there are challenges in the global steel market, the opportunities for growth are substantial—including an additional £3.8 billion per year of potential domestic sales for UK steel producers from 2030. Britain and the rest of the world will continue to need high-quality steel, and British steel is among the best in the world. The Government have already taken wide-ranging action to support the industry, including compensation for energy costs and introducing specific public procurement guidelines for steel.
Each one of British Steel’s sites has a proud record of steelmaking excellence which we are determined to see continue. I want to reassure colleagues that the Government remain firmly committed to securing a bright future for British Steel. In the days and weeks ahead we will continue to work closely with all parties to leave no stone unturned to finalise the sale and will take every possible step to ensure a long-term future for these valuable operations.
[HCWS1806]
Clean Steel Fund and Low Carbon Hydrogen Production Fund
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
Moving to net zero greenhouse gas emissions for the UK economy requires transformation across all sectors of the economy and unprecedented levels of investment in green and low carbon technologies. The UK is a world leader in clean growth and in setting our ambitious, legally binding, target of achieving net zero emissions across the economy by 2050 we have demonstrated our commitment to maintain this position.
A vibrant steel sector is of vital importance to the UK economy. The sector employs 32,000 people and supports up to a further 40,000 jobs through its supply chains. With long standing expertise in steel making, the UK is well positioned to demonstrate international leadership in clean steel and realise domestic growth and export opportunities in associated products and technical knowledge.
Today, the UK steel sector is a significant source of emissions cwwontributing 15% to industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The integrated steel works at the British Steel site in Scunthorpe and the Tata Steel UK site Port Talbot are the two largest industrial sources of emissions in the UK.
We believe the time is right to provide dedicated support to our steel industry, to help put it on a pathway to decarbonisation in line with our net zero commitments. As a signal of that support, on 29 August, Government announced a £250 million Clean Steel Fund.
There are a range of different decarbonisation options for steel production: switching to lower carbon fuels, including hydrogen; industrial carbon capture; and energy and material efficiency. In order to better understand the needs of the steel sector and which pathways best meet our objectives we issued a call for evidence alongside the fund’s announcement to inform its future design. We will work with the steel sector and other stakeholders to develop timelines for the fund and to identify how to maximise the economic and environmental benefits of these decarbonisation options.
Recognising that availability of low carbon hydrogen at scale is a constraint to large industrial users considering fuel switching, Government have also announced a new £100 million Low Carbon Hydrogen Production Fund. The fund will support the deployment of low carbon hydrogen production capacity and encourage private sector investment. This could enable a pathway to lower carbon steel production and support broader efforts to reduce emissions across the energy system, including transport, other industry, power and potentially heat in buildings. The Government intend to consult on the shape of the fund during 2020 with a view to launching the fund for bids in 2021.
Together these funds will be a vital part of transforming UK industry and allow us to seize the opportunities of clean growth, which are at the heart of our modern industrial strategy.
[HCWS1807]
Reserve Forces and Cadets Association External Security Team Report 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a report into the condition of the reserves and delivery of the Future Reserves 2020 programme compiled by the reserve forces and cadets associations external scrutiny team. I am most grateful to the team for their work. The report raises interesting points which, after a thorough examination, I will respond to later in the year.
[HCWS1810]
Education Funding
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Today I will be making an oral statement in the House, updating on the schools and colleges funding package announced by the Prime Minister last weekend.
The package includes a cash increase compared to 2019-20 of £2.6 billion to core schools funding next year, with increases of £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively.
This is in addition to the £1.5 billion per year that we will continue to provide to fund additional pension costs for teachers over the next three years.
We will also be investing an extra £400 million in 16-19 education next year—the single biggest annual increase for the sector since 2010.
My statement will set out core schools funding at a national level. Illustrative school level allocations and provisional local authority level allocations through the schools and high needs National Funding Formulae will be announced next month. I will then write to Members with further details on the impact for schools and local areas.
[HCWS1811]
Summer Flooding and Reservoir Review
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)
This summer saw significant rainfall that unfortunately impacted several communities. In June, properties and farmland were flooded after the River Steeping broke its banks leading to a quick response from the Environment Agency supported by the RAF. At the end of July there was significant rainfall which led to flooding in several communities. The flash flooding in North Yorkshire saw homes, businesses and farms affected as well as causing damage to roads and bridges resulting in travel disruption. On 1 August further heavy rainfall led to the spillway of Toddbrook Reservoir experiencing damage. This did not lead to a breach of the dam itself, but to ensure the safety of Whaley Bridge, a decision was taken by the local resilience forum to evacuate 1,500 people until the authorities could be assured there was no ongoing risk. The local community responded with grace and patience despite the disruption this caused to their daily lives, which we are grateful for. Recovery continues in both North Yorkshire and Wainfleet, where the local authorities are working with those affected.
In Whaley Bridge, everyone was able to return home within a week. The Canal and River Trust, supported by the EA, fire service, voluntary organisations, contractors and the RAF worked to reduce the water levels in the reservoir and shore up the damaged spillway with over 500 one-tonne bags of aggregate to effect a temporary, but stable, repair. COBRA engaged a panel of experts, led by GO-Science, to review and advise on the engineers’ safety report and immediate management of the reservoir, before the local resilience forum made the decision to end the evacuation.
A plan is in place to ensure the water levels are monitored and remain at safe levels until full repairs are completed. As the body responsible for Toddbrook Reservoir, the Canal and River Trust (CRT) is now fully assessing the damage and identifying the most appropriate long-term repairs to provide confidence in the long term safety of this dam. As the regulator, the EA will assess the proposals. My officials in DEFRA will also work with the CRT as they consider the long term future of the reservoir taking into account both the views of the local community and their legal obligations.
I wish to thank the Whaley Bridge residents displaced from their homes for their forbearance and patience in difficult circumstances. I also want to recognise and thank the emergency services, local authorities, the Environment Agency, our servicemen and women, contractors and the very many volunteers who responded in all of these situations to both mitigate the immediate impacts or risks and support those who were affected.
On 10 August the Government announced a £5.25 million package of support for these communities which included support to the local authorities for the extra costs, funding for bridge repairs and support to farmers for any uninsurable costs.
We have an excellent reservoir safety record in this country, but it is important that we learn from this incident to ensure such infrastructure, and the legislation that governs it, is and remains fit for purpose. To that end, I am commissioning an independent review which will investigate what might have led to the damage, whether there was anything that could have prevent or predicted it and identify any lessons learned. This review will supplement the future report from the Canal and Rivers Trust into their assessment of the factors that led to the damaged spillway.
Any lessons learned will be shared with other reservoir owners to inform their inspection and maintenance regimes, to be used to make recommendations to Ministers to update the implementation of current regulations, including inspection guidance, and/or to suggest any changes required to current reservoir safety legislation. I am expecting an interim report by the end of the year.
In advance of this piece of work the Environment Agency, as the regulator for reservoir safety, have contacted the operators of over 2,000 reservoirs since the Toddbrook incident requesting that all operators check that there are no safety concerns. The EA has identified eight reservoirs that have concrete spillways with some similarity to Toddbrook Reservoir and has followed up directly with the owners of these eight reservoirs to secure additional inspections. At this stage there is no indication of any concerns with any of these eight reservoirs. The EA is also carrying out inspections of their own reservoirs directly, and the Department is writing to reservoir owners and the local resilience forums to ensure they have up to date flood and evacuation plans in place.
Climate change and population growth mean that the risks from flooding and coastal erosion are increasing. That is why Government are looking to update the flood and coastal erosion policy framework to ensure that we can continue to manage these risks effectively into the future. By the end of 2019, the Government will set out their policies to better prepare the country for flooding and coastal erosion in a Government policy statement on flooding and coastal erosion. The Government will also set out plans for a step change in broader infrastructure investment through the publication of a national infrastructure strategy later in the autumn. Informed by this Government policy, the Environment Agency will update its national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management.
[HCWS1808]
HS2
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Prime Minister and I have been clear about the potential for transport investment to drive growth, redistribute opportunity and support towns and cities across the UK. But we have been equally clear that the costs and benefits of those investments must stack up.
The Government announced on 21 August 2019 an independent, cross-party review led by Douglas Oakervee into whether and how HS2 should proceed. The review will consider its affordability, deliverability, benefits, scope and phasing, including its relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. I have published the terms of reference in full on gov.uk.
The chair will be supported by a deputy chair, Lord Berkeley, and a panel of experts from business, academia and transport to ensure an independent, thorough and objective assessment of the programme. Panellists will provide input to, and be consulted on, the report’s conclusions.
The review will report to me this autumn. I will discuss its findings with the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Its recommendations will inform our decisions on our next steps.
HS2 is the single largest project of this Government. One important aspect of the panel’s work is to consider whether both the costs, and the benefits, of the scheme have been correctly identified. HS2’s business case has been founded on increasing capacity on our constrained rail network, improving connectivity, and stimulating economic growth and regeneration. The current budget was established in 2013 and later adjusted to 2015 prices. Since that time, significant concerns have been raised.
I want the House to have the full picture. There is no future in obscuring the true costs of a large infrastructure project—as well as the potential benefits.
The recently appointed chairman of HS2 Ltd, Allan Cook, provided his advice to me on the cost and deliverability of the current scheme shortly after my appointment as Transport Secretary—and I want the House to have the full details at the earliest opportunity. I am determined to set out everything that is currently known, so I have today placed a copy of the advice in the Libraries of both Houses. This has only been redacted where commercially necessary, and the Oakervee review panel will of course see the report in full.
Colleagues will see that the chairman of HS2 does not believe that the current scheme design can be delivered within the budget of £55.7 billion, set in 2015 prices. Instead he estimates that the current scheme requires a total budget—including contingency—in the range of £72 to £78 billion, again in 2015 prices.
Regarding schedule, the chairman does not believe the current schedule of 2026 for initial services on phase 1 is realistic. In line with lessons from other major transport infrastructure projects, his advice proposes a range of dates for the start of service. He recommends 2028 to 2031 for phase 1—with a staged opening, starting with initial services between London Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street, followed by services to and from London Euston later. He expects phase 2b, the full high-speed line to Manchester and Leeds, to open between 2035 and 2040.
He has also suggested that phase 2a, west midlands to Crewe, could be delivered to the same timetable as phase 1, subject to parliamentary approval. Finally, he is of the view that the benefits of the current scheme are substantially undervalued. HS2 Ltd continues to refine its estimates of cost, benefits and schedule. All these will be considered within the scope of the Oakervee review.
I said when I announced the independent review into HS2 that I now want Doug Oakervee and his panel to assess independently these findings from the chairman of HS2 Ltd and other available evidence. That review will provide independent recommendations on whether and how we proceed with the project.
Furthermore, the costs and benefits of HS2 have been quoted in 2015 prices since the last spending review. While this allows a stable set of numbers to compare against, it also risks being misconstrued and understating the relative cost of the project, and indeed its benefits.
I therefore think it is worth also updating the House in current prices. Adjusting by construction cost inflation, the range set out in Allan Cook’s report is equivalent to £81 to £88 billion in 2019 prices, against a budget equivalent to £62.4 billion.
To be clear, these additions do not represent an increase in the project’s underlying costs, and are largely a point of presentation. Nonetheless, I will discuss with the Chancellor the case for updating the costs and benefits of HS2 to current prices to ensure transparency. Again, this is another reason for an independent review.
During the short period in which the independent review completes its work I have authorised HS2 Ltd to continue the current works that are taking place on the project. This will ensure we are ready to proceed without further delay for the main construction stage of phase 1 in the event that the Government choose to continue. Similarly, I intend to continue to progress the next stages of the hybrid Bill for phase 2a, west midlands to Crewe, in the House of Lords while the review is ongoing.
This update is intended to provide colleagues with the information they require about the current status of the HS2 programme. An independent review is now under way to give us the facts about the costs of the HS2 project. I want to be clear with colleagues that there is no future for a project like this without being transparent and open, so we will be candid when challenges emerge. Therefore, as soon as I have a clear sense of the costs and benefits from Doug Oakervee’s review I will update the House.
In the same spirit, my permanent secretary has today written to the National Audit Office, offering my Department’s support—in their inquiry already under way—in auditing not only the project’s cost and schedule pressures, but the steps taken in response to these.
We all in this House know we must invest in modern infrastructure to ensure the future prosperity of our country and its people. We look back to past achievements with a sense of pride—from the canals and railways that ensured the UK led the world into the industrial revolution, to the space ports and launch sites we are now considering that will make the UK a global leader in space. These endeavours both inspire and improve the quality of our everyday lives. It is therefore right that we subject every project to the most rigorous scrutiny; and if we are to truly maximise every opportunity, this must always be done with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper.
The attachment can be viewed online at http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-09-03/HCWS1809/.
[HCWS1809]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Death of a Member: Lord Bell
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Bell, on 25 August. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from 26 July, of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, and with effect from 2 September, of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their very much-valued service to the House.
Sterling
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they plan to take to boost investment and productivity and to stop any decline in the value of sterling.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, we have worked hard to build a stronger, fairer economy, dealing with the deficit, helping people into work and cutting taxes for individuals, families and businesses. We have created the £37 billion national productivity investment fund and have provided £600 billion in capital investment, including in infrastructure and skills. On sterling, it is important to note that the UK does not have an exchange rate target. The price of sterling is set by the market.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
Minister, how can we believe your words about growing the economy when last week the Bank of England told us that the Government’s recent actions—yes, actions not words—had reduced the level of UK productivity by 2% to 5% and caused many British companies to significantly cut investments plans? With the decline in the value of sterling, there has been a sharp drop in factory output. What will the Government do to put this right?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned a number of issues, one of which was factory output. I remind him that manufacturing now accounts for almost half of total UK exports—49% in 2017, with a value of just over £300 million. The manufacturing sector has seen productivity increase over three times faster than the UK economy as a whole over the past 10 years. I cannot add anything more relating to sterling but I reiterate that we have provided over half a trillion pounds in capital investment. We are cutting taxes to support business investment, we have improved access to finance through the British Business Bank, and we have improved skills through investment in apprenticeships and the introduction of T-levels.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, here is another statistic: the ONS says that productivity fell 0.6% between April and June. Over the summer Andy Haldane, who is not only the chief economist of the Bank of England but the chair of the Government’s Industrial Strategy Council, gave an important speech on the UK’s productivity problem. Its subtitle was “Hub No Spokes”. If the Minister had been here I would have asked him if he had read the speech; perhaps his stand-in can pass that question on. More importantly, having read that speech, what are the Government going to do to redress the balance and respond to the important points that Haldane makes?
The Earl of Courtown
No, my Lords, I have not read Mr Haldane’s speech, but I will pass it on to my colleagues in the department. However, there is something that the noble Lord should acknowledge regarding the ONS statistics on productivity: he will be aware that the Bean review reported in March 2016, that the Government supported its recommendations, and that the ONS has so far made good progress in acting on them, to ensure that we have proper productivity figures available for our examination.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the digital age and in a predominantly service economy, as the UK is, it is increasingly hard to measure accurately the notion of productivity? Does he therefore agree that all these discussions and comments need to be treated with great caution and balance?
The Earl of Courtown
My noble friend is quite right, as always. He mentioned the digital age that we are in, and of course noble Lords will remember that we have the £400 million digital infrastructure fund, which is unlocking £1 billion for full-fibre broadband to connect more homes so that they can act upon this digital age.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that his answer to my noble friend clashes with reality? With the pound at a low level you would expect our manufacturers and exporters to be making considerable progress, but informed opinion—as opposed to that from the Government Front Bench—in the manufacturing industry says that investment in that industry is at its lowest level since the slump and great crisis of 2008. How do his previous answers square with the brutal facts?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord will be perfectly well aware that our economy has changed over the years. As I said earlier, the manufacturing sector has seen productivity increase by over three times faster than the UK economy as a whole over the past 10 years. As noble Lords will be aware, what is becoming more and more important is the service economy, our advances in the digital age and the technology that we are producing. That is what is really important and it is how the economy will grow further.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that productivity, as measured by output per hour, is largely inappropriate for huge chunks of the British economy, particularly services? More importantly, productivity is affected by employment. In a period of full employment, productivity is bound to go down as the least productive people are employed. That has happened because this Government have a higher rate of employment, whereas Labour Governments have always left office with a higher rate of unemployment than when they came into power.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. He talked about the link between productivity and employment, which throws up different statistics. That is why it is so important that the review of the ONS comes forward with a more accurate way to measure productivity.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Can the Minister, or his department, justify the statement he has made twice that manufacturing productivity is rising three times faster than in the economy as a whole? Can he place a copy of the calculations on which that statement is based in the Library, so that we can all see whether it is fact or fiction?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I do not believe in uttering fiction from the Dispatch Box. I do not accept the noble Lord’s comment, but I will take it back to the department and ask for clarification on that figure.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, are the Government aware of the extent to which increased regulation is causing a fall in productivity, particularly in the financial services sector? The numbers of people working in regulation are not producing anything positive and the effect is estimated to be as much as 10% over the last decade.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting points. He will be fully aware of how the labour market is responding to the policies of Her Majesty’s Government, with 3.8 million more in work, youth unemployment falling by 46% and over 1 million fewer workless households since 2010.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that, although there has been a productivity challenge in this country, the top 10% of our companies are world class, with world-class productivity? The challenge is to invest more in education, R&D and innovation. What is the progress in the industrial strategy towards increasing R&D and innovation expenditure from around 1% of GDP to 2.8%, as in the United States and Germany, let alone Israel’s rate of 4%?
The Earl of Courtown
As noble Lords are aware, the whole point of the industrial strategy is to boost productivity and the earning power of people throughout the UK, as well as encouraging investment in the technologies of the future. The centrepiece of our approach is increased public investment in infrastructure and R&D through the national productivity investment fund. We have increased its total size to £37 billion, but the noble Lord makes a good point.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that he understands that the current Brexit crisis is having, and will continue to have, a profound effect on investment in this country? This will not end quickly, deal or no deal, because the problem continues. That is what we need to address if we are to take investment seriously in the future.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point as we move towards 31 October. We recognise that there has been some exchange rate volatility. This is not unusual as we move to our new relationship with the EU. It is important to remember that the UK’s macroeconomic framework is based on an inflation target, not an exchange rate target. It is for the independent Monetary Policy Committee to set monetary policy to meet that target.
Prosecutions and Sentencing
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they plan to take to support the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting, and the courts in sentencing, those involved in gang-related offences, illegal migration and petty offences.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, in 2018, the Government published a serious violence strategy to take action to address serious violence. Our strategy places a new emphasis on early intervention and sets out a multiagency approach. The CPS is developing new guidance about gang culture and gang offending, which will summarise the relevant principles in case law to be applied when making charging decisions in any gang-related offence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, over the summer, I was very pleased to hear of the Home Secretary’s new approach and of the extra funding for 20,000 police officers. Indeed, that takes me back to the time when my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, an esteemed predecessor, took a number of determined steps and succeeded in getting crime down across the board. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the vital way to support the police, who need to be helped, is to ensure that criminals receive appropriate sentences from the courts, that they serve those sentences, and that new, secure prisons are built, so that the problems we have in these various areas are tackled?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, clearly, sentencing decisions are a matter for the independent judiciary, which is of course under a duty to follow any relevant guidelines produced by the independent Sentencing Council. The council produces guidelines specific to particular offences or groups of offences. I entirely acknowledge the points my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe makes about the need to complement the increase in policing by ensuring that we have adequate provision in the judiciary and the prison establishment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, is there not a wider question about the crisis generally in the practice of criminal law, from whom many in the CPS are recruited, because of continuing underpayment for work done? Now that austerity is said to be over, will the Government advocate for more resources to prosecutors and defenders?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are of course concerned to ensure that the criminal justice system is adequately funded. We do not consider that we are in the midst of a crisis so far as that is concerned. Indeed, we engage with both the CPS and counsel and solicitors engaged in criminal defence work to ensure that they are properly resourced.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s recent pronouncements on tackling crime more generally, are the Government abandoning previous policy on rehabilitation—of using prison less rather than more, reducing short sentences and increasing release on licence and home detention curfews? Are we moving towards a policy of harsher sentences based on the frankly false notion that prison works and, if so, on what evidence, particularly given the more liberal, evidenced-based policies on imprisonment and rehabilitation pursued by David Gauke, David Lidington and even Michael Gove as Justice Secretaries, and Rory Stewart and the present Justice Secretary as Prisons Ministers?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the Government recognise that prison alone is not the answer to crime. Prison must go hand in hand with rehabilitation and our policies are always pointed in that direction.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is time to invest more in the justice system as a whole? Might he also agree that when Governments seek to encourage respect for the law in the country, they should begin by respecting the law themselves?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this Government do respect the law. In addition, this Government understand the law and the distinctions that lie between matters of politics and matters of law. In some areas that is not properly understood. Of course, there is always room for further investment in the justice system, but the Government face an issue of priorities. The question of further investment must be balanced by other demands on government.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I share with many others gratitude for what the Government are doing to have an integrated approach to serious violence and youth violence in particular, and I welcome having more police because we need to have safer streets. But by the time we get to prosecuting and sentencing it is all too late. Very often people have been left injured and dead. How much are we investing way before that, particularly at school level? Will the noble and learned Lord say a little more about what support is being given to our schools? In particular, when, for example, children are found with knives, does this trigger a safeguarding response so that we are trying to deal with the causes, rather than just the results?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. In July this year the Government announced their intention to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows for a new legal duty on public bodies to prevent and tackle serious violence—essentially what is referred to as a public health duty—that will cover the police, local councils, local health bodies, education, and youth offending services. Clearly, intervention at an early stage is the preferred approach.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the increase in crime due to the Government cutting the number of police officers on our streets and massively cutting local government services that looked after young people? Do we not have to reverse those cuts, and should not the Government apologise for them?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the variation in crime has no single or simple explanation. It is a complex issue, based on social and attitude factors, education and intervention. It is not possible to single out one matter that would reduce or increase crime.
Queen’s Speech
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce a date for the next Queen’s Speech.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Government have announced that the next Queen’s Speech will be on 14 October.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
It was a prescient Question, was it not?
Will the noble Earl, who is known for his integrity and honesty, confirm that Parliament normally goes into recess for party conferences, so that committees can sit and Questions can be tabled, and that Prorogation is normally prior to a Queen’s Speech and usually less than a week? So a Prorogation of five weeks, with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive, is both unprecedented and unconstitutional.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am a little surprised by the position taken by the noble Lord, in view of his previous call for a new Session. He was quite insistent on that point earlier in the year. However, it is impossible for me to be unaware that there are differences of view on these matters, and I have no desire to raise the temperature of the water in any way. However, the number of sitting days lost as a result of the Prorogation is only a handful. The important question surely is whether Parliament will have sufficient time after 14 October to express its view on a revised Brexit deal, if we achieve one, or on the preparations for no deal if we do not—and the Government are absolutely clear that sufficient time is available.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the noble Earl will recognise that that view is not widely shared.
Before I respond, perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his work. We will miss his dignity, wit and humour at the Dispatch Box.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we all understand that any Prime Minister, particularly one who has been selected by less than 1% of the population during a crisis, would want a new Queen’s Speech to set out the objectives and the tone of his Government. But if this shutdown—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes said, is what it is—starts next Monday, it will last for five long weeks. Five days would have been better. So we have a Secretary of State who will not confirm that he will obey the law, and a Prime Minister whose first Question Time will be his only one in three months. We hear that MPs—even Cabinet Ministers—face being sacked if they do not agree with the Prime Minister. Why is this Prime Minister so frightened of scrutiny?
Earl Howe
My Lords, he is not. Let me be clear. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister believes strongly that Parliament must have time to consider further the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and to hold the Government to account. Parliament will return in good time before the European Council, and it will be sitting for two and a half weeks before exit day, which will allow ample time for debate in both Houses.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the dedication, skill and good humour of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and to his support for the traditions of parliamentary democracy.
Lord Newby
Does not the Minister, like me, find it extraordinary that none of his Front-Bench colleagues, many if not most of whom shared the view of the noble Lord, Lord Young, has shown the same degree of principle?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Young, to whom I too pay tribute for his exemplary service to this House and to the Government, has made clear that he has special personal reasons for taking the action that he has taken, and that he would not expect any of his colleagues to follow his example. I do not believe that I am misrepresenting him.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the noble Earl said that we were losing only a few sitting days. From that, should I conclude that the scheduled sitting days next week will actually take place? May I also ask him to reflect on the fact that sitting days are, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, not the same as days on which Parliament is in session, when committees can sit and Parliament can be recalled? I am sure that I am not alone in remembering occasions when Parliament has sat during party conference season.
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow, I think it is appropriate for me to leave it to my noble friend the Chief Whip to answer questions on the order of business this week and next. He will be making a business Statement immediately after Questions and it is right that we turn our attention to those matters at that point.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl implied that a recess is comparable to Prorogation. Will he now acknowledge that this is an absurd pretence from No. 10, because it is not the same thing? For example, the length of a recess can be quite different in the two Houses. Your Lordships’ House can sit and continue its work even if the Commons is in recess; that is not the case with Prorogation. Please will he now acknowledge that the ignorance and disdain of the current occupants of No. 10, as far as parliamentary matters are concerned, is a matter of really serious concern to your Lordships’ House?
Earl Howe
Let me apologise to the House—I did not mean to imply that there was an equivalence between a recess and a Prorogation. The noble Lord is absolutely right that they are two distinct things. The technical position is that once Parliament has been prorogued, it cannot be recalled. A recall of Parliament can happen only when Parliament is in Recess or adjourned—so to that extent the noble Lord makes a very good point. My point was slightly different, as I hope he will appreciate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the unwritten constitution that we have depends on Prime Ministers actually doing the right thing? Given the current Prime Minister, has the time not come for us to have a written constitution?
Baroness Deech (CB)
The Minister will have noticed that the House is united in wanting plenty of time to discuss the momentous events that lie ahead of us. Does he therefore not agree that any attempt to rip up the normal rules of procedure and rush through important legislation in a matter of hours, without permitting people to say what they should and allowing this House to give such a Bill the proper scrutiny for which the House is famous, would be unacceptable?
Prorogation Recall
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the powers available to recall Parliament during a prorogation in the event of a national or international crisis.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, once Parliament has been prorogued it cannot be recalled. However, the sovereign, acting on the advice of Ministers, may issue a new proclamation setting an earlier date for the beginning of the new Session.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer and welcome the tone of his replies to the previous Question. I also add my tribute to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Speaking from these Back Benches, I can say that he was universally liked and admired; his calm unflappability set an example to us all. I share my noble friend Lord Howe’s desire to lower the temperature and to obviate the need for rushed legislation. But if each House of Parliament were to pass a resolution requesting a rearrangement of the Prorogation and its dates, would not the Government be well advised to take that advice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I repeat my tribute to my noble friend Lord Young, alongside my noble friend Lord Cormack. We shall miss him on the Front Bench. Clearly, if both Houses of Parliament were to take a view on any particular matter and address that proposal to the Prime Minister, it would be quite wrong for the Government to ignore such a request. I am sure that any such decision, if reached, would receive close attention from my right honourable friend.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Minister agree with the following statement in the Commons Library briefing:
“Long prorogations … can give rise to fundamental questions about whether the Government of the day still commands the confidence of the House of Commons and therefore whether it can legitimately continue to govern”?
Has he had access to the paper on the impact of a no-deal Brexit which the Daily Mail tells us the Government have now decided not to publish and which says that we are heading towards an entirely foreseeable, major national crisis in our economy and society within the next eight weeks if we crash out with a no-deal Brexit? Would he regard that as the sort of depth of crisis which required Parliament to be recalled?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble Earl said earlier that we would come back for a Queen’s Speech on 14 October, which would give sufficient days to discuss this important issue. However, No.10 was yesterday briefing that, should the elected House of Commons have the audacity to take over business in the other place and put through a Bill, an election would be called—unusually—on a Monday, 14 October. That would probably mean that we would not sit for about a week after that. Does the noble Earl think that that would be sufficient time to discuss Brexit and all its implications?
Earl Howe
I do not want to sound glib but let us see what happens. There are strong reasons for the parties in the other place which are very exercised on these matters to show restraint. I think that the Prime Minister would say that he would be the last person to want a general election.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, there are at least four members of the Cabinet who during the leadership election protested strongly against Prorogation in the present circumstances, and there are many members of the Cabinet who are calling for the deselection of Conservative Members of Parliament for voting against the Government when they themselves have done that on many occasions in many months. If this were the conduct of Labour Ministers under Mr Corbyn, how would my noble friend the Minister characterise such conduct? Would he use the words “hypocrisy”, “double standards”, “outrageous” and “deplorable”? If not, why not?
Earl Howe
It is very easy in a situation such as this for us to resort to colourful words to describe it. I personally regret the degree of emotion that has entered this debate. It is perhaps not surprising, but feelings run high—my noble friend is entirely right. I do not wish to add any animus to that situation.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it has been suggested that it would be unfortunate to try to push legislation through Parliament inappropriately quickly, but if the Prime Minister is looking for a deal which would not come until on or after 17 October, would we not need to amend the 2018 withdrawal Act? Is there time for that? Does the Minister envisage an opportunity for Parliament to amend that legislation appropriately?
Earl Howe
The technical position would be that, if a deal is reached, a withdrawal agreement Bill would be introduced, hopefully for approval by Parliament. We are absolutely clear that there is time to do that. There may be a need to obtain the consent of Parliament to sit at rather unusual hours to do that, but we are clear that it can be done.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend will recall that the 30 days referred to in the press conference at which the Prime Minister spoke with Chancellor Merkel expire on 21 September. Can he explain by what means this House and the other House might look at any proposals brought forward by the British Government and comment on them?
Hong Kong
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the ongoing situation in Hong Kong.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the serious situation in Hong Kong. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed developments with other leaders at the G7 summit, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has recently spoken to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Chief Executive Carrie Lam. We condemn violence but support the right to peaceful and lawful protest. Meaningful political dialogue taken forward by Hong Kong under its high degree of autonomy is the best way to resolve the current impasse.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that statement. Does he note that the crisis is fast escalating, that the police appear to be acting with impunity and that Carrie Lam apparently feels that she has no autonomy? The Government have been very silent, certainly in public, on Hong Kong recently; they may be distracted, but what action are they taking, especially as we will shortly be coming up to the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China? What is the Government’s view of proposals for a second UK or Commonwealth citizenship for Hong Kong citizens?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I first reassure the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House that the Government are taking the situation in Hong Kong very seriously. As I have alluded to, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to their respective counterparts—and, in the case of the Prime Minister, to other members of the G7. The permanent under-secretary has also summoned the Chinese ambassador to relay our deep concerns. On the wider issue of citizenship, current citizens of Hong Kong enjoy the BNO category, which was created, as the noble Baroness knows, in 1985 and gives certain rights. It remains our view that, within the agreement signed by the Chinese and British Governments, protections offered to those citizens should prevail. On the issue of the police acting with impunity, we impress on the Hong Kong authorities that they should ensure that those committing acts of violence—whichever side they may be on—are brought to justice and held accountable. That includes those enforcing the law.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, people are protesting on the streets of Hong Kong for their judicial independence, their human rights and their democratic freedoms—the three principles the 1984 agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom was designed to protect. Can the noble Lord tell the House when the Government will demand loudly and clearly that China respect this agreement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Lord that we are doing just that. We have impressed on the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities that they should ensure that the attributes and provisions of the agreement are upheld. The agreement was signed by both parties. It was also deposited and is registered within the United Nations. It is our view that all rights and principles in that agreement have to be respected, not just by Hong Kong but by the Chinese authorities as well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch. Will the Minister take the trouble to look at the Early Day Motion tabled today in the House of Commons by almost 30 Members of Parliament—led by the chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, Fiona Bruce MP, and signed by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the current leader of the Scottish National Party in the House of Commons, senior Labour Members of Parliament and Members of other parties—calling for the Government to put on the Commonwealth agenda, not least at Kigali next year, the question of second citizenship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about, and to explore ways in which the international community can provide an insurance policy for people in Hong Kong who feel that “one country, two systems” is now slipping away? Is this not the sort of thing that the British Government should take the lead on?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, let me reassure the noble Lord that we seek to uphold “one country, two systems” and will call on the Chinese authorities and the authorities in Hong Kong to do the same. As I said in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, this is an international agreement whose principles should be abided by. I will certainly take the issue of the Early Day Motion back and look at the detail. I assure noble Lords that the important thing is that we continue to raise through all international and bilateral channels the importance of upholding the rights of, and obligations to, the citizens of Hong Kong.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, much of the prosperity of Hong Kong depends on confidence. Is there not clear evidence now that much of the business community has been relocated or is considering relocating to Singapore, which would be much against the interests of the Government of China? Are we not making it clear to China that to be in breach of the joint agreement is to be in breach of its interests in this matter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I believe that, thus far, the Chinese authorities have shown restraint, which we welcome. Clearly, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, law and order in Hong Kong is of deep concern to us. The noble Lord raises the important issue of future investment in Hong Kong. As we have seen, the eyes of the media and the world are on the situation in Hong Kong; that will not be lost on investors. He makes an important point about political and economic stability in a given territory. I am sure that any business making a decision in respect of Hong Kong will look at that very carefully.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn (CB)
My Lords, what has been happening recently in Hong Kong is very distressing. What started with large demonstrations against the extradition treaty—probably better called the fugitive offenders ordinance—by people who are well-intentioned, but many of whom probably misunderstood what was behind the proposal, has deteriorated into the sort of violence that is not the custom in Hong Kong; it is not the way that things happen there. That is worrying indeed. Does the Minister accept, however, that outside involvement in this is unlikely to be helpful? The key thing is for the Hong Kong Government, without outside pressure, to find ways to take this forward, possibly through a judge-led inquiry into what has gone on, and to establish a dialogue with those who have been protesting. One hopes that among that is the way to bring this situation back to the more normal way in which Hong Kong carries out its affairs.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord speaks about the situation on the ground with great insight. I agree with him, which is why we have consistently raised the importance of the Hong Kong authorities—particularly the Chief Executive, Carrie Lam—having a constructive dialogue with the people. According to Carrie Lam herself, it is a fact that the original proposal on which these protests were based is dead. I note that it has not yet been formally withdrawn; we are watching that very carefully. On the more general issue, it is important that Hong Kong resolves its issues within the parameters of both the agreement that has been signed and the autonomy it enjoys. On the broader issue of human rights, particularly those raised directly with the United Kingdom, wherever we see human rights usurped and the rights of citizens denied, we will raise our voice as a strong voice for human rights around the world. We have raised our deep concerns with both the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities on this issue.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the deal the Thatcher Government did with China was wise but did not cater for full-scale democracy in Hong Kong? While there is hope that the situation may move towards that, I suggest that the right posture for the time being is the deal done with China by the Thatcher Government.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure my noble friend that we continue to impress on both the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities, in the bilateral engagement that we have had, the importance of the principles of the agreement that guaranteed autonomy for Hong Kong. It is something that should be held; it has held thus far. Despite historic pressures, “one country, two systems” has largely held together. It is important that it continues to do so, for the agreement runs until 2047. We hope the rights enshrined in that agreement will also be upheld thereafter.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, what does it say about mainland China’s attitude to the two systems that Hong Kong has a Chief Executive who seems to believe she does not have the autonomy to withdraw the offending Bill entirely and does not even think she has the autonomy to resign?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Chief Executive can speak for herself. From our perspective, the important thing is to ensure that the principles of the Sino-British agreement are upheld and—as I have said and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out—that the rights and obligations under “one country, two systems” are upheld for all citizens.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, welcome back. I hope noble Lords had a relaxing break. With the leave of the House, I will now make a business statement.
As this is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as the Government Chief Whip—perhaps not the introduction I was expecting—I first acknowledge my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. If the last few days are anything to go by, I am in awe of how he managed to survive so long, but I must say that he looks pretty relaxed now. I am also grateful to the other members of the usual channels for their welcome and for the helpful nature of the conversations we have had over the last few days.
In view of the plans for the new Session of Parliament in October, there will be some alterations to the government business for the remainder of this Session. As I said, this has been discussed with the usual channels. Noble Lords will see from the Order Paper that the business for today has not changed, apart from the addition of three Oral Statements. There are a few changes to business this week that are not currently reflected on the Order Paper or in Forthcoming Business. A new edition of Forthcoming Business will be available as soon as I have sat down.
Tomorrow, on 4 September, the Government’s intention is that we will have the Third Reading of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill. Then, as previously advertised, we will take the Report stage of the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill, which is a Law Commission Bill, and then the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill. On Thursday, again as previously advertised, we will hear the two time-limited Cross-Bench debates in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords will be aware that under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act, we have a time-limited statutory duty to debate reports that will be published and laid tomorrow. This debate will take place after those in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and a speakers’ list is now open.
The House will no longer sit on Friday for Private Members’ Bills previously arranged. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Wigley, for the helpful and pragmatic conversations we have had. The exact timings for Prorogation are still subject to further discussions, including discussions occurring in the other place, and I will endeavour to update the House as those discussions proceed. But, dependent on events in the other place, we must all be prepared for changes in the Order Paper with little warning.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming my noble friend to his new position, may I say how much I regret the departure of his distinguished predecessor, with whom I always worked with great pleasure, though we were not always in agreement? Does my noble friend understand the importance of not facilitating an elective dictatorship, of which a former Lord Chancellor spoke so perceptibly some years ago—although he did not believe that such a work would ever be done by a Conservative Government? Does my noble friend understand that many in the Conservative Party, both in Parliament and outside, are wholly opposed to the Brexit-related policies being done in the name of the Conservative Government and will oppose them?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment. He was present throughout the questions which raised the issue of the difference between Prorogation and recess. He may have had it drawn to his attention that, in 2002, Prime Minister Blair brought Parliament back to deal with issues arising out of the possible military action against Saddam Hussein. In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron did exactly the same in relation to the possibility of military action in Syria. Given the fragile situation in and around the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, may we have a copper-bottomed assurance that, if any events occur in that part of the world which justify the recall of Parliament, the Prorogation withdrawal—to which reference was previously made—will swiftly be taken advantage of?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, in the exchanges during Oral Questions, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated that, given the Conference Recess, the length of Prorogation would not mean too many more days of parliamentary time lost. This argument has been deployed on several occasions by government spokespeople, and so I sought to try to find the dates of the Conference Recess. I do not seem to be able to find them anywhere. I congratulate the Chief Whip on his appointment, but can he point me in the direction of where I will find them, or is it the case that they have not been published and that without Prorogation the default position is that we would continue to sit next week and the week after, through the conference season?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend seen the reports in the press suggesting that some Members of the Opposition might seize control of the agenda in this House—I understood that we were given an undertaking that that would never happen again—and use that opportunity to introduce a guillotine to this House for the first time? Does he not agree that the very purpose of this House arises from the fact that the guillotine in the Commons results in Bills coming to us that have not been properly scrutinised, and that therefore the introduction of any guillotine to this House would destroy its very purpose and create a precedent that would have serious, almost constitutionally outrageous, implications?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but I entirely endorse what he said about guillotines in your Lordships’ House. However, I wish to ask a different question of my noble friend, to whom I also offer warm congratulations, as I offer warm felicitations to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. On Thursday, two important debates are down in the names of private Members. Clearly, between them they will take some five hours. Should urgent business be brought before your Lordships’ House, having been endorsed in another place, can my noble friend assure the House that the business will be rearranged? It really would be utterly absurd if we did not begin a debate on a crucial national emergency until something like 6 pm on a Thursday, especially as the Friday sitting has now been cancelled. We have a duty to look at things carefully, and we should also look at them when we are not all too exhausted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in Questions, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave the impression that the only business we would be expected to consider after Prorogation—and presumably after debate on the then Queen’s Speech—is a withdrawal Bill. But there is currently a great deal of legislation that needs to be completed, including, as the Government themselves have said, the Trade Bill. As the then Minister said in March:
“This Bill is essential to providing continuity and certainty for UK businesses as we leave the EU”.—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 615.]
Can the Chief Whip give clarity as to what the status of this legislation is, because some of it may not be able to be carried over into a new Session after Prorogation? If legislation such as the Trade Bill is essential for British businesses that require legal cover to conduct business with European enterprises and European businesses which currently conduct business within the UK, they will have no legal cover because we will not have time for the Commons to consider Lords amendments of the Trade Bill that this House passed with large majorities.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I repeat and warmly support the nice things that have been said about the Chief Whip, but will he consult with his colleagues in the Whips’ Office in another place in regard to the threats which have been scattered around to some Members of the other place of taking away the whip and their possibilities of standing as Conservative candidates? Will he remind his colleagues that, in the early 1970s when we joined the Common Market, as it was then—I was a member of the Whips’ Office at the time—we had more than 30 Members of the Conservative Party who either voted regularly against the Government or abstained and that there was never any thought whatever of taking the whip away from them or tinkering about with their ability to be readopted by their constituencies? Will he tell his colleagues that many of us find these threats arrogant, inept and totally unacceptable in the historic traditions of the Conservative Party?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful for the questions and comments. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham that elective dictatorship is not a good thing. That implies that debate is important—and this House has a good reputation for unlimited debate on important subjects. Taking into account the question of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, we should make sure that we continue our debates within the conventions that we have had for many years. I agree with him. I accept that this issue is contentious—and that is another reason why we need opportunities over the next few days to debate issues that may or may not come to this House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the Conference Recess. He is correct that that has not been published. However, I would point out that this House has not sat at the end of September and the beginning of October for, I think, 80 years.
I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for his comments. He asked about rearranging business. I made reference at the beginning of my remarks to the helpful conversations I have had with the usual channels and I shall continue to have them. I see no reason why the good relationship which has initially been established should stop. I shall make sure that the business that needs to be done will be done in a way which helps the House. However, I should point out that the Government’s business is what we have put forward and that is the usual procedure for this House.
On the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the Trade Bill, as far as I am aware and have been informed, all essential pre-Brexit legislation has been passed. Nevertheless, we are working on arranging with the usual channels some carryover Bills. We have agreement on that and I expect it to continue.
My noble friend Lord Jopling talked about potential sanctions on Members of the other place. I think it would be a bit presumptuous of me on my first day as Chief Whip in the House of Lords to tell my opposite number in the House of Commons how to behave. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend in the other place will pay close attention to what he said.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned events in the Middle East. Of course we want to make sure that important events can be discussed, and I will discuss that with the usual channels in the normal way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
With regard to the Trade Bill, when the Bill left this House, the Minister said that it was essential legislation. It has not been passed and is not on the statute book, and the Chief Whip is saying therefore that it is not essential. Which is it?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I did not say it was not essential. What I said was that I have been informed that all essential pre-Brexit business has been passed. However, as it is in the House of Commons, I will raise that, but I am not in charge of business in the other place.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Tuesday 3rd September 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 View all Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (30 Aug 2019)
“(i) to promote public understanding of the purposes of the Restoration and Renewal Programme.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5. These amendments, taken together, are designed to address a number of concerns—raised at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others—on the twin themes of engagement with specific categories of individuals about the restoration and renewal programme and promoting an understanding of the purposes of the programme, in ways I will explain more fully.
First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his constructive and collaborative approach in working with the Government to formulate the wording of the amendments now before us. The Leader of the House and I were sincerely impressed by the passion and sincerity with which he made his case, and he succeeded in persuading us that appropriate amendments to the Bill were warranted. I hope the House will agree that we have arrived at a good place in this respect.
The first amendment seeks to ensure that the sponsor body promotes public understanding of the purposes of the restoration and renewal programme. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill detailed the importance of the public understanding the restoration and renewal programme. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, tabled an amendment in Committee that was quite similar to the one we are debating today, and he was supported by a number of other noble Lords in the arguments that he put forward.
As noble Lords may recall, I outlined in Committee why that amendment was not strictly required, given what the shadow sponsor body has set out it will do in promoting understanding of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. For example, the restoration and renewal programme’s current purposes, as set out in its vision and strategic themes, includes the aim to:
“Open up the Houses of Parliament, improve access and encourage a wider participation in the work of Parliament”.
Nevertheless, we have listened to this House and recognise the desire of noble Lords that this amendment be included in the Bill to place this specific duty on the sponsor body.
The second amendment in the group relates to staff and public engagement. This amendment would require the sponsor body, in formulating the strategic objectives of the parliamentary building works and making strategic decisions relating to it, to seek the views of those employed by Parliament and working for Members, as well as the public at large. Again, as noble Lords will recognise, I outlined in Committee the engagement the shadow sponsor body has already started to undertake with staff and will be undertaking with the public in the future. For example, the shadow sponsor body circulated a questionnaire to Members and their staff with the aim of understanding what they would like to see from restoration and renewal of the Palace. I understand that the shadow sponsor body will publish these findings in October. Furthermore, the body will soon be considering its public engagement strategy.
Since the conclusion of Committee, we have had the chance to consider this matter further. We recognise the will of this House that provision should be made in the Bill to ensure that the sponsor body engages with staff and the public in undertaking its work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, again for his collaborative approach in formulating this amendment. I am sure that he, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made a similar suggestion in Committee, and members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee will welcome this amendment. It will ultimately be for the sponsor body, once established, to determine how it fulfils this duty, but I am sure all noble Lords will join me in encouraging the sponsor body to build on the engagement the shadow sponsor body has undertaken to date.
Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that the sponsor body will carry out the works with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process, especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, once again for agreeing to work with the Government on this amendment. The pre-legislative Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill, of which the noble Lord was a member, argued that the term “renewal” requires an outward-facing approach to the UK Parliament’s role at the centre of our democracy. In Committee, I outlined that the Government agree that the outputs as part of restoration and renewal should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate any future reforms which could facilitate opportunities for outreach and engagement. I was pleased to report that the shadow sponsor body had already outlined, as part of its strategic vision and themes, the aim to,
“reconnect people from across the UK with their Parliament through improved education and visitor facilities, physical and digital access”.
I also outlined in Committee the excellent work already done in this area through various parliamentary engagement and outreach programmes across the UK. The UK Parliament’s education and engagement service engaged more than 2.2 million people in 2018-19, of whom approximately 1.4 million were engaged face to face. The quality of this engagement is reflected in the feedback from 94% of participants, who rated it “good” or “excellent”. Furthermore, the education service also welcomed 70,226 school visitors in the year to mid-April 2018. The Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools programme has seen more than 2,000 Peers in Schools visits since the programme began in 2007. The education service also trained more than 2,900 teachers to help them engage their students in learning about Parliament and democracy. Nevertheless, we have listened again to the will of this House that an amendment relating specifically to remote connectivity and outreach programmes should be included in the Bill. In considering this matter, I encourage the sponsor body to work with Parliament’s education and outreach team in order to build on the excellent work it is undertaking.
The other two amendments, Amendments 3 and 4 in the name of my noble friend, are minor and technical; they merely ensure consistent references to the parliamentary building works in Clause 2(4)(b) and 2(4)(g). The Government have sought to ensure that the will of the House is facilitated when it is clear that a particular course of action is preferred. These amendments are a clear example of our determination to see that this is done. Each of the amendments in this group is designed to ensure that the necessary engagement work is undertaken and borne in mind by the sponsor body.
With renewed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for enabling us to achieve the express will of the House on these important issues, I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, understandably, over the summer and this afternoon the minds and hearts of parliamentarians have been somewhere other than on debating the restoration and renewal Bill. However, I congratulate the noble Earl on his new appointment and role, and I want to put it on the record that, if we were able to conduct wider business in the way that I have experienced negotiations with the noble Earl, we might get a lot further a lot faster, and some of the divisions that are bedevilling our country might be settled more easily.
I appreciate that, although restoration and renewal will cost the nation billions of pounds and the Bill might be very controversial, it does not compare with the situation that we are in in respect of our relationship with Europe and all that goes with it. However, I think that, in time, people will look back and be grateful to this House for the work that it did at Second Reading, in Committee and, now, on Report in relation to the measures that we are taking. They will appreciate the importance of getting agreement on restoration and renewal, speeding the Bill through and ensuring that time is not lost in getting on with the works.
I want to reciprocate by saying that it has been a great pleasure to do business with the noble Earl and his team. The Bill team, Cabinet Office officials and Members and officials in this House have been extraordinarily helpful, but none if it would have been possible without the wider support of Members of this House from all the political party groups. I thank and pay tribute to them for their voices not only in Committee but behind the scenes. We have made genuine progress, which is why I withdrew the amendments that I had tabled and agreed to put my name to those spoken to so eloquently this afternoon by the noble Earl. It is really important to understand that this House is not an internal process but the actual beating heart of our democracy. The outward-facing nature of what we are doing, as the noble Earl has described, will, in the years ahead, become critical to people’s understanding, first, of what is happening and why and, secondly, that this is a crucial part of our democratic process. The engagement and participation in democracy and the processes and programmes of this House and the other place will stand the test of time.
The noble Earl said that I had been passionate on this subject. It is quite hard to be passionate about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, but he is right. Underpinning my desire to bring about these changes was the belief that, when our politics are more settled and people come to see the investment that we are making in the Palace and the subsequent and consequent investment in the world heritage site more broadly, they will understand that giving the sponsor body a clear remit was crucial. I just want to put it on the record that when the Bill was considered by the Joint Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear to us that the sponsor body, and subsequently the delivery authority that it will oversee, will take their directions and objectives from Parliament. The one way in which Parliament can now ensure that the sponsor body is clear about what is required and can work in a flexible and positive fashion is to ensure that the Bill is clear. With the help of the Government, and in particular the noble Earl, I think that we have been able to make it a lot clearer and the sponsor body therefore has a much more positive remit.
Extremely good work by both parliamentarians and officials is going on behind the scenes and I suggest that the sponsor body should connect with what is already taking place in relation to, for instance, the Select Committee engagement team. Two small research projects have recently been publicised, involving small amounts of money, on the work of Select Committees. On the back of the Senior Deputy Speaker’s work on Select Committees of this House, we have discussed the importance of getting that right for the future. I would simply ask the sponsor body to connect with what has already taken place and perhaps—as part of the substantial investment that will go into the physical infrastructure—put a relatively small amount of money into such projects, which can stand the test of time and will be valuable for the future.
I declare my interest, as mentioned in the register, in relation to the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the public understanding of and engagement with politics. I suggest that the work that it has been doing behind the scenes—it made a presentation to the scrutiny committee—should be taken up. The work of the centre, and that of others in the academic field, could be extremely helpful and with relatively small amounts of money—although much more substantial than, say, £5,000 for a research project—could yield fruit. If we get it right now, we will get it right down the line. Although today is probably not the day for me to say much more due to what is going on outside and in the other House, which will be of critical importance to the future of our nation, I think people will be grateful to the Government for their co-operation, and to parliamentarians of all persuasions, for the way in which they have set about ensuring that the Palace of Westminster will continue to be the beating heart of our democracy in the generations to come.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I fully support the amendments on the Marshalled List, particularly Amendment 5 which refers to “facilitating improved public engagement”. I wonder whether there is still a possibility that that engagement could be other than remote. A question was asked in the other place about the possibility of access to the Elizabeth Tower for visitors when those works are completed, in a way that is independent of decant works which by then may have started or be about to start.
This leads me also to inquire whether we have closed our minds or shut the door on access to Westminster Hall. I know that there are complications but, if there were a means of allowing people to come through Westminster Hall on a particular line of route and then exit in the usual way, that would be a more meaningful way for people to engage. Those of us who have taken parties round the Palace on many occasions are impressed by the magic felt by many people, the emotional contact they may experience by being here. To lose that entirely would be a shame. Such access may be impossible in view of the works that have to take place in the Palace, but I hope that we will look at the possibility.
I am minded of what is available in the visitors’ centre on Capitol Hill in Washington where tableaux tell the story of Parliament through the ages. There is also the possibility of viewing a film. Perhaps a passage through Westminster Hall could be allowed and the Grand Committee Room—or the Westminster Hall chamber as it has become known—might also be a place where a film could show the work of Parliament and what it is all about. I hope we have not told ourselves that it cannot be done. It would be encouraging to know that this possibility is at least being investigated so that, by the time we have to decant from the building, there might still be an opportunity for something more than remote access for members of the public.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Howe for the amendments and place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work he has done on securing these amendments. They are extremely important—in particular, as my noble friend Lord Haselhurst would add, Amendment 5.
This might be the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, but we and the sponsor body need to look at it as the Parliament restoration and renewal Bill. It is not simply a case of bricks and mortar; it is about the space and how it is employed for the future. Picking up on what my noble friend said, it needs to be adaptable space. That is the point that needs to be put over to the sponsor body: not only should we use the space in the way indicated by my noble friend but there are going to be changes that we cannot anticipate in the way that we might want to use it. This place was designed originally to accommodate meetings in committee rooms dealing with private Bills. That did not take into account how Parliament would evolve, particularly as a public body. We cannot anticipate all the needs in future, so adaptability is going to be a clear theme.
I reiterate the point that the space can be used to connect with people outside. That is a crucial point that has already been stressed. We need not only to educate but to be able to engage. That would play to the strengths of this House in particular, but the institution of Parliament as a whole needs to be able to connect with people outside in different ways, including in ways that, as I say, we might not able to anticipate at the moment—so we need to have that space available but not rigid.
So we need to be outward-looking and adaptable. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work he has done on this. I was delighted with the agreement that was reached with the Government, so I very much support the amendments before us.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I will add my thanks to all those who have worked during August to come up with a solution that meets not just the needs of those moving the amendments but the sentiments that were expressed during the debate. As a member of the shadow sponsor body, I think that this gives some clarity about the wishes of the House and the responsibilities of the sponsor body when it gets its substantive form.
Right from the beginning, outreach and education have been an absolute priority for the sponsor body. I assure the noble Earl that we have had a lot of discussions with the education and outreach department already, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that flexibility is one of the key things that we are thinking about in design. Obviously not every room in the Palace can be entirely flexible—there are too many constraints, particularly of heritage, for that—but one of our overall objectives will be to end up with a much more flexible space because, as the noble Lord said, we simply cannot predict where we are going to be in future.
The shadow sponsor body has always felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has previously so passionately described, that the renewal of Parliament is not just about the building—that is extremely important to us. When we think about overall renewal, some of the issues are matters of operation—about how we do things—some are procedural and some are cultural. The Houses of Parliament are extremely conservative organisations that are quite resistant to change, so we have to accept that there is also cultural thinking.
A lot of these matters need attention from Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to talk about the need for close working between the shadow sponsor body—the sponsor body, going forward—and the rest of Parliament, and how we do these things together. It is certainly not for the sponsor body to start telling Parliament what its procedures should look like and so on—so there is very much a need for close working on that.
My final point is that it has become clear to me, having chaired a number of sessions—particularly on the question of accessibility, but the point is wider—that there is an awful lot that we could do now. We do not have to wait for the physical restoration of this building. I urge the House to find ways of exploring some of the things that could be done right now to make the building more accessible—and I mean accessible in its full sense in terms of the language that we use and the way that people engage with this place—while we wait for more tangible physical accessibility improvements further down the road.
We need to think about how Parliament creates the space to think about those things when there is so much else going on. If Parliament is to come through what is a particularly torrid time at the moment, we really must give some attention to these matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. Seeing the reference to “remote access” in one of them, I thought it not inappropriate to draw the House’s attention to the tremendous changes there have been in recent years. I first became a Member of the House of Commons 45 years ago. Since then it has changed immensely, largely because of the electronic advances that there have been. The amount of contact with constituents that Members of Parliament now have through emails and so on is one thing. You can also watch Parliament any time you want on the parliamentary television channel. This started with your Lordships’ House, and broadcasting from the Commons followed. There have been tremendous advances and there is no doubt at all in my mind that these have not stopped but will go on in ways that we cannot envisage—any more than we could have envisaged 45 years ago that things would be as far advanced as they are now. So we are not just starting this process; we are hugely advanced along it. It will speed up, in all probability, and of course the sponsor body must take account of it as it goes about its work on this building.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, and their focus on public engagement and awareness. Amendment 1 creates a duty on the sponsor body to promote public understanding of restoration and renewal, while Amendment 2 introduces a need for the sponsor body to ensure the works facilitate engagement and a participatory democracy. Amendment 5 ensures that the sponsor body carries out its duties with the views of Members, staff and the public at the front of its mind. We also welcome Amendments 3 and 4, which strengthen the reference to the parliamentary building works in regard to ensuring the safety and security of staff and the public, as well as to educational facilities.
At the start of the Bill’s passage, one of the main areas on which we sought government reassurance was engagement with the public, as well as with staff and Members in both Chambers. The Joint Committee recommended that the sponsor body should,
“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”,
and we are pleased that the Government now fully accept this. Engagement must be at the heart of the programme of restoration and renewal, as this Palace, as well as the democratic processes and structures it represents, can often feel very distant to many people across the country. It is vital that there is a strong relationship between the sponsor body and the public, so that they have confidence in the programme throughout the process. These amendments help to alleviate our concerns and ensure that restoration and renewal becomes about far more than the necessary bricks and mortar, rewiring and replacement, and sewerage and stairways. They also allow us to change the way Parliament looks and feels, both inside and out.
Like other noble Lords, we read with great interest the results of the 2019 Members survey on R&R, confirming the themes and issues raised during the passage of this Bill in both Houses on accessibility, remote and digital integration, and safety, security and protection. The first survey showed just how vital regular communication, consultation and engagement are now and will be as the programme progresses to its successful completion. In particular, this is a working building for more than 8,000 members of staff, and the omissions in the original Bill on the importance of seeking their views about the works have now been rectified. Amendment 5 is a welcome step forward in helping improve their working conditions throughout restoration and renewal, and this must be an aim for the sponsor body.
In closing, I of course pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his tireless work on these issues throughout the Bill’s passage, and to the Government for their willingness to discuss and address our concerns and arrive at the good place to which the Minister referred.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his very kind remarks and the constructive suggestions he has made. I express once again my appreciation to him for working with us as he has done and for the support he has demonstrated for these amendments. I am grateful, too, to other noble Lords who have endorsed the approach that we and the noble Lord have taken. It has been important throughout the Bill’s passage that we should listen to all Members and, where possible, seek to work with them towards an agreed position. I hope and believe it is clear that we have done exactly that. I thank other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate: my noble friends Lord Norton, Lord Cope and Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Wheeler.
My noble friend Lord Haselhurst asked two questions that go back to the issue, which I know has been considered by both Houses, of whether it would be possible to retain a foothold, so to speak, during the R&R programme in the Houses of Parliament regarding Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower. I can tell him that these matters were partly covered at earlier stages of our debates, but it was agreed by both Houses in early 2018 that the Bill should allow for a full and timely decant of the Palace without retaining a foothold. Analysis by the programme in 2017 found that continued use by Members and/or the public of Westminster Hall or the area surrounding it would be highly disruptive and costly for no additional quantifiable benefit. The costs would be connected to maintaining a secure perimeter in close proximity to construction works and the additional cost to construction from managing a complex and partially occupied site. Having said that, access to the Elizabeth Tower could be a different matter. In fact, it is a matter for the sponsor body and Parliament to decide in due course. Members of the other place and noble Lords will be free to offer their view to the sponsor body on this issue as part of its consultation strategy.
As I said, these amendments build on the current work the shadow sponsor body is undertaking in these areas, in my judgment very capably. What matters now is the future. Like all noble Lords, I look forward to seeing how the sponsor body builds on this work and fulfils the specific obligations the amendments set out.
“(3A) In performing the duties under subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Sponsor Body must make arrangements for seeking the views of— (a) people employed in or for the purposes of either House of Parliament,(b) people working for members of either House of Parliament (whether or not for payment), and(c) members of the public.”
“(ga) the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works are carried out with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process (especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes);”
Lord Blunkett
Lord Blunkett
I should apologise to the House because my lack of surefootedness, if I might put it that way, has resulted in Amendment 6 coming back to the House this afternoon. As Members will recall, we discussed it in Committee and I inadvertently did not press it to the vote, so I had better make it clear from the beginning that I am doing so this afternoon. It is a very simple amendment that fulfils undertakings given over recent weeks and months. I pay tribute to Neil Gray, the Member of Parliament who has been working on this in the House of Commons and with the shadow sponsor body, of which he is a member.
The amendment is about the opportunities to secure economic and other benefits right across the UK. Placing it in the Bill will reassure people across the UK that they will not simply be contributors as taxpayers, but will see benefits in employment, supply and the kind of facilities we want for the future. I will not speak at length because we covered this in Committee, but we have seen it with the Elizabeth Tower. We know from other major infrastructure projects, at least one of which I support, that this can not only yield benefits but get people’s commitment and, if I might use the term, understanding of what is taking place at the same time. I hope this will be a consensual amendment and that we can agree it.
I make one final point. I hope that when the sponsor body comes forward with the options in relation to the extent of investment, it takes an ambitious view, and is up front about what we are going to expend in cash. I hope that we will not get into a position such as we did with HS2 or, for that matter, the Scottish Parliament. It is important to get this right from the beginning. The original estimates, which I will not even mention, were so wide of the mark that it is important that we put them to one side and are clear with the public over a very long period. I noticed that the announcements on education spending made over the weekend were rolled up over the years to double the actual amount that will be spent in the final year of that spending commitment, if it comes to fruition. My good friend Gordon Brown used the same trick when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it does not help, because the public eventually catch up with you.
My little plea to the shadow sponsor body is to be brave, come out with the real figures, make sure that people know that they are over the next two decades and not next week, and then let us go forward together on making this project work. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome Amendment 6 from my noble friend Lord Blunkett, and strongly support his aim to specify in the Bill that the economic and other benefits of the parliamentary building works are supported across the whole of the UK.
Businesses across the UK must benefit from the economic opportunities that large-scale, government-funded projects such as this bring. This must remain at the forefront of the sponsor body’s mind throughout the works. Contracts must be awarded to businesses across the UK, to foster and build greater connectivity between all corners of the country and the Palace of Westminster.
Despite being in London, this building represents and connects with every region, and we know that the key challenge with this project is to make all nations and regions of the UK feel engaged with it, so we support Amendment 6.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for retabling this amendment and reassure him that we continue to support it. As he said, we spoke to it in Committee, and I emphasised the Government’s support. It was very kind of him to take the blame on his shoulders, but it is only fair to say that we were all at fault for this failing to be approved in Committee.
As noble Lords are aware, the amendment places in the Bill a requirement on the sponsor body, in exercising its functions, to ensure that opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom. The Government have always sought to encourage the shadow sponsor body to give thought to how the delivery authority will engage with SMEs and businesses across the UK in their work to restore the Palace of Westminster. The noble Lord alluded to this already happening on other projects being carried out on the Parliamentary Estate, such as work on the restoration of the Elizabeth Tower.
In the Commons, an amendment to spread the economic benefits across the UK gained the support of the House. However, we had some concerns with its drafting regarding procurement law, which I set out in Committee. The Government therefore committed to support the drafting and tabling of this alternative amendment, which addresses those concerns. We consider that this amendment retains the spirit of that passed in the other place, while also adhering to public procurement law, so we are delighted to support it.
Baroness Wheeler
“( ) recommendations from the Sponsor Body for the future maintenance of the Palace of Westminster over the longer term after completion of the works;”
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, this is an important amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. It aims for us to learn the lessons of the past and ensure that we have the necessary long-term plans and steps in place after the new building has been completed and handed back to Parliament to facilitate its ongoing and future maintenance and improvement.
Amendment 7 takes the Minister at his word in Committee, when this issue was raised by us and a number of noble Lords. Our original proposal was to incorporate future-proofing recommendations under the sponsor body’s reporting requirements in Schedule 1, but this amendment follows the Minister’s suggestion that it could better placed in Clause 6 as part of the parliamentary relationship agreement and that recommendations on the future maintenance of the Palace over the longer term be part of the hand-back arrangements.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their helpful discussions and reassurances since Committee, particularly in relation to the sponsor body’s reporting processes and business case development. Obviously, we recognise that the sponsor body will be abolished following the completion of the parliamentary works, so it is important that we have clarity now on exactly how future maintenance of and improvements to the Palace will be facilitated and taken forward. I understand that the latest view from the Government is that it should be included in the sponsor board business case summary and not that of the PRA. I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation of this. I would also be grateful if he would facilitate a meeting on this issue between the sponsor board and my noble friends so that we can be assured that effective future-proofing measures are a key part of the R&R programme.
Throughout this process, we have stressed that we must ensure that the estate does not fall into its current level of disrepair. We had 40 fires between 2008 and 2012; 4,000 windows need to be repaired or replaced; 40% of pipes, ducts and cables will be at critical or high risk of failure by next year; most building services will be at a high risk of failure by 2025; we rely on a sewage ejector system that is more than 130 years old; and asbestos can be found everywhere.
As we said in Committee, the can has been kicked down the road for far too long. While parliamentarians have not wanted to be seen spending money on themselves, inaction has come at a heavy price. We are now spending huge amounts of money on everyday maintenance and repair, and it has been estimated that every year of delay increases the cost of the works by £100 million. We must not get to a point again where the Palace is at risk of a catastrophic failure and the building can be described as no longer fit for purpose. Using the expertise gathered by the sponsor body, it would be of great benefit for the sponsor body to produce recommendations on long-term maintenance—ideally on five-year, 10-year and 20-year plans which can be reviewed. Making specific safeguards now will save us money, save this building and save future parliamentarians from facing a similarly dire situation in a few decades’ time. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I am sure that the sponsor body would be happy to meet the noble Baroness and her colleagues—indeed, any noble Lord on any matter relating to this programme. I may regret saying that, but it is important that the shadow sponsor body and the sponsor body are as open and receptive to Members as it is possible to be. I also give the assurance that future-proofing the work is very much part of the design brief that the shadow sponsor body will be working towards. Anyone who has ever spoken to any of the contractors trying to do the work in this place will know that one of their biggest problems is simply getting access to things—they have all been buried and hidden underneath more modern work. Given this opportunity to take it all out and start again, we would certainly expect one of the outcomes to be the facilitation of future work, be it ongoing maintenance or larger jobs that may need doing in 50 or 60 years.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for speaking to this amendment, which, as she made clear, provides that the parliamentary relationship agreement may include provision about recommendations from the sponsor body for the future maintenance of the Palace of Westminster over the longer term after completion of the works.
Let me say straightaway that I agree it is important that, after completion of the parliamentary building works, the Palace of Westminster is maintained for the future and does not fall back into its current state of disrepair. Having said that, I think that there are other mechanisms better suited to achieving what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve than an amendment to this Bill. I would go further and say that this amendment is not at all necessary. I hope I can provide the House with sufficient reassurance on that point.
This amendment places a provision in the Bill that the parliamentary relationship agreement may require the sponsor body to provide recommendations for future maintenance of the Palace. The contents of this agreement will be for the sponsor body and corporate officers of both Houses to determine. The overarching reassurance I can give about the future maintenance of the Palace over the long term is that this is not at all an afterthought. There are already several mechanisms in place that will shape such maintenance.
First, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, it would not be the sponsor body itself which would be undertaking future maintenance of the Palace. As noble Lords will be aware, it is likely that the sponsor body will be abolished following completion of the parliamentary building works, given that the purpose of the Bill and the bodies it establishes is simply to complete the parliamentary building works—that is, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
That said, the Bill enables the sponsor body to work with the parliamentary authorities to put forward recommendations and practices to ensure that a robust maintenance plan is established for the future. Here I direct noble Lords’ attention to Clause 2(2)(h) of the Bill, which places a duty on the sponsor body,
“to deal with matters relating to completion of the Parliamentary building works, including the making of arrangements for the handing over of the buildings to which those works relate”.
It is common practice with major construction works where long-term maintenance is envisaged for maintenance teams to work alongside the construction engineers in the final stages of the project when major infrastructure is being commissioned. This ensures that a thorough understanding of operating and maintaining the installed systems is provided for. Incidentally, I understand that this kind of training and familiarisation could well extend over the final year of the project.
Therefore, before the sponsor body is abolished and as part of the duty set out in Clause 2(2)(h), the sponsor body may wish to consider training House maintenance staff to ensure they are fully briefed on the new equipment and assist in developing appropriate plans to ensure that, as much as possible, the Palace is appropriately maintained in the future. As it is envisaged that the sponsor body would not be responsible for future systems, it is likely that it would work closely with the House administrations as part of the training on new systems and formulating future plans.
In terms of monitoring the future maintenance of the Palace after it has been handed back to Parliament, House authorities could provide updates on ongoing maintenance of the Palace through the appropriate domestic committees. In addition to Clause 2(2)(h), the parliamentary relationship agreement—the PRA—could also further outline what is expected in terms of future training. The PRA is expected to include an agreement between the sponsor body and Parliament about the process for handing the completed works back at the end of the programme, before the sponsor body is abolished. This would likely include further details regarding the training on the matters I outlined a second ago. However, as I said, Clause 2(2)(h) is crucial in dealing with this matter, given that the sponsor body is likely to be abolished following completion of the works, thus limiting the means to enforce any of the obligations in the PRA.
I said that future maintenance is not at all an afterthought. The shadow sponsor body has already demonstrated that it is thinking about the future maintenance of the Palace. Through the publication of the vision and strategic themes document, the shadow sponsor body has already committed to taking account of the need to deliver an outcome which provides an effective future maintenance solution for the Palace. This document has already been approved by both House commissions and published on the restoration and renewal website. Among other points, the document states that the sponsor body must:
“Deliver a refurbishment programme that minimises but also facilitates future maintenance and improvement”,
by delivering “operational efficiency and longevity”. Secondly, it states that there must be a focus to:
“Optimise operating and capital costs through a focus on whole-life costing; and achieve operating cost targets”.
Whole-life costing means that decisions must be taken based not solely on capital costs but on the sum of those, plus the costs of operation and maintenance over the whole of the operational life. In essence, this means minimising the sum of capital and operating costs averaged over the lifetime of the installation.
I mentioned mechanisms plural. The second point for noble Lords to bear in mind is that the future maintenance of the Palace will also form part of the outline business case brought before Parliament for approval. Importantly, the outline business case will be developed in line with the principles of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book, which require that the costing is done on a whole-life basis. This includes maintenance over any future timeframes as appropriate, which may of course differ between different aspects.
It might be helpful if I explain that, in following the HMT Green Book principles, the business case will adopt a five-case methodology to provide decision-makers with a framework for structured thinking. The cases are as follows: strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management. The consideration of whole-life costs is a fundamental focus of the financial case and is a critical input for the economic appraisal in the economic case. As I have mentioned in previous debates on the Bill, the shadow sponsor body has already given the assurance that the outline business case it prepares will follow the Green Book principles, thus taking this matter into account. Therefore, the requirement and cost of future maintenance will be a consideration during the design stage of the programme, which will require approval from noble Lords.
Thirdly, the Bill already permits the sponsor body to make recommendations for the future maintenance of the Palace. It could do so as part of the reports that it produces, relating to the progress and completion of the parliamentary building works under paragraph 27 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which must be laid before Parliament and published. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the combination of the mechanisms that are already in place to address the future maintenance of the Palace makes her amendment unnecessary. I am sure that, if she wants to discuss this matter further—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, helpfully indicated this—members of the shadow sponsor body would be more than willing to engage with her.
In both Houses, we have outlined throughout the course of the Bill that, at its core, its key aim is to secure the Palace of Westminster for future generations. The process of restoration and renewal offers a great number of opportunities in which we as Members will be able to influence and prioritise what we want the outcomes to be. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the noble Earl for his reassurances on the importance of this matter and for his thorough and helpful explanation of both the reporting and future monitoring delivery arrangements. I feel very reassured. Obviously, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in particular for her willingness to meet with me and my colleagues to discuss this further. I certainly welcome the reassurance, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) A report under this paragraph must include the Sponsor Body’s best estimate of the timeline for the Palace restoration works, including likely dates for the decant of each House and the estimated date of completion.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, when I moved an amendment in Committee seeking a timeline to be outlined by the sponsor body, it was not my original intention to move an amendment on Report. However, having listened to the debate and the comments made, I said at the end of the debate that there was at least merit in considering whether to come back to the issue. I have done that, albeit, crucially, in a different way—that is, with a similar amendment but with a crucial difference.
As was said on a number of occasions when this was debated in Committee, large infrastructure projects have a reputation for going over time and sometimes over budget. Having had the experience of being one of the original Members of the Scottish Parliament, I am certainly well aware of that and of the publish backlash it can sometimes cause. That is why it is important to try to find a way to ensure there is transparency, information and explanation. It is intended not to initiate a blame game but to find a way in which, by sharing information, any possible blame can be mitigated through proper explanation.
Nor is it intended to be a requirement that everything is pinned down to the last day. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said in Committee when she supported my amendment:
“We do not need to say, ‘This will happen on 3 January 2022’, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House”.—[Official Report, 22/7/19; col. 641.]
That is the spirit in which I move this amendment—not that one wishes to be precise to the very day, but rather that there can be an indication as to when some things are likely to happen. That is particularly the case with regard to the decant. As I indicated in Committee, and as was indicated in the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, issues that could lead to delays have arisen in relation to Richmond House. As we progress, it would be useful to know just how that is progressing and, if there are particular problems, that these can be identified sooner rather than later.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, we welcome and fully support the principle behind Amendment 8, which underlines that the work should be carried out without delays and must be cost effective. The sponsor body has said it expects the current timeline for the project to be around 10 years, from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s. Of course, there remains some vagueness around this length of time, and we hope the sponsor body is able to provide a more detailed timeline as soon as possible, with some clarity on milestones and gateways for both the decant and the completion of the full works. Obviously, this will most likely come after the business case has been presented and discussed by Parliament. Nevertheless, providing clear information on timelines and milestones will most certainly be important for public engagement and the engagement of staff and Members. We very much support this amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his amendment, which would require the sponsor body’s reports on the progress made on the parliamentary building works to incorporate a timeline for the works that would include likely dates for decant and completion. As the noble and learned Lord said, he tabled a similar amendment in Committee, to the effect that as part of its consultation strategy the sponsor body must publish a timeline for completion of the Palace restoration works, including details on the dates of decant and return to the Palace.
In my response in Committee, I agreed that all noble Lords would—quite obviously—wish to seek further clarity on dates around decant, and I am in absolute agreement with the noble and learned Lord’s point that the sponsor body should publish details regarding decant and completion of the works not just once but throughout the course of the project. Here it is important to convey that the shadow sponsor body has always explicitly recognised that, as part of the sponsor body’s reports as set out in paragraph 27 of Schedule 1, it would rightly be required to include timescales on decant and the progress of the works. I can confirm that the shadow sponsor body is in agreement with this approach and therefore the expectation is that the reports produced by the sponsor body will include information on the timetable for the works, including details on timings for decant and return to the Palace.
I spoke at some length in Committee on various points addressing the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, I thought it important to clarify what the Bill requires the sponsor body to do as regards reporting. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the parliamentary building works, including the timing of those works. These proposals are provided for in Clause 2(2)(e). Parliament will need to approve the proposals before any substantive works commence. If for any reason those timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. The parliamentary approval of these proposals, as well as the shadow sponsor body outlining its agreement that the sponsor body should include information relating to the timeline for the works in reports it produces, will, I hope, provide noble Lords with the reassurance that this information will be forthcoming.
This is a matter that will surely interest all noble Lords throughout the currency of the works, whether that is before commencement, during or near their completion, so let me again thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I hope that I have provided him with significant reassurance on this important matter.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their comments on this amendment, and in particular for the noble Earl’s reassuring words and the wider clarification of the roles of the sponsor body and the delivery authority in these matters. As he rightly said, the timeline for progress, decant and the likely completion is of interest not just to Members but to the wider public. What he has put on the record today is very satisfactory indeed and we look forward with interest to watching progress. With these words, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Banking: Standards and Reform
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implementation of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the opportunities for further banking reform.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his new role and I look forward to working with him.
I begin by acknowledging that the banks have an important role in our society today. They do many good things—they employ more than 1 million people and pay more than £60 billion in tax annually—but, despite the many good things they do, we are also aware of the history of recent years. We are now 11 years on from the financial crash and six years on from the publication of the report by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and it is almost three years to the day since I last secured a debate on this topic.
As I did then, I approach this subject with a certain reticence. I do not approach it as a banker and I do not pretend to understand all the technical issues; I am going to leave those to others speaking in this debate who have far more knowledge, insight and experience than I do. I sought this debate because I have witnessed first-hand some of the long-term costs of the banking crisis in communities across Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire which lie within my diocese. I have heard more than one banker say, “We’ve moved on from the crisis. We’re in a new era”. Some bankers may think that we have moved on—indeed, they may have moved on—but the effects are still being felt in many of our poorer communities, especially in the north of England and some parts of Scotland and Wales. We owe it to those who are still feeling the effects of the crisis to remember the damning indictment of the banking crisis in Changing Banking for Good:
“Banks in the UK have failed in many respects. They have failed taxpayers, who had to bail out a number of banks including some major institutions, with a cash outlay peaking at £133 billion, equivalent to more than £2,000 for every person in the UK. They have failed many retail customers, with widespread product mis-selling. They have failed their own shareholders, by delivering poor long-term returns and destroying shareholder value. They have failed in their basic function to finance economic growth, with businesses unable to obtain the loans that they need at an acceptable price”.
This was a classic case of an industry which presumed it had the right to privatise profits and nationalise losses. Since the report was published six years ago many of its recommendations have been implemented, but others have been dropped or watered down.
As we stand on the brink of Brexit, I know there are many people who will see it as an opportunity further to weaken regulation of the banking industry. I therefore believe there is an even greater need for us to explore what progress has really been made and, in particular, how we can know whether the necessary changes in culture have really been embedded across the industry. Culture is the last aspect of any organisation to change, and that is particularly true when it comes to the culture around the three most powerful of human motivations, usually summarised as money, sex and power.
With regard to money, the Christian scriptures are quite clear: the love of money is the root of all evil. In other words, money itself is neutral, but when money becomes the focus of our lives and our aspirations, we are entering dangerous territory. It is not just scripture which testifies to this. The seminal book by Professor Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, should be required reading for all who work in finance. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, financial services are called that for a reason: they are here to serve. They are here to enable individuals, communities and nations to flourish and thrive, but they are not an end in themselves. This resonates with the social teaching encyclicals from the Roman Catholic Church, which argue that the maximisation of shareholder value should never be the only aim of any company.
It is because money should be a servant not a master that the Church of England has been actively involved in setting up credit unions. One in my city of St Albans visits schools regularly to encourage financial literacy from the very earliest stages. As a church, we run debt advice centres all around the country. At a national and international level, the Church of England’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group has helped the Church Commissioners, the Church of England Pensions Board and the CBF Church of England Funds to engage with large companies on levels of remuneration. Nevertheless, we cannot leave it to all sorts of people and charities to deal with this alone: there is still a vital role for government to play if we are to ensure that we do not have another financial crisis. We need to ensure that we have the right laws and regulations in place to protect the most vulnerable and we should not be complacent. As recently as last January, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, warned about the high levels of leveraged loans, suggesting that they are at the same level as in 2008.
I want to ask the Minister four questions—I have given him warning of these. First, what evidence do Her Majesty’s Government have to show that the industry has indeed changed and is now regulating itself effectively? Secondly, are the rules around whistleblowing working? Will he give us the number of cases over each of the past five years? Thirdly, how can we be assured that there has, in fact, been a change in the culture of banks? How do we get hold of that most difficult and nebulous of topics? Fourthly and finally, what is the evidence that banking executives and managers are actually being held to account for their decisions? I am aware that a number of noble Lords have huge experience in this area, and I thank them for agreeing to speak in this short debate.
I look forward, as I did three years ago, to learning a great deal. I hope that this debate might be a modest contribution as we think about this vital area for our nation and our economy and look to the future during these turbulent times.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate and I welcome the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to his new post. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Improving behaviour and culture in banks is a work in progress, not a work completed. Following the FCA report into GRG, which we debated shortly before the recess, we are left with doubt about whether the tools are available to catch bad behaviour. Notably, that report says:
“We cannot say whether we would have been able to bring successful cases against RBS senior management had the SM&CR been in force”.
Andrew Bailey has said since that he believes the behaviour would be covered by the senior managers regime, but in any event, it would have to fall within the perimeter of what was defined as being under the senior managers’ control. The FCA report emphasised that many more things are going on in financial services than are regulated, and this unregulated activity, which includes corporate lending, is beyond the reach of regulatory discipline unless it strays into other matters or offences, such as fraud.
Some things are deliberately left outside regulation. The argument, which is the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said when he wrote to me after the GRG debate, is that regulation might reduce availability of the relevant service, such as lending to SMEs. I think it is time, though, to have a longer and better look at that general supposition, in particular with regard to the treatment of SMEs by banks. Right now, we are left with the situation that heavily regulated entities—the banks—carry out unregulated activity but nevertheless benefit from some sense of trust derived from being a regulated entity. After all, one expects a bank to behave better than a loan shark. I went to see the FCA during the recess and Andrew Bailey took pains to state again that because not everything done by banks and financial services firms was within the regulatory perimeter, they had little power. He went further, suggesting that Parliament had not had a debate looking at the regulatory perimeter.
I challenge that to some extent, in that there have been many debates such as this one in your Lordships’ Chamber and others in the Commons. There have also been proposals backed by APPGs, such as that on fair business banking, making specific recommendations and decrying the powerlessness that our regulators have or seem to have.
However, the point I make now is that we need effective generic offences not bound up in specific regulation and flexible enough to catch twists and turns. We previously thought that that was the fit-and-proper regime, but that has failed on GRG, which falls under it, because the relevant event took place before the senior management regime came into force. Now we think that it may be the senior managers regime, but there is doubt. The object of that regime—I quote from the 14 November 2014 statement by some of the parliamentary commissioners—was to,
“make clear where senior individual responsibility lay for each aspect of a firm”.
“Each aspect” should include unregulated activity, but it is extremely likely that the context has been narrowed through rules and definitions.
I understand completely why industry seeks to limit risk, but the more detail that there is in rules, the less a measure is fit to catch new and unknown developments. Risk is the other side of the coin to using conscience, and conscience and judgment are what we need from senior executives—in fact, I think that is what they are really paid for.
I would like to see a legal analysis of how wide the senior managers regime really is, looking at true life examples, including all the rules and assessment of the managers’ responsibilities. Have the Government done anything like that as part of the monitoring of the implementation of banking reforms?
In the previous GRG debate, I referenced the Australian offence of unconscionable conduct in commerce—a useful generic offence, which I still recommend. I also discussed it with the FCA. It told me that in the context of GRG and corporate lending in general, contract law prevailed and, one-sided though contracts admittedly were, our courts would uphold them, so it was not unconscionable conduct to enforce them. With such an approach to contracts, it is hard to see that the senior managers regime would make any difference without specific guidance—I think some might be under way—but, even then, I wonder how much clout it would have.
This leads me to the conclusion that while we allow or, worse, expect commercial contracts to be unfairly one-sided between powerful and supplicant parties, events that look like oppression to the reasonable-minded person will continue. I see no hope in creating the kind of conscience culture that we seek in business and banking until we address the issue of contracts. If heavily one-sided contracts between large and small entities are the business norm “just because they can”, it has already set the tone and lowered the bar for decent behaviour.
I know that English law is considered an asset, including for the predictability of interpreting contracts, but that does not mean that nothing can be done. Why should “fair and reasonable” be only for consumers? We know what happens. Contracts to SMEs are “take it or leave it”, frequently leaving SMEs in the position of accepting terms that leave them vulnerable—for example, it being simply impossible to organise alternative refinancing on the notice timetables included in the contract. In my own business I often chose the “leave it” option but not everybody has the resources to do that.
Some time ago—I think it was in 2002—in Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 166, which is also Scottish Law Commission Discussion Paper No. 119, there were recommended changes to unfair terms in contracts, which I believe have still not been taken up. They included more protections in business-to-business contracts. The paper said that,
“it is our provisional conclusion that even though the changes we suggest would not be major, they would deal with types of unfair term that have caused very real problems to a number of businesses”.
It is time to dust off those proposals and look at them again alongside the other suggestions that have come forward from various think tanks and others in the light of recent banking scandals. English law does not need to guard the bully and the powerful to maintain its success.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and congratulate him on securing this debate. I declare my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust—the charity that runs National Debtline and Business Debtline, which between them help hundreds of thousands of people a year to tackle their debt problems.
We last debated this subject three years ago—almost to the day, I think—and it is right that we return periodically to the parliamentary commission’s work and measure the progress that has been made against its recommendations. Most of these recommendations focused on issues of governance, professional standards, structure and regulation. Nevertheless, now, as then, I believe that it is also important to make the point that no debate on banking standards can be complete without reference to the individual consumer and the need to protect the consumer interest. There are two broad aspects to that: first, ensuring that consumers are able to access financial services and, secondly, ensuring that they are treated fairly when they do, no matter what their personal circumstances are. I should like to say a few words on each of those two aspects.
The first is access to services and, more broadly, improving financial inclusion. The parliamentary commission focused its recommendations in this area on the issue of basic bank accounts and was influential in their introduction in 2016, since when they have certainly made a difference. However, challenges remain in ensuring that they fulfil their full potential as a tool to address financial exclusion. For example, it is widely acknowledged that awareness of basic bank accounts among the people whom they are intended to benefit is not high enough. I believe that the banking industry could and should do more to promote basic bank accounts to financially excluded groups. The new Money and Pensions Service should surely have an important role to play here too, and I wonder whether the Minister, whom I welcome to his new role, will comment on that when he replies.
Another challenge concerns the identification requirements for opening a basic bank account. These of course are understandable, given the need to protect against fraud, but they have the unintended consequence of presenting a barrier for people who do not have certain means of identification, such as a passport or driving licence. Alternatives can be used, such as letters from government departments, but the option to use these is not well understood and is another area that should be addressed.
Nevertheless, fortunately, the broader financial inclusion agenda has risen in prominence significantly since our last debate three years ago, thanks in very large part to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and her colleagues on the House of Lords Financial Exclusion Committee. Their report was influential in the establishment of the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum, which brings together different government departments to examine these issues and now also includes some key external members—among them, I am pleased to say, Joanna Elson, the chief executive of the Money Advice Trust. But we remain some way off the tangible, comprehensive and joined-up approach to financial inclusion across government that is required. Does the Minister agree with that and if so, what plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to improve the situation?
My second main point is on the need to ensure that customers are treated fairly when they access banking services, no matter what their personal circumstances. This is essential if we are to rebuild trust in the banking industry. In our debate three years ago, I noted the significant progress that had by then been made in improving the treatment of people in vulnerable circumstances; I am pleased to say that this has continued in the period since.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s proposed new vulnerability guidance, which is currently out for consultation, is a welcome sign that the regulator is continuing to apply pressure on banks and other financial services firms to improve. There are signs that this continued pressure is delivering results across the industry. The Money Advice Trust has now worked with more than 220 firms and trained more than 19,000 frontline staff to help them identify and support vulnerable customers. The trust has also recently partnered with UK Finance to run a vulnerability academy for senior policymakers in banks and other financial services firms. These are sure signs of the industry’s progress. Discussions within the industry are focused increasingly on product design; that is, making sure that banking products and services are being designed in the first place with the needs and circumstances of vulnerable customers in mind. This is a welcome and critically important development, which needs to be pursued vigorously.
In conclusion, while the work of the parliamentary commission largely focused on the macro level—that is, structural problems it observed in the sector—we must never lose sight of the consumer in our debates on how this industry’s essential services are provided.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I am grateful to my right reverend friend for leading this debate and I welcome the Minister to his new role. I want to focus on the recommendations in the original report—the references in paragraph 138 of the summary, volume 1—which looked at culture change. The response of the banking industry to that challenge came through a report produced by Sir Richard Lambert, which said that if the banks didn’t face up to this, there will be further intervention, regulation and direction. As a result, the UK Banking Standards Board was set up in 2015. I declare my interests in that I am a founder member of that board and also part of the ad hoc Financial Exclusion Committee which has been referred to already.
The aims of the Banking Standards Board are, first, to provide tools and voluntary interventions which are available to members of the board—there are over 31—for assessing different sizes of banks, building societies and other financial institutions, so that they can understand how culture change is going, if it is going at all. Secondly, there are the important elements of supporting regulation responses and how to perform in relation to the regulations. Thirdly, the aim of the board is to strengthen and encourage trustworthiness—a word that has already been referred to—in an industry that sorely lacks it.
My remarks are about soft power rather than the hard power architecture required for the banking industry, which must go alongside the business, legal and ethical demands that frame any healthy operation or organisation. What about the annual assessment? It sounds like box ticking, but that has not been our experience. The nine areas of assessment are very obvious. How would noble Lords feel, in their organisations—just as I would in mine—about being assessed annually, on competence, reliability, responsiveness, personal organisation and resilience, accountability, openness, respect, honesty and shared purpose? In a sophisticated analysis that is kept privately to each bank but then anonymised across the industry, leaders of banks and their staff can see how they are doing in particular areas of the industry that matter in terms of their internal and external organisational culture. It is, if you like, a mirror of honesty put up in front of the organisation.
Then of course there is the need for regulation support. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about the senior management certification regime. The Banking Standards Board has today published its fourth good practice guidance on regulatory references, based on the principles of proportionality, fairness and consistency, in order to try to make real some of the theory and some of the things that we know are needed in an industry that has struggled in these areas. This is to try to help a profession to renew not only its confidence in itself and public confidence in it but also its sense of pride—the sense that it is possible to do well in an industry whose reputation has been ruined by the last few years, particularly 10 years ago.
The third issue, which has already been mentioned, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is trustworthiness. This is something that is not legislated for or bought—it is given to an organisation. As was illustrated by my right reverend friend, there is still a long way to go to restore confidence in what is called the banking industry’s social licence to operate; it is still under suspicion. We have moved from a close study of markets that need to work efficiently and effectively for the good of the consumer as well as for business, and we have looked at transparency and ethics, but now there is the heavy work of trustworthiness in relationships, from the biggest picture—we have talked about macroeconomics and the social good of banks—right the way down to the detail of a functioning, profitable and, perhaps we might say today, unsubsidised business.
The values that underpin a healthy society and healthy banks are easily ignored and eroded. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said very succinctly:
“The capture of culture by the market was made possible by the disappearance of ways of life and habits of thought which had sustained traditional culture. Culture became a market brand dreamt up by entrepreneurs, advertisers and satirists”.
Noble Lords will get the point that the erosion of our ordinary ways of doing things became extreme in the industry, and in some respects it still is.
We have just been discussing the renewal of this building. I am worried that in the refurbishment we might erode our own labels in the Sovereign’s Robing Room that read “Courtesy”, “Religion”, “Generosity”, “Hospitality” and ”Mercy”. How often are we able to trip those off our tongue? They were put up there in a vision of a culture that worked for the betterment of others and for the development of an economy that actually worked.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will Her Majesty’s Government affirm and encourage the soft-power work of the Banking Standards Board alongside the important work of regulations and law? Will they also see that this is not only a matter for one industry singled out but for all of us in terms of how we see ourselves, how we operate and how we understand our wider responsibilities beyond the project or responsibility that we actually have?
I would like to ask another question, especially at this time of introspective and very tense political life. When we have calmed down a bit in the weeks ahead, will Her Majesty’s Government support and encourage a wider debate in which we can think of the wider financial context in which the banking industry sits and the wider needs of society, to rebuild trustworthiness in not just the City but our political and social institutions? As we have already heard, this is about joining up bits of our society that are profoundly fragmented. We do this when we take time, like this, to think more widely and see how we personally are responsible for the things that happen. It gives us the potential to join up law, consumers, exclusion and trustworthiness.
Will that also be part of a courageous intervention into how the objectives of businesses and banks are set? Will responsible investment touch the way that banks operate? Can we see a time when, as society is already telling us, it is not just the bottom line that matters, but how the industry, through its investments, affects climate change, or takes responsibility for artificial intelligence? These big areas are difficult to legislate but are fundamental to what people in our society care about. Banks have enormous power and influence in those areas.
I will finish with the words of someone who has already been quoted, the current Governor of the Bank of England. He said that banks must recognise that:
“Only exemplary behaviour can confer … social licence”,
to global financial capitalism. He also stated, more fundamentally:
“Integrity cannot be legislated, and it certainly cannot be bought”.
Only a perspective which takes into account the wider implications of actions can guide proper behaviour.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the right reverend Prelate to take stock of progress since the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards first reported over six years ago. I also join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the Government Front Bench, and I look forward to his debut at the Dispatch Box.
Since the PCBS made its recommendations, progress is perceived to have been slow, as the Banking Standards Board itself has noted. There also remain gaps in holding banks to account, especially in the redress process for SME customers. However, it would be wrong to conclude that significant change is not under way. The Financial Stability Board has commended the UK for its successful transition to a new regulatory regime, and the IMF has welcomed the UK’s more resilient system. However, it is fair to say that individual banks, and the financial system as a whole, have thus far benefited more from structural safeguards, such as strengthened capital ratios and better resolution processes, than from behavioural change. Those involved in major organisational transformation will appreciate the huge forces of inertia that need to be overcome.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the process of internalising externally imposed regulation is proving slow. This also serves to highlight that, in addressing “too big to fail”, we are uncovering the associated challenges of “too big to manage” and “too big to regulate”. The real litmus tests of the reforms undertaken since the global financial crisis are whether our financial system is genuinely safer from contagion, whether our regulators are fit for purpose and, ultimately, whether consumers are better off. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, provided a powerful reminder of the key consumer issues.
As well as testing the outcomes, we need to monitor the implementation of the new rules and regulations—for example, the number of senior managers being held to account under the new certification regime, the number of staff disciplined for breach of conduct rules, or the number of cases where banks exercise their right to claw back remuneration. It would also be helpful to demonstrate, in a transparent fashion, how banks and regulators are using their new powers. So far, the most visible aspect of regulatory enforcement has come in the form of fines. While these are necessary we must guard against the unintended consequences of creating a culture that accepts such penalties as a cost of doing business, so it is encouraging that shareholders of financial institutions—especially those that take a longer-term investment perspective—have come to appreciate the impact of culture and the financial, reputational and existential risks of poor conduct on the value of their holdings.
In addition, there is a case for reviewing how the various strands of reform and the setting of standards interact with each other and whether they should be streamlined. For example, we have a voluntary Lending Standards Board for consumer and commercial banking and, more recently, a Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities Markets Standards Board for wholesale banking. While both have different functions from the Banking Standards Board, which focuses on behaviour and competence, it is ultimately difficult to separate the how from the what. Moreover, none of these bodies has any statutory force or enforcement teeth—something which members of the Treasury Select Committee have rightly highlighted and its new chair may wish to examine. We should also not lose sight of the quest for better regulation that is proportionate and effective, rather than simply more regulation through increasingly proscriptive rules. I would much rather we have fewer rules rigorously enforced than the current situation, where many firms believe they are swimming in overlapping regulations but few are perceived to be held properly to account.
We also need to be conscious of trying to solve the last crisis but failing to spot the next one. The Financial Policy Committee now exists to help manage macroprudential risks, but we must also consider the changing shape of finance. I commend the recent report Future of Finance, commissioned by Mark Carney and authored by Huw van Steenis. It highlights the rapid shift towards digitally enabled services and firms. This innovation will bring new risks, as well as new sources of competition. Indeed, the PCBS recognised the vital role of more competitive and better-functioning markets as part of its core recommendations.
This leads to my final point: some advice for our new Chancellor. Once tomorrow’s spending review is out of the way, the other big decision occupying his in-tray is the choice of Bank of England Governor and renewal of the annual remit letters. I urge him to use the opportunity of a new incumbent in Threadneedle Street with a fresh start to set a triple mandate: price stability remaining as the primary objective, but with secondary objectives of economic growth and competitiveness of the financial sector. I use this latter phrase deliberately, as distinct from competition, to reinforce the need for choice and innovation in meeting the needs of customers. With such an explicit mandate, the new governor would be well placed to complete the unfinished business of the 2013 parliamentary commission and address the challenges of the future, as well as the past.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will speak next because there is an error on the Order Paper; the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will speak after me. I do not want to confuse anybody. Let me use this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I hope he will not mind me saying how much I will miss the noble Lord, Lord Young. He is one of the only people I know who could make a finance debate hilariously funny, as well as making very incisive comments and speeches. The new Minister has quite a challenge to fill those shoes—but I am sure he will, very ably.
I was privileged to be a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which was chaired by Andrew Tyrie—now the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. For two years it was an extraordinary experience to walk into evidence sessions where, at the table, a master of the universe would explain quite clearly why they had absolutely no knowledge of the failures in their own institutions, which were clearly far too big and too complex to manage. We all came to the conclusion that they had been advised to plead incompetence as the alternative to pleading guilty. I find it quite extraordinary that most of those we listened to have gone on to further success in their careers. As far as I can see, this is not an industry that has set real demands for competence on its senior management.
The title of the report by the PCBS was Changing Banking for Good. That is incredibly tough to do, but it reflects the critical importance of the dramatic change that we need to achieve, the weaknesses in both the standards and culture that underpinned the crash in 2008, and many of the other abuses within the financial services industry. I think the follow-on from the PCBS report—I have picked this up from many who have spoken today—is rather a curate’s egg; it has been good in places.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that one of the areas it has handled best has been vulnerable people. We now have caps and other constraints on high-cost credit, a breathing space in debt management and severe restrictions on cold calling. However, I agree with her that the core issue of financial inclusion is no better today than when the report was made. It is frustrating that the banks are required to provide basic accounts but do so with great reluctance and therefore, in effect, quite badly. We had the opportunity to make it a condition of the banking licence that major banks should either provide proper services to the financially excluded or support an institution that could do that—which could target those individuals. That has been neglected and it has to be followed up.
That is a real failure. The regulator says, “We know there is a huge gap and that no one is providing services to much of this community, but it is not our job to fill it”. Well, somebody needs to take responsibility for that. I do not think that the Treasury is very well placed to focus on it. The role should be handed to the regulator, because banks fear the regulator, as do other institutions that can follow. We have seen the rise of challenger banks, peer to peer lenders and open banking, which is all entirely positive, and a few of those are starting to reach meaningful size—but, again, they are not tackling that challenging area.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, that financial stability is an area where we have seen some significant change, thanks to a tough PRA backed by the Bank of England. The ring-fencing of high street banking from investment banking is still a work in progress, but it is happening to stop the contagion of speculation. Capital requirements are much tougher, and there are bail-in bonds and central counterparties to provide clarity within the field of derivatives—although that has risks in and of itself. There will be a test, because at some point we will run into a recession and that will have financial consequences. So we had better get this right. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, I think that these structural areas have probably been the greatest success.
Frankly, what worries me most is the underlying problem of culture: the tone from the top, from the senior managers and regulators. This is where we have seen the least change. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will not be offended when I say that while the “softly, softly” approach of the Banking Standards Board is built into its DNA, in this industry it is not an adequate response. This industry must be taken by the scruff of the neck; that is the only language it really understands. I was disappointed when the Banking Standards Board decided that it would not publish the annual assessments of banks’ performances. Initially, that was going to go into the public arena; it is now collated and anonymised. It means that civil society can no longer pinpoint on a bank and say, “Actually, that’s not right”, or, “You said you’d do this. Why aren’t you doing it within our community?” It is crucial that the information goes into the public arena. I would also like to see that board have genuine teeth.
I also want to see a regulator with some real teeth. No one went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis. There has been no enforcement action against any individual in a big bank for PPI. A few people went to prison for that, but they were members of very small institutions—I think one was the director of the House of Leather—and no individual has paid a significant price. For the failure of HBOS, only the corporate head, Peter Cummings, was fined and banned. He surely was not solely responsible for an outrageous and deliberate mismanagement of a major banking institution.
For the abuse of LIBOR reporting, which corrupted the whole finance industry, four City traders have gone to prison. The senior managers who both knew about it and benefited from it have never had to answer. My noble friend Lady Bowles talked clearly about RBS’s abuse of small businesses by seizing their assets and treating them as a mechanism for creating income for the bank rather than managing them in the responsible way that they should have within a banking relationship.
One of the saddest aspects of this whole process is the way in which the regulator has tackled senior management. The senior managers regime sounds strong and positive. It has been in place for three years, but it has not been used. That is a real failure. We have had the case of Jes Staley, the head of Barclays, who abused the whistleblowing process within the bank, even hiring private investigators to try to find the identity of a whistleblower. He basically got a small fine from the FCA, when most people, including the rest of the industry, thought that he would not only lose his job but be told that he could no longer function within the industry. The senior management regime is a long way from proving itself and now has a reputation for being tick-box. I talk to senior bankers who were very afraid when the regime was first brought in and who now feel very relieved that it will not check the way in which they do business.
The PCBS had a recommendation enacted in law that, when a bank fails, the presumption of guilt is reversed on a civil basis to assume that its senior management knew what was going wrong within the organisation unless they can demonstrate that they did not. It came about because, when regulators go in to try to enforce against these banks, they find that no paper or email trail ever leads to senior management; they have basically been protected. That measure has since been reversed and it has taken away the strongest weapon that regulators had.
I join others in saying that we need to look again at whether the regulators are fit for purpose or should be given greater powers. I agree completely with my colleague that the regulatory perimeter is nonsense. We either regulate an institution or we do not; we cannot just say that we regulate bits of an institution and ignore the rest. No other country does it; we are unique in having this regulatory perimeter that means that organisations are a mix of regulated and unregulated activity, and frankly I do not think that it has served any of us well.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing this issue once again to our attention. I hope that he will continue to do it, because it will be an ongoing debate.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on introducing this debate, which he did by emphasising the most challenging aspect of the world of finance that the nation has to face; that is, a culture that the past decade has revealed to be most difficult to defend. I refer not just to the extraordinary issues surrounding the financial crash in 2007-08 but, subsequent to that, a number of instances where banking behaviour has been far from publicly acceptable.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to this debate and look forward to his contribution. The number of Ministers that I have had as opposing forces on the Front Bench is almost into double figures. Each one has made a significant contribution, but, like other Members today, I want particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his all-too-brief period as Treasury spokesman. He identified the issues well, defended the Government’s position—often defending the indefensible—and performed with such wit and insight that we all appreciated his contributions.
This is a challenging debate about a very difficult area. The Government have to face up to the failures in the financial system and in the City. That was clearly identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who went into considerable detail on just what needs to be corrected. The City of course will be expected by the governing party to provide a fair degree of financial support for the Conservative Party in the general election whenever that occurs, so we have to assume that nothing is imminent as far as a response to the banking problems is concerned; nor is that possible in the long run without a definitive change in government attitude, which has not been apparent during the past decade. We have all seen those instances where banks have been guilty of conduct which is quite indefensible.
After the great crash and the staggeringly expensive bailout by taxpayers of several of our leading banks, the public clearly expected change in both action and —as both right reverend Prelates drew to our attention—culture in the financial system, but they have lost trust not only in the capacity for effective action in many aspects of the financial system but in its morality, wondering whether it is not devoid of morality altogether, other than that of increasing profits for the few.
There has been only disappointment in the decade during which the Conservatives and, before that, the coalition have been in power. The banking commission, which reported in 2013, identified some clear priorities for reform. One substantial demand was for the establishment of a public inquiry, about which we have heard precious little since. The Government have effectively ignored that demand and made only limited responses to the scandal of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which did such damage to small and medium-sized enterprises. Nor was prompt and effective action taken during the HBOS Reading scandal.
Toxic culture is the background to these kinds of activities by major banks. It has persisted and allowed systemic failure to occur. Even Conservative voices in the House of Commons have expressed the view that the City seems to be devoid in many quarters of honour and decency. There is enough evidence for us all to be worried about that. It is of course the backdrop to the shameful episode in British banking which we have seen over the last decade and a half and which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham described so accurately in his opening speech.
It seems that in the past decade, the banking sector has learned little from the 2007-08 financial crash. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, identified what it could learn, but there has not been much apparent action on its part. I agree with her that we need to educate our public to improve their defences against action by financial elements which may be seeking on occasion to take advantage of them, but that is quite a long-term problem.
The public have also been shocked by the banks’ reduction of significant services, closing branches and ATMs so that many people in rural areas are many miles from their nearest branch and cannot take advantage of the services which ought to be available to them. On the issue of banking failures, the remedy, as demonstrated by the difficulties of small businesses, is to go to court, but the resources available to the mighty banks seem to triumph over that which a small enterprise can command. There is palpably a need for greater balance in this area.
Today’s debate focuses not only on bank failures but on the wider financial system. One extraordinary thing in recent years has been that the four big accounting firms, which take such a high percentage of the business in finance, are often criticised for failure. It is extraordinary that Deloitte, for instance, having been criticised for its part in inadequate accountancy in crucial areas, is handing out million-pound bonuses to its partners this year—colossal rewards in circumstances where Deloitte has in fact been failing.
One significant proposal of the commission was to set up a public inquiry. My party is fully committed to this proposal and believes the public demand that corruption and immoral practices in the industry should be fully exposed. We have to change the culture which underpins action in the City. This will help to improve not just culture but governance, and will perhaps bring some morality to the levels of remuneration in the industry. We have called on the Government to act and have pledged to do so when we form the next Government, whenever that might be.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I join all those who have paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Young, into whose massive shoes I will attempt to step. I cannot promise to be as witty, charming and demure as he is, but I hope I can show some of his stamina on what is promising to be a long day. I also express great thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing this important debate to the House today. He is doing us all a great service by bringing back and reminding us about the recommendations of this important parliamentary commission. He is also doing us a service by reminding us of the spiritual dimension of this debate. We thank him for both of those.
As we all know, the financial crisis was a serious blow to the UK economy and jobs in Britain, and we are living with the consequences. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the right reverend Prelate have spoken movingly on that. It is quite right that the Government took steps to respond to the problems that caused that crisis and to protect a world-beating industry that contributes a lot to the UK economy, to the Exchequer and to growth. We should not forget that positive contribution.
Some of the most important steps were structural reforms to the regulatory architecture, such as replacing the Financial Services Authority with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, but it was rightly recognised that it was important to restore public trust in the sector. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the right reverend Prelate, have spoken very movingly about that. That is why the Government appointed the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and it was right that the commission focused on professional standards and the culture of the UK banking sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reminded us that the charge was Changing Banking for Good, which even now sounds like a very good mission.
I thank the members of the PCBS, some of whom have spoken today, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for producing an exceptional report which clearly remains one of the best of its kind. It is clear from this important debate that its detailed and challenging work acted as a catalyst for a significant change in culture since 2013. I will talk a little about that.
The report encouraged both the Government and the industry to make the sector stronger and more resilient. Today I want to convince noble Lords that real progress is still being made, and I will outline some of the biggest steps of many taken to implement the recommendations made by the commission and provide evidence, as asked, about how we are working with the financial regulators, the consumer bodies and the industry to ensure that we have the safest and most prudent industry possible.
I will start with one of the key recommendations made by the PCBS: the need for more senior individual accountability in the sector. A critical measure was, as has been remarked, the new senior managers and certification regime, which was introduced in 2016. The SMCR ensures that individuals at all levels can be held to appropriate standards of conduct. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in particular that it is changing culture and conduct in the financial services industry, with great impact. I will give three concrete examples, which I hope will not worry my noble friend Lord Gadhia too much as being simply scary. They will also in part satisfy the cry of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for justice and harsh remedies.
Under the SMCR, the FCA and the PRA can levy fines on senior individuals. In 2018, four fines were imposed, totalling £785,000. Reckless misconduct by individuals is now a criminal offence, holding a maximum prison sentence of seven years—a daunting prospect. Thirdly, new whistleblowing rules have led to the FCA preventing wrongdoing in 290 cases in 2018-19. The SMCR is still at an early stage of implementation. Culture takes time to change, but I do not recognise the suggestion that it is in any way failing to make an impact. Instead, we in government are greatly encouraged by the changes we have seen so far. Evidence suggests that firms believe the regime has created a culture of challenge and provided a safe environment for staff to speak up in.
I pay tribute to the work of the Banking Standards Board as part of this programme. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham put it very well: the board has already made a huge difference. It is part of a regime that is recognised internationally as a leading model for culture and conduct reform. I am proud to say that it is being replicated in countries such as Australia and Singapore.
Secondly, following the PCBS’s recommendations, the Government have listened to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of the UK economy and were hit hard in the crisis. Let me share some impressive examples with noble Lords. We supported the FCA in extending the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service to ensure that more than 99% of SMEs could better access protection. Not only will this mean that SMEs will find it easier to obtain redress if they need to; on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, it will also give the FCA far greater visibility into any potential bad behaviour that may arise in future.
With voluntary commitments, such as the standards of lending practice, the Government believe that the industry has changed significantly since the challenges of the financial crisis. We have also worked with regulators in industry to make it easier for firms to access the finance that they need, such as the commercial credit data sharing system, and, in 2016, we launched the bank referral scheme, which has helped 1,700 firms that had been rejected for finance by their main bank. I believe that these measures are clear evidence that SMEs remain at the heart of the Government’s economic plans; we will ensure that they have access to the finance and protections that they need.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about RBS’s GRG and the question of the FCA’s tools relating to unregulated activities, particularly SME lending, that is why the Government were supportive of the recent expansion of eligibility for the Financial Ombudsman Service and the banking industry’s commitment to establishing a voluntary dispute resolution service.
Thirdly, the PCBS highlighted that the banking sector was dominated for many years by a small number of very large firms and that there was, therefore, a competition problem. The Government responded to this through the introduction of the current account switch service in 2013; we have made it much easier for consumers to switch banks when they see a better deal. As of January this year, over 5.3 million customers have switched. This fresh competition has helped to contribute to the growth of a new breed of challenger bank, such as Monzo and Starling, which is changing the way that consumers access banking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked what we are doing to promote financial inclusion. The Government believe that financial inclusion is vital and have taken action on this, for example by establishing the Fair4All Finance scheme to deliver £55 million from dormant assets to financial inclusion initiatives. I assure noble Lords that competition and fairness are both firmly at the heart of the regulatory system, with the PRA and the FCA charged with ensuring effective competition in the interests of consumers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, also raised the issue of basic bank accounts. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reminded us that the nine largest personal bank account providers in the UK are legally required to offer basic bank accounts for those who do not have an account or are not eligible for one, but I am not sure whether it is within the scope of a financial regulator to deliver everything that is necessary in this area. I wonder whether that should be an alternative area of policy for discussion.
Fourthly, we have worked hard to protect the core functions of retail banking that are vital to the ordinary lives of British citizens. The Independent Commission on Banking’s important recommendations in 2011 included the suggestion of ring-fencing. In 2013, the PCBS wanted us to go further to ensure that the ring-fence stands the test of time. That is why we granted the PRA powers to restructure banking groups that do not comply with the essential elements of ring-fencing, known as the electrification powers. This tough regime protects customers and the day-to-day banking services that they rely on from unrelated risks elsewhere. The regime took effect on 1 January 2019 and has, I believe, strengthened the resilience of UK banks significantly.
It is right and proper that Parliament continues to hold the Government to account over the functioning of the financial services sector. Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to the House. I look forward to discussing the matter with him again in three years’ time. In the meantime, the Government are keeping a vigilant eye on the regulatory framework for financial services. Improvements could be made. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned HBOS, RBS and Deloitte—I could mention the London Capital & Finance incident—but I do not recognise the world that he describes. Instead, today’s debate has made it clear that major steps have been taken since the crisis to implement the PCBS’s recommendations, demonstrating its determination to ensure that the sector is better regulated and better serves the needs of consumers.
G7
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering that it is 80 years ago today that this country entered the Second World War. Although it is of course true that the horror of that conflict surpasses all modern controversies, it is also true that this country still stands, as it did then, for democracy, the rule of law, and the fight against racial and religious hatred. I know that this House is united in defending those values here and around the world.
With permission, I will make a statement about the G7 summit in Biarritz. As I speak, vast tracts of the Amazon rainforest are on fire, free trade is in retreat, 130 million girls worldwide are not in education and our oceans are being foully polluted, so it has never been more important for a global Britain to use our voice as an agent of change and progress. It is only by exerting our influence at a global level, only by sticking up for our values and beliefs, that we can create the international context for Britain to prosper and to ensure that this is the greatest place on earth to live, work, start a family, open a business, trade and invest. So, at the G7, I made the case for free trade as an engine of prosperity and progress that has lifted billions out of poverty. Yet the reality is that trade as a share of the world economy has been stagnant for the last decade.
In the leaders’ declaration, the G7 unanimously endorsed ‘open and fair world trade’; we are determined to reform the World Trade Organization and to ‘simplify regulatory barriers’. Britain is on the verge of taking back control of our trade policy and restoring our independent seat in the WTO for the first time in 46 years. We could achieve even more in our trade with the United States by using the powers that we will regain to do a comprehensive free trade deal—a deal in which President Trump and I have agreed that the NHS will not be on the table. Unlike some in this House, I consider the United States a natural ally and a force for good in the world, and I recoil from the visceral, juvenile anti-Americanism that would do such profound damage to this country’s interests.
I know that the House will share my concern about the gravity of the situation in Hong Kong. As a nation with a deep belief in freedom of expression and assembly, we stand firm in upholding Hong Kong’s way of life, guaranteed by ‘one country, two systems’. I welcome the unwavering support of my G7 counterparts on this vital matter.
The UK is at the forefront of a new campaign to end the tragic loss of species around the world. We cannot bequeath a planet where the Sumatran tiger, the African elephant and entire ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef, live in the shadow of destruction. So, I am delighted that the G7 accepted UK proposals for more ambitious targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. Britain is responsible for 2.6 million square miles of ocean—the fifth-largest maritime estate in the world. Our Blue Belt programme will ensure that marine protected areas encompass 1.5 million square miles and, at the G7, I announced a further £7 million for this vital effort. I also announced another £10 million to protect the rainforest in Brazil, where 41,000 fires have raged so far this year—more than twice as many as in the same period in 2018. Britain is bidding to host the UN’s 26th Climate Change Conference next year. If we succeed, we shall focus on solutions that harness the power of nature, including reforestation.
There is one measure that would address all those issues—and if it thinks it is a waste of money, that tells you all you need to know about the modern Labour Party. That is ensuring that every girl in the world receives the education that is her right. That would not only curb infant mortality, eradicate illiteracy and reduce population pressures; it would strike a blow for morality and justice. In Biarritz the G7 therefore endorsed the UK’s campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world. I announced £90 million of new funding so that 600,000 children in countries torn by conflict, where girls are twice as likely as boys to be out of the classroom, get the chance to go to school.
As well as my G7 colleagues, I was delighted to meet other leaders, including President Ramaphosa of South Africa, Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Morrison of Australia, who heroically masked his emotions in the face of the historic innings of Ben Stokes. In every conversation I was struck by the enthusiasm of my colleagues to strengthen their relations with this country, whether on trade, security and defence or science and technology.
I was also able to use the G7 to follow up my conversations in Berlin and Paris with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron on Brexit, as well with Prime Minister Conte, Prime Minister Sánchez and President Tusk. I have since spoken to Commission President Juncker and many other leaders. I was able to make clear to them all that everyone in this Government wants a deal—we do—but it is a reality that the House of Commons rejected the current withdrawal agreement three times. That is why I wrote to President Tusk on 19 August to set out our arguments why any future agreement must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop—which is, by the way, opposed on all sides.
We have been clear that we will need changes to the political declaration to clarify that our future relationship with the EU will be based on a free trade agreement and giving us full control over our regulations, our trade and our foreign and defence policy. This clarity has brought benefits. Far from jeopardising negotiations, it is making them more straightforward. I believe that in the last few weeks, the chances of a deal have risen. This week we are intensifying the pace of meetings in Brussels. Our European friends can see that we want an agreement, and they are beginning to reflect that reality in their response.
President Macron said—Mr Speaker, they do not want to hear the words of our counterparts across the channel; they do not want to hear about any progress we might be making; I think they are wilfully closing their ears to the reality that our friends and partners are increasingly seeing the possibilities of a deal. President Macron of France said that if there are things which, as part of what was negotiated by Michel Barnier, can be adapted and are in keeping with the two objectives I have just mentioned—stability in Ireland, which we all support, and the integrity of the single market—we should identify them in the coming months. Is that the negative spirit of the Opposition Benches? No, it is not.
Speaking in Berlin of possible alternatives to the backstop, Chancellor Merkel of Germany said: ‘Once we see and say this could be a possible outcome—this could be a possible arrangement—this backstop is a sort of placeholder which is no longer necessary’. No longer necessary—that is a positive spirit we are not, I am afraid, hearing echoed on the other side of the House today.
I believe there are indeed solutions. There are practical arrangements that we can find which avoid anyone putting infrastructure on the Irish border. These have been well worked out and involve measures such as trusted trader schemes, transit provisions, frontier zones, reduced bureaucracy for small and local traders, and many others. In particular we recognise that, for reasons of geography and economics, agri-food is increasingly managed on a common basis across the island of Ireland. We are ready to find ways forward that recognise this reality, provided they clearly enjoy the consent of all parties and institutions with an interest. We will be discussing all this with the EU shortly, and I will be discussing it with the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, when I see him in Dublin on Monday.
It is simply wrong to say we are not making progress. There is a lot to do in the coming days, but things are moving. A major reason for that is that everyone can see this Government are utterly determined to leave the EU on 31 October come what may, without a deal if necessary. That is why over the summer my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been leading the Government’s efforts, seven days a week, to accelerate our national preparations for this possibility. He will be making a Statement on that shortly.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made all necessary funds available. We have already reached agreements with our partners to roll over deals worth around £89 billion of exports and imports. We have secured air services agreements around the world. We have increased the capacity of the Border Force, strengthened the resilience of our ports and our freight capacity and worked with meticulous detail to ensure the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, including medicines. We will be ready.
I returned from the G7 with real momentum in the Brexit discussions. I want to return from next month’s European Council in a similar way, with a deal that this House can debate, scrutinise and endorse in time for our departure on 31 October, but there is one step that would jeopardise all the progress that we have made at the G7 and around the capitals of Europe. That is if this House were to decide it was simply impossible for us to leave without a deal and to make that step illegal. That is what they want: to force us to beg for yet another pointless delay. If that happens, all the progress that we have been making will have been for nothing.
Yesterday a Bill was published that the leader of the Opposition has spent all summer working on. This is not a Bill in any normal sense of the word. It is without precedent in our history. It is a Bill that, if passed, would force me to go to Brussels and beg for an extension. It would force me to accept the terms offered. It would destroy any chance of negotiations for a new deal. Indeed, it would enable our friends in Brussels to dictate the terms of the negotiation. That is what it does. There is only one way to describe this Bill: it is the Jeremy Corbyn surrender Bill. It means running up the white flag. I want to make it clear to everybody in this House: there are no circumstances in which I will ever accept anything like it. I will never surrender the control of our negotiations in the way the leader of the Opposition is demanding.
We promised the people we would get Brexit done. We promised to respect the result of the referendum and we must do so now. Enough is enough. The country wants this done and the referendum respected. We are negotiating a deal and, although I am confident of getting a deal, we will leave on 31 October in all circumstances. There will be no further pointless delay.
This House has never before voted to force the Prime Minister to surrender such a crucial decision to the discretion of our friends and neighbours overseas. This Bill would mean that, unless we agree to the terms of our friends and partners, they would be able to keep us in the EU for as long as they want and on their terms. I therefore urge this House to reject this Bill tonight so that we can get the right deal, deliver Brexit and take the country forward. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am a bit puzzled, because I thought this was a Statement about the G7. If anything underlines the change of tone in government, it is the Statement we have just heard. As we go on, the noble Baroness may find some difficulty in having to repeat such Statements if the Prime Minister plays that way much longer. That sounded to me very much like a pitch to continue the bullying of MPs considering voting against him this evening. It sounded like a Prime Minister in election mode for an election he says he does not want. It was hardly statesmanlike; it was not prime ministerial. We wanted to hear about the G7 and got a rant from Boris Johnson about what he thinks about legislation before the House of Commons. It is inappropriate for this House.
The noble Baroness talks about the Bill being about Jeremy Corbyn, but the Bill she has referred to in repeating the Statement today actually has the signatures of two recent Conservative Cabinet Ministers on it. I wonder if we ought to consider whether these Statements should be repeated in the way they are.
I concur with the noble Baroness on one point, when she reflects that it is 80 years since we entered into the Second World War. It is worth reflecting on the sacrifices made by those engaged at home and in action abroad. It was the horror of that war that brought European countries together to engage and work. That was about not just trade but peace, values and co-operation. Today, those issues are more important than ever. I am sorry that was not reflected in anything we heard from the Dispatch Box today.
Shortly before the Prime Minister began his first performance—I think that is the right word for it—for world leaders at the G7 summit, he made a speech insisting that, on his watch, the UK would no longer retreat from the international stage. It begs the question: how have we found ourselves in such a tragic state, in which all this Prime Minister can hope for is to maintain the diminished role on the world stage that nine years of Conservative Governments have left us with? During the weekend in Biarritz—probably not the normal kind of weekend that the Prime Minister spends in Biarritz—he displayed zero ambition to improve the UK’s standing in the world and completely failed to set out a vision of how we can use our influence and experience to promote peace and prosperity. While he may have set the bar spectacularly low, aiming only not to retreat further from the global stage, judging from his act at the G7 summit, it sounds like he will fail even in that lowly aim.
I turn first to the climate emergency and, as the noble Baroness referred to, the heartbreaking situation in the Amazon. We have all seen the shocking images of flames engulfing what President Macron referred to as the “world’s lungs”. The announcement of extra funding to tackle the climate emergency will always be welcome; we will never criticise additional funds to tackle this issue. But the Prime Minister’s £10 million is a paltry sum. I do not understand the Government’s pointed refusal to work with UK companies to ensure that they are not aiding and abetting the destruction of the Amazon. I hope the noble Baroness can give us an explanation. There is also no excuse for the Prime Minister’s reluctance to fully engage the UN Security Council and the international financial institutions to promote policies to tackle the wider emergency.
It is not just about money. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is here, who has regularly spoken in your Lordships’ House about soft power. If utilised correctly by the Prime Minister, the UK’s influence can be worth far more to the global campaign than £10 million. If we understand the importance of implementing our ideals and ethics in our trade policy, we can do far more than play our part in tackling the climate emergency. I hope to hear something from the noble Baroness to explain the Prime Minister’s reluctance.
On trade, I hope that the role of the UK’s arms trade in fuelling the Yemeni conflict was not the reason the war did not feature heavily in the summit. The Red Cross informs us that hundreds have died during air strikes in recent days, and while the UK continues to supply arms to be used in the conflict, we can only assume that this dreadful bloodshed will continue. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether any world leaders made representations to the Prime Minister with regard to the UK’s role in this conflict?
On diplomacy and conflict prevention, as well as minimising any contribution that we have to international conflict, we should also use our influence and experience —our soft power—to eliminate the risk of conflict elsewhere. I would like to have heard how the Prime Minister attempted to use the summit for exactly that.
If we look towards Iran, it was useful that Iran’s Foreign Minister attended discussions at the summit, but did the Prime Minister make any attempt to meet Mr Zarif bilaterally? If he did, did he take the opportunity to raise the issue of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who remains in custody in Iran? I would think that the Prime Minister would take a personal interest in that case, given the effect of his previous comments. The UK should play a role in defusing the situation in Iran and moving to get the nuclear deal back on track, but there is nothing to suggest that the Prime Minister has any interest in doing this.
While the situation in Ukraine may not have featured heavily at the G7 summit, we have learned that Chancellor Merkel and President Macron will convene a summit with Russian and Ukrainian leaders. In the past, we could assume that the UK Prime Minister would play a role in promoting peace in the region. Can the noble Baroness tell us of any interest—I am not aware of any—the Prime Minister has shown? Will he be attending the upcoming summit with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron?
I want to say something about Hong Kong. The joint statement from leaders reaffirming the existence and importance of the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 is very welcome. But given our historical connection and ties to the region, the Prime Minister should have used the summit to stand more firmly against the abuses taking place. Police brutality is unacceptable and must end. While the joint statement included a call for violence to be avoided, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister urged for any further text to be added?
I was slightly puzzled by the words on education, which were not in the circulated text, criticising the Labour Party with regard to international education for girls. That was clearly inserted either as an ad lib by the Prime Minister or after the text was circulated. To suggest in any way that the Labour Party has not consistently and for many years supported girls’ education across the world is incredible. Indeed, I had hoped that tribute would be paid to the work of Gordon and Sarah Brown who, since he was Prime Minister, have made this issue their mission; they should be congratulated on that.
Finally, as the Prime Minister talks of retreat, I ask only that the Government be more ambitious in the role we can play in the world, in particular through soft power. We have the potential for enormous influence and that can be utilised, not only to promote the interests of people and businesses in the UK but to build a fairer and better world. We may live, particularly now, in a divided country but we also live in a more divided world, threatened by conflict, extreme poverty and the climate crisis. Should the Prime Minister make it to the next G7 summit, at Camp David, I urge him to be more confident about the role that the UK can play in reshaping the world. We should not accept a diminished role but use our influence to try to create a better world.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and hope that she enjoyed her short visit to Scotland last week.
We obviously share the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in respect of World War II. However, we on this side fear that the Prime Minister has simply not learned the lessons. The Statement is very keen on the benefits of free trade, which we applaud, and mentions in particular the Prime Minister’s discussions with the President of the United States on this matter. He says that he agreed with the President that healthcare would not be on the table, which is welcome. Did he also agree not to include items that would water down food standards? Was chlorinated chicken discussed? Given that the Prime Minister has said that he does not think we can do a trade deal within a year, how long does he think it will take to reach such a deal? How long would it be, even in theory, before any such deal could begin to make up for the loss of trade that we expect to flow from a no-deal Brexit?
The Statement does not mention the allegedly prolonged and acrimonious session at the summit in which the Prime Minister joined forces with the EU in opposing the readmission of Russia to the G7. Can the Leader confirm that the Prime Minister opposed President Trump on this? If he did, does not that demonstrate that in this, as in so many issues, our interests are much closer to those of Europe than the US?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, not only is more than half this Statement on Brexit but more than a third of it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the G7 summit and everything to do with the desperate plight in which the Prime Minister now finds himself. With the decision today of Phillip Lee MP to join the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister has lost his majority in the Commons. It is clear from statements and interviews given by Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Justine Greening, among many others, that he is going to lose the vote later this evening. The usual fate of Prime Ministers is that the longer they stay in power, the more hubristic they become. The current Prime Minister, as with so many other things, has turned convention on its head and has behaved, against all the evidence and from day one, as though old Etonian swagger and bombast will be sufficient to carry the day. The truth, however, is that it will not.
The Prime Minister in the Statement spends a large amount of time trying to give the impression that negotiations on an alternative to the backstop and withdrawal agreement are well advanced but, as Donald Tusk put it at the summit,
“we are willing to listen to ideas that are operational, realistic and acceptable to all EU member states, including Ireland, if and when the UK Government is ready”.
The key words there are,
“when the UK Government is ready”,
for the truth is that the UK Government had not at the time of the summit put forward detailed proposals—or, indeed, any proposals—which would obviate the need for the backstop. As EU officials said, at the end of it there were,
“no new substantive elements from any side and obviously”—
obviously—
“not from the UK side”.
They said that a week ago, so perhaps substantive new proposals have been made since then. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether any detailed substantive proposals have been made over the past week which would obviate the need for the backstop? If so, when were they made, what has been the EU response, and on what day will they next be discussed by the UK and EU negotiators?
The Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been working seven days a week to accelerate preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and we believe him. He says that we will be ready for such an eventuality. We are about to have a separate Statement on that issue so I will ask only two questions of the Leader of the House. When the Prime Minister talks of ensuring the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, does he include foodstuffs in the definition of “critical”? If so, on what basis does he believe he can guarantee the uninterrupted supply of all foodstuffs when the trade bodies representing the food sector simply disagree?
I was extremely pleased that the Statement covered the issue of species extinction, which was allegedly one of the Prime Minister’s three principal priorities going into the summit. That is a worthy priority. In recent times we have seen the extinction of the pig-footed bandicoot, the toolache wallaby and the indefatigable Galapagos mouse, among many others, and the world mourns their loss. The same will not be the case with the imminent demise of the present Administration.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I can assure them both that the Prime Minister made very clear at the G7 summit that we will continue to be an energetic partner on the world stage and will stand alongside our G7 allies in addressing the most pressing international issues. He used the summit to show that Britain remains an international, outward-looking, self-confident nation, and said that we will remain at the heart of alliances that span the world. We will continue to use the breadth of our expertise in diplomacy, defence and development to uphold and safeguard the global order on which our peace and prosperity depends.
The noble Baroness mentioned the devastating fires in the Amazon. She is right. As the Statement said, we have announced £10 million of new funding, which is an extension of an existing UK project, Partnership for Forests, which goes to the longer-term efforts against deforestation. Our money is not going to the Brazilian Government but to rural communities and businesses to help them develop while protecting forests and managing land sustainably. The noble Baroness may also be pleased to know that, in addition, together with international partners we have pledged that by 2020 we will mobilise $5 billion a year to help reduce deforestation and promote sustainable land use in the world’s tropical forest basins, including the Amazon, working with local communities. We engage regularly with the Brazilian Government, businesses and communities on a range of environmental issues, including sustainable agriculture, low carbon growth and deforestation.
The noble Baroness asked about trade. We are and remain a champion of free trade and a rules-based multilateral system with the WTO at its heart. The Prime Minister underlined the need for the G7 countries to work together within the current framework to address and resolve rising tensions on trade matters. We all agreed that the WTO needs an overhaul and further work is ongoing there.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed standards of food safety and animal welfare. I can confirm that the Prime Minister made it clear that, along with the NHS, those issues were not on the table for discussions in relation to a trade deal.
The noble Baroness asked about Yemen. I am not aware of any direct representations being made to the Prime Minister but I am happy to seek confirmation of that and, if there are, I will write to her.
The noble Baroness also asked about the Iranian Foreign Minister. Only President Macron met him, but she will be aware that President Trump later indicated an openness to talks with President Rouhani under the right circumstances; we will remain supportive of any moves to achieve that. We remain concerned about the welfare of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and particularly about reports of tougher restrictions in relation to her sentence. We are in regular contact with her family, and our embassy in Tehran has consistently requested consular access.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but my point was whether the Prime Minister asked to meet the Iranian Foreign Minister.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I shall have to confirm that. As I say, I do not believe he met anyone other President Macron but, when I check on the Yemen discussions, I will also check on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the Prime Minister’s conversations about Russia. I can confirm that he made the point that Russia has not begun to meet the conditions that would be considered for its readmission to the G7. He made that point strongly both in conversations with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron and again in the full forum of the G7 summit when this issue was discussed. We are fully supporting French and German efforts to organise the Normandy format summit in the coming weeks. At this point it is not clear who the UK representative will be; discussions have not got that far yet.
On Hong Kong, the noble Baroness is right that millions of people have taken to the streets in Hong Kong to protest peacefully and express their concerns. We have consistently encouraged a peaceful resolution to the situation through meaningful dialogue. The Hong Kong Chief Executive’s office has said that it has full capability to deal with local affairs and maintain public order, and we expect the Hong Kong authorities to continue to be responsible for maintaining public order. The G7 leaders collectively expressed a deep concern about what is happening and want to support a stable and prosperous Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about ongoing discussions around the changes to the withdrawal agreement that we are attempting to agree with the EU. The Statement mentioned that the Prime Minister will be meeting the Taoiseach on Monday, so discussions will continue there. A team of our Brexit negotiators will sit down with their counterparts twice a week throughout September to discuss the issues and, as we have made clear, the main issue for discussion is the backstop and the need to change it. It is the key reason why the withdrawal agreement has not been able to get through the House of Commons. We want a deal, and that is why our focus over the coming weeks will be on discussions about that.
I am happy to pay tribute to Members across this House and more broadly for the work they have done on education. It is an area in which I am particularly interested, and I know that in order to improve our education system we all need to work together. I am happy to say that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, 3 September was the day we went to war. It was also the day of the Battle of Dunbar, which Cromwell called his crowning mercy; and it was also the day on which I joined the Army.
As my noble friend has made clear, many issues were discussed at the summit and it is a pity that it could not put together a communique showing some agreement on serious matters such as the polarisation of conflicts in Hong Kong, the Amazon burning and so on. So, we come down to the familiar issue of the unnecessary backstop. Here, I put to my noble friend a puzzle. Clearly, there has been some progress, but the puzzle is why there has not been more. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, an enormous amount of detailed work based on experience of borders all around the world has been done, is being developed and is being further pursued. Special zones work all around the world and can be used in Northern Ireland. I am familiar with that border because back in the 1970s I helped to try to police it for security reasons—with very little success, I may say, because it is totally permeable. We have the common travel area. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are both outside the Schengen area. Common provisions can be developed for livestock and all the necessary related checks. There is a huge amount of common activity already. It surprises many of us that, with all the work that has been done, progress is still very sticky and slow. Will the Leader of the House reassure her colleagues that those who have been involved with this border over the years understand that alternative arrangements are available, can be developed and can be pushed forward? If we do that, I think it would be understood by Mr Macron and other key players that—in his own words—it is unnecessary, and if it is unnecessary, why keep it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely right that a range of technical solutions are already being used. He mentioned a few. Others include trusted trader schemes, transit provisions, frontier zones and electronic pre-clearing for goods moving across the border. There is a lot of work ongoing, looking at how these solutions can come together in order to mean that we do not need the backstop.
My noble friend mentioned that there was no communique. France had said all along that it wanted to move beyond the standard format, which is why only a statement was published rather than a communique.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, may I press the Leader further on the backstop? She just read out, “any future agreement must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop—which is, by the way, opposed on all sides”. These are the words the noble Baroness used and which were presumably used by the Prime Minister earlier. Is it now the position that the Irish Government are opposing maintaining the backstop?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That was in relation to the problems that the Government are having in getting the withdrawal agreement through the House of Commons and was in that context. It has been very clear that we will not be able to get the agreement through with the backstop. That has been one of the major issues that Members across the House of Commons have raised. That is why we are focusing on that issue with the Irish and our EU partners in order to ensure that we can remove it so that we can get the deal that we want and get agreement at the October Council.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I remind my noble friend Lord Howell that 3 September was also the anniversary of the Battle of Worcester and of Cromwell’s death. It was a date that kept recurring right through his career.
I am extremely perplexed about the backstop. My noble friend, valiantly and rightly assisted by my noble friend Lord Callanan and many on these Benches, supported the deal that was agreed by Prime Minister May. Her Cabinet did so, and at the last time of asking the present Prime Minister did so. Why are we further splitting and dividing people by threatening with expulsion from our party those who steadfastly supported the previous Government and who have given collectively decades of service to our party and to our country? If we really are going to come together, as I would wish, with those who supported the last deal and support another one, which I want to be able to do, for goodness’ sake, can we not have some charity?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend is right. Many of us valiantly attempted to persuade people that we should pass the deal, but, unfortunately, the House of Commons did not. It was rejected three times, and it was quite clear that we were not going to be able to get the deal through, which is why the Prime Minister is now focusing on the particular element which seemed to be the biggest area of concern for those in the House of Commons. We need to give him the freedom to do that. We need to make sure that we do not undermine his negotiating hand. He is confident that, from the conversations he has had with EU leaders and that his negotiating team has had, we can get a deal. That is what we are focused on. I have never stood here and said that I want anything other than a deal, and I believe that the Prime Minister is committed to trying to achieve that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, growing protectionism is a great worry across the world, so it was refreshing to hear that the Prime Minister brought his energy to this area. As my noble friend the Leader said, he made the case for free trade as an engine of prosperity and progress and talked of the need to simplify regulation. Can my noble friend tell us a little more about WTO reform? I am reminded that the real progress was made in the Bali package, which was pushed through by my noble friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint when he was the Trade Minister. I very much hope those sorts of reforms can be extended. It was good to hear that the WTO might be being looked at again and pushed forward.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The G7 reiterated its commitment to open and fair trade and to an overhaul of the WTO. The priorities for that are to ensure the continued effectiveness of the dispute resolution and settlement mechanism, increase trust in the system by improving transparency and develop new rules on issues such as industrial subsidies and e-commerce. Modernising the WTO rules will also make them more relevant to current trade issues. We strongly support the informal process launched by the general council at the WTO to seek a resolution to the appellate body issues, and we have been urging all WTO members to engage constructively on these ongoing discussions.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I return to the question of girls’ education in the Statement. As it happens, last week I was visiting the tiny east African country of Burundi, and one of the most impressive pieces of work that I saw there was with adult women who had not had education when they were girls and who have now gone through literacy and financial and business training and were running small businesses in their local rural communities. I welcome the fact that more money is being put into the education of girls and of children in countries torn by conflict, because Burundi is one such. Will the Minister explain a little more about how that might be put into practice, particularly in a nation such as Burundi—and there are others—where at the moment there are restrictions on the Foreign Office giving it money because of its internal conflict, and will she promise that DfID will be able to put money into such countries through this kind of system?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope the right reverend Prelate will be pleased to know that, in addition to the £90 million for young people which was mentioned in the Statement, we also announced £30 million of support for women entrepreneurs through the African Development Bank’s programme of affirmative finance action for women in Africa. This programme will help women entrepreneurs grow their businesses and complements other UK aid programmes that support finance for women entrepreneurs, women in international trade and large corporates employing women in their supply chains. In relation to the £90 million of UK aid to help 600,000 young people caught up in crises around the world, one-third of that money will be earmarked for children living in the world’s forgotten crises, such as the current emergency in the Sahel region. Education Cannot Wait will implement this programme. It currently operates in 29 countries and provides multi-year programmes and short-term interventions, particularly when conflict and natural disasters strike.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say a little more about the UK proposals for more ambitious targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity, particularly in the oceans around the British Isles. I am interested because we have probably the largest population of North Atlantic gannets of any European country. We have enormous numbers of puffins nesting on our islands around the country and they are dependent on the quality of the seas and the fish that are in them. It is very encouraging if we are going to be investing money to improve the quality of the seas. I am interested to know whether the noble Baroness can say a bit more about what the proposals really are and whether they are designed to assist our bird-life as well as the fish in the oceans.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Britain is responsible for 2.6 million square miles of ocean: we are the fifth largest maritime estate in the world. The Prime Minister announced £7 million for the Blue Belt programme to extend our work to protect the vital marine ecosystems in conservation areas, although that was overseas rather than within the UK. As for biodiversity targets in particular, for a number of reasons the current set of global targets have not reversed the global decline in biodiversity; therefore we discussed at the G7, which accepted our proposals, that we should seek to ensure that the ambition of the new global framework matches the scale of the problem, and that targets are measurable and time-bound, with strong accountability through monitoring and review mechanisms.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I respectfully caution the Leader of the House when it comes to interpretation of the paragraph that begins:
“Speaking in Berlin of possible alternatives to the backstop, Chancellor Merkel … said: ‘Once we see and say this could be a possible outcome—this could be a possible arrangement—this backstop is a sort of placeholder which is no longer necessary’”.
The last part of that paragraph is a conclusion, not a statement of an unequivocal position, and the conclusion depends upon something that is regarded as a possible outcome or arrangement. Until the United Kingdom provides something that can be a possible outcome or arrangement, the conclusion is valueless.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, the Prime Minister has had good initial conversations with Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and others, he is seeing the Taoiseach next week, and he has been encouraged by the fact that there has been a willingness to talk about alternatives to the backstop. We are picking up the tempo of the discussions between our negotiators over the coming weeks so that we can drill down into the issue that has really prevented MPs supporting the withdrawal agreement. That is what we will be focusing on, because we are committed to trying to get a deal.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, following up the right reverend Prelate’s question about the education of girls, it is to be commended that 12 years of quality education was endorsed. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how much money has been committed by other nations and how much commitment there is to ensure that it is quality education that will actually meet the needs of these girls, including reproductive health teaching? Many of these countries have very high maternal mortality as well as child mortality rates, and they also have the problem of practices such as female genital mutilation, which has its high morbidity and mortality.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very pleased that every delegation supported our campaign to give every girl in the world 12 years of quality education. Indeed, the Prime Minister also called on G7 countries to dedicate more of their aid budget to education, which currently stands at less than 2% of global humanitarian aid. It is obvious that, with more investment and support going in, all the very important issues that the noble Baroness raised can be properly addressed. I fear I will need to get more information on the details of the programmes we support and others: I will write to her, as I will on a couple of other issues.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded us that the Prime Minister voted earlier this year for the withdrawal agreement, which included the backstop. Yet he has said subsequently, and indeed repeated in the Statement, that the backstop is anti-democratic. Are we to believe, therefore, that we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to vote for measures that he believes to be anti-democratic?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, I think this shows that the Prime Minister is committed to getting a deal. He voted for one, but the House of Commons did not. He is now trying to get one and to ensure that we can present a deal to the House of Commons that MPs can support, in order that we can leave the EU with a deal.
No-deal Update
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made today by my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is the first time that I have appeared at the Dispatch Box since I moved on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I take this opportunity to thank the superb team of civil servants at the department who do so much to improve the lives of so many citizens of this country. With your permission, I will make a statement about preparations for our departure from the European Union.
More than three years ago, in the biggest exercise in democracy in our country’s history, the British people voted to leave the European Union, but so far this Parliament has failed to honour that instruction. Now our Prime Minister has made it clear that we must leave by 31 October, and so we must. Trust in this House depends on it, and trust in our democracy depends on it. Now, of course, this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal, one that paves the way for a bright future outside the single market and the customs union. The response that the Prime Minister has received from European leaders shows that they are ready to move. They want a deal, too. They are moving because the Prime Minister has been clear that matters must be resolved by 31 October. If we drift, the incentive on them to deliver will quickly dissipate. So I hope my colleagues in the House of Commons will give the Prime Minister the time and the space he needs to pursue the opening he has secured and get a good deal that we can all support.
But, of course, we must be prepared for every eventuality. The European Union may not change its position sufficiently before 31 October, it may be that a deal is not secured, so we must be ready to leave without a deal on 31 October. Leaving without a deal does not mean that talks with our European partners end altogether. In those circumstances, after we depart without a deal in place, we will all want to discuss how we can reach new arrangements on trade and other issues. But while those conversations go on, we must ensure that we are ready for life outside the EU, as a third country trading on WTO terms.
There has been extensive speculation about what leaving without a deal might mean for businesses and individuals. Moving to a new set of customs procedures, adjusting to new border checks and dealing with new tariffs all pose significant challenges. Nobody can be blithe or blasé about the challenges that we face or the scale of work required, but, provided the right preparations are undertaken by government, businesses and individuals, risks can be mitigated, significant challenges can be met and we can be ready.
Leaving without a deal is not an event whose consequences are unalterable. It is a change for which we can all prepare, and our preparations will determine the impact of the change and will also help us to take advantage of the opportunities of life outside the EU. We have, of course, to prepare for every eventuality. That is the function of Operation Yellowhammer; it is an exercise in anticipating what a reasonable worst-case scenario might involve and how we can then mitigate any risks. Operation Yellowhammer assumptions are not a prediction of what is likely to happen, they are not a base-case scenario or a list of probable outcomes. They are projections of what may happen in a worst-case scenario and are designed to help government take the necessary steps to ensure that we can all be ready in every situation.
Since the new Government were formed at the end of July, new structures have been put in place to ensure that we can be ready in every situation and to accelerate our preparations for exit. Two new Cabinet committees have been set up, XS and XO, to discuss negotiating strategy and make operational decisions about exit respectively. XO meets every working day to expedite preparations for exit and we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and thousands of the best civil servants across the UK are working to ensure the smoothest possible exit. We have been helped by the Chancellor’s move to double Brexit funding for this year, announcing an additional £2.1 billion on top of expenditure already committed—so £6.3 billion in total has been allocated to prepare for life outside the European Union. That money is being used to provide practical help to businesses and individuals.
Guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across our border with the EU is, of course, central to our preparations. That will require action by businesses to adjust to new customs procedures and intervention by government to ensure the freest flow of traffic to our ports. That is why HMRC has announced an additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, so that trade with the EU continues as smoothly as possible. It is also why today we are announcing £20 million more to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and trucks arriving at Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU. On business, we have automatically allocated an Economic Operator Registration Indicator number, or EORI number, to 88,000 companies across the UK. Businesses can also register for transitional simplified procedures to delay the submission of customs declarations and postpone the payment of customs duties.
New transit sites have been built in Kent to smooth the flow of goods into the EU, and we are also recruiting 1,000 new staff to help maintain security and support flow at the border. The Government will do all they can to support businesses to get ready, but many of the steps required to ensure the smooth flow of trade fall to businesses. We will provide advice, finance and flexibility over how revenue payments may be settled, but it is important that businesses familiarise themselves with the new requirements that exit will involve.
That is why we have launched a public information campaign, Get Ready for Brexit, to give everyone the clear actions they need to prepare. As well as TV and radio advertising, there is now a straightforward, step-by-step checker tool available on the government website, GOV.UK/Brexit, so that all of us can identify quickly what we may need to do to get ready. The Government have also acted to provide assurances so that businesses and individuals can have the maximum level of confidence about the future.
We have signed continuity agreements with countries covering more than £90 billion in trade, and we have replacement civil nuclear trading agreements with Canada, the United States of America, Australia and the IAEA. We have secured aviation agreements with 14 countries, including the US and Canada, and we also have arrangements with the EU on aviation, roads and rail to ensure smooth travel between the UK and European nations. We also have arrangements on education exchanges, social security, fisheries, climate change and a number of other areas. It is also the case that arrangements are in place covering financial services, so that a range of transactions can continue to take place and financial and market stability can be underpinned. Of course, we have a robust legal framework in place.
Six exit-related Bills which cater for different scenarios have been passed by Parliament, the Government have laid more than 580 EU exit statutory instruments and they are of course also determined to ensure that we protect the rights of both UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. I personally want to thank the more than 3 million EU citizens living and working here for their positive contributions to our society. You are our friends, our family, our neighbours. We want you to stay and we value your presence. Under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million EU citizens have already been granted status.
Let me be clear. EU citizens and their family members will continue to be able to work, study and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis after we exit the EU. Of course, the Government will do everything in our power to make sure that UK nationals can continue to live in the EU as they do now. We will continue to offer support for UK nationals to help them secure their rights in their home member state, including those associated with residency, access to healthcare, voting, driving and the validity of their passports. Indeed, the Government are providing up to £3 million to assist UK nationals with registering and applying for residency as we leave the EU. However, the UK Government cannot protect the rights of UK nationals unilaterally. We welcome the fact that all member states have drafted or enacted legislation to protect the rights of UK nationals and fully reciprocate our commitments to EU citizens, providing UK nationals with the certainty they deserve.
Of course, there are other decisions that the EU and member states have said that they will take that will have an impact on us all if we leave without a deal. The EU’s commitment that we will be subject to their common external tariff in a no-deal scenario will impose new costs, particularly on those who export food to Europe. Indeed, the EU’s current approach to the rules of the single market will, as things stand, require the Republic of Ireland to impose new checks on goods coming from Northern Ireland. For our part, we will do everything we can to support the Belfast agreement and mitigate those impacts, including providing targeted support for our agriculture sector and for Northern Ireland’s economy.
While these are real risks that we must deal with, there are also many opportunities for life outside the EU. We can reform government procurement rules to support UK businesses and get a better deal for taxpayers. We can forge new trade relationships to help UK businesses grow. We can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences. We can develop crops that yield more food and contribute to better environmental outcomes. We can manage our seas and fisheries in a way which revives coastal communities and restores our oceans to health. We can introduce an immigration policy that is fairer, more efficient and more humane. We can improve our border security and deal better with human trafficking and organised crime. We can open new free ports across the country to boost undervalued communities and we can support businesses more flexibly.
There are undoubted risks and real challenges in leaving without a deal on 31 October, but there are also huge opportunities and new possibilities for our country outside the EU. It is my job to mitigate those risks, overcome those challenges and enable this country to exploit those opportunities and extend to every citizen those new possibilities. That is why I commend the Statement to the House and am confident that, as a nation, our best days lie ahead”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I commiserate with the Minister on having no holiday while the rest of us were away. I thank him for repeating the Statement, but it begs some serious questions. The whole Statement is predicated on the idea that we must leave by 31 October come what may, whatever the costs, whatever the damage to our security and economy and whether or not we have a deal. It seems that everyone bar the Government knows the costs of no deal, whether on UK citizens abroad, from investors already taking billions out of the UK, Toyota ceasing production on 1 November, food, medicines, arrest warrants, data flows or transport disruption, with chaos in Dover and Portsmouth. All of that is known. Alone among business, commentators and academics, only the Government downplay the risks.
Michael Gove told Andrew Marr that,
“everyone will have the food they need”,
with no shortages of fresh food, but the British Retail Consortium immediately retorted:
“It is categorically untrue that the supply of fresh food will be unaffected”.
The British Poultry Council warned that no deal would be catastrophic for consumers of poultry. Even the Government’s own Yellowhammer paper predicted that fresh food supply will decrease, with reduced availability and choice and increased prices, which will affect vulnerable groups.
What was the reason for Mr Gove’s statement to Andrew Marr? It cannot be that he was telling an untruth, because the Minister is an honourable man. It must be that he cannot understand, so let me spell it out. The fashion industry says that we would lose £900 million. The BMA predicts that leaving without a deal would dramatically worsen NHS winter pressures. The Government’s own assessment sees a possible 40% cut to medicines crossing the channel on 31 October, with significant disruption for up to 6 months, reducing our ability to prevent and control disease outbreaks.
There is more. The Yellowhammer report says that autumn and winter risks, such as flooding and flu, could be worsened by no deal. It says that on exit day, between a half and 85% of HGVs may not be ready for French customs and, with limited space in French ports, HGV flow could halve within one day, the worst disruptions lasting for up to three months. There would be queues in Kent, with HGVs possibly facing one and a half to two and a half days’ delay before being able to cross, as well as disruption to fuel distribution, and passenger delays at St Pancras, the channel tunnel and Dover. This is all from the Government: I am not inventing it.
Law enforcement data and information-sharing between us and the EU would be disrupted and, as there is no data agreement in place, the flow of personal data would be disrupted where an alternative legal basis is not in place.
In Northern Ireland, the Government’s “no new checks with limited exceptions” model from March to avoid an immediate return to a hard border is, say the Government, likely to prove unsustainable because of economic, legal and biosecurity risks, while disruption and job losses could result in protests and road blockages. As today’s Statement says, Ireland will have to impose checks on goods arriving from Northern Ireland, with enormous, irresponsible implications for the peace process.
Gibraltar will similarly see disruption to the supply of food and medicines, as well as delays of four-plus hours at the border for at least a few months for frontier workers, residents and tourists, with delays over the longer term likely to harm Gibraltar’s economy. Those are all quotes from the government paper, not from anyone else. Similarly, it says that Britons in Europe will lose their EU citizenship and can expect to lose associated rights and access to services.
The Government set out all those risks. Indeed, they had the honesty to admit that the poor,
“will be disproportionately affected by rises in the price of food and fuel”.
So why do the Government persist in pursuing a no-deal exit? Going back to Shakespeare, we know that the Ministers “are honourable men”, and “I will not do them wrong”, but they have some explaining to do. They state:
“Her Majesty’s government will act in accordance with the rule of law”,
but they fail to promise to obey the law, and with no deal they fail in the first obligation of a Government—to safeguard the security and welfare of the people.
The Statement talks about “trust in our democracy”. What trust can there be in a Government who prorogue Parliament to avoid scrutiny, who play loose and free with people’s futures and who seek to engineer an election rather than allow Parliament to pass a law? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reminded us that it is the anniversary of the death of Cromwell, who too became a politician with rather dictatorial ideas beyond his station and was, I think, the last person to get rid of a Parliament that got in his way. I hope that we do not need to be reminded of that in the future.
Therefore, I am not very happy with the Statement but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of disruption to transport at Portsmouth on the flow of medicines? Secondly, what is their assumption of the risk of public disorder on exit day? Thirdly, what is the evidence that the Government’s “Get ready for Brexit” communications strategy will actually affect business preparedness, which they admit is currently very low? Frankly, the Government will have to do much better than they are currently doing if we are to be anywhere near being prepared to Brexit in an orderly manner.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I start by noting the fact that, after the welcome move of Dr Phillip Lee MP from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats, the Government have no parliamentary majority, let alone any majority for no deal.
Historians of Brexit will examine as a major theme how a party supposedly characterised by conservatism and caution about change got hijacked by radical and revolutionary forces that would make Marx and Trotsky blush. The marketing by Brexiters has morphed from a promise of sunlit uplands to at least a “smooth, orderly exit”, to the gritted teeth of “no deal is better than a bad deal”, to the reckless and irresponsible promotion of destruction, damage and chaos as an actual goal of government. Phrases such as “Do or die” or “Come what may”, which we heard this afternoon, show the incredibly cavalier attitude of the Government and the Prime Minister, who have no mandate whatever for no deal.
The contortions of Brexiters in trying to claim that the narrow leave majority in 2016 knowingly voted for a crash-out Brexit would be laughable were they not so despicable. The real interests of the economy, businesses, workers, citizens, consumers and patients are mere grist to the mill of a dogmatic, ideological obsession. As the TUC’s general-secretary Frances O’Grady has said, a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for working families. The OBR tells us that the public finances will take a £30 billion hit, and I was interested in all the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I want to pick up one assertion in the Statement—that outside the EU,
“we can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences”.
That is the total opposite of what the pharmaceutical industry and the research sector have constantly said for the last three years.
To achieve this disaster, the Government are wasting £6.3 billion. Just think what could be done to improve the lives of British people with that money and, for instance, to help the victims of the Bahamas hurricane. After the confusion and then U-turn on the end of free movement on 31 October, can the Minister specifically tell us how the absence of any transition and of a stable legal framework will help not only to ensure the rights of EU citizens in this country, where we already know that there are difficulties with the settlement scheme, but to improve the prospects for UK citizens in the EU 27? It is difficult to see.
The dishonesty of this whole process is shown by the fact that Mr Gove has refused to publish even what the FT called a “watered-down” version of the Government’s Operation Yellowhammer no-deal contingency plans,
“after ministers decreed that the findings would … alarm the public”.
Indeed, but it is a cover-up. It is rare that I applaud the Daily Mail but it has apparently obtained, I think, the whole document—at least an annexe—showing exactly how major disruption will be caused for months. How can a Government inflict that on the country?
The right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg outrageously accused a senior doctor who helped to write the Yellowhammer plan of fearmongering—a typical disparagement of experts—but it is legitimate to ask how many extra deaths the Government expect as a result of a lack of drugs and isotopes. I speak as someone whose husband’s life depends on insulin. Can the Minister please tell us the answer?
The Statement claims that,
“this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal”.
The former Chancellor tells us that that is nonsense, and even a story in today’s Telegraph says that it is untrue. As for the assertion that the Prime Minister has received a response from European leaders that they are “ready to move”, that is completely unconfirmed by the new noises coming out of Brussels. President Juncker has told the Prime Minister that the EU will look at proposals,
“as long as they are compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement”.
He added that the EU’s support for Ireland—that is, for the backstop—“is steadfast” and that a no-deal scenario will only ever be the UK’s decision, not the EU’s. The blame game is not working.
Meanwhile—I am coming to an end—I have seen an official document from last week about the work on alternative arrangements. It says:
“DExEU has been considering whether a paper consolidating the findings from all of the advisory groups should be published in late September/early October. However, we and other departments have cautioned against this given the potential negative impacts on the renegotiation with the EU and we understand No. 10 are in agreement that we are not in a position yet to publish anything”.
It is later explained that the complexity of combining all the aspects of claimed facilitation,
“into something more systemic and as part of one package is a key missing factor at present”.
I repeat: that document was published last week.
Finally, on the day after crashing out with no transition, the UK would have to come back to the negotiating table and pick up the bits from an even worse position. How would that improve the prospects of the country in the longer term? I hope that the Government can reassure us that, if the anti-no-deal Bill passes, they will obey it and that they will pull the £100 million being spent on the propaganda—I mean “information”—exercise as it will be unnecessary.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I first thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. I see that they have both been well rested over the summer and have returned in a suitably combative mood. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, back to her place on the Front Bench where she deserves to be. She is a worthy opponent and I for one would have been sorry to see her go. I am delighted to see her back.
A number of points were raised. I will first address the comments of both noble Baronesses about Operation Yellowhammer. I said in the Statement, but will say again, that Operation Yellowhammer is a series of planning assumptions based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. It is not—I repeat, not—a prediction of what might happen. It exists to underline government planning; it is a series of assumptions put together through a lot of work by independent experts. It is constantly revised as new information comes to light and new mitigations are put in place. The Cabinet Office’s Civil Contingencies Secretariat does the same thing in a number of different areas—on flooding, for instance. As it is predicted that we will have various flooding events, worst-case scenarios are considered: what they may involve and what we can do to mitigate them. The same thing is done in a lot of other areas that I could mention.
So, that is what it is: we use Operation Yellowhammer for planning assumptions. What is more useful for people is to know how they can mitigate any possible effects of no deal themselves, what changes businesses can bring about et cetera. The noble Baroness quoted a number of pathways from that; it is appropriate to bear in mind that the figures she cited are not predictions but reasonable worst-case scenarios to help us in our preparations to mitigate them.
With regard to food, there are often interruptions to the supply chain of foodstuffs, whether by the various strike actions of ferry operators, fishermen or farmers in France, or because of inclement weather conditions. But the UK food supply logistics chain is solid and robust, and we are, of course, working with the various companies to make sure supplies continue uninterrupted. The same thing applies to medicines: the Department of Health and Social Care has been making extensive preparations. It has contacted every supplier of medicines and medical devices in this country. We have helped them to increase their stockpiles—they already hold considerable stockpiles but we have helped to increase them further against any possible disruption. We have secured additional transport capacity should that that be required, and we are working extensively with companies to ensure there is no interruption.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness as it appears that the Labour Party is now in the position of being against everything. It is against a deal, against no deal, against revocation of Article 50, and mostly against a referendum. I know that the job of the Opposition is to oppose but I would like to think that eventually, at some stage, the Labour Party will decide to be in favour of something.
I turn to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have been called many things in the course of these debates but “Marxist” and “revolutionary” are new ones, if she was indeed referring to me in those terms. It is, however, to the credit of the Liberal Democrats that at least they are honest about their intention to overturn the result of the referendum. Many of us suspect that this is also the intention of the Labour Party but that it has not yet—with one or two exceptions—got around to admitting it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also asked about free movement. Yes, as it currently stands under EU law, free movement will of course end on 31 October when we leave; the Home Secretary will say more about that shortly. With regard to negotiations, the noble Baroness has, as do I, extensive experience in dealing with various EU figures. She will know as well as I do that they have maintained religiously for months that not one dot or comma of the withdrawal agreement will be changed, yet when there is a different attitude from this Government and we make clear that we are prepared to leave anyway, suddenly President Macron and Chancellor Merkel demonstrate some movement. Private discussions and negotiations are continuing but the noble Baroness knows as well as I do that we are seeing some movement. Whether it will be enough we will have to wait and see, but we are working extensively and at pace to try to get a deal that we can put to the House of Commons so that we can leave with a deal. As I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, that is our preferred outcome, but we have to be prepared to leave without a deal if it is not possible to obtain one.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Will the Minister agree to write in answer to the three very specific questions I raised, which he has not answered?
Lord Callanan
I thought I had answered the noble Baroness’s questions; if I have not, I will be happy to write to her.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have great admiration for my noble friend the Minister; he is an extraordinarily resilient man, but I have to say that his Statement this evening has not filled me with great happiness. Is he aware that there is enormous unhappiness in Northern Ireland, where 56% of those voting voted to remain? They accept the result, as I do, but many worry that if we come out without a deal and stumble on the backstop, as it were, they will be in a very precarious position. Can he say something to calm people? Is he also aware that around 2 million EU nationals are very unhappy and worried? Can we have an absolute undertaking that legislation will be unilaterally introduced and fast-tracked if we should come out without a deal? Can he, finally, undertake—especially if Parliament is prorogued—to put all the Yellowhammer documents in the Libraries of both Houses so that they are accessible? Members will be able to come here during the prorogation period to look at them. It is a poor second best to a functioning Parliament, and I hope we will have one, but can he give that undertaking? We have the right to know—to see and read those documents.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend will understand that I view it as a considerable failure that I have not managed to reassure him and contribute to his happiness. I will do my best in the days and weeks ahead to bring that unhappy state of affairs to an end. To be serious, he makes a very valid point about Northern Ireland. We are incredibly conscious of the need to protect the peace process. For the avoidance of any doubt, I restate our total commitment to the Good Friday agreement and our commitment that there will not be a hard border in Northern Ireland; certainly, that will not be imposed by this Government. We are very happy to enter a legal commitment to that effect should it help the negotiations.
The noble Lord also makes a very good point about EU nationals. The settled status scheme that we have introduced has been incredibly successful. I said in the Statement that over a million citizens have applied under that scheme. When I checked last week, applications were running at over 15,000 per day. I do not think anybody has been refused under that scheme. The guarantees we have offered to EU nationals in this country are excellent. We guarantee all their existing rights, including access to healthcare and benefits. It would be nice if EU member states were prepared to offer to UK citizens living in their countries the same guarantees that we have offered. That would help to take the process forward.
Lastly, with regard to publication, we continue to make available a wide range of documentation. If my noble friend wants to consult GOV.UK, he will see the extensive documentation and guidance available for businesses and individuals on all manner of scenarios, with case studies. We will, of course, link this to the publicity campaign to try to make people—businesses, hauliers and others—aware of what they need to do to get ready for Brexit.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned planning a great deal. Can he confirm that planning for agriculture is not restricted to Northern Ireland—the subject of the paragraph where it was mentioned—but also applies to Wales and other hill farmers around the UK? Can he confirm that money will be available on 1 November to support those farmers who have been dependent on EU funding to maintain their ongoing viable production? Can he confirm that there is commitment to equitable food and medicine distribution across the UK, not only in England, particularly considering the logistics of the rural areas of Wales?
How much money is being allocated specifically to support the needs of Wales, where there are more SMEs per head of population than in other parts of the UK? They need money to tide them over. The first-tier producers who are trading are already seriously squeezed because they find themselves at a disadvantage in both food manufacture and component manufacture. The Welsh Government need to know that there is a firm commitment to funding.
My final question concerns whether the Cabinet will allow the Welsh Government to process the settled status to remain, a request that they put through some time ago but was previously refused. It would allow European passport holders resident in Wales to be assured of being processed rapidly.
Lord Callanan
There were a number of questions there; I think I wrote them all down but I am sure the noble Baroness will remind me if I forget any. On agriculture, I am happy to confirm that the Government have said that all existing CAP payments will be continued after we leave the EU. Indeed, it is possible that additional payments will be available to farmers if required because we recognise that one of the challenges that the farming community will face is the application of the EU’s common external tariff, which, because of the protectionist nature of the EU, is particularly high with regard to farming products. We recognise that agricultural communities face a particular problem.
Of course these guarantees apply across the entire nation. I can say with particular regard to Wales, but also with regard to Scotland, that the devolved authorities have been involved in all our planning. Indeed, Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, together with Northern Ireland civil servants, were present at our XO Cabinet committee meetings last week. Jeremy Miles from the Welsh Government was there last week.
I have to say that I did not understand the noble Baroness’s question about the settled status scheme. Obviously, EU citizens in Wales can apply to the Home Office for settled status, just as they can in every other part of the UK. I am not sure that there would be any particular benefits in having a separate process for those EU citizens living in Wales. I did not quite understand the point of that. Perhaps the noble Baroness can talk to me afterwards and we will try to resolve that issue.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister famously said earlier this summer that the chances of leaving without a deal were a million to one against. Does the Prime Minister still feel that those are the odds? If not, what is his assessment of what the odds are, faced with current circumstances? Following what has been said about Wales, is Operation Yellowhammer also looking at the regional implications within Britain of a no-deal Brexit? With regard to the point made about publication, it would be very welcome if information about this were to be published.
Lord Callanan
Probably like the noble Baroness, I am not particularly a betting fan, so I will decline the invitation to put odds on the prospect of a deal. I will just say that we are working extensively towards one. I repeat that we want a deal and we think that the EU wants one too, but I have to say that some of the movements in Parliament in another place are not making it any easier to get one.
With regard to local government, yes, we are in extensive consultation with local government across the UK. We fully realise the role that local government will have to play in the preparations. Additional funding has been made available to local resilience forums and to individual local authorities. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has regular conference calls with leaders and elected mayors. All local authorities have appointed a Brexit lead with funding that has been made available, and we are working extensively with local government in the regions and around the country. The noble Baroness’s points are well made.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister just answer a couple of questions on the Statement? First, he referred to the disadvantage that we were going to suffer through the application of the common external tariff, particularly to agriculture, which he attributed to a great deal of protectionism, which of course we ourselves have been applying for the past 45 years. Could he confirm that the application of the common external tariff to our exports is not a decision made in Brussels but one made under the rules of the World Trade Organization, from which we know nothing but good comes? It is required by WTO rules that if there is no agreement between us, the common external tariff and our external tariff have to be applied against each other.
Secondly, could the Minister explain his confidence that the internal security arrangements in the UK will not be damaged? How on earth will they not be damaged when we lose the use of the arrest warrant, the ECRIS information system, the Schengen information system and Prüm identifiers? Surely the view of the whole law enforcement community has been made quite clear that these will be serious losses.
Lastly, will he not admit that we might be in a better position than we are now if the Government had accepted the views of the House that an inquiry should have been conducted by the end of September into the costs and implications of leaving without a deal?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On his first, about the common external tariff, I did not quite understand the point he was making. The reason the EU’s common external tariff is so high is that that is what the EU has determined. It is the decision of Brussels, or rather the EU, that it should be so high. Of course, under WTO rules, once it has been determined that it is a high tariff, it needs to be applied consistently to all third countries, but I am not sure what point he was making.
On internal security arrangements, we are working extensively to try to mitigate the effects. We have had extensive discussions in the XO committee with all the security agencies. This is one of the areas where we are trying to persuade the EU to take a different approach. There are ways to mitigate the loss of some of these databases—there are alternative sources of information on passenger information records, for example—but we are one of the largest contributors to these databases as well, and not being able to exchange information with other EU member states on terrorism suspects, criminals and so on is a loss for both us and the EU. I hope the EU will be persuaded that this really is a lose/lose situation, that it will see sense and that we will be able to continue exchanging information. As I say, mitigations are in place with regard to some of the databases. We have discussed this with the law enforcement communities and they are working intensively to ensure that we can still make the appropriate interventions in terrorism and crime.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Statement suggests that six pieces of legislation have been passed, but where are the agriculture, fisheries and immigration Bills? Should they not be made Acts before we leave the EU? Given that the ONS has now requested that our international migration statistics be deemed “experimental statistics”, can EU nationals already resident in the UK really trust the Government to understand and know that they are resident on exit day? Are their rights really going to be guaranteed?
Lord Callanan
Yes, EU nationals’ rights are guaranteed. As I said, the rights that we have offered to guarantee to EU nationals are more extensive than those offered by other EU member states to British citizens. Sorry, could the noble Baroness remind me what her first question was?
Baroness Smith of Newnham
We have apparently passed six Brexit-related Acts, rather than just SIs. Should we not also have passed agriculture, fisheries and immigration before we leave the EU?
Lord Callanan
There are indeed a number of other pieces of legislation currently held at various stages in both Houses. However, as my noble friend said earlier today, we do not require any of those Bills in order to have a functioning statute book on exit.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will press the Minister further on the sheep meat sector. It is not just a question of the CAP replacement, but of who will be buying up those sheep on 1 November. Millions of farmers in Wales and other highland areas will be destitute if they do not get money. The Government have said that there will not be a slaughter scheme; is that still the position? If not, will there be an intervention purchase scheme?
Lord Callanan
We are aware of the challenges that exist for the agricultural sector. I confirmed in a response to the noble Baroness earlier that CAP payments will continue, but we are considering what other interventions need to be made to support the farming sector at what will be a difficult time.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, does the Minister recall his recent Written Answer to me saying that if we end up trading on normal WTO terms, EU exporters will pay us some £14 billion per annum in new tariffs while our exporters will pay Brussels some £6 billion in new tariffs, making us an annual profit of £8 billion? Given the mess we are in, why do the Government not offer the EU a completely new deal in the shape of a very short treaty under the WTO? It could continue our free trade together exactly as now, thus getting rid of the Irish border problem and all the paraphernalia of Operation Yellowhammer. Would that not be a generous offer that even Brussels might find hard to refuse?
Lord Callanan
I always like questions from the noble Lord; they offer a degree of simplicity which perhaps does not always exist in real life.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I want to be constructive and say that I think it is very difficult to judge what the consequences of no deal will be. One of the reasons for this is that the Commission has put actions in place that will relieve some of the consequences temporarily. Also, we do not know with what rigour our one-time partners on the other side of the Channel will implement border controls, so there are uncertainties. Does the Minister accept that there will be consequences and that we will end up having to talk to Brussels about them? As a result, does he not think it very important that, if there is no deal, we adopt the most constructive approach possible to relations with our former EU partners? Does he therefore accept that threats of withdrawing the money—our financial obligations under the withdrawal agreement—are exactly counterproductive to what the Government will need to do with our partners, should there be no deal?
Lord Callanan
I thought I would be able to agree with everything the noble Lord said, for a change. I completely agree with the first part of his question. That is why, under our arrangements, we look at reasonable worst-case scenarios, because of course we do not know what the precise attitude of partner countries on the other side of the Channel will be. My colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster visited Calais last week and had extremely positive discussions with the French local and regional authorities. It is certainly not their desire to cause unnecessary disruption. However, the noble Lord is also completely correct that we will need to have discussions and make agreements with our European partners either before or after our exit. We have said this. We have a constructive relationship. We hope that the Commission might want to talk about some of these issues before we leave, but if it will not, there is nothing much we can do about it.
On the financial settlement, the financial offer in the withdrawal agreement is effectively a political agreement. We accept that there are some legal obligations; we are a law-abiding nation and we will meet these. However, if the withdrawal agreement is not passed and agreed, then the obligation to pay £39 billion will fall away—some of it has already been paid, of course, because of our extension. We will need to have discussions about precisely what our legal obligations are.
Education Funding
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission Mr Speaker, I am delighted to make a Statement today confirming the Prime Minister’s weekend announcement. This Government have committed an extra £14 billion to our schools across England over the next three years, ensuring that funding for all schools can rise at least in line with inflation next year. I also take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, the right honourable Member for East Hampshire, for all the groundwork he did ahead of the settlement.
The funding announcement includes a cash increase compared to 2019-20 of £2.6 billion to core schools funding next year, with increases of £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23. This is in addition to the £1.5 billion per year that we will continue to provide to fund additional pension costs for teachers over the next three years. This additional investment delivers on the Prime Minister’s pledge to ensure that every secondary school will be allocated at least £5,000 per pupil next year, and every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750, putting primary schools on the path to receiving at least £4,000 per pupil in the following year.
We are allocating funding so that every school’s per pupil funding can rise at least in line with inflation, and to accelerate gains for areas of the country which have been historically underfunded, with most areas seeing significant gains above inflation. We will ensure that all schools are allocated their gains under the formula in full next year, by removing the cap on gains that underfunded schools have seen over the past two years. This underpins our historic reforms to the overall schools funding system, so that a child with the same needs benefits from the same funding, wherever they live in the country.
I can confirm our intention to move to a hard national funding formula, where schools’ budgets are set on the basis of a single, national formula, as soon as possible. We recognise that this will represent a significant change and we will work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make this transition as smooth as possible.
We are determined that no pupil will be held back from reaching their potential, and this additional investment includes over £700 million to support children with special educational needs and disabilities so that they can access the education that is right for them and the education that they need. This is an increase of 11% on the funding available this year.
Since 2010, education standards in this country have been transformed, but we are determined to go further still. On top of this funding investment, we have announced a package of measures that will intensify our efforts to support all schools in delivering consistently high standards for every single pupil in this country.
We will begin a consultation to lift the inspection exemption for outstanding schools, so that parents have up-to-date information and reassurance about the education in their child’s school. We will also provide additional funding to allow strong academy trusts to expand, building on the success of the academy programme as a powerful vehicle to deliver excellence and school improvement in every school in this country.
We will increase the level of support available to some of the most challenging schools that have required improvement—those that have not been judged good by Ofsted in over a decade—giving them more support from experienced school leaders so they can deliver for the children who turn to them and expect the very best in their education. To ensure the extra funding for schools delivers better outcomes and efficiency, we will continue to expand the school resource management programme, supporting schools to make every pound count. We will also work closely with Ofsted and others to make sure parents have the information they need on how schools utilise their funding.
There are no great schools without great teachers and this settlement underlines our determination to recognise teaching as the high-value, prestigious profession it is. The £14 billion investment announced last week will ensure that pay can be increased for all teachers. Subject to the School Teachers’ Review Body process, the investment will make it possible to increase teachers starting salaries by up to £6,000, with the aim of reaching a £30,000 starting salary by 2022-23. This would make starting salaries for teachers among the most competitive in the graduate labour market. This sits alongside reforms to ensure our teachers have the highest-quality training, supporting those already in the profession but also attracting even more brilliant graduates to the classroom to make a difference to children’s lives. And we will make sure teaching continues to be attractive throughout a teacher’s career, launching a group of ambassador schools to champion flexible working and share good practice.
A key element in supporting our teachers and leaders is ensuring that they have the tools and support to create safe and disciplined school environments. That is why we have made £10 million available to establish national behaviour hubs. The hubs programme will be led by Tom Bennett and will enable schools that have already achieved an excellent behaviour culture to work with other schools that have struggled in the past to drive improvement. In addition to this investment, we will consult on revised behaviour and exclusions guidance to provide clarity and consistency to head teachers on the action they can take when pupils do not follow the rules. It is vitally important that we ensure that every child succeeds in their school environment and make sure schools are a safe place for pupils to study.
We will also be investing an extra £400 million in 16 to 19 education. This total includes £190 million to raise the base rate of funding from £4,000 at present to £4,188 next year. The additional investment is a 7% increase in overall 16 to 19 funding. The total also includes £120 million for colleges and school sixth forms so that they can deliver crucial subjects such as engineering, which are so vital to our future economy.
Colleges and further education providers will receive an extra £25 million to deliver T-levels and an extra £10 million through the advanced maths premium. A new £20 million investment will also help the sector to continue to recruit and retain brilliant teachers and leaders, and provide more support to ensure high-quality teaching of T-Levels. There will be £35 million more for targeted interventions to support students on level 3 courses—A-level equivalent—who failed their GCSE maths and English. Together, this package will ensure that we are building the skills that our country needs to thrive in the future.
I am sure that many in the House will be eager to know what this announcement means for their constituency, their local area and their constituents. When the information is ready, I will be writing to Members with further details on the impact on schools in their local areas. Now more than ever is the time to invest in the next generation. That is what this party and this Government are doing, making sure that our children get the very best. I commend the Statement to the House”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement, but we feel that the announcement should come with a note of apology, because the Government have for so long denied our regular and consistent claims that there is a funding crisis in our schools. Now, all of a sudden, it seems that there is.
Nevertheless, the funding announced is welcome and a clear recognition of the campaigning not just of Labour in both Houses but of the education unions—the NEU, the NAHT and the ASCL—together with parents, councillors and many others. But unfortunately, today’s announcements do not live up to their billing, because even the sums announced are not enough to reverse all the cuts already made that have so damaged children’s education. As teachers and pupils start the new term this week, too many will do so in schools facing an immediate financial crisis. Can the Minister say why there is no immediate support? Even next year’s funding is £1 billion short of reversing just the cuts to school budgets since 2010. Will this additional funding be allocated on the basis of the new funding formula announced last year?
In case the Minister is thinking that only the usual suspects are questioning the funding announcement, he might have seen that last weekend’s Sunday Times—hardly noted for criticising the Government—reported that the so-called “cash boost” will overwhelmingly benefit those in Tory constituencies. That paper’s analysis of how regions will benefit from the new minimum funding thresholds revealed that more than 90% of schools receiving more than an additional £100 per pupil are in Conservative seats in areas such as Essex, Kent and the south-west. Of the 153 constituencies set to receive the increase, 143 are Tory held. Can the Minister say whether that is simply a coincidence?
The Statement said that the Secretary of State would announce the affected individual constituencies. It seems that he could get some useful information from the Sunday Times, because it has delivered quite a bit of that already. So is it a coincidence or, as many others suspect or perhaps know, just an election bribe? Many of the schools most in need and struggling with their budgets are in the north of England and London. They are largely not to receive any help. What does the Minister have to say about that? He might be aware that the Education Policy Institute found that a pupil eligible for free school meals would receive less than half the funding of their more affluent peers. How can that be fair?
Can the Minister reassure noble Lords that support staff will not pay the price for the boost to teachers’ salaries? A leaked document from the Prime Minister’s office recently revealed that they were concerned about the rising number of teaching assistants. Many people feel that there should be more teaching assistants, given the extremely important support they provide, and we join with parents, teachers, heads and those who care for children with special needs and disabilities in valuing them. Perhaps the Minister can say what the effect on them would be of this announcement.
On school standards, we know that Ofsted is to lift the exemption on outstanding schools being inspected. I welcome that. The school that my son attends has an outstanding report attached to it, but it was dated three years before he was born. That outstanding schools should not have that protection—I use the word advisedly—is to be welcomed, but none the less, what additional resources will be provided to Ofsted? Its staffing levels show that it is already under strain. If this is to be meaningful, there will have to be additional resources there.
It seems that the Government have finally admitted that there is a crisis in further education, but we know that the Education Secretary returned from the Treasury with about half of what he thought was needed for that sector. What plans are there to address the long-overdue increase in pay for further education staff? Without it they will continue to fall further behind teachers in schools.
Finally, I will say a word about early years. I understand that it is not officially part of this announcement, but the hourly rate for providers has not increased since 2017. How can issues in schools such as mental health concerns, closing the disadvantage gap and social mobility issues be addressed without paying attention to the support required in early years? Surely it is about prevention rather than cure. Might this issue be addressed tomorrow by the Chancellor, or have the youngest children been forgotten again? I certainly hope not.
The Statement contains far more questions than answers. Whenever the general election comes, Labour will offer a comprehensive funding package for our schools, allowing head teachers, teachers and teaching assistants to provide the high-quality education our young people deserve. I regret to say that this Statement will not achieve that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is interesting and we have to say thank you for the increase in funding—but we needed it. As I understand it, we will get the full impact in about three years’ time. We will not get all of it quickly enough.
The main delivery system for education is the staff. Teaching staff will receive a pay rise, but there seems to be a question about whether academies will be able to filch off and take away the best staff with better offers to make sure that they are not available to schools that need them. Can the noble Lord give us some idea of what the thinking is there?
In the same tone, why are those in further education teaching not being treated in the same way and given the same degree of support? Delivery, and the person who delivers, is the key point here. If you get that wrong, everything struggles. Making sure that we have systems in place to ensure that people are properly paid across the sector is vital. We need more thinking about this. The cash is welcome, but unless these things are properly delivered, problems will be compounded.
There is also the issue of equalisation of funding. We have already mentioned that schools who have been receiving this seem to be those with fewer, shall we say, home problems, or potential home problems, in terms of free school meals. We all know that backing a parent sufficiently makes a huge difference to schools. An idea about the thinking there would be very beneficial. Why is it that those who have that background support are able to get support outside and within the system more easily? Why is that seen to be the way forward?
I now go to my specialist subject and remind the House of my interests in special educational needs and technical support. I thank the Minister for the money for special educational needs; it is roughly a third of what we need to go back to 2015 levels. When are we going to make sure that local government and the education authorities have enough money to meet their needs? I have raised with the Minister on numerous occasions the fact that tens of millions of pounds is wasted by local authorities in losing appeals not to fulfil education and healthcare plans. When will this no longer be the case? This is a ridiculous situation. We have, I hope, the start of a cohesive plan here. It can be restructured if you like, to put in more specialist teachers who can deal with these problems in the classroom and the school. That is an infinitely better situation than leaving it to bureaucracy—but when are we going to start dealing with it?
In the same tone, why are we so obsessed with making sure that people must continually take English and maths tests they failed when they were in further education? The amount of undiscovered special educational needs is recognised by everybody, possibly because the staff are not well enough trained to recognise it and give the correct amount of support. Some people just will not pass. Why are we wasting time there and not finding other ways of getting around this? The technology for English translation is there and it is also there to help with things such as maths. Surely this is a better and more coherent way forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank the noble Lords for their questions; I will try to address all of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is worried about the fact that the funding seems to be benefiting Conservative seats. The only reason it will benefit those is that historically they have been underfunded compared to other seats: small rural schools have not received the same level of funding as urban schools. With the national funding formula, we have introduced a hard bottom, so that even the best funded schools will increase their funding, but we will increase those who are below the NFF at a rate that is considerably quicker. I assure the noble Lord that there is no gerrymandering; it is just a quirk of history that has ensured that these schools have not done nearly so well.
The noble Lord also asked about teaching assistants. I am concerned about teaching assistants because I believe that we are missing an opportunity to provide fantastic career progression for many of them. Amazingly, some 30% of teaching assistants have degrees, and therefore could go on to teaching relatively easily if they wanted to but are often held back by their wish to look after their children. Many TAs are the parents—mostly mothers—of young children, and therefore teaching hours are not always conducive. That is why the Statement says that we are going to try to make more progress with having more flexible working in the teaching profession. We strongly believe that if we could have more flexible working in teaching, job sharing and so on, many more TAs would go on into teaching, which would be a great boon to them. It would increase their pay—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for giving way. It is not so much about those progressing from being teaching assistants to being teachers, but that schools under such financial pressure have in many cases had to dispense with the services of teaching assistants. That is an important issue and many people will be looking to this announcement for reassurance.
I had not noticed when I was speaking earlier that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools are here. That is laudable, and I commend them .
Lord Agnew of Oulton
On the noble Lord’s concern about teaching assistants, even through a period of what he would consider to be austerity, the number of teaching assistants has risen by some 49,000 since 2010. In 1997, there were 70,000 teaching assistants, and today there are around 250,000, so I do not believe that the system is in any way denuded of them. The next phase is to encourage those who want to enhance their careers and move to a higher paid profession.
In relation to the noble Lord’s question on Ofsted inspections of outstanding schools and resources, we are already in detailed discussions with it about funding the cost of these additional inspections. I reassure the noble Lord that we are not going to ask it to do it without some support.
On FE funding, this is a tremendous settlement, certainly the biggest since 2010, and, officials have indicated to me, it might be the biggest since 2004. It increases the base rate by 4.7%.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point which I did not fully understand, when he said that academies would filch the best teachers through this process. Academies are schools; they now account for over half of all pupils in the state system. Therefore, they will benefit from these announcements, but so will local authority schools.
Again, in terms of FE staff—
Lord Addington
I thank the Minister for giving way. My point is that academies are not under the same restrictions on maximum levels of pay.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is correct that they are not under the same restrictions, but there are very few examples of academies paying more. I have come across one or two innovative ideas. For example, one trust in Kent pays its newly qualified teachers £2,000 more a year, but that ends up saving it money because it has less attrition and keeps its teachers for longer. As the Statement said, we will be increasing starting salaries for all teachers to £30,000, which is a dramatic increase, some £6,000 above where it is at the moment.
The noble Lord also asked about free school meals. He felt that those schools with higher numbers of children receiving free school meals were benefiting less. It is worth reminding the noble Lord that we introduced the pupil premium back in 2011, and each year that has been a sum of some £2 billion going to support the schools with children from disadvantaged backgrounds. More importantly, it is encouraging schools to recruit these sorts of children, because they get a strong financial benefit. It works out at nearly £1,000 a pupil for a secondary school.
Lastly, the noble Lord raised his particular passion around SEN. I accept that the noble Lord has raised the level of funding many times. We dramatically increased it in 2013. It was £5 billion a year, and with this new funding it will go up to £7 billion a year. We have also announced that we will carry out an inquiry into how the whole SEN healthcare plan system is working. I take on board the noble Lord’s concerns about the cost of appeals which local authorities are losing, but any system must have a hard edge. As we have discussed, the percentage of cases going to appeal is minuscule in relation to the overall number of cases being given these education healthcare plans.
I did not expect the noble Lords opposite me would be ululating with pleasure at this settlement, but it is a dramatic improvement. I have spent two years defending the system, but this is a Statement that I absolutely wanted to deliver tonight, and I am delighted that I was able to do so.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he said, we are all delighted that more money is going into education, but like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lord Addington, I have reservations. Mine focus on the part of the Statement relating to colleges. As we know, our FE colleges are underfunded and unloved and have been for far too long, yet they often not only provide outstanding education but are a community resource and provide community cohesion. I want to ask the Minister about two matters. First, the Statement says:
“Colleges and further education providers will receive an extra £25 million to deliver T-levels”.
T-levels are totally untried and untested, whereas there are a raft of well-established and well-understood vocational qualifications—I declare an interest as a vice-president of City & Guilds—which could continue to do great things if they had better funding behind them. Why is this funding going only to T-levels, which are not yet tried and tested and about which we know very little, and not to all the work-based qualifications which provide the skills that the country desperately needs?
My second question repeats that of my noble friend Lord Addington, which I do not think the Minister replied to. It relates to the pernicious practice of trying to get youngsters repeatedly to resit GCSE English and maths, only for them to fail again and again. All one does is reinforce failure and leave people demoralised and thoroughly fed up about education. Nobody argues with the idea that young people need literacy and maths skills, but GCSE is not the right vehicle for that. Colleges spend an awful lot of time and resource trying to put youngsters through those wretched exams and watching them fail again and again. When will the Government rethink and bring in some functional literacy and maths tests which would be far more appropriate for the youngsters who have to resit?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Baroness raises important points. It may be worth summarising some of the specific funding coming into the FE sector, because I know that she is a passionate supporter of it, as am I. I am very pleased that, under my new Secretary of State, I will have greater involvement in the FE sector and look forward to discussing some of these issues personally with the noble Baroness.
We will invest an extra £400 million in colleges and school sixth forms; there is a 7% uplift of 16 to 19 funding, not including the increase in funding for pensions. The total includes protection of and an increase in the 16 to 19 base of £190 million, with £120 million for colleges and school sixth forms so that they can deliver on subjects which require perhaps more expensive teachers, such as engineering and so on. I hear the noble Baroness’s concerns about T-levels, but we are also adding another £10 million for the advanced maths premium. There will be an additional £20 million to help the sector continue to recruit and retain teachers, and there will be £35 million more for targeted interventions to support the area that the noble Baroness is concerned about; that is, resits. Some of that money will be used to look at different ways of trying to help children who perhaps do not learn in a traditional way. In 2019, more than 46,000 pupils successfully resat their English GCSEs, as did 35,500 maths pupils, to obtain a standard pass. All those children whose careers were blocked by not having maths and English have cleared that hurdle this year. I am one of seven children in my family; only two of us got maths O-level, so I know exactly the frustration faced by children who struggle with these subjects, but we are on the right course and I hope to use some of this additional money to see whether we can find better ways to reach them.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, this is a most significant Statement and I congratulate my noble friend and all his colleagues on it. It surely represents a central element in the ambitious Tory programme of reform that is emerging under this Government, a programme that must not be overshadowed by Brexit.
Can my noble friend give the House a little further information on two of the initiatives announced in the Statement? First, how many ambassador schools are there to be? Where are they to be established and how will they operate? Secondly, how many national behaviour hubs will there be, where will they be established and how they will operate? One is bound to express here a great hope that that these initiatives will answer the deep sense of yearning in our country for good standards of behaviour in all our schools. Finally, what progress is being made towards the final establishment of the national funding formula, which we have discussed on a number of occasions in this House?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My noble friend asks important questions, too. The ambassador schools are a new initiative which we are working on at the moment, so I will be happy to write to him when we have developed the information a little more. There is a school—I believe it is in Tunbridge Wells—where 38 of its 100 teaching staff are part time, yet it achieves outstanding educational results. This is a process of education for the teaching profession to show that job sharing and part-time teaching are viable in a school setting. We will develop that, and I will write to my noble friend as we push that forward.
Likewise, the national behaviour hubs have rolled out very recently. The extra money will enhance the number of hubs. My noble friend is not here, but, if he were, I could give a number and he could nod at me, but I think that we are starting with around eight hubs. I might be wrong and will write if that is so, but the idea is to take best practice from those schools that are good at it to show those which are struggling. That is how we plan to roll it out.
On the NFF, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out, the funding that we are proposing will be fed in over the next three years, but the idea is that, by 2022-23, all schools will be on or above that funding. For those that are well below it, particularly primaries, we are not pushing up the amount straightaway from £3,500 to £4,000 per pupil, because we want them to have time to absorb the extra resource, so the allocation will go up by £250 next year and reach £4,000 the following year.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Much of it is extremely welcome. We know that rural schools in particular have been under enormous pressure, so the fact that the new formula should assist them is really to be welcomed. However, is the Minister confident that it will offer the real protection that some of those schools need? They are at the heart of their communities, and the loss of them will have a massive impact on those small rural communities. I would like a reassurance on that. I remain slightly unconvinced that schools in the poorest areas will not lose out. I accept that pupil premium is clearly there, but I remain concerned that the evidence that the Sunday Times has produced so far means that the poorest may suffer.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked a question about early years; we know that the earliest years matter most. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I missed something in his earlier response about what further commitment to sustaining early years education might be.
If I may add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I think that further work needs to be done on alternative ways for literacy and maths, not just keeping on pushing GCSEs. Yes, it is great that some further students passed, and the Minister gave us the numbers, but that alone will not solve the issue. We must find some alternatives.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I am perhaps more optimistic on rural schools than the right reverend Prelate. Coming from a rural background myself, I know the importance of these schools in communities beyond the simple provision of education. As he quite rightly said, some of the greatest increases in funding will go to these schools over the next two to three years. I am therefore very confident that it will be a huge boost to them.
Early years was not the subject of this announcement. It may be addressed as part of the spending review tomorrow, but it is not in the remit of this announcement.
I hear the right reverend Prelate’s concern on these retakes, but I am afraid I respectfully disagree with him; I think it is incredibly important that they get these base qualifications so that they can progress to their career, but I accept that we need to find better ways of educating. I am particularly interested in edtech, which might bring in ways of teaching that have previously eluded those pupils.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. We are obviously delighted that extra resources are being made available, and I accept the figures that were given. I am concerned about two areas. The first is further education—we heard my noble friend Lady Garden speak eloquently on this subject. While there are extra resources, does the Minister expect that they will increase over the next few years? I have never quite understood—perhaps the Minister could explain this to me—why, if I am a chemistry teacher in an academy or a maintained secondary school, I get considerably more pay than if I am a chemistry teacher in a further education college. Why should this be the case? Secondly, if I am in a sixth form college which is part of an academy chain, there is a VAT exemption. If I am in a stand-alone sixth form college which is not part of an academy chain, the school has to pay VAT. Can that be fair?
My niche question is on behaviour. I was fascinated, interested and delighted to hear about these behaviour hubs and will watch this space with interest. We heard the Secretary of State say, whether it was in the Statement or separately, that he would back schools which permanently excluded pupils from school for bad behaviour. I have always said that teachers have a right to teach and pupils have a right to learn. Schools have to do everything possible to try to ensure that pupils with behavioural problems are supported within the school, but if we move to a system where there is a sort of free rein to exclude pupils, we will see all sorts of difficulties. If we move to that new ethos, will the Minister make available more resources for alternative education? If that is the case, will he ensure that the use of unregistered alternative providers no longer happens? We are seeing young people excluded from school and going into unregistered providers, many of which quite frankly do not deserve to be in education at all. The young people are not even checked in and checked out; they can often roam the streets and get involved in drug and gang culture. That cannot be the case, so what extra resources will there be for alternative education in this announcement?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord asks important questions. First, I will try to clarify the difference between FE and the school system, particularly the academy system. FE colleges have a different legal status and a degree of independence which does not relate to the school system. The colleges themselves take the decisions on pay, and one of the anomalies which I must admit I do not really understand is that they tend to prefer to pay all teachers exactly the same rate irrespective of their skills or the particular subjects they are teaching. One of the things that I want to do with this new funding is to find a way of challenging them to be a bit more flexible. As the noble Lord says, if you teach chemistry in an academy and earn X amount, why can you not earn a similar amount in an FE college? I want to get to the bottom of that, to be honest.
Again, VAT status is a quirk of the different legal status of these entities. For example, FE colleges as independent units have the right to borrow, which does not exist in the school system; however, as almost a quid pro quo, they do not have the right to recover VAT. We have offered for sixth form colleges to convert to academisation; quite a lot of them—over half, I think—have done so. Those that have not have reasons for choosing not to, but it is an option that they can consider.
On behaviour, I have just found a note. To answer my noble friend Lord Lexden’s earlier question, the first hubs will open in September next year. In relation to exclusions, I assure the noble Lord and everyone here that we are not for a second suggesting a free-for-all on permanent exclusions. Indeed, in the new Ofsted framework, there will be much more scrutiny of exclusion policies, particularly permanent ones, by schools. So there is no suggestion that we encourage exclusion, but I believe strongly that it is an important tool in the locker of a school where very difficult children disrupt the education of others.
To be clear, an unregistered school is an illegal school. Ofsted has an ongoing programme to track these schools down; when they are located, we close them and take legal action against the proprietors where that is the appropriate course.
Lord Storey
I am pleased with the Minister’s answer. In terms of alternative provision, the problem with unregistered schools is that local authorities themselves send the excluded pupils to those institutions. The parents are not deciding that they should go to a particular religious type of unregistered school; local authorities are saying, “Oh, we’ve got this boy or girl, this student, who has been excluded from school. We are going to put them in alternative provision”. They then go for the cheapest option, which is often an unregistered school, with all the problems that that entails. I have asked before whether we can write to local authorities saying that this is not acceptable because they are operating illegally.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is quite right. Sometimes, a local authority may use part-time provision that may be legal but, often, these morph into full-time institutions without the local authority realising. We are in constant dialogue with local authorities on this issue, reminding them that sending a child to an unregistered school on a full-time basis is not on. We are carrying out a consultation of the process of getting schools to take ownership of a pupil once they have excluded them; in other words—this is not agreed yet, but we are consulting on these ideas at the moment—they would be responsible for the ultimate educational results of the child that they had excluded, so they would have to consider the issue much more carefully. We are opening more free school PRUs and APs so that more provision is available. I accept that this is a difficult area, but we are putting a lot of emphasis on it.