House of Commons
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 7 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
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The Department of Health and Social Care has assessed and contacted 448 suppliers of medicine and has regular and detailed conversations with the industry.
Mohammad Yasin
This week, the Nuffield Trust joined 11 union leaders to warn that no deal would disrupt the supply of life-saving medicine and exacerbate the largest staffing crisis in our NHS’s history. What level of mortality rate is acceptable to the Secretary of State as the price to pay for this devastating no-deal Brexit?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman does not reflect the reality of the significant preparation that the industry has done over the last three years, and I pay tribute to it for that. For example, one of the leading insulin manufacturers, Novo Nordisk, has 18 weeks’ worth of supplies, while the Government had asked for six weeks’ worth. The industry has gone above and beyond in its preparation, and a huge amount of work has been done.
Vicky Foxcroft
I was recently contacted by a constituent with a rare condition. She has stopped producing cortisol and needs to take a synthetic form of it to survive. If she stops taking her medication, she will be dead within 10 days. What does the Secretary of State have to say to my constituent, who is afraid that the Government are gambling with her life?
Stephen Barclay
I would say that we should not be scaring people unnecessarily. The Government have put in place a framework to ensure supply. We have also put in place an express freight service, which will give even more capacity on a 24-hour basis and between two to four days for larger pallets. There is additional capacity, and a huge amount of work has been done on storage, but this is an issue of mutual interest for the UK and the Commission, and we are working on it jointly.
Diana Johnson
Anyone who is facing cancer treatment wants to know that they can get the medicine and the medical devices they need as quickly as possible and with certainty. Dr Buscombe from the British Nuclear Medicine Society says that the system for delivering radioactive isotopes in the event of a no-deal Brexit is “fragile”. What does the Secretary of State say to patients who are concerned to hear that?
Stephen Barclay
I was a Health Minister, and as part of business as usual there are always issues of supply, usually with around up to 50 lines. We have had it in the last few weeks with HRT, which is totally unconnected to Brexit. These are issues that the Department is well used to preparing for. It is in the interest of both sides to get this right. Two thirds of Ireland’s medicine comes through the land bridge in Great Britain. This is something that both sides are working to deliver because it is of interest to both of us.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s preparations to prevent medicine shortages in the event of no deal and the fact that the Secretary of State highlighted the impact this will have on the Republic of Ireland. As he rightly says, two thirds of medicines to the Republic come through and over UK motorways, so it is in the EU’s interests as well to prevent no deal.
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is right. This is about preparing. It is not about scaring people unnecessarily. Around 220 lorries impact Ireland. This is of mutual interest, and we want to get it right with them. That is why we are working with member states on this. It is not just about stock and not just about flow; it is also about flow the other way. A significant number of UK medicines from firms like AstraZeneca go to Europe, so this is in the interests of the EU27 and the UK, which is why considerable work has been done on it.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The Government have prioritised flow of goods at the border and put in place a range of easements to support that fluidity.
Richard Burden
I do not get any sense from the Secretary of State that he intends to implement the decisions of this House in ruling out no deal. What would his response be to Rod McKenzie of the Road Haulage Association, who only this week said this of his experience of Ministers in relation to what he describes as the “clear and present” threat of no deal:
“What we need is action, and we need action now. And there’s this gap between what they say they’re going to do, and what they have so far failed to deliver”?
When will we see delivery from this Government? When will the Government even meet unions representing drivers to discuss their real fears about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on drivers’ hours and safety?
Stephen Barclay
Again, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the evidence. The Government are acting. He should look at, for example, the auto-enrolment of EORI—economic operator registration and identification—numbers. Some 87,955 VAT-registered businesses that trade only with the EU have, as part of auto-enrolment, had those numbers sent out. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in Calais meeting his counterpart and discussing these very issues. There are material issues to address, but it does not progress debate in this House if people ignore the reality of the work that the Government are doing.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Ind)
My right hon. Friend said last week that the
“car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes”,
and that we
“need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.”
Some of us have been making this point for some time. Can my right hon. Friend say: who are these proposed talks with, have they started, when does he expect them to finish and will he publish an update on how far they have got?
Stephen Barclay
This is the first opportunity I have had since my right hon. Friend left the Government to pay tribute to the work that he did as a senior Minister, in particular, if I may say so, in relation to the British steel industry. I know he was an assiduous champion of its interests at the Cabinet table.
What I was highlighting in that thread was the talks the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was having that Friday in Calais. The fact is that issues about the documentation required and the flow are of mutual interest. It was pertaining to the issues touched on in the communiqué issued by the Commission yesterday. It is in the interests of both sides, including those of leaders in northern France, that we get the flow of these goods right.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
About 3 million wooden pallets are used every month to transport goods, including food, between the UK and the EU. After a no-deal Brexit, those wooden pallets will no longer be able to be used unless they have been heat treated or fumigated. Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance, because this is absolutely about the supply of food, that there are sufficient pallets available to the companies that keep our food supplies moving?
Stephen Barclay
We have a ministerial meeting, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is tasked each day with looking at specific issues. My focus—as Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of this—is on the negotiations, as opposed to every item such as pallets, so I will pick that up with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, considerable work has gone on. As I say, this issue applies to the EU—to its exports and the flow of goods through Calais—and it is these very issues that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was discussing with his counterparts in Calais last Friday.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Secretary of State quite rightly referred to the EORI numbers, but as I understand it, businesses will also have to get a similar number from the country in the EU27 with which they trade once we are outside the EU. Are businesses aware of that, or are they just aware of getting the UK one?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is right that there are a number of things businesses need to do. That is exactly the purpose behind the public information campaign that we have launched to improve readiness. Contrary to the perception often implied in this House, a huge amount of work has been done in government over the last three years and a large amount of work has also been done in large companies, including large pharmaceutical companies. The area of more concern has been within the SME community to which he refers, and that is what the public information campaign is targeting.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Would not the best way of measuring the effect of transportation of goods on the UK leaving the EU without a deal be to publish the Operation Yellowhammer documents, rather than sanitising or shredding them, and allowing Members of Parliament to interview the civil servants responsible for writing them?
Stephen Barclay
A huge amount of information has already been published, not least in the form of the technical notices that the Government have issued. However, I fear—this may be a rare area of agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me—that there is no level of documentation we could publish that would fully satisfy him.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel for short stays, subject to reciprocity. The Government have also said that we do not intend to require visas for tourists or short-term business visitors from the European Union.
Craig Whittaker
On longer-term working visas, 19% of people in the Calder Valley work in manufacturing, a sector that is now suffering from skill shortages and benefiting from very high employment. Can my right hon. Friend put the minds of businesses at rest, and explain how we can fill these skill shortfalls in the short term after Brexit that are currently filled through freedom of movement?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I can certainly reassure him. As the Home Secretary set out, as we leave the EU we will transition to a new points-based immigration system that is built around the skills and talents that people have, not where they are from. In the short term, Swiss citizens and those from the European economic area who move to the UK after a no-deal Brexit on 31 October will still be able to start to study, as now.
Mrs Latham
How will we ensure that the UK continues to attract the brightest and best when we leave the EU?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend makes an important point—it is essential that we attract the brightest and best, not just from the EU but from around the world. That is what the Government are doing by repositioning ourselves with real growth areas around the world, alongside the EU.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the ministerial team aware that my constituency of Huddersfield, where I come from, is, like that of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), the centre and heart of manufacturing in this country? We must be mobile and be able to visit places. People in the manufacturing centre of Huddersfield, and the university, are absolutely appalled by what might happen if there is a no-deal Brexit. We need access to our markets and to travel, and we believe it will be the end of the world if we crash out without a deal.
James Duddridge
If he has studied my past, the hon. Gentleman may know that I lived in his constituency. I studied and have friends in his constituency, and I know it very well.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week, I spoke to Universities Scotland, which is deeply concerned about the status of Erasmus students who are currently in Scotland. If they go home for Christmas, can the Minister guarantee that they will be allowed back in, in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The Government are committed to leaving the European Union on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. We would prefer to leave with a deal, but to achieve that the EU must be willing to reopen the previous withdrawal agreement.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I believe the best way to avoid no deal is to secure a deal. He will know that I voted three times for the withdrawal agreement, and I will support this Government as they seek to secure a deal. Given that the comments reported overnight from Monsieur Barnier appear to be in conflict with the aspirations of our Prime Minister, will the Secretary of State say when the Prime Minister intends to deliver his proposals for the revised deal, so that that deal can be secured before 31 October?
Stephen Barclay
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Despite some misgivings and the way that he campaigned during the referendum, he has consistently voted for a deal, and he was consistently willing to compromise where many others were not. On the substance of the talks, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser was in Brussels yesterday, and the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach on Monday. I am in regular contact with my counterparts, and I have visited a number of capitals in recent weeks. A significant amount of work has gone on, but we will not fall into the trap that befell the previous Government, where the Commission has an absolutist, all-weather, all-insurance position and then asks for deals on the basis of creative flexibility, and against that test then dismiss it as magical thinking. We need to have detailed discussions, but they must be done in the right way, which is what we are doing.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said once again that the new Administration want to secure a deal, rather than leave without one, yet we know that no new concrete proposals have been presented to the EU. It has been reported that in the technical talks that took place yesterday between the UK’s chief negotiator and EU Commission officials, the UK team made it clear that the Government want to jettison the level playing field provisions contained in the withdrawal agreement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that removing those provisions is now the Government’s preference?
Stephen Barclay
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government want to leave with a deal. We also know that Labour Members do not want a deal, they are not prepared to leave with no deal, and therefore they are not prepared to leave at all. The Government’s proposals made it clear in the letter to President Tusk that, notwithstanding concerns about the wider withdrawal agreement held by many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, the issues have been narrowed down to that of the backstop. That is distinct from the Northern Ireland protocol as a whole, and that is the constructive approach that the Prime Minister has taken. He has also answered the charge that was often levelled from the Labour Benches about what sort of deal we seek in the political declaration. The charge of a blind Brexit was often levelled at me, and the Prime Minister has answered that question. He is seeking a best-in-class free trade agreement, and he has been crystal clear on that.
Matthew Pennycook
There was no answer there on the level playing field provisions. I am not sure why the Secretary of State is so reluctant to confirm that regulatory divergence from the EU, rather than alignment with it, is what the Government want to achieve. After all, as he mentioned, in the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk on 19 August that was for him “the point” of our exit. We have gone from Canada plus plus plus to Canada minus minus with barely a mention and no debate in this House. Let me ask the Secretary of State this simple question: will the Government now come clean with the British public about the fact that far from maintaining workers’ rights, Ministers want the freedom to chip away at them and environmental protections and consumer standards?
Stephen Barclay
No. What is staggering about the hon. Gentleman’s question is his—
Stephen Barclay
If the hon. Lady will give me a moment, I was just coming on to do precisely that. The point at issue is whether the UK is, as a sovereign state, able to determine its own laws and regulations, or whether it is in dynamic alignment, taking rules and regulations from the Commission over which we would have no vote. Opposition Members may huff and puff. What it suggests is that they want this Parliament to continue to take rules from the Commission, but in future have no say over those rules. We do want a situation where we have two sovereign states, not on the basis of deregulation but of sovereignty.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Am I right in trusting that we have a cunning plan to leave on 31 October?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend tempts me, with his knowledge of the relevant box sets, into dangerous territory. The Prime Minister does have clarity on what he is seeking in the negotiations. The framework was set out in the letter to President Tusk, where we narrowed down the negotiating objectives to the backstop in the withdrawal agreement and to a best-in-class free trade agreement in the political declaration. That is the plan. It is very clear.
Mr Speaker
Order. In calling the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds), I should like again to congratulate her warmly on her splendid maiden speech yesterday afternoon.
Jane Dodds (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Diolch yn fawr iawn. What would the Secretary of State say to the National Farmers Union, which says that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for farmers? The Farmers Union of Wales says it would have disastrous consequences for farmers. What would he say sitting opposite family farmers in places like Brecon and Radnorshire and across Wales who really fear for the livelihoods and their futures?
Stephen Barclay
May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady and paying tribute to her maiden speech yesterday? I thought she spoke with great distinction. The specific issues pertaining to the sheep industry were addressed, at much greater length than perhaps the Mr Speaker can allow me now, in the Adjournment debate by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), so I would first refer the hon. Lady to the comments and the issues the Minister of State—
Stephen Barclay
I can go into it. I watched the Adjournment debate. The Minister talked about the misunderstanding by an Opposition Member of the impact of depreciation on experts. We can talk about the measures put in place in terms of headage and the support for the industry. We can talk about the level of exports. We can get into the detail with the hon. Lady; it is just that the Chair will, I am sure, want me to be fairly succinct, and the Adjournment debate covered the issue at greater length.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK would implement a temporary tariff regime. This would apply for up to 12 months while a full consultation takes place and a review of a permanent approach is undertaken.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s response and the letter I received from the Department for International Trade this morning, but in the meetings we had with the Department, we were told that biofuels would not be covered by the protection tariffs. Ensus in my constituency tells me that the fear of a no-deal Brexit is already harming business. We know that a no-deal Brexit without tariff protection will kill British biofuels, end jobs and leave us relying on imports. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with his colleagues to maintain tariff protection on ethanol before it is too late?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady raises a legitimate issue in a constructive way, and I am very happy to work with her because she is championing a genuine issue on behalf of her constituents. There is always a balance in setting tariffs between protecting consumers and the issues for producers. It is about how we calibrate those two sometimes competing issues. She will understand that within the market—within the industry—there is domestic pressure, regardless of Brexit, but I am very happy to work with her on that issue.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware from Yellowhammer that the proposed tariff regime under no deal creates very specific risks for the UK oil-refining sector. Given that the Valero refinery in Pembroke is the largest and most important private sector employer in west Wales, will the Minister tell me what the plan is for protecting the UK refining sector if we end up leaving the EU without a deal?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend will know that concerns have been raised by the industry in respect of that. Pertaining to the answer that I gave a moment ago, existing questions within that market are also a factor. I am very happy to have further discussions with him, as I am with the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), because a number of issues come into play for that industry.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
There is a group of medicines that simply cannot be stockpiled and which rely on an uninterrupted supply of imports. Will the Secretary of State give a 100% guarantee that none of my constituents will suffer a shortage of that type of medicine as a result of a no-deal Brexit?
Stephen Barclay
As I said, we have not only put in place an additional procurement framework in terms of capacity, but we have procured an express freight service to deliver small consignments on a 24-hour basis, and a two-to-four day pallet-delivery service. These issues are being addressed by the Department and a huge amount of work is going on exactly on that issue.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
Since joining the Department on 27 July, I have personally met more than 20 business organisations. Since July 2016, Department for Exiting the European Union Ministers have collectively undertaken over 700 meetings with businesses and business organisations from every sector in the economy.
Andrew Lewer
Northamptonshire is one of the most important logistics hubs in the UK, so what steps are the Department taking to make sure that those firms and businesses are up and ready to deal with a possible no-deal Brexit?
James Duddridge
That is a very sensible question. The Department has engaged extensively with logistics companies and representative bodies from across the sector to ensure that they are prepared for 31 October. I encourage my hon. Friend and businesses to consult the public information campaign on gov.uk to get a practical, step-by-step guide on what is required for business. That is a powerful thing to do—it is the right thing to do—in preparing to leave properly on 31 October.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
What information can the Minister give us about what preparation has been done—what proactive contact his Department has made—with businesses that may not trade directly with Europe but whose supply chains or customers do so, and who therefore may not have availed themselves of the Government web pages?
James Duddridge
I would certainly encourage those businesses to avail themselves of that opportunity. The Department has sent out 1,300 bits of information and that is captured on the gov.uk website. I have engaged with businesses—I am the small and medium-sized enterprises champion for the Department—and the one thing that I have noticed is that larger businesses tend to be more prepared than smaller businesses, and particularly the type of which the hon. Lady speaks. The Government website is a rich source of information, so I encourage Members to return to their constituency and—alongside campaigning—promote the Government website.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There is a massive difference between some of the realistic concerns of businesses about no deal and some of the madcap scare stories that are going around. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is an understanding of realistic concerns and to dismiss some of the other wild stories?
James Duddridge
There will always be knockabout politics, but I would prefer to engage in the detail. I was in Northern Ireland last Thursday talking to businesses on the border and then in Belfast discussing alternative arrangements with a wide range of businesses, engaging them in the very real detail and not the high-level scare stories. There are concerns, and they are being dealt with, but they should not be confused with the bigger scare stories.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Over the summer recess, I had extensive discussions with my European counterparts—I suspect that my right hon. Friend and I saw a little less of the summer than some—including in the past fortnight in Paris, Copenhagen, Helsinki and a couple of other places. There has been extensive engagement, and that engagement continues.
Mr Dunne
I am very encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend begin to list some of his summer itinerary. I think that helps to build confidence in the fact that the Government are engaged in serious discussions with the European Commission and other counterparts. To that effect, would he be prepared to publish information on whom he has met and the discussions he has had when not in meetings, with whom and when?
Mr Speaker
Order. I would just say that I am sure that the unknown place to which the Secretary of State has referred has not forgotten that he visited it and its inhabitants.
Stephen Barclay
I fear that I might get into trouble with the said unknown place, but I hope that a bit of latitude will be granted. My right hon. Friend raises a material point, because it goes to the crux of last night’s debate and the sincerity of the negotiations. The Prime Minister has also had extensive contact through the G7 and his visits to Berlin and Paris, among other places, and there has been the extensive work, to which I pay huge tribute, of the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, who was in Brussels last week, this week and who has also travelled extensively. Significant work has been going on, and I am very happy to look at what further detail we can set out.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
If all that is true, why did Dominic Cummings call the negotiations a “sham”?
Stephen Barclay
First, as the hon. Lady well knows, the Government do not comment on leaks. Secondly, the issue is really about looking at the substance. Look at the letter to President Tusk that narrowed down the issues. It would have been much easier for the Prime Minister to set out a long list of demands but, because of the seriousness of the negotiations, those have been narrowed down, as set out in that letter. One of the European Union’s charges against the previous Government was that they had not been specific enough about what sort of future relationship they sought in the political declaration. The letter answered that very clearly: a best-in-class FTA, and one that covers not only the economic side, but security and other aspects. There is substance there. The problem with the other side is that they do not want to leave at all, and therefore they will not take yes for an answer.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I spoke this week to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister about security matters and exiting the European Union. My Department’s Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with the Home Office, and we are working closely to prepare for business, keeping our plans under rigorous review, and I will continue to do so.
Mr Bailey
Under a no-deal Brexit, UK police would lose access to 40 enforcement tools, including the European arrest warrant and access to European information databases, which are vital for identifying international terrorists and criminals who could be targeting this country. Can the Minister explain how that is assisting us to take back control of our borders?
James Duddridge
One thing that will certainly assist is the 20,000 extra police officers—[Interruption.] I do want to get down to the specifics, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making a political point, given that we are now into an election—at least, we think that we are into an election. On the specific details, Interpol notices function very similarly to Schengen information system alerts. The hon. Gentleman reasonably talks about the European arrest warrant. In the event that we leave without a deal, the UK will operate the Council of Europe convention on extradition with EU member states. We have worked intensively with operational partners, both here and across the EU, to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the two.
Jack Dromey
Operation Yellowhammer found that a no-deal Brexit could lead to
“a rise in public disorder and community tensions”.
Do the Government not recognise that the toxic and irresponsible use of language, such as “collaborators”, “treachery” and “surrender”, deepens the divisions in our country and puts the public at risk, including Members of this House? Have they not learnt the tragic lessons of history?
James Duddridge
Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that one thing that will lead to unrest and unhappiness is the ignoring of the public and the referendum result. However, we continue to work with the police and the Army in the normal way.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend, who does not seem to be in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “He is in the Chamber.”] I apologise. That was in no way an insult to my hon. Friend’s height or presence. I congratulate him on his work in the Justice Committee.
The Government are committed to maintaining, over time, the growth in the United Kingdom’s £4.4 billion trade surplus in legal services, and that includes setting the right framework in future trade negotiations.
Robert Neill
There is always more than one way to be overlooked.
Does the Minister accept that, at present, the United Kingdom has the second largest market in legal services in the world and the largest in the European Union? That is because of the unparalleled access that British lawyers currently have to EU legal markets under the appropriate directives. Does the Minister recognise that if we are to avoid the 10% hit that the Law Society estimates would be taken by this country’s income from its legal services in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we must not only preserve maximum access to those markets, but develop a comprehensive strategy across all Departments to market British legal services as a world centre of excellence elsewhere?
James Duddridge
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Given that 6.5% of global legal services pass through the United Kingdom and three out of 15 top firms are based internationally in the UK, it is essential for us to work on a cross-departmental basis. The Legal Services are GREAT campaign is a good example of this ambitious programme. Since its launch in Singapore in October 2017, it has operated in more than 30 countries, with trade missions to Kazakhstan, China, Chile and Nigeria. Those missions are very effective, and they will continue.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals visa-free travel to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90 days in any 180-day period, even in a no-deal scenario. In the event of no deal, however, the arrangements for UK nationals travelling to European Union countries will change, and we have published advice on gov.uk on the steps that they will need to take.
Ellie Reeves
Many EU nationals in my constituency have endured incredible stress and anxiety owing to the uncertainty that they have faced since the referendum. Their rights have been used as a bargaining chip with the EU, and the new Home Secretary even proposed legislation to stop freedom of movement immediately after no deal. Will the Minister assure us that citizens’ rights will no longer be used as a negotiating tool and will be unilaterally guaranteed?
James Duddridge
Citizens’ rights will not be used as a negotiating tool, and they have not been used as a negotiating tool. The hon. Lady has mischaracterised the position. It is the Prime Minister who has made a big, bold offer to EU citizens, and it is now for member states to reciprocate.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the impact on people with pre-existing health conditions who will no longer be able to use their European health insurance cards to cover their conditions if they either live in the EU or are travelling?
James Duddridge
That will depend on decisions and arrangements with individual countries. The UK has made a big, bold offer to EU nationals in this country, and I encourage those countries to reciprocate.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post. As he will know, over the summer recess a Home Office advertisement relating to settled status was banned for being misleading. The uncertainty created by conflicting messages is causing real fear among EU citizens in the UK and the British in Europe.
On 21 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking clarity on five key issues. I have not received a reply, so I wonder whether the Minister can answer one of those questions now. I am reassured by his indication that he likes to engage in detail. EU citizens were promised that if the UK left the EU without a deal, their rights would be the same as they would be under the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister confirm that, despite previous indications to the contrary, the Government will retain the right to appeal against settled-status decisions in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
James Duddridge
The settled status scheme is working very well: more than 1 million of the 3 million people have applied, nobody has been rejected, and people may apply all the way up to 31 December 2020.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The Government are delivering more than 300 specific no-deal projects across a range of sectors and delivery is well advanced. There is still more work to do and we are turbo-charging our preparation under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Gavin Newlands
We have heard so much nonsense this morning—in fact over the last three years—that it was not really a surprise to hear the Secretary of State talk about a “depreciation of experts” in the Government. Last night, this House voted for legislation to block a no-deal Brexit; does he accept the vote of this House and will his Government strictly adhere to the rule of law when this Bill has Royal Assent?
Stephen Barclay
It is a little dismissive for the hon. Gentleman to say that all this is nonsense. That was the first SNP question, so saying that we have already heard the nonsense seems a tad premature. The reality is that the Government are preparing extensively for no deal. We have a big information campaign that has launched, over 300 projects are under way, and we are working actively and constructively with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters, and he is absolutely correct: the decision on an extension is not a—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says “So what”; I am merely stating the legal position. I am sorry that she finds the legal position somewhat distasteful, but that is the legal position. The legal position on an extension is that it requires the support of every member state including the United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps chuntering, but my hon. Friend is correct: we would need to continue to prepare for no deal, because it is within the scope of any member state to block an extension. That is the legal position.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Stephen Barclay
Not just this Government will pay attention; I am sure the people of Scotland will pay attention to a vote against democracy. It is not the first time that those on the SNP Benches have ignored the votes of the British people, whether in the referendum in 2014 that they want to overturn or in the referendum of the United Kingdom in 2016. They seem to have a problem with listening to the democratic will of the people.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In my discussions with Associated British Ports, which manages the port of Immingham and the other Humber ports, there is a clear indication that they are well prepared in their contingency plans to handle any problems that may occur. Can the Secretary of State confirm that our ports are indeed well prepared for no deal and also that they can take much heart from the advantages, such as free-port status, that will be available post Brexit?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before the reshuffle, I met the ABP and others looking at these issues, and their preparations are well advanced. He will also know that the Government have allocated additional funding for those ports, and he will be aware that, although in this place a huge amount of the debate tends to focus on Dover because of the vehicle flow through it, in terms of the containers and value of goods, the other ports are actually more significant.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Yellowhammer report that the Government are determined to hide from us warns of delays of up to two and a half days at ports, freight target capacity being reduced by between 40% and 60% and, in terms, medical supplies being vulnerable to severe extended delays. The Government tried to pretend that that was an old report, but that was not true. It is dated August 2019. They also tried to pretend that it represented the very worst case scenario, but that is not true either. It is a reasonable worst case scenario: not the most likely, but likely enough to need to be planned for. When will the Government accept that all the trade organisations, professional bodies and people who understand the industry who are saying that no deal will be a disaster are right, and that it is this Government who are wrong?
Stephen Barclay
There is an oddity within the hon. Gentleman’s question. He accuses us of hiding the Yellowhammer documentation, yet it is shared with the Scottish Government as part of our internal working to prepare for no deal. We are not hiding it; in government we prepare documents and on that basis we put in place funding and other measures to tackle them. In fact, the Public Accounts Committee, among others, would be the first to criticise us if that detailed preparation was not taking place.
Peter Grant
Will the Government give absolutely unreserved and unrestricted permission to the Governments of Scotland and Wales to publish that report in full today: yes or no?
Stephen Barclay
It is always the case that in government we prepare documents to ensure that we have preparations in place. The point is to determine what is likely to be the impact on the EU27, for example, and what we can put in place to address concerns such as those on the flow of goods. I referred earlier to the fact that two thirds of Ireland’s medicines come through Britain. I could also have mentioned the fact that 40% of Irish exports go through Dover. This is an issue that concerns the Commission and the United Kingdom. That is why we are preparing these documents, and we are working openly with the Scottish Government and others on that. That is what the Government should be doing.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I spoke to the Home Secretary this week on the issues of the EU settlement scheme. The scheme is operating well: 1 million people have passed through the scheme out of the 3 million, and there have been no rejected applications. The Prime Minister has made a big, bold offer to EU citizens, who remain our friends and neighbours and who are welcome here in the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown
The Minister says that the system is working well, but I can tell him that the reality is that it is not. My wife Cyndi is an EU citizen, and due to the Government rhetoric, she reluctantly decided to apply for settled status. I can tell the Minister that the system crashed, and that the officials operating it said that they could not handle the volume of traffic. Is it because this process is a shambles that the Government have had to do a U-turn on the threat to end freedom of movement on 31 October, or is it the threat of court action that has caused the U-turn?
James Duddridge
We have improved the system on an ongoing basis, and we are keen to do so. The default position is that we want people to get that settled status. The hon. Gentleman makes specific points about a specific case, and I am sure that the Home Office would be happy to look at that and to understand how it can improve the system further.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Since I last updated the House, I have had the pleasure of welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) to his ministerial place. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for Braintree (James Cleverly), who have now both joined me in the Cabinet. We have a new Prime Minister, who is committed to leaving on 31 October, and within the ministerial portfolios, I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who has taken on responsibility for domestic operational planning in the context of no deal. This enables me and my Department to focus on negotiations with the EU, in which we will seek to achieve a best-in-class free trade agreement. Throughout the summer, I have visited a number of European capitals and had regular conversations with my key interlocutors, including the Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland and the French Europe Minister, with whom I had recent productive meetings in Paris.
Louise Haigh
If I was still a serving police officer and I arrested a European national who, unbeknown to me, was wanted for a string of serious violent sexual offences, at the moment I would simply have to access a database on booking him into custody to find that out. Will the Secretary of State spell out in detail how I or my custody sergeant would do that if we were to leave without a deal on 31 October?
Stephen Barclay
Under the current position, that would depend upon to which member state the situation pertained. We already have in place a bilateral arrangement with Ireland to reflect the common travel area, but the arrangements vary between member states. However, the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is right, because the UK puts more data into the European arrest warrant system than any other member state, and we think that the UK’s contribution is of value to the European Union and that it is not in its interest to put its citizens at risk by not reciprocating. We stand ready to work with member states, but it is the European Commission and my counterpart Michel Barnier who have ruled out what he calls “mini-deals” to address the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Stephen Barclay
As was covered earlier in the question session, a huge amount of work has been done by the Department of Health and Social Care, including on additional procurement capacity and express delivery. That builds on extensive work by the industry, including the additional stock and additional flow capacity that it has procured.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I want to ask specifically about the important issue of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government remain fully committed to all the existing elements of the December 2017 joint report between the UK and the EU negotiators? Yes or no?
Stephen Barclay
Our commitments were set out in the letter to President Tusk. It contains our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which includes putting no infrastructure at the border to impede north-south flow.
Keir Starmer
I asked a careful question, and I got a careful answer, which did not confirm full commitment, so let me press on. It has been reported this week that EU member states were told by the European Commission that the UK Government were proposing to reduce the ambitions of the 2017 joint report relating to Northern Ireland—not the Good Friday agreement, but the 2017 joint report. In particular, it has been reported that the UK is rowing back from the “legally operable” solutions to avoiding a hard border to what has been described as “aspirational” measures—that is quite specific. The pledge now is only to have trade across the Irish border that is “as frictionless as possible”—again, a difference. These are important issues, and I know that there has been a bit of knockabout this morning, but this is of huge importance across Ireland. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reject those reports and make it clear that there will be no rowing back from the solemn commitments made two years ago in the 2017 joint report?
Stephen Barclay
First, as I said in my previous answer, there has been no rowing back from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is an area of common accord between us. Secondly, the reason I pointed towards north-south co-operation is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware, the Prime Minister drew a distinction in the letter to President Tusk between the backstop and the Northern Ireland protocol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that, while the two terms are often used interchangeably in the Chamber, there is a distinction between them, particularly on the basis that the north-south co-operation, the common travel area and the benefits of the single electricity market are distinct from the points in terms of alignment.
As for right hon. and learned Gentleman’s further question around the legally operative text, I addressed that point to some extent in my remarks in the Chamber yesterday in that there is a distinction between the European Commission saying that all aspects need to be set out in a legally operative text by 31 October and looking at, for example, what role the joint committee will have during the implementation period, because the implementation period means that things need to be in place by the end of December 2020 or, if extended by mutual agreement, for one or two further years. It is therefore within that that there is a distinction to be drawn.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Stephen Barclay
Yes, we need to know who, at the 17 October council, can negotiate for the British people and, in particular, who can deliver on the express will set out in the referendum. What we have from Labour Members is doublespeak that will leave us in legislative purgatory, because they are saying, on the one hand, that they will vote against every deal that is put forward—three times they voted against the deal, and their own deal was rejected by the House as well—yet they also vote against no deal.
Well, the inevitable consequence is that they are not prepared to leave, even though their own manifesto said they are. The real question for the British public at the next election will be, how can they trust what Labour says in its manifesto on Brexit when it has gone back on every word it said at the last general election?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Barclay
I think the Chair of the Select Committee would concede that, of the holders of my role—I know there has been more than one—I have probably been the most frequent in appearing before his Committee and others. Actually, that is not the case when compared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but it is when compared with my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who is now Foreign Secretary.
On the substance of the question, there has been a huge amount of work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) asked about the different working groups, for example, and I chair the technical working group. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union chairs the business group, and he was in Northern Ireland with that group over the summer.
Again, it goes to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. Work has been going on throughout the summer on alternative arrangements, but if it is simply published against an all-weather, all-insurance test, it will be dismissed, as it was under the last Government, as magical thinking. That is what the last Government experienced. We need to get into the detail, and that work is going on, but it needs to be discussed in the appropriate way.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Ind)
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a specific issue and, as a former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I know the markets take a keen interest in such discussions. If I may, I will ask the Chancellor or the Economic Secretary to come back to him on this specific issue.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Stephen Barclay
I think the hon. Lady would agree that there is more than one voice in Tooting. I am sure there will be a range of voices, as indeed there is, but I do not resile from the fact that I am sure she speaks for a majority in her constituency in making that point.
My approach is that when this Parliament says it will give the British people their say, when the Government of the day write to the British people saying they will honour the result and when this House then votes by a significant margin to trigger article 50 to deliver on that result, it undermines our democracy if Members of this House, on the one hand, vote against a deal and then, on the other hand, say they will not countenance no deal. I think that is a threat to our democracy, and I think it is a threat to our international reputation as a country that defends democracy around the world.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed that it will support farmers in the same cash terms as they have been supported under the current scheme. We are working with farmers to look at new markets and, across the Government, we continue to work with businesses, both large and small. We are particularly encouraging small businesses to engage with the Government in their preparation for the eventuality of no deal.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his grand tour of Europe in recent weeks during the recess, notably to Finland, a nation of 5 million people and an enthusiastic member of the European Union. Given that the UK was only the seventh largest importer to Finland in 2018, how will leaving the single market and the customs union improve that dismal position?
Stephen Barclay
On the one hand, colleagues question whether we are engaging and on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that we are engaging too much. He needs to make up his mind.
On how we promote further trade, first, there are opportunities beyond Europe that we are keen to seize, and we have a Secretary of State for International Trade. [Interruption.] On Finland, about which the hon. Gentleman is chuntering, I chaired a breakfast meeting with business leaders when I was in Helsinki and we looked at, for example, links on key areas such as timber where there is an appetite to strengthen bilateral trade further. There was a huge appetite among the business leaders I spoke to there to do more trade with the United Kingdom, including with Scotland as part of that United Kingdom.
HS2
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government’s review of HS2.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This is my first time at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on HS2.
There is no future in obscuring the cost-benefits or timetable of HS2, so on 21 August I announced an independent cross-party review, led by Douglas Oakervee, of whether and how HS2 should or should not proceed. The review will consider the project’s affordability, deliverability, benefits, scope and phasing, including its relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. The chair will be supported by a deputy chair, Lord Berkeley, and a panel of experts from business, academia and transport to ensure that its assessment programme is independent, thorough and objective. Some of the individuals on the panel have been passionate advocates and others have been vocal critics of the project, but they will provide input to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions.
The review is under way and will report to me on time this autumn. I will discuss its findings with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and its recommendations will help to inform our decisions on the next step or otherwise for this project.
Colleagues will be aware that on our first day back, 3 September, I placed in the House advice that I received over the summer from the recently appointed chairman of HS2 Ltd, Allan Cook, on the cost and deliverability of the current scheme. He has said that he does not believe that the current scheme can be delivered within the budget of £55.7 billion, set at 2015 prices. He estimates that it requires a total budget, including contingency, in the range of £72 billion to £78 billion, again set at 2015 prices. The chairman does not believe that the current schedule of 2026 will be met for the initial services of phase 1. He does not think that that is realistic.
In line with lessons from other large major transport infrastructure projects, the chairman’s advice proposes a range of start dates rather than a specific one. He recommends 2028-31 for phase 1, 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 be open between 2035 and 2040.
The chairman is also of the view that the benefits of the current scheme are substantially undervalued. All those matters will now be considered by Douglas Oakervee within the scope of Oakervee review.
When I announced the independent review into HS2, I said that I want Doug Oakervee and his panel to assess independently the findings and other available existing evidence. The review will provide recommendations on whether and how we proceed.
I wish to make one further, wider point. Everyone in the House knows that we must invest in modern infrastructure to ensure the future prosperity of our nation. However, it is right that we subject every single project to the most rigorous scrutiny possible. If we are truly to maximise every opportunity, this must always be done with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper.
Mr Lidington
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his new responsibilities and welcome the review that the Government have set up.
I have three questions for my right hon. Friend. First, in view of this week’s revelation that HS2 is overrunning both its budget and its schedule—something that many of us have been predicting for a long time but that has been systematically denied for years by HS2 Ltd and by his Department—what assurance can my right hon. Friend give about the transparency of both the review that has been commissioned and the Government’s formal response to it?
Secondly, my right hon. Friend will know that enabling works for HS2 are still being carried out along phase 1 of the route. Ancient woodlands are being felled. Productive farmland is being occupied and used by HS2 Ltd. Public money is being spent on these works even though, as my right hon. Friend says, the review may lead to a recommendation to cancel or significantly change the project altogether. Will the Secretary of State now accept that those works are prejudicial to the outcome of the review that he has established and order that they cease?
Thirdly, I have a queue of constituents whose land has been taken by HS2 Ltd for preparatory works, but who have still to receive the payments that were formally agreed with HS2 Ltd. The Government have rightly committed to crack down on late payment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that HS2 Ltd should be setting an example in this regard, not acting as a laggard? As he, as Secretary of State, is the sole shareholder in HS2 Ltd, will he now take responsibility for insisting that HS2 Ltd puts this injustice right immediately?
Grant Shapps
First, on the budget and the schedule, it is exactly as I said in my opening statement: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no future in trying to obscure costs or in being unclear. It is the case that in a massive, developing infrastructure project—Europe’s biggest—costs just are not known. They are speculated about and then start to firm up, in this case, literally as we start to dig into the ground. I can see how over a period of time things move. None the less, I take the view that as soon as I have the information, I will inform the House—as soon as I got that Cook report and the House returned, I stuck it straight into the Library. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to do exactly that going forward.
Secondly, it might be helpful to colleagues to know that I have asked for Douglas Oakervee to meet Members of Parliament. He will be in Committee Room 2A on Monday 9 September, between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. That is an opportunity for any colleagues to go and see him. Colleagues can make their own arrangements with him separately, and I will inform the House of that.
Thirdly, on the enabling works, we are in a position where I have to make a go/no-go decision in December. I know that this will not a delight my right hon. Friend, but it seemed to me that if we did not continue to make preparatory works, I would not even be in the position to make a go/no-go decision. I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but that is the current position. We can then take a decision.
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern and anxiety about compulsory purchase order payments. When people’s lives, livelihoods and homes are potentially going to be ripped apart by a project that is supposedly for the wider good, it is right that the state compensates them promptly and efficiently. I would be most grateful to see more details of the cases he mentioned. I have already had one across my desk, which I have sorted out, and I would like to see others. There is no excuse for a CPO for which people are not paid.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment and welcome him to his place. He comes into post at a time of crisis for the country, but at an absolutely critical moment for HS2.
I gently remind the Secretary of State that we did ask for regular reports and recommended a peer review when phase 2a was before the House some weeks ago. I am sorry that he was not able to vote for that—or, indeed, that the Prime Minister was not able to express a view at all.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the review that is under way is a cross-party one, but I gently point out that there has been no consultation whatever with me. If it is to be genuinely cross-party, perhaps he might want to take up that invitation.
We have consistently been told by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the then ministerial team that the 2015 figure of £55.7 billion for the entire project was the full cost of HS2 and that there was no reason to change it. It is hard to conclude anything other than that it has been plain and obvious for some considerable time that this was not accurate. Will the Transport Secretary tell us when his predecessor was told that the figure of £55.7 billion was not accurate or sustainable and when he was first told that the timetable for delivery could not be adhered to?
Is this not yet more evidence that this Government have totally failed to exercise any control over the project—not just over costs, but with regard to redundancy payments and key appointments that transpired to be unsustainable? In addition, when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.
It is beyond doubt that the Government have been totally incompetent and reckless, but, worse than that, there hangs over this Government the unpleasant smell that Parliament may have been misled—however unwittingly—given that it is stark staringly obvious that when the Minister responsible for HS2 stood at the Dispatch Box a matter of weeks ago to tell the House that there was only one figure and one figure alone for HS2 that assertion was completely and totally inaccurate. If there is going to be delay, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to the 9,000 people currently employed by HS2?
This Government continue to be characterised by a lack of transparency. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks that he intends to put that right, but it still remains, as does a lack of candour. Once we can be assured that there is no prospect of the Government reneging on the legislation to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Labour relishes the prospect of a general election to turf them out.
Grant Shapps
On regular reports, I will come back to the House as many times as it is prepared to hear about this matter, and I will continue to update Members in every possible way. It might be helpful if I were to make the introduction—if the hon. Gentleman has not already had it—to Doug Oakervee; perhaps I could organise for the hon. Gentleman to meet him separately. Of course, there are cross-party members on the review panel and it is genuinely full of sceptics. I think people were surprised when we launched a review of this project that had such a broad, cross-party view.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that prices have changed over time. I seem to recall that this was originally a project by the previous Labour Government and that when it was conceived the whole thing was going to cost about £13 billion. One of the issues that we have, which is a wider issue than just HS2, is that these things start off being fixed at a price of a particular period of time—the figure of £55.7 billion was about 2015 prices—and that does not actually allow for inflation. We therefore end up quoting prices that are just out of date. On that basis, every project will always be said to have overrun on cost, although of course the benefits probably improve as well. We have to find better ways of doing all this.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the first time that I received advice on this matter was Allan Cook’s final report on 1 August, and that is the report that I published. Finally, I undertake to ensure that we return to the House with every update that we have, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be involved in the Oakervee review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
As colleagues will be aware, there is pressure on time today, because there are several further pieces of business to follow, but equally and understandably there is intense interest in this monumental mess and I know that the Secretary of State is very keen, to his credit, to answer questions, so I shall do my best, as always, to accommodate the understandable interest of colleagues.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I was just about to say that there are Members affected by this project who do not have a voice, and I was going to include you, but clearly that is not the case. Of course, there is also my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has always joined me in the fight against HS2.
In welcoming the Secretary of State to his position, may I also welcome my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)? It is so good to hear his voice raised in this Chamber against this dreadful project, and I endorse everything he said. It applies to my constituency as well.
The Secretary of State also needs to look at the national rail travel survey, on which one of the raisons d’être for this project is based, but which has not been updated since 2010. In answers to me, the Department does not appear to know how much it would cost to update it. That, coupled with the fact that we are still not allowed to see the passenger forecasting documentation, means that transparency is far from the watchword of HS2. Pages right the way through the chairman’s stocktake have been redacted. Transparency is not the order of the day.
The Secretary of State should grasp with both hands this opportunity to review the project entirely and review the nationwide transport and communication policy. I urge him to take a deep breath and carry out a comprehensive assessment across car, bus, train and air, as well as new technologies such as 5G and broadband, because it is essential that we look at the technological advances before we let this project go any further.
As the carriages being built for Crossrail pile up in Worksop because we cannot get that project right, let us draw a deep breath, cancel this project, start again and get a decent comprehensive transport policy.
Grant Shapps
I know that Douglas Oakervee will have been listening to my right hon. Friend’s words with great interest and will no doubt take into account the national rail travel survey information. She will of course meet him as well. I will just reflect on her final point—because of course Douglas Oakervee is looking at all this—about all forms of travel across the country. I entirely agree with her. Having ordered it two years ago, I recently got an electric car. It finally arrived a couple of weeks ago. It is clear that transport is changing in this country and that we have to take a more holistic view of it. Rail is one part, but there is much else to consider.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. He must be so thankful to have inherited another failing Grayling legacy.
We know that the increased costs and delays have been covered up since 2016 and denied at the Dispatch Box, so, while I welcome the review, should there not be an inquiry into this hiding of key information from the House? While I welcome the review, I find it strange that about a third of the document that sets out its terms has been redacted. Can he explain why?
What changes will be made to the cost-benefit criteria, and why? While the Secretary of State said that many of the benefits of the scheme were previously underestimated, I would remind him that the business case rested on the assumption that time business people spent travelling by train should be treated as downtime, meaning that shorter train journeys were treated as increasing productive time, when clearly that is not the case now that we have wi-fi on the go. Will he confirm that that aspect of the business case will not be over-egged?
The current proposals also mean that journeys north of Crewe to Scotland will be slower than the existing Virgin service. Will the review look at that and perhaps a different type of rolling stock? If it does, what will that mean for the existing rolling stock and ongoing procurement? What further reviews and cost-benefit analyses will be done of track design that could mean slower high-speed trains but reduced costs? What is the contractual status of the recent contract awards to First Trenitalia, given that the Government might now be doing a full stock decision? What would that mean for that contract? What is the committed spend, to date, in the Barnett allocations to Scotland, and what will happen going forward? We were promised at the Dispatch Box that on day one of the high-speed trains operating they would go all the way to Scotland, and that is now not the case. Will the Secretary of State answer those questions and, if not, please put his responses in writing?
Grant Shapps
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I write to him on some of that, rather than detain the House on all of it. He is absolutely right about the Allan Cook report. I should have mentioned that in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I am unhappy about having any of that report redacted. I have read the rest of it. It is not hugely exciting. I pushed back on that with the Department, and apparently it is just that the lawyers are saying that it is commercially confidential stuff that I cannot force to be released. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be much better if we could read every single page, but that is the law. [Interruption.] I do not disagree—it is just that lawyers will not allow it to happen.
On downtime when travelling, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Lots of people work very productively when travelling. It is my favourite time to work uninterrupted. I can assure him that Doug Oakervee will look at that. Allan Cook referred to some of the build benefits where there could be new industry, homes and so on in an area where a line runs.
The last point I will comment on—I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the rest—is the implications for the west coast partnership. That is very important. Under the contract, I think in 2026—that it would be in line with if HS2 went ahead—the company would become a shadow operator, so it is built into that contract if the thing goes ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a further urgent question after this and there are then three ministerial statements before we get to the Backbench business. Therefore, there is a premium upon brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike. For the avoidance of doubt, what I am looking for from colleagues is not dilation and not preamble but single-sentence questions, which will be brilliantly exemplified, I feel sure, by the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Thank you for that challenge, Mr Speaker. May I first welcome my right hon. Friend to his position?
The easiest thing for the Government to do is to cancel this project. That would be easy to do, but it would be the wrong thing to do, for this reason: I would find it ironical that, as we leave the European Union, I can get a high-speed train to Paris or to Brussels but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield. My right hon. Friend talks about the overspend, but we seem to be able to accommodate at the drop of a hat the overspend on the Crossrail project, which is overrunning. That is a London project that is incredibly important for London, but we do not take a similar view of a project that has been long thought out and is absolutely essential for the major cities outside London.
Grant Shapps
I am not short of advice on what to do on HS2, but few pieces of advice come from somebody as distinguished as a former Transport Secretary. I have heard what he has had to say, as I know Doug Oakervee will have done, and I look forward to taking it into account.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place.
The Secretary of State must understand the huge disappointment in the east midlands that HS2 phase 2b —which will, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, transform connectivity between Birmingham and the economies of the midlands, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland—is now facing a delay of up to seven years, or even cancellation. That is particularly the case when the Chancellor failed to even mention the midlands rail hub in his spending review and when the Secretary of State’s predecessor not only repeatedly assured us that HS2 would happen but cancelled the electrification of the midland main line. I know that the Oakervee review is due to report, but the disappointment will turn to deep anger if the Secretary of State does not ensure that the midlands receives the investment in its transport that it needs.
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Lady; it is a pleasure to have a question from the Chair of the Transport Committee. The one thing I can assure her of is that there will be £48 billion of other unrelated rail investment over the next few years, so both the midlands and the northern powerhouse rail side of things will certainly have huge—massive—investment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Reiterating my plea for brevity, I hopefully call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. Secondly, I entirely endorse the views of my right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). The reality is that this whole project is completely out of control. The costs have gone up repeatedly. I voted against it. There is a petition in the House of Lords, which my constituents were absolutely right to pursue. This whole project is a complete white elephant and should be cancelled.
Grant Shapps
As I say, I am not short of advice on this, and Doug Oakervee will definitely have heard my hon. Friend’s words.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I will try to be brief, Mr Speaker. I have always been against this. I was reviled by Ministers when I said that the cost would end up at £100 billion. I wanted the investment in a network across the north of England in preference to this. Will the Secretary of State assure me that we will learn the lessons? This is a great sector that we do wonderful things in. We built the Olympics on time, and it was magnificent. I understand that there are 12 gagging orders for senior former employees of HS2 Ltd. Can they give evidence to this inquiry, and can we ensure that we learn the lessons? We are good in this sector, so why has this gone wrong?
Grant Shapps
Even with the Olympics, the cost changed over a period. The hon. Gentleman will know that big projects require management, and the process is designed to ensure that this is properly grasped. I agree with him—we need to deliver that transport infrastructure across the north. I am surprised that no Member has mentioned it yet, but these two questions are not entirely unrelated, so we must get it right for the north and for all our country.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am not sure it is the entirely appropriate expression to congratulate my right hon. Friend on inheriting responsibility for HS2, but I wholeheartedly congratulate him on becoming the Secretary of State. In agreeing entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) said, may I press the Secretary State on the point he made about enabling works? As he knows, there is more than one kind of enabling work currently under way. Some of the enabling work is the destruction of ancient woodland sites. There are seven of them in my constituency, along with a very old and much valued pear tree in the village of Cubbington. Given that he has announced an all-options review, including the possibility that this project will be cancelled or significantly revised, surely it is possible and sensible to categorise those types of enabling work that will do irreversible damage and postpone them until the review has concluded. He has already announced a substantial delay in this project. Surely a delay of a few weeks more would be sensible, to ensure that we do not do irreversible damage.
Grant Shapps
As I said before, to have a proper go/no-go decision, we need to continue to allow enabling works. However, I can ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is handling these major projects, to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss that specific concern.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Unlike Derbyshire Dales, HS2 goes through many villages in the Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire area. The result is that there are a lot of people in those villages—more than 100—affected by HS2. I want to know as soon as possible just exactly what is going to happen to this £100 billion project. It goes through Derbyshire on two separate lines. Not only does it go past Sheffield; it also stops at a Sheffield station, so there is a slow track and a fast track in Derbyshire. The idea that HS2 is based upon getting to London 30 minutes sooner is a joke and, for that reason, the Secretary of State should start over again.
Grant Shapps
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is affected in a big way. I refer to what I said before. This project affects a lot of people’s lives, with demolitions and the rest of it in his patch. He asked me to do this as soon as possible. I have Douglas Oakervee on an unbelievable timetable, supported by a fantastic group of people, to get this done and reported back this autumn. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait before the end of the year.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Long Eaton, Sandiacre and Stanton Gate are grossly affected by the eastern arm of HS2, but as the Chair of the Transport Committee has already indicated, it brings advantages as well—jobs and growth as well as the pain. I will say two things. One is that any delay causes further stress and uncertainty not just for residents, but for businesses. They will be blighted for ever more, even if my right hon. Friend takes the easier way out and cancels the eastern arm. My plea to him is: do not cancel that eastern arm. I will not allow the east midlands and Erewash to be the poor relations yet again.
Grant Shapps
I think every exchange indicates that, while everyone is able to welcome a review, when we get to the announcement of that review on the other side the House will not be quite so united, but I absolutely hear my hon. Friend’s comments.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Inflation aside, this multi-billion increase in cost betrays nothing other than sheer incompetence in the management of this project. In the west midlands, 100,000 jobs are now in jeopardy; hundreds of millions of pounds of new rates are now in jeopardy; and the future prospects of the younger generation are now in jeopardy. I want to know from the Secretary of State what compensation has been sought by the Mayor of the West Midlands, because my understanding is that he has asked for precisely nothing?
Grant Shapps
We have a range of different people on the Doug Oakervee board, including Andy Street, and we are making sure that all the representations go into it. As I say, I do not want to rush to prejudge this. We do know certain things. We know from the Allan Cook report about the range of £72 billion to £78 billion. I do not have confidence in the data I have been provided with to know yet whether the benefits have outstripped or under-stripped these various different costs. I just start with a blank sheet of paper. I just want the data: give me the facts and then we will be in a much better position to decide, including for people throughout the west midlands.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I am sure I was as pleased as you were, Mr Speaker, to hear about the review undertaken by the new Secretary of State. Can he reassure me that, as part of the new cost-benefit analysis, the review will take into account that many people work very hard while on trains, as I am about to do as I return to my constituency on a high-speed train run by Chiltern Rail?
Grant Shapps
Absolutely. Travelling on a train can be a fantastic way to chomp through constituency work or anything else that people are doing on business or for pleasure. It is one of the most civilised ways to work—when we have our trains running on time, which is another related priority.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Government widen this review not just to their complete lack of grip on the HS2 project, but to the continued failure of the Department to remember that there are towns as well as cities in this country? It is continually locking billions of pounds into ever-delayed, ever-escalating projects for cities, while towns such as Castleford and Pontefract have inadequate trains—overcrowded, old Pacer trains, with no disabled access to our trains—and, once again, we are just expected to accept a trickle-down of benefits many decades into the future. It is not good enough. When will we actually get a fair deal for our towns?
Grant Shapps
As the representative of two towns—one, Welwyn Garden, calls itself a city, but it is actually a town—I absolutely agree with the idea that towns have a significant part to play in the economic and social life of our country. One good piece of news: those Pacers are finally going by the end of this year.[Official Report, 9 September 2019, Vol. 664, c. 5MC.]
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At what level of exorbitant expenditure will the Government finally decide to pull the plug?
Grant Shapps
As I say, it is not just a question of the expenditure. As I mentioned before, it is also what the benefits are. May I ask my right hon. Friend just to be patient enough so that the data is covered on both sides of that, and we can come to a rational and sensible decision?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Colleagues should now follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) with single- sentence questions. If they do not—let us be absolutely clear—they are stopping other colleagues taking part. It is as simple as that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State commit to look at any new major transport infrastructure projects in line with the 2050 net zero carbon target that this House has set itself?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is a north-south divide when it comes to transport spending. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will consider the benefits to the northern economy when he reaches his decision?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
What is the status of the review if we go to the polls this autumn? My constituents see this as a pre-election bribe for the Government’s voters in the shires.
Grant Shapps
This project is too serious to be thinking in those terms, and I certainly was not when I asked Douglas Oakervee to carry out this review. As I have now said twice, this is about people’s lives and livelihoods and the ability of this country’s economy to function. Regardless of what happens when we finally get that election call, I hope there will be cross-party consensus to continue this important work on a cross-party basis and get the job done.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State look at the cost envelope by taking into account enhancements that benefit those on the route, inflation and incompetence?
Grant Shapps
As the terms of reference, which I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to read, make clear, this review is wide ranging and takes all such matters into account.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Given the delays to the southern section of the route, will the Secretary of State ask the review to consider the possibility of starting the northern sections before the southern section is finished, so that there is a degree of working overlap?
Grant Shapps
That is one of the things that Douglas Oakervee is looking at. Interestingly, Allan Cook’s report, which is in the Library, suggests doing phases 1 and 2a together.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that spiralling costs must be challenged and held to account, but this project is vital for the northern routes, which are already overstretched. Will he assure me that this review is not just a smokescreen to cancel the project, which many of our current Executive do not like?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend’s question reminds me of a clip that I made on the day of announcing this full, thorough and open review. When the camera was switched off they said, “What do you really think?” What I really think is that we should have a full, thorough and open review.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Business leaders in Sheffield are deeply concerned about this review. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, whatever else he is considering, cancellation would damage the northern economy?
Grant Shapps
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever happens, the northern economy and northern powerhouse rail is set to steam ahead.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will the review take into account the potential negative effects of the business case on the existing and vital west coast main line?
Grant Shapps
Yes it will, and I ask my hon. Friend to meet Douglas Oakervee to make those points, because every element of this is being taken into account.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Are there not many abandoned former railway lines across the country for which, for the first time in a long time, there is now extensive demand? Those could be reopened for a fraction of the cost of HS2.
Grant Shapps
With huge respect to him, I curse Beeching every day in this job and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
What will be the effect of a delay or cancellation of HS2 on the west coast main line, which is of concern to my constituents in Rugby?
Grant Shapps
I do not think there is any direct ramification. We have just re-let the west coast partnership contract, so the answer to my hon. Friend is, none.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
HS2 is vital for the economy of Manchester and the north. As the chairman’s stocktake says:
“HS2 is not a standalone railway but rather an integral part of ambitious regional growth plans,”
and it is already attracting investment. Will the Secretary of State assure us that those wider benefits will fully be taken into account in this review?
Grant Shapps
I can. I have met the Mayor of Manchester and Mayors across the north, and I am due to meet them again shortly. Those things absolutely will be taken into account.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I voted against HS2 every time. Would the money be better spent on improvements to our existing conventional rail network?
Grant Shapps
The answer is that I do not know, but I like to think that £48 billion on improving and upgrading our existing networks is a good down payment.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport assured me that the full stretch of HS2 will go up to Scotland. Is that the case, and when?
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently struggling with stages 1, 2a and 2b, but the overall plan was always to go further.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State commit to investing in the costs of places with collateral damage, such as villages such as Woore in my constituency that will suffer grievously during the construction process? Will he also commit to look at the value of spending £100 billion, which this project is cantering towards, on full-fibre broadband for every household?
Grant Shapps
We must have full-fibre broadband in every household, and that is a commitment of this Government regardless. My right hon. Friend describes devastation to villages, and I agree that we must find a better way of doing this. We must look after people properly when great national projects drive through their homes.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Significant UK and Welsh Government money, linked to HS2 at Crewe, is going into growth deals in north Wales. What opportunities are there for the Welsh Government to formally feed into the review?
Grant Shapps
There are enormous opportunities. If not on Monday, at the time I mentioned at the Dispatch Box earlier, then separately I am very happy to hook up the right hon. Gentleman, and any of his colleagues, with Doug Oakervee.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
HS2 will be the most expensive railway ever built by mankind. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a very significant opportunity cost and therefore to get bang for our buck we should be investing in significant regional infrastructure projects?
Grant Shapps
That is very effective lobbying. My hon. Friend has already secured a great achievement with regards to the railway on his own Island. He proves that we can do both things simultaneously if we need to.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The key rail investment in the north has to be a high-speed link between Liverpool in the west and Hull in the east. Is it not right that any additional resources should be put into that, rather than HS2?
Grant Shapps
I would extend that further to Sheffield, Hull, Newcastle and other cities in the north. We can do both things and we will do both things: both upgrading the national rail infrastructure and—the Prime Minister mentioned this in his first speech, which he made in Manchester, so I think it would be a bit churlish not to recognise it—linking northern cities.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem with HS2 is that the benefits are not shared around the country. The west, in particular, gains nothing. Will the Secretary of State look at how we could put the money into electrification and rebuilding the Severn tunnel?
Grant Shapps
I do not know in what form this will or will not take place, but I do know that the jobs, skills and supply chain affect the entire nation. There is almost not a constituency in the country that would not benefit in some way. As with any big national infrastructure project, we need to ensure that the benefits of that work and supply chain are spread across the nation.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Given that the entire review will be completed in a matter of weeks, can the Secretary of State really have confidence that it will have thoroughly considered the impacts that scrapping or changing phases 2a and 2b would have on Crewe and Nantwich, as a significant centre of economic activity for the wider region?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I think I can reassure the hon. Lady that, although the review is reporting very quickly—within weeks, as she says—the experience on the panel adds up to years. I have not added it up, but it is possibly hundreds of years of rail experience. I think they will really take that into account. Again, I invite and welcome her to speak to Douglas Oakervee to make sure 2a and 2b are fully represented in her terms.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State give us a date for when we can expect HS2 to be extended to Scotland? If not, are the people of Scotland expected to sit and watch £100 billion being spent on this project when it literally pulls up short?
Grant Shapps
I do not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I cannot give her a date on the initial phases, let alone on that extension. I do think there is a very good point here about linking up our Union. I am pleased to see the nationalist side so onside with that project.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentions the extension to Scotland. However, journey times between Glasgow and Manchester will increase as a result of HS2. Will he ask the review to consider expediting an extension north to Glasgow from Manchester as a matter of urgency?
Grant Shapps
Again, I think this comes into the wider picture. The £48 billion of rail investment over five years means that we should be able to do lots of different things at the same time—and indeed, we are. I think that is part of the wider infrastructure project for improvements on rail throughout the country.
Northern Ireland
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will respond to the urgent question of which I have given prior notice?
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Julian Smith)
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive work over the summer on a range of issues, including those relating to Harland and Wolff. Secondly, may I remind Members that I have been held captive in the Whips Office for over three years and that this is therefore my first Dispatch Box appearance? I have to be honest and say that I am very grateful not to be the Government’s current Chief Whip.
As is my duty under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act 2019, I will publish a report on or before 9 October to update on progress. Throughout the period ahead, I will be doing everything I can to support and encourage talks to succeed. Democratically elected politicians in Northern Ireland are best placed to take the decisions needed to support hospitals, schools and the police. I have seen the excellent work of civil servants in Northern Ireland over the last few weeks, but of course they cannot take the proactive decisions that are needed on public services or the economy in the run-up to 31 October. If we cannot secure the restoration of an Executive, we will pursue the decision-making powers that are needed at the earliest opportunity.
Tony Lloyd
I welcome the Secretary of State to his role and his appearance at the Dispatch Box. He will know that Northern Ireland is in a unique position in the United Kingdom: it has no devolved Government, nor does the Secretary of State or any member of the UK Government have powers to deliver the kind of transformation that is needed. I know from my conversations with senior members of the Northern Ireland civil service that they are frustrated by their inability to make the decisions—whether on health, education or the issues that we now face—that Northern Ireland so desperately needs.
In that context, we face the Prorogation of Parliament and the possibility—I accept it is a possibility—of a no-deal Brexit and a general election coming fast down the track. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 will expire some time in October, and I have a number of specific questions that I need to put to the Secretary of State about the good governance of Northern Ireland.
The first examines the question of Prorogation. We know that we face the possibility of Prorogation next week and that that provides enormous challenges in terms of governance. Yes, if we can see Stormont back in operation, that will achieve what we need, but does the Secretary of State accept that there are real dangers during a period of Prorogation, in terms of the governance of Northern Ireland? Will he tell the House precisely when he was consulted about Prorogation? What advice did he give to the Prime Minister and other members of the Government?
Turning to a no-deal Brexit, the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), told the House before the summer that in the circumstances that it “voted for no deal”, or in any case, if there were no deal, “we”—the Government—
“would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about…providing strengthened decision making in the event of that outcome. That would include the real possibility of imposing a form of direct rule.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 391.]
The Foreign Secretary told the “Today” programme that direct rule would require legislation and made it quite clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would need to follow that up. Does the Secretary of State accept that some form of direct governance—of direct accountability—would be necessary in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Can he tell us what steps he is taking?
Finally, in any part of the United Kingdom we expect the security of our people to be paramount. There will be some real questions about making sure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how he intends to make sure that the allocation of those resources ensures that the PSNI has the resource base and numbers that it needs? If this were your constituency, Mr Speaker, or Rochdale, Skipton and Ripon, Wales or Scotland, this situation would not be allowed to happen. I hope that the Secretary of State shares my view that this cannot be allowed to frustrate and put Northern Ireland in a position of discomfort, or worse.
Julian Smith
The hon. Gentleman asks about dangers. I think I have been very honest with the House that powers are needed to ensure, not only in the current situation, where civil servants across Northern Ireland are making difficult decisions without political direction, but obviously in the run-up either to a deal or no deal, that the very tricky decisions can be made, and I am sure that those will have to be made at pace.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice on Prorogation. It was not something that I or my Department was involved in. That was a matter for the Attorney General. As Parliament is aware, the Cabinet was updated shortly before the decision was announced.
On what happens if the talks do not succeed in time, again, I have been clear that we need to have powers at the earliest opportunity because some of the challenges that will emerge will do so fairly soon, but we have to operate in the environment governed by the Good Friday agreement. On that point, certainly in the discussions that I am having with the Irish Foreign Secretary on the talks, the relationship is very positive.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the PSNI. As he will be aware, the PSNI has gained about £20 million of additional funding. However, when we look at how we direct funding and make those decisions, we see that, to ensure that a large and important part of our country is not left ungoverned at a difficult time, we do need powers to be in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. In the name of expediting business, I appeal for extreme brevity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I echo entirely the concerns of the shadow Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend’s commitment to Northern Ireland is not in question, but the impression coming out of some sections of the Government is that Northern Ireland could easily now be collateral damage, so may I ask him a specific question? He referred to the Attorney General’s legal advice on Prorogation, which he will have seen. Did it make specific reference to the unique and pressing needs of Northern Ireland and how they might be attenuated as the Prime Minister set out his strategy, and if not, why not?
Julian Smith
It would obviously be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of that legal advice in the House, but suffice it to say that I have indicated that, to preserve the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland, we need to get Stormont up and running again or, failing that, ensure that powers are in place to protect those rights, jobs and the economy and the commitments made by the Irish and UK Governments on the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The impact of no deal on the devolved nations has been well documented, with Northern Ireland at particular risk owing to the border. Reports that the Government are trying to row back from their 2017 joint report commitments are deeply concerning. Do the UK Government not see that this particular game of brinkmanship that the Prime Minister is playing could have catastrophic consequences for the people on Northern Ireland, and will the Secretary of State now commit to ensuring that no deal is taken off the table? Such moments press home more clearly than ever the need for Northern Ireland to have a functioning legislature, so what progress has been made over the summer to ensure that Stormont is reconvened at the earliest opportunity?
Finally, the Prime Minister said that he had not decided to prorogue Parliament, but we have now learned from evidence in Scotland’s Court of Session that, in reality, he had already signed off on Prorogation in his red box. Can the Secretary of State tell us why there is such a disconnect between the Prime Minister’s words and his actions?
Julian Smith
On the question of deal versus no deal, my job is to lead the efforts for Northern Ireland to prepare for no deal, but I could not be clearer in my mind that a deal is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. As for the talks, we have issued the report outlining what occurred over the summer. These have been at a differing pace throughout the summer. There have been good talks. The issues are important, but not insolvable. I again pay tribute to Simon Coveney and officials for the work that has been done over the summer to get us to a point where we are not far from the finishing line, if the parties want to push forward.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I join the shadow Secretary of State in expressing concern about the impact that Prorogation may have on the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I welcome him to his new post and wish him every success—ensure that during Prorogation the Government will not stop working for those who need redress, and by that I mean the victims of historical institutional sexual abuse and those who were severely physically or psychologically disabled during the troubles through no fault of their own? They need redress and they need it urgently. Can he assure me that he will deliver that?
Julian Smith
May I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who did an exceptional job as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She will know of the trauma that victims have suffered. It is now three years since the Hart report was published, and the work that she did means that the Bill could now be presented at the earliest opportunity. I hope that we will get that into the Queen’s Speech and ensure that we solve the issue once and for all.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
In the absence of a Stormont Government, and in view of the potential difficulties arising from no deal, will the Secretary of State clarify who will make decisions during that period and tell us what discussions he has had both with the political parties and the Irish Government about the implications of direct rule?
Julian Smith
I strongly believe that getting the talks up and running, and getting Stormont up and running, is in the best interests of Northern Ireland and is the best route for decision making. Obviously, along with Cabinet colleagues, I am considering alternatives should that fail, but we have to try to get Stormont up and running.
Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his responsibilities. Does he agree that it would be frankly unconscionable for any Government to lead us into a no-deal Brexit in which the Northern Ireland civil service lacked the legal powers and authority to cope with those circumstances? Does this not point to the need for legislation to be introduced and enacted before the end of October?
Julian Smith
I think it is vital that, first and foremost, we get the talks up and running. If that does not work, we must establish powers to ensure that we are making all the decisions in the best possible way for the citizens of Northern Ireland.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their posts. We look forward to working with them in the days and weeks ahead.
Let me reiterate our commitment to getting Stormont up and running as quickly as possible, although I welcome the concentration on the need for direct decision-making powers to be taken in the event that that is not possible. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is extremely important that Northern Ireland is not left, uniquely, in the terrible position of having no one in charge during these critical days.
Does the Secretary of State welcome the publication of remarks made by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic yesterday, in which he indicated that in the event of no deal there would no checks or infrastructure on the border? We should build on that, because there is room for progress towards securing a deal, which we all want.
Julian Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Thankfully, the EU negotiations are not my responsibility, but I do think that a deal is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Everyone in the House supports the Belfast agreement, and everyone in the House would like to see the institutions up and running again, but we cannot bludgeon one party into co-operating, and in the meantime outcomes are deteriorating for our fellow citizens. The Bengoa report was published in October 2016. While he is looking at this, will the Secretary of State also consider what powers he could take to benefit every citizen in Northern Ireland?
Julian Smith
I know from visiting hospitals and schools that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long, public servants have been having to make decisions that should have been made by politicians. I must be frank with the House. The powers that I have—the powers that are available for decision making—are extremely limited, and that is why it is a priority for us to get Stormont up and running.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Of course, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State—whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment, while also thanking his predecessor—will know from the very angry and concerned representations that I have already made to his office that I am extremely worried and annoyed that a statutory instrument which governs key appointments to a range of bodies in Northern Ireland—including appointments of QCs—has been put in jeopardy by Prorogation. I need a commitment, a guarantee, from the Secretary of State today that that statutory instrument will be debated in the House on Monday, or on Tuesday, but certainly before Prorogation. It affects people’s lives in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to protect those lives.
Julian Smith
I hope to table a motion for the statutory instrument early next week.
Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)
It is clear from what my right hon. Friend is saying that if we have a no-deal Brexit and Stormont is not up and running, to protect the rights of Northern Ireland, we need to take powers; to take powers, we need to legislate; and to legislate, the House needs to be sitting. Is it not also clear that if the House does not pass that legislation by the end of October because it has been prorogued or dissolved, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland will be detrimentally affected?
Julian Smith
Again, the priority has to be getting Stormont up and running. I have been honest and open to the House about the need for powers, and clearly my right hon. Friend is right that at the very heart of the need for those powers are the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is the Secretary of State sickened already by people talking up the dangers—almost cheerleading and willing on the problems instead of helping to find solutions? When will the Secretary of State be able to bring forward a report or a Bill on institutional historical abuse cases, which was promised before the recess?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there are no circumstances, including a no-deal Brexit, under which the British Government would erect a hard border on the island of Ireland?
Julian Smith
We are fully committed to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the Sunday papers at the weekend, there were indications that dissident republicans are contacting experienced bomb makers in the IRA to make a spectacular big bomb. What is being done to prevent dissident republicans from making contact with the bomb makers, to ensure that those bombs never happen in Northern Ireland or anywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Julian Smith
The PSNI and the security services have done an exceptional job over the summer. I pay tribute to them and their families, because people are trying to kill them—that is on the increase and certainly was over the summer. I have decided to convene a weekly security meeting that includes the PSNI to make sure that in the coming weeks and months I am apprised on a regular basis and meeting those people who are leading these teams putting their lives on the line.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In congratulating the new Secretary of State, may I ask him what he plans to do about stopping the relentless hounding of Army and police veterans in respect of alleged historical crimes when most of the evidence has disappeared? What is he going to do about it?
Julian Smith
As my hon. Friend will have seen from the report we laid yesterday and from the comments the Prime Minister has made, there has been a new cross-Government effort to ensure that we look at this issue. I know that he has raised this issue many times in this House, and I hope he welcomes the fact that the Government accept that the current situation is not working and that we need to relook at and revisit this area. I and a number of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet are doing so and look forward to reporting to the House in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I remind colleagues that a single-sentence question is imperative.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Given the unique challenges that Prorogation or Dissolution present to the Northern Ireland Office, why was the Secretary of State not consulted by the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings before the Prorogation plan was agreed?
Julian Smith
The Cabinet was updated immediately before the decision; the hon. Gentleman will have to ask others about the first part of his question.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Northern Ireland civil service was clear that a decision to extend the welfare mitigation package was needed this autumn or else it would have to start taking alternative measures to advise Northern Ireland recipients of them on what action they should take. Has the Secretary of State got a plan to extend the welfare mitigations in the near future?
Julian Smith
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in Northern Ireland last week. I continue to work with her and she is actively involved in looking at the issue of welfare not only in Great Britain but across Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of the Labour party yesterday in forcing through the pro-EU anti-democratic surrender Bill will make it more difficult for the Government to reach an agreement with the EU and therefore produce a situation in which direct rule is likely? Will he give an assurance that he will not shy away from the decision that should, quite frankly, have been made a long time ago?
Julian Smith
We have to focus on getting a deal for Northern Ireland. That is my priority in supporting the Prime Minister, and that is his priority. Let us get Stormont up and running. That will solve many of the issues that we are concerned about today.
Mr Speaker
My apologies to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). If I had seen him earlier, I would have called him earlier, but it is a pleasure to call him now.
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. It is a privilege to serve in office and I wish him all success with his role. He highlighted in his written statement yesterday the need to intensify negotiations with the parties. That is the way to avoid legislation being needed. Perhaps he could set out what form he expects that to take.
Julian Smith
As I mentioned earlier, we have been having good discussions over the summer. I met the Irish Foreign Minister last Friday and we will be meeting again this Friday. I hope to push forward, with him, on working with the parties to get into a position where we have the best possible opportunity to get Stormont up and running.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
We heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) yesterday about the Prime Minister’s failure, to date, to meet the Taoiseach, so what engagement on Prorogation has there been with the Irish Government in their capacity as co-guarantors under the Good Friday agreement?
Julian Smith
I meet the Irish Foreign Minister regularly, but I have not discussed the issue of Prorogation.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I am pleased to see that he is committed to legislation for victims of institutional abuse being in the Queen’s Speech. Can he commit to that legislation coming to this place before the end of year?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
If we prorogue and then move to Dissolution and Stormont is still not sitting, what will happen to the provisions of the Northern Irish Bill that repeal sections 58 and59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 after 22 October?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Just this week, Northern Ireland has received over £400 million extra in the spending review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Northern Ireland will get far better value for that money in all areas of spending by having the Assembly up and running?
Julian Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the £400 million, but we need a political decision making body, the Executive, to ensure that it is directed in the best interests of Northern Ireland citizens.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s former boss instigated a review into the Home Office forcing British identity on those who identify as Irish, such as Emma de Souza back in February. Can the Secretary of State advise the House whether his new boss has binned that review? If not, why not, and when will he publish it?
Julian Smith
It is vital that this House continues to respect the dual citizenship components that the hon. Gentleman talks about and ensures that they are preserved. The review is taking place, and I have made strong representations. The Government are fully committed to the Good Friday agreement obligations.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Prime Minister says that a hard border can be avoided by the use of existing technology, so can the Secretary of State explain what technology can check passports, visas and customs arrangements for goods without so much as a camera at the border?
Julian Smith
The Government are fully committed, as are the Irish Government, to the common travel area in all deal and no-deal scenarios.
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman’s point of order appertains to the matters of which we have just treated, I will take it if it is brief.
Tony Lloyd
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State was very candid in his admission that he was not consulted about Prorogation. Important decisions have to be made about Northern Ireland’s governance over this period. Can we have a clear statement, perhaps from the Prime Minister, that there will be time, either before Prorogation or at a convenient time for this House, to give the Secretary of State the power to do the things that Northern Ireland needs?
Mr Speaker
He does not wish to respond. Okay. The point of order has been heard. It is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair, but I want to say to the Secretary of State that the concern that has been expressed on this matter on both sides of the House, including by a number of former Northern Ireland Secretaries, will have registered very firmly with the right hon. Gentleman, and more must be heard about this matter ere long. We need to be absolutely crystal clear on that point. Nothing can get in the way of the provision of proper information to the House on this matter, as the Chair of the Select Committee and many others have emphasised. No one should think that that can be averted. It cannot be, and it will not be.
Ian Paisley
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several Members have taken to naming a senior public official of civil service rank from time to time—not only during this urgent question, but in debates. Perhaps you can correct me, but I was under the impression that to name a public servant in that way is out of order, wrong and should be avoided. Is that the case? What are the rules regarding naming and trying to shame public officials in this way?
Mr Speaker
Courteous reference is the guiding principle. The notion that no public servant can be referred to is not correct. It is an interesting concept on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but there is no track record on that matter.
We come now to the statement by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in respect of which there is, again, a premium upon brevity.
Building Safety
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, I wish to take this early opportunity as Secretary of State to update the House on the Government’s progress on building safety and to set out this Administration’s approach. Two years on from the Grenfell tragedy, it remains our priority to ensure that we have a building safety system that people can trust. In taking on this role, I have been mindful of my responsibility to the bereaved and the survivors of that tragedy. We must support them to recover and rebuild their lives. I am pleased that we will have the continued support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) as Minister for Grenfell victims. I am determined to play my part in their pursuit of answers and justice and to ensure that all residents of high-rise blocks of flats are safe, and feel safe, now and in the future. My predecessors have tackled that work with commitment and integrity, but having reviewed such matters since my appointment, it is clear to me that we must go further and at pace if we are to secure the system of building safety that we all want, so I will update the House on the immediate action that I intend to take.
First, I am consulting on changes to fire safety regulations for new build blocks of flats. We will seek to commit to requiring sprinkler systems as standard in a wider range of new flats. I am minded to reduce the height at which sprinklers are required down to 18 metres, but I am open to hearing evidence for other relevant thresholds and will be led by that evidence, wherever it takes us. We will also consult on requiring better signs and evacuation alert systems to support effective firefighting. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their valuable and continuing contributions. I have also published a summary of responses to our call for evidence on a full review of the technical requirements in approved document B. There will likely be additional changes in due course. When taking such decisions, we will always be led by the evidence and residents’ safety. I will keep the industry and Parliament informed.
Secondly, with respect to the “Building a Safer Future” consultation, I intend to respond by the end of the year and to legislate at the earliest opportunity. I believe that we should establish a new building safety regulator to oversee the new regulatory regime for buildings. However, it is clear that we need to act now, so we are working with the Health and Safety Executive to use its experience to set up the regulator in shadow form prior to new legislation, and I want to see that happen as soon as practicable. We will take decisions on the regulator’s long-term functions and structure during the autumn. Again, I will update the House accordingly.
Thirdly, although the answer to the concerns of residents is the establishment through legislation of the new safety case regime, with the individual assessment of buildings envisaged by Dame Judith Hackitt, it is clear that we should not wait until then to act.
The Home Secretary and I have worked with the National Fire Chiefs Council and intend to establish a new protection board, which will provide expert and consistent inspections across the country to ensure we are identifying, managing and properly recording risks. This will significantly increase the pace of inspection activity across high-rise residential and other high-risk buildings to make sure building owners are acting on the very latest safety advice.
I expect all high-rise buildings to have been inspected or assured by the time the new building safety regime is in place, or no later than 2021. Residents of these buildings should be swiftly informed of the results of those assessments and inspections, with any changes acted upon as soon as possible.
Improved inspection activity for non-ACM high-rise buildings will be informed by local authorities’ current data collection work. Today, to support that work, I am pleased to confirm that we are providing them with £4 million of additional funding. I can also confirm that my Department will provide £10 million a year of additional funding to help local authorities improve their inspection capabilities and to support the work of the protection board, which we are now launching.
Should the protection board consider it necessary, I will, of course, consider providing additional resources during the remainder of this financial year to increase the pace of inspection and assurance work. I hope this systematic inspection programme will provide reassurance to residents across the country, many of whom I understand have legitimate concerns.
Finally, on our ongoing work to support the remediation of dangerous ACM cladding on buildings, where it poses a clear risk, the Government made funding available in May for its removal from eligible buildings in the private residential sector, in addition to funds already available for the social sector, bringing the total to £600 million.
As of 12 September, eligible private sector building owners will now be able formally to submit their applications for funding for ACM removal and replacement. They have until the end of December to apply. There is no excuse for building owners to delay. My Department has been encouraging swift applications, and we now have a direct relationship with a named individual in the United Kingdom for each relevant building. Where we receive applications, we will do everything we can to turn them around rapidly, prioritising and considering responses on a rolling basis.
Let me be clear: inaction will have consequences. I will name and shame individuals and businesses if I see inaction during the autumn. If we reach the end of autumn and building owners have not responded, and do not have exceptional reasons for it, I will take whatever steps and sanctions are necessary. I will support local authorities to take robust enforcement action against reluctant building owners, and I have asked the joint inspection team to provide them with all necessary advice.
Failure to act, particularly now that the funding is provided by the taxpayer, would be frankly disgraceful, and I know colleagues in this House will share that determination. Where Members have ACM-clad buildings in their constituency, we will provide guidance on how they can encourage building owners to apply. My Department stands ready to advise on the contact we have had already.
With regard to non-ACM cladding, the research programme began in April 2019 and scheduled testing has now concluded. Findings will be published in the autumn. Following the full report, the expert panel will consider whether further testing should be commissioned or existing advice supplemented. The panel anticipates that it will publish any such additional advice by the end of this year. In the interim, building owners should continue to follow the very clear steps set out in advice note 14 to ensure the safety of their buildings and residents.
The safety of people in their home must be paramount. I hope the House will welcome the measures I have laid out today to ensure that no one should feel unsafe in their home and to build a safety system that people across this country can trust.
I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. I have to say that I admire his air of calm. This is a Government of chaos—even the Prime Minister’s brother has walked out of office this morning—so his presence is welcome. I recognise his good intent to make good on the failings of his predecessors over the past few years.
Why, two years and three months after the terrible Grenfell tragedy, are 324 high-rise blocks still cloaked in the same dangerous, Grenfell-style cladding? Why have 72 private block owners not even got a plan in place to fix the problem? Will the Secretary of State do what his predecessors did not and bring in Labour’s five-point plan to force the pace of the recladding? It would mean naming and shaming those private block owners now, not some time in the future; setting a hard deadline for block owners to get the work done; updating the sanctions available to councils under the Housing Act 2004; making Government funding available for cladding remediation on private blocks where they have to do the work; and widening now the Government-sponsored testing regime to test comprehensively all suspect non-ACM cladding.
One year and four months after the final Hackitt report was published, why is there no comprehensive implementation plan? Why is there no legislation? Today, the Secretary of State confirmed his intention to respond by the end of the year. Can he do better? Will he guarantee that legislation to implement the much-needed legal changes is part of the Queen’s Speech that is promised for next month?
Ten months after the Government’s contract for the wider testing was due to be completed, the report has not been completed and published. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish in full and without delay—not sometime in the autumn—those results in full?
We welcome the consultation on extending the requirement for sprinklers in new build flats. That builds on the provisions that the Labour Government introduced for high-rise blocks. However, will the Secretary of State go a step further, do what we planned and pledged, and set up a fund so that we can retrofit all high-rise social housing blocks so that the people who live in them can be assured that they will be safe in future?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans for a new inspection system, but why on earth does he say that all high-risk buildings might not be inspected until 2021? That is two years in the future; four years after Grenfell. What is he doing to speed that up?
Grenfell was a national tragedy. People look to the Government in such times for a national response. At every stage, the Government have been too slow to grasp the scale of the problems. Their actions have been too little, too late, and I regret to say that there is too little in today’s statement to give us confidence that the Secretary of State and the Government can rectify their failure to act as they should to make everyone safe after the terrible Grenfell tragedy more than two years ago.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He and I have worked well together on other issues and I hope that we can do so on this issue, which should be beyond party politics.
We have taken many steps. My predecessors have worked with commitment on the issue. We have given clear advice to building owners, who must take personal responsibility. We have introduced a ban on combustible cladding. We have had the independent review, which has now concluded, by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we have had the consultation, to which we will respond by the end of this year. We now have 150 individuals in my Department working on building safety, many with decades of experience. Again, they are working with great commitment and at pace.
We have put £600 million of public money behind remediation of dangerous ACM cladding in the social sector, of which £200 million is now available in the private sector. We have of course launched a full public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy and the first phase is expected to report back shortly. Of course, the timing is up to the judge.
We have issued clarified building regulations guidance, and we are increasing support for local authorities. Today, I announced £10 million for the protection board and £4 million directly for local authorities. We have already removed a range of substandard products from the market. Is there more to do? Of course there is, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties will see from my statement the number of steps that I intend to take and the pace at which I want my Department to work in the months to come.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about funding; we have made the funding available, and I share his determination to hold private sector building owners to account. As I said in my statement, I will be naming and shaming the individuals and the companies that own the buildings if they do not take action very quickly this autumn. If we come to the end of the fund in December—the right hon. Gentleman asked for a hard deadline; that is a hard deadline—and there are buildings that have not been remediated, or at least applications to the fund have not been put in and there are not exceptional reasons for that, we will take whatever enforcement steps are required at that point. We will work with local authorities to make sure that they robustly use their powers. There are instances of their doing so, and we are working with them already.
The Hackitt review was an important step forward. This is a complex policy area and we all want to ensure that we get this right, so we need to work through the responses to the consultation carefully, and my Department is doing that. As I said, we will bring forward the legislation at the very earliest opportunity. The right hon. the Gentleman has my assurance that I will be working within the Government to ensure that happens and to impress upon the Prime Minister and others that legislation needs to come forward at the earliest opportunity. I do not think it should be rushed, which is why I have worked with the Home Secretary to bring in the interim measure to establish the protection board. The individual assessments of buildings will begin as soon as possible once the board has been established. That will provide reassurance to residents. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that time is passing; I hope he sees that I intend to work at considerable pace to get this done.
On sprinklers, we are currently consulting on the building regulations guidance so that the regulations can come into force for whatever is deemed to be the appropriate threshold. As I said, our preference is 18 metres, but we are open to evidence in other respects. On the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing high-rise buildings, Dame Judith Hackitt and other expert advisers have made it clear that that is not always the right option for a building. It may well be, but other measures could be taken instead that might be more appropriate for an individual building. Dame Judith Hackitt made it clear that it was wise to proceed on an individual basis, so the safety regime that we will be introducing in legislation will ensure that there are individual assessments of buildings. Those assessments may conclude that there is a requirement to retrofit sprinklers, but they might recommend alternative arrangements instead. Obviously, we will ensure that whatever is proposed in those assessments happens in a timely fashion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Again, I appeal for extreme brevity on the part of colleagues; if they do not provide it, they will have to be cut off, I am afraid.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I wrote to the Secretary of State on Monday about the position of my constituents in Northpoint in Bromley. I welcome his announcement. Will he confirm that the establishment of the protection board ought to and must be used so that people such as my constituents—who have had to do this—may avoid the rigmarole of commissioning a building survey to prove eligibility for the fund and then applying for funding from the pre-application fund, the portal for which was not live at the beginning of the week? We need to cut through that immediately.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have corresponded and spoken about the issue in his constituency. As I said in my correspondence to him, I encourage the building owners in his constituency to apply to the fund. It will be open on 12 September and we will be handling the applications on a rolling basis. In fact, it will also be possible to get a refund retrospectively, so they could get on with the work immediately and seek the funding at a later date.
My hon. Friend asked me previously about buildings that may have a mix of ACM cladding and other forms of cladding. Public money will obviously be spent for the remediation of the dangerous ACM cladding, but if it is proven that it is impossible to remediate the ACM cladding without taking off the other forms of cladding, it may well be possible to use public money to fund that as well. I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will put in an application as soon as possible and that we can move forward at pace in his constituency.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but I agree that he is not quite moving fast enough. We owe it to all those who lost their lives and survived at Grenfell to do more, and to do more quickly. The Scottish ministerial working group is already way ahead of where the UK Government are on this and is moving forward with recommendations. In Scotland, we are looking at 11 metres rather than the 18 metres that the Secretary of State suggests. Has he spoken to his counterpart in the Scottish Government? Will he look at the evidence that Scotland took on making the threshold for mandatory sprinklers in high rises 11 metres rather than 18 metres?
We are looking at regulations around new builds, including having two forms of escape stairs and sound alerts in new builds. Will the Secretary of State look at those ideas? We are also looking at compliance plans for high-risk buildings and at strengthening enforcement.
May I ask—because the Secretary of State has not mentioned this—what the advice has been regarding ThermoWood and similar cladding on low-rise buildings following the fire in Barking? It is clear that there needs to be some advice and regulation in that regard.
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about bringing in a regulator, as we already have a Scottish Housing Regulator in Scotland. Such provision would allow residents to take up any issues they have with the regulator and to prevent something such as Grenfell from happening, because there would be a process through which complaints could be resolved. Has he met with the Scottish Housing Regulator to discuss their work? If not, will he do so? Will he also speak to the Chancellor about the potential VAT reduction to incentivise sprinklers and other remediation works in buildings, as that could make such works easier and cheaper for building owners. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the money he has allocated will be sufficient, because £10 million does not really sound like enough to me?
Finally, the Chancellor has talked about this period as being the end of austerity. Fire and rescue services in England have seen a 38% cut since 2005; will the Government restore that money and ensure that fire services are able to respond adequately to emergencies?
Robert Jenrick
With respect to the threshold for sprinklers, we have made it clear that our preference is 18 metres, on the basis of the expert advice that we have received so far, but we are open to reviewing the evidence for an alternative threshold, including a lower one. There are obviously precedents elsewhere for thresholds of 11 metres. As I understand it, 18 metres has historically been the traditional marker above which higher fire safety systems are put in place—that has been the case with cladding and in other regards—but we will be led by the evidence and will pay careful attention to what is happening elsewhere, including in Scotland.
The consultation does ask questions about better signage in high-rise buildings and alert systems that would enable the fire officers attending the scene to communicate to all residents in the building and give them proper messages about staying in their flats or evacuating, and so on.
The incident in Barking was clearly very concerning. We have published advice about wooden cladding on balconies, so that is in the public domain; I am happy to send the hon. Lady a copy of that advice. As I understand it, the building in Barking, along with another on the same development, were unusual designs with excessive amounts of wood on their balconies. It was an extremely distressing incident, which I do not want to see repeated, but I advise anyone who is concerned to see the advice that we have published.
I will consider the hon. Lady’s request as a Budget representation to the Chancellor. In the recent spending review, we secured the funding that we announced today for local authorities and to fund the protection board, and we believe that that funding is sufficient. We think that £10 million a year is enough to carry out individual urgent inspections of high-risk and high-rise buildings across the country within the timeframe that I have set out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that I am looking for single-sentence questions without preamble.
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
May I support what my right hon. Friend has said in his statement about driving forward cultural change and ensuring that people are safe in their homes? I also encourage him to follow through on the social housing Green Paper to see that tenants have that voice to challenge their landlords and to drive change.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s work. A number of the initiatives that I announced today commenced during his tenure and he was the driving force behind them. I will, of course, take forward the social housing Green Paper. We are considering the very large number of representations that we received, and I will update the House in due course.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. With regard to ACM cladding, will he give a date when he is going to require—not expect, but require—this cladding to be removed, and what steps and sanctions does he intend to take? In terms of the testing of non-ACM cladding, if that material is found to be as dangerous as ACM cladding, will he give a commitment to provide exactly the same funding for the removal of that cladding so that people in those homes are safe as well?
Robert Jenrick
The announcement that I made today sets out a timetable. The fund is now open. Every private sector building should apply, and we believe that they will. If, over the course of the autumn, some are procrastinating and not complying, I will name and shame them. The hard deadline is the closure of the fund in December. I will consider all options available to us at that point to ensure compliance. With respect to non-ACM cladding, the advice that we have had to date is now in the public domain. Building owners should be acting upon that. The testing process will conclude this autumn. If further updates are required, of course we will put that in the public domain.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that building regulations can allow us a triple opportunity to build zero-energy bill homes—the homes of the future—quickly and affordably, reduce poverty and reduce greenhouse gases?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I share a passion for doing that. We announced in the spring statement a new future homes standard that will ensure that no new home will be built in this country after 2025 without low or zero-carbon heating and the highest levels of energy efficiency. That is good for the environment and good for people on lower incomes.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State say a bit more about his protection board? What kind of people will be on it, how many of them will there be, will they have staff or will they be carrying out inspections themselves, and will they monitor how local authorities spend this £10 million?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more details of the board, but it will be a partnership between fire and rescue services and other appropriate experts. They in turn will commission probably regional teams of experts to ensure the consistent and competent inspections of buildings across the country.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Fire safety matters, but so does the health and safety of workers, so will the Secretary of State keep a focus on the current review of building regulations to make sure that that prohibition on low-level letterboxes is delivered?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There is confusion about the “stay put” policy and tall buildings being approved with single staircases. What has happened to the review of means of escape?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State use the campaigning charity the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership as a way of letting leaseholders in privately owned blocks know what should be happening and of making sure that their interests are taken into account just as much as those in the private sector?
Robert Jenrick
I am very happy to take my hon. Friend up on that. He knows that I share his determination to take forward wider reforms in the leasehold sector, and I will be introducing measures in that respect in due course.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
What can be done to identify developers such as Mr Jason Alexander in Greater Manchester who have a track record of repeatedly flouting regulations for buildings they own and to make sure they cannot continue to do so and will face sanctions?
Robert Jenrick
Local authorities have robust enforcement powers available to them, and we are working closely with them to guide and support them. If the hon. Lady would like to come to me with examples, I would be very happy to support her.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
First, tenants at Edwin Court in my constituency are having to move out of their homes while vital fire safety work is carried out. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all housing associations look after their tenants in the process of such work? Secondly, will his review look closely at inadequate fire doors? Inside Housing’s review of this issue is very concerning, as have been answers I have received to parliamentary questions.
Robert Jenrick
I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend on that issue. We have already published updated advice notes on fire doors. It is an important issue that we want to take forward.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Two years after Grenfell, buildings in Newcastle remain with this dangerous cladding, so will the Secretary of State admit that the privatisation of building safety, in effect, with building owners able to pick and choose who inspects them, has failed? Will he review the system generally and give local authorities more control, oversight and resource, as Newcastle City Council has requested?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady can see that we are doing a root-and-branch reform of the building safety system, both in the interim and in the long term with the building safety Bill that will come forward as soon as possible. I am working very closely with local authorities, and today of course I have announced £14 million of additional funding that will help to support them to use their existing powers robustly.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is almost 12 years since the tragedy in Atherstone on Stour, in Warwickshire, which resulted in the deaths of four firefighters. Sprinklers were subsequently introduced into legislation. Can the Secretary of State not be more ambitious and ensure that sprinklers are retrofitted to all tower blocks and also insist that they be introduced into schools, so that we do not lose schools, as we did in Scotland the other week?
Robert Jenrick
As I think I said earlier, we will always be guided by the safety of residents, but we must be led by the evidence, and the consultation I am launching today will do exactly that. We will consider the appropriate threshold and whether measures need to be applied to other high-risk buildings of different types.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Some 11,500 firefighters’ jobs have been cut since 2010. What representations has he made to other Departments?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in my statement, I have worked very closely with the Home Secretary in preparing this announcement. The protection board will be a partnership between the fire and rescue services, the Home Office and my own Department. The funding that the Chancellor has made available for this will help to ensure that fire and rescue services that participate are properly funded for that work.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
As we saw at Whaley Bridge this summer, it is not just residential buildings that can put lives at risk but infrastructure as well. While I welcome the review that is taking place on Whaley Bridge, will the Secretary of State confirm that the rigorous inspection regime will apply to infrastructure buildings as well as residential ones, and that where they are held by separate trusts such as the Canal and River Trust, capital funding will be available where needed?
Robert Jenrick
I am very happy to take that up with the hon. Lady, although I think it is more likely to be a question for the Environment Secretary. I thank her for the work that she and I did over the course of the summer and for the hard work she did for her constituents.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware that what my firefighters in West Yorkshire want is to be able to do the job? They want the training, the resources, the time and the prioritisation, and then they will do the job.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the consultation, will the Secretary of State apply the same logic about sprinklers to existing tall blocks as he does to new blocks?
Several hon. Members rose—
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Given that naming and shaming has been set out by the Secretary of State, could he be more explicit about what sanctions he will be using against the individuals and organisations that fail to comply with making these buildings safe for their residents?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. In the first instance, we will be working with local authorities, which have such powers available to them. We will be supporting and guiding them to take robust action, but if we reach the end of the year and there are still building owners who have failed to participate—which would be shameful given that taxpayers’ money is available to them—I will consider all options available to us to ensure their compliance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State’s Department co-ordinate with the Northern Ireland permanent secretary to ensure that we, too, in Northern Ireland are securing improved safety measures for residents and for workers?
Girls’ Education
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Alok Sharma)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the UK’s work to support girls’ education around the world—in particular, our work to help provide 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030 and to leave no girl behind.
Educating girls is the tool that can address a whole host of the world’s economic and social problems. It is one of the five foundations of DFID’s wider work on gender equality, which tackles the barriers that hold women and girls back. Educating girls prevents child marriage and early pregnancy, helps women into the workforce and boosts household incomes and economic growth. Supporting education for girls and women gives them a greater voice. That voice helps them to shape their own future and advocate for changes in their own lives and, very importantly, the lives of other girls and women.
On a recent trip to Ethiopia, I met a group of teenage girls learning to code. One of them told me: “Education is a weapon that can change the world”—and she was absolutely right. Educating girls is central to achieving women’s rights and empowerment and to achieving the sustainable development goals. Nothing could be more important than giving every child the chance to make the most of their talents, ensuring that every child can reach their full potential.
We know that many girls become mothers before they finish school. The vital sexual and reproductive health services that they need are simply not available. In the Sahel, for example, child marriage and early pregnancy are endemic, stopping girls entering and staying in education. Three quarters of girls in Niger are married before their 18th birthday; more than one in four are married before the age of 15.
This situation is not acceptable. We in the UK are leading the action globally to address this injustice. Today, I can update the House on the UK’s continued global leadership on girls’ education. The UK is a world leader on girls’ education. I am immensely proud to spearhead the British Government’s girls’ education campaign. That campaign—Leave No Girl Behind—was launched by our Prime Minister in 2018 when he was Foreign Secretary. The campaign leads by example. It gets girls learning, builds international political commitment and boosts global investment so that all girls have access to 12 years of quality education by 2030. The girls education campaign is an essential part of this Government’s broader endeavours to promote global Britain’s core values overseas.
Through our strong political leadership and the UK’s global diplomatic network, we have achieved many notable successes since the launch of the campaign in 2018. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018, all 53 Commonwealth members agreed to work to ensure 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030. At the G7 in 2018, over £2.3 billion was raised for girls’ education. At the United Nations General Assembly in 2018, the leaders of the UK, Canada and France came together with key partners from the global south—Jordan, Niger and Kenya—to endorse a joint statement that focused global political attention on girls’ education. This year we have led and launched the Safe to Learn campaign, which addresses violence that prevents girls from attending and learning in school.
I hope that this demonstrates that the UK is leading across a range of programmes to build commitment and boost investment globally in our mission to ensure all girls access 12 years of quality education by 2030. Only last month, at the G7 leaders summit in Biarritz, our Prime Minister announced £90 million of new funding to provide education for children caught up in crises and conflict. Girls, who are more than twice as likely to be out of school in conflict areas, stand to benefit the most from this support. The Prime Minister also announced £30 million for affirmative finance action for Women in Africa. This will help to break down barriers to women’s economic empowerment by providing up to 10,000 women with essential business training and thousands more with better access to business loans. Unleashing the economic potential of women will boost African economies, trade and investment opportunities, and increase global prosperity. This is in the interests of the UK and African countries and will provide girls with strong female role models.
At the UN General Assembly later this month, which I will attend, girls’ education will be at the heart of the UK’s activities and interventions. All UK-funded education programmes have a focus on girls and young women. Between 2015 and 2019, the UK supported 5.8 million girls to gain a decent education. Our Girls Education Challenge is the world’s largest fund dedicated to girls’ education. It is now supporting up to 1.5 million marginalised girls in 17 countries around the world.
I am absolutely clear that girls’ education remains a key priority for this Government. We must send a strong signal that we will not give up on half of the world’s population. I strongly believe that educating a girl ultimately helps to educate a nation. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State, who should take approximately three minutes.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and welcome him to his new role. He is the third Secretary of State I have faced in this position.
In its “World Development Report 2018”, the World Bank declared an international learning crisis. We know that it is too often girls who are most affected by the lack of education globally. They are twice as likely as boys to never start school. Given these figures, we welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on education, and girls’ education in particular.
While, like the Government, we recognise that the benefits of girls’ education reach far beyond the individual girl, does the Secretary of State agree that education is first and foremost a basic human right? That is why the Labour party is committed to a rights-based approach to education.
Last month, I visited Kenya and saw for myself the huge educational needs in that country. I visited state schools and low-fee private schools, meeting teachers, pupils, parents and civil society groups, and one thing was clear when it came to education: the people I met there wanted exactly the same things that my constituents in Liverpool want—decent, publicly funded schooling for their children. I am concerned about the growing support that DFID is providing to expanding private education in the global south, because we know that fee-paying private schools never reach the most marginalised children. We know from our own experience in the UK that universal public systems of education are the only way to reach all children. The International Development Committee has said that DFID’s support for private education is “controversial”. The last Independent Commission for Aid Impact assessment of DFID’s work to support the most marginalised girls found that DFID is “falling short” of its ambitions to educate the poorest and most vulnerable girls. One reason for that was a lack of influence by DFID on public Government-run education programmes.
In Kenya, I heard some worrying stories from parents and teachers about their experience with so-called low-fee private schools, and one chain of schools in particular: Bridge International Academies. Parents told me how they had been tricked into believing that their kids would benefit from scholarships, leaving them unable to pay fees and their kids missing chunks of schooling as a result. I met the head of the Kenya National Union of Teachers to discuss education in the country, and he had a very clear message: he wanted the UK to stop using aid money to privatise his country’s education system.
In August last year, Oxfam published its review of a DFID-funded education public-private partnership in Pakistan. It found that schools were failing to reach the most marginalised, relying on very low wages and poor employment practices. In February this year, the Send My Friend to School coalition released a report calling for DFID to ensure that its aid spending goes towards supporting education that is provided universally and is available free at the point of use. In April, a report from the National Education Union and Global Justice Now claimed that UK aid is being used to push an ideological agenda to expand fee-paying private education around the world.
Labour knows the importance of publicly delivered public services. That is why we will set up a new unit for public services within DFID that will champion education as a human right and a public good. Will the Secretary of State listen to the sector, to the unions and to teacher and campaign groups in the UK and the global south, who say that education is a universal right guaranteed by the state and not a market to make profits from? Will he shift his Department’s focus on education towards a human rights-based approach, so that all girls get the education they are entitled to?
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. We are at a time when there is an enormous amount of rancour in this House and debates are perhaps not as good-natured as you would like, Mr Speaker, but this is an area on which I think we can all agree across the House. Education matters for every child, whether in our country or the developing world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased at the reaffirmation yesterday of the 0.7% commitment in the Chancellor’s spending review statement.
I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the work we do in developing countries is incredibly important. He talked about his visit to Kenya. I was in Nigeria recently to see the work we have done in Kaduna state, working with the state—the public sector—to ensure that thousands of teachers are retrained appropriately. I visited a school where the school roll was failing only a couple of years ago—it was down to 400—but it is almost double now, and over half the children there are young girls. I had an opportunity to talk to them, and they were incredibly enthusiastic and positive, not just about their own future but about their own country. That is because of the great education they are getting.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I want to respond to his point about where DFID’s funding goes. I want to make it clear that over 95% of my Department’s education funding goes to the public sector to support improvements in education outcomes. That is right and proper. We are working across the developing world with countries and their education ministries to provide support. Of course, where state provision is weak or non-existent, it is right that we work with non-state providers, including paid-for schools, to provide education to children who would otherwise get none, and we continue to work with a range of education partners to ensure the best results and value for money.
The hon. Gentleman talked about ideology. There is one education ideology that I suspect we share, which is that it is vital that every child gets the right level of education. We are both committed to ensuring 12 years of education for every girl across the world.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
In this difficult week, it is wonderful to hear the Secretary of State shine a spotlight on this incredibly valuable and important part of what the UK does. It is such good value for money. Can he commit to exploring whether the UK could be spending a greater share of our overall aid budget in this incredibly valuable area?
Alok Sharma
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did so much work in this area during her time in government? I remember having conversations with her about this issue, which she is passionate about. We spend around £1 billion a year on education, in official development assistance, and it will fluctuate over the years. It is important that we also focus on outcomes, but I will take on board what she said about our trying to do even more in this area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place; he will be the fourth in little over two years. Sustainable development goal 4 included a new agenda for global education, vowing to
“ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.
I fully welcome this commitment of UK aid to helping every girl to get an education. As we know, education can be the most valuable tool in the fight against global poverty, yet too many girls remain without access. In sub-Saharan Africa, 52.2 million girls of primary and secondary school age are out of school.
The education of women and girls must be made a priority in all educational international development programmes, and such programmes must explicitly address complex factors that keep girls out of education. Girls are more than twice as likely to be out of school if they live in conflict areas, and young women living in conflict are nearly 90% percent more likely to be out of secondary school than those in other countries.
Education is a long-term challenge and one that is easily disrupted. Humanitarian crises are becoming more protracted, and one major challenge is coming up with a long-term solution to the children whose education is disrupted by this. Last week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees published a report that found that, of the 7.1 million school-age refugee children around the world, more than half do not go to school. With one third of the £90 million funding earmarked for those living through the world’s forgotten crises, I ask: what proportion will be spent on those girls who have fled conflict but have been left without an education due to displacement?
Furthermore, the Government’s programmes to help women in developing countries overwhelmingly focus on children—those under about 10—and adult women, and there is a gap that adolescent and teenage girls can fall through, leaving them out of programmes to get them into education and keep them safe from sexual violence. Can the Secretary of State tell me how he plans to address that specific age group?
Alok Sharma
I am delighted that, once again, we have a shared view about the importance of girls’ education. The hon. Gentleman is right that education is a long-term challenge. He talks about the UK’s commitment. The Prime Minister was absolutely committed to the 12 years of education for girls during his time at the Foreign Office—in fact, he launched our work on this—and he is totally committed now, so I think the hon. Gentleman will find that this is a key area of focus for us.
I also share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we have too many children across the world who are not in education. The latest figures suggest that over 260 million children, of whom about 130 million are girls, are not in education, and that is not good enough.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the £90 million commitment that the Prime Minister has made for educational emergencies. I can inform him that this includes £85 million for Education Cannot Wait, which will support 600,000 children, including girls, in emergencies. I hope he will appreciate that we are absolutely focused on helping children across the world, with this particular money very much focused on those living in emergency areas.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Across the developing world, the main obstacle to girls being in education is the lack of running water, sanitation and toilet facilities. My right hon. Friend has recently visited Africa, including Nigeria. Ten per cent. of the girls in the world are not in education. What more can we do to invest in this area so that we can provide the facilities for girls to have education?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, which is that basic sanitation and the availability of clean water are vital. I saw one of the projects in Ethiopia that has been funded through DFID, and I had an opportunity to meet some of those who are benefiting from it. I spoke to a lady who previously spent five hours a day getting water for her children, and now she is able to spend that time working, raising money to educate her kids.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to this important role in government. I welcome very warmly both his statement and the commitment the UK made at the G7 to Education Cannot Wait. Clearly, we need other donors to rise to the challenge in the way the UK has. What will he be doing over the next few weeks to ensure that the full replenishment of Education Cannot Wait is achieved, so that children living as refugees get the education that they deserve?
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but also for the very fine work he does in leading his International Development Committee. We have always had a very good relationship and I very much hope that that will continue.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to be doing even more in promoting not just the UK but others to corral in finance into this area. I talked in the statement about the amount of money that was corralled in last year at UNGA. As I have said, girls’ education will be a key focus of the work we will do at this year’s General Assembly.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
G. K. Chesterton said:
“Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to the next.”
The work we do in this country will both be exported and inspire others worldwide. So will the Secretary of State look at girls studying STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and particularly going into engineering in this country? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and I worked on this when I was in government. It will inspire others. It will nourish our society, as we nurture the taste and talents of young women with a practical, vocational and technical bent.
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, studying STEM subjects is really important in the UK, but also abroad. He showered me with a quote. May I give him one back from a young lady I met who is learning to code as a result of funding provided by DFID? This was when I met a group of young people in Nigeria. She said:
“Education is a weapon that can change the world.”
That is what young women in developing countries believe, and we are providing such support to help them to build better futures.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party group on Africa and of the all-party group on diversity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths, I wholly welcome this emphasis on women and education, just as I condemn the Prime Minister’s past remarks when he implied that women went into higher education to find husbands. As well as the emphasis on women in STEM, will the Secretary of State say what he is doing to ensure that period poverty is not a barrier to continued attendance at schools in developing countries, an issue that was investigated by the all-party group on Africa ?
Alok Sharma
I do not want to introduce a discordant note into the statement, as we are in agreement on much of this, but I would just point out that the Prime Minister, when he was the Foreign Secretary, was absolutely behind launching the 12 years of education for every girl campaign, so I would say it is slightly churlish for the hon. Lady to raise the points she has. However, on the wider point about family planning, I agree that work needs to be done. I saw some of the work that we are doing during my visit to Nigeria, and we will continue to work on that. If she has particular ideas, I would welcome her coming to have a discussion with me.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I recently went on a visit to New York. In New York, I met Yasmine Sherif, the director of Education Cannot Wait, a global fund established by the UK in 2016, which aims to ensure that children in conflict zones—some of the most vulnerable children in the world—receive an education. What is the Secretary of State doing to support that vital organisation?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She talks about Yasmine, whom she met, and who I suspect, like her, is a role model and a champion for young girls—she in her constituency and Yasmine in other areas. On support, as I have pointed out, a large element of the £90 million—£85 million—is going to Education Cannot Wait. I agree with her that this is an incredibly important programme to support.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Female genital mutilation, child sexual exploitation, child marriage and child trafficking all cause girls to drop out of school. DFID and the British Council have been excellent at changing culture abroad. Can the Secretary of State say how we can learn those lessons and bring those lessons to the UK so that we can change our culture here?
Alok Sharma
First, I agree with the hon. Lady that education is absolutely vital because we know that, for every girl who goes to secondary school, infant mortality is cut in half. About 12 million children would escape stunting due to malnutrition if every girl went to secondary school, and we would see significantly higher GDP growth across the world. Of course, we share any learnings that we have across government, and we will continue to do so.
Alok Sharma
I think the simple answer is too many, but the wider work that DFID does on humanitarian support and security clearly aids the objective of making sure that children—girls—are able to go to school safely and live in an environment where they feel that they will not be threatened if they go to school.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State and this G7 initiative. Does he accept that this is not just about Governments? Why do we not involve more legislators around the world, working together and using the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to share good practice and ideas? I chair the World Health Organisation global legislators group to cut road deaths, which is a very good model. Can some of us, on an all-party basis, come to talk to him? This is a great campaign and we should be helping legislators around the world to improve conditions for girls.
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues in the House will know, in all my previous roles, I have, I hope, been very open to having discussions and, indeed, learning from colleagues who may have much more detailed knowledge built up over many years, so I would welcome an opportunity to sit down with him and other colleagues.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Forty years ago, when I was a trustee of Christian Aid, we knew that educating a girl could break cycles of poverty in one generation and could also lead to later marriage, fewer children, more prosperity and better health. Can the Secretary of State say now, or in a later statement, how the increase in maths provision for these girls around the world has been improving, thanks to our efforts?
Alok Sharma
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work over many years in this area? He has highlighted one of the organisations he has been involved in. The support we have provided over the last four years has meant that 5.8 million more girls are getting a decent education and it is vital that we continue this work.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I welcome this statement. When I go on “Send My Friend to School” visits in Chester, girls’ education is always the No. 1 issue raised with me by British schoolchildren. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that, if we do not get right nutrition and healthcare as part as the package that supports education, that could damage education for girls? It is about getting the whole picture right.
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises a vital point, and we need a holistic approach to our work. I believe that is very much what DFID does as a Department.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments: no girl or young woman should be denied access to education, and I am proud that we are funding schemes at home and abroad. Will he confirm that he is prioritising girls and young women in conflict zones, as well as those in overseas territories and our Commonwealth partners who have suffered from natural disasters?
Alok Sharma
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does locally in championing education in his constituency. As I set out, the vast majority of the £90 million that the Prime Minister announced at the G7 is for conflict zones and to help those in Syria and areas such as Cox’s Bazar. We will continue to focus on that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
A third of girls in Yemen are reported to be married before their 18th birthday and 9% are married before they are 15. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those girls in Yemen in a conflict zone are getting an education and what will he do to end conflict?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, we do a wider piece of work across government to end conflict, working with our partners internationally. For example, around £3 billion has been put into a UK programme on Syria. Clearly, however, we must keep focusing on these areas. It is important that, if children are caught up in these areas, they continue to receive basic education and we are focused on that.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Will he confirm that good practices such as the “Send My Friend to School” initiative are important in exploiting the messaging on this, as is the mental health of girls involved in education? What will the Government do to continue to support the mental health of young women in their education?
Alok Sharma
Mental health is of course an important issue, which has risen up the agenda over a number of years. The Government are doing their part through the Departments of Health and Social Care and of Education, and where DFID is able to offer support, it will do so.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. I shall begin by apologising to the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that this statement is later than it would normally have been, which is to ensure that the information before the House is as full as possible. I understand that that has caused some travel arrangement difficulties, which is a matter of regret.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 9 September—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (historical institutional abuse), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (victims’ payment), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (human trafficking), followed by debate to approve a motion relating to section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (gambling), followed by general debate on a motion relating to section 3(2) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion relating to an early parliamentary general election.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to all Acts. A message may be received from the Lords Commissioners.
I will return to the House on Monday with further information if necessary.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House. I was going to say that it is the usual custom and convention to thank him, but I appreciate that he has apologised—at least I abide by custom and convention. I also thank him for being vertical when he gave his statement.
The Opposition will co-operate with the Government on the Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that it goes through, and we are obviously keen for Lords amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill, if there are any, to come back to the House to be debated. Will the Leader of the House say exactly what the motion relating to an early parliamentary election will be and whether it will be similar to that under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011? When is he likely to table it?
As I said I would do every week, I raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Will the Leader of the House update the House on her case, given that things have taken a different turn, and on the cases of the other UK nationals who are in prison? Kamal Foroughi was detained in May 2011, Anousheh Ashouri was detained in August 2017, and British Council employee Aras Amiri was detained in March 2018 and has now been given a 10-year sentence for visiting her grandmother.
I asked the previous Leader of the House about the Queen’s Speech and I know that that has been thrown back at me a number of times. We have had the longest continuous parliamentary Session since the Acts of Union 1800. Hardly any business was legislated for while the Government were going through a leadership election. The Government chose to have a long Session and no legislation was progressed, despite my asking for that, as well as for Opposition day debates, which I have not been given. We should have realised that something was going to happen when someone asked when the Trade Bill would come back and the Leader of the House responded, “Why would we want to do that?” That should have given us a clue. A number of Bills—the Immigration Bill, the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill—are stuck. We know that they fall when Parliament is prorogued, but not statutory instruments—they are still live. Will the Leader of the House say what the Government plan to do with those Bills?
I asked the previous leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), whether we could sit during the conference recess. We on this side of the House were ready to do that. There is nothing conventional about the Government’s plans for Prorogation. Most Prorogations last a few days and take place just before the Queen’s Speech, but this one is five weeks, which will be the longest in more than 40 years.
Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said during the debate yesterday? When asked, he did not say whether he knew on 16 August that the House was going to be prorogued. In fact, he said he was at Lord’s. I will ask him again: on 16 August, when he was at Lord’s, did he know whether the House was going to be prorogued? Had he seen that email? Two weeks later, he was on a plane to Aberdeen airport. When was he told that he was going to Balmoral and when did he know what was in the proclamation?
We do not trust this Government—they take their lead from the Prime Minister, who says one thing and does something else. When he wanted to be Prime Minister, he wrote in a letter to all his colleagues that he was
“not attracted to arcane procedures such as the prorogation of Parliament”.
He said he was a one nation Conservative, yet he has prorogued Parliament and withdrawn the Whip—possibly sacked, possibly expelled—from some of the most honourable right hon. and hon. Members, who have given great service to their party and country. Now we face the fact that the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) has resigned and no longer wants to stand—the Prime Minister’s own brother cannot take it anymore. That is why we do not trust the Government and the Prime Minister. He secretly agreed to suspend Parliament two weeks before denying it would happen. He is treating Parliament, democracy and the people with contempt.
Twenty-two law professors have written an open letter to say that the Prorogation is clearly designed to evade scrutiny, including of legislation, and to prevent MPs from asking key questions on EU negotiations and no-deal planning. So what were the reasons for the Prorogation at that time, without recourse to coming to the Chamber and explaining it?
An important Bill to stop a no-deal exit was passed yesterday and is making its way through the Lords. Here are the reasons why it is important. The director of the CBI has said:
“No deal is a tripwire into economic chaos that could harm our country…for years to come.”
Is that scaremongering? The General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress said that no deal would be a “disaster for working families”. Is that scaremongering? The President of the National Farmers’ Union said that
“you will have many farmers going out of business”
and the Food and Drink Federation has warned that it would
“inflict serious—and in some cases mortal—damage on UK food and drink.”
Is that scaremongering?
The British Medical Association said in its report that the dangers of no deal could lead to the disintegration of the NHS. The fashion industry, worth £32 billion, says no deal should be avoided. The Incorporated Society of Musicians said a no-deal Brexit will incur major disruption to the music industry worth £4.5 billion. Are they scaremongering?
Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit co-ordinator for the EU, said that the only people who will prosper are the wealthy bankers and hedge fund managers who have bet on chaos.
I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Dr David Nicoll, who was part of Operation Yellowhammer. When will the Leader of the House publish Operation Yellowhammer, or does he think the Government are scaremongering?
Mr Speaker, they are like the wolves of Whitehall. They are marauding over our customs and our conventions. It is absolutely outrageous, the way they are destroying them. The Prime Minister only governs by custom and convention.
I think the Leader of the House also owes an apology to Mr Speaker. I think he was heard on air to say that Mr Speaker was wrong, but I want to remind him of his bedtime reading, “Erskine May”, and of the dedication compiled by officials, both past and present. It says this:
“To the…Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Lord Speaker, Speakers…of the Commonwealth Parliaments on whom fall the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system.”
We saw that this week and we thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me deal with the last point first. I would not have dreamed of saying that you were wrong. I made the point, the classic point, that you have not eyes to see with nor lips to speak except as directed by this House. I believe, Mr Speaker, that that is what you do, properly. You have consistently taken the view that the House should be able to debate what it wishes to debate, although I will confess that sometimes if I were in your position I might come to a different decision. That is not in any sense disrespectful to Mr Speaker.
Let me come to this panoply of questions that we have had. First, I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for supporting us on Northern Ireland legislation and looking forward to the Lords amendments. The early parliamentary motion will be put down tonight, as it needs to be, before the close of business.
On the very important issue that hon. Lady raises on every occasion, relating to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Foreign Office is doing what it can. It is a very difficult situation. It is so important that the Foreign Office, in all these consular cases—the hon. Lady mentioned a number of them—is as vigorous as it can be. In my view, the statement made by a former Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico affair, is the right approach for Governments to take in defending the interests of British citizens abroad. We should be incredibly robust about it. I believe the Foreign Office is doing as much as it possibly can, but sadly we cannot tell other countries what to do.
We then come on to the Queen’s Speech and what will happen to the Bills that are stuck. The Bills that are stuck will become unstuck because they will fall on prorogation. That is the sort of de-supergluing process that we are able to use. I am glad to tell the House that all the Bills that are needed for leaving the European Union on 31 October are in place.
We then come to the diary questions. What was I doing? [Interruption.] On the ability to leave on 31 October, all the legislation that is needed is in place. We have 580 statutory instruments to make sure it will all happen smoothly. That is all done. It is ready. It is prepared. Her Majesty’s Government have been a model of efficiency and efficacy in preparing this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is perhaps one of the most impressive administrative Ministers this country has ever seen.
I was asked questions about my knowledge of the next Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady is aware that one of the main duties of the Leader of the House is to prepare for the next Queen’s Speech. That is what one does. That is what one is briefed on from the very beginning. Bids for items in the next Queen’s Speech come to the Leader of the House, so that has been part of my briefing from the point at which I was appointed and that is the reason why this Session is coming to an end. It has gone on for far too long, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—as indeed did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who seems to be fidgeting at the moment in an uncharacteristically fidgety way.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, your knowledge of being able to fidget is so extensive that I am sure you will be able to tell the House or make it a chapter in your memoirs on un-fidgety fidgeting.
That is the straightforward reason for the Prorogation. The Prorogation is taking place to have a new Queen’s Speech to set out the really exciting one nation policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to set out. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I know and we all know, because we have heard you say it many times, that however much chuntering there is from the other side you will make time for me to answer all their questions, which I am looking forward to with eager anticipation. I will be better able to answer them if they wait their turn, rather than making noises imitating a farmyard that I cannot translate because I am not Dr Doolittle. If only I were Dr Doolittle, life might be easier. So that is the routine part of my responsibility and that is why Parliament will be prorogued.
On the conference recess, on the last occasion I appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer these questions I raised the issue of the conference recess. Sitting opposite me was none other than that really distinguished figure, the Opposition Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It was not the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, but the Opposition Chief Whip. When I said that we would have the conference recess, the Opposition Chief Whip nodded. As we all know, a nod from the Opposition Chief Whip is like the nod of Zeus: what it nods at is done and is viewed as authoritative, so let us have no questions about that.
The hon. Lady came on to scaremongering. She seems to wish to compete to become the scaremonger-in-chief. The preparations have been made. They are in place and they have been done with remarkable efficiency. But yes, a lot of remainers wish to make our skins crawl. I am afraid it seems to me that Dr David Nicholl is as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield. [Interruption.] I will repeat: as irresponsible as Dr Wakefield, in threatening that people will die because we leave the European Union. What level of irresponsibility was that?
In conclusion, I say to the hon. Lady and the House that this Government have offered them the opportunity, if they do not like what we are doing, to seek an election and put themselves to the voters, but they dare not do that. They are frightened of the voters and all they wish to do is obstruct democracy.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future staging of party conferences? It seems to me that these conferences have changed out of all recognition and in future could easily be held over a long weekend.
Mr Speaker
What a very sound question. I am even more delighted than usual to have called the hon. Gentleman so early. These are meetings of voluntary organisations which could perfectly well take place over a weekend. The idea that we should be away from our main place of work for this sort of indulgence will strike very large numbers of people across the country as bizarre.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Mr Speaker, I wondered if you were going to suggest a job share. Perhaps I should sit in as Speaker on occasion and you should answer questions as Leader of the House. I am sorry to say that I have a slightly different answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Party conferences are an important part of the political process. I am really glad to say that this year’s Conservative party conference is going to be primarily an occasion for members. We are going to get back to putting members front and central, because they are the people who select us and for whom we work, and who campaign for us. Party conferences are important and it is a reasonable time to have. This House has not been that busy, it has to be said, earlier in the Session. Therefore, having a party conference is perfectly reasonable.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House, esquire, for announcing whatever this is supposed to be for next week and say to him that if he is starting to feel a bit tired, he should just feel free to have a little lie down. But perhaps if he is going to do that, he should mention it to his hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) next to him.
According to the statement, there will be another attempt at a general election on Monday—perhaps the Leader of the House can just confirm that. It looks almost certain that straight after that, the Government’s intention is to suspend democracy—contemptuously—for five weeks, much against the desires and wishes of this House and the people we are elected here to serve.
But I congratulate the Leader of the House on an incredible week—not on becoming an internet sensation with his “Victorian dad lying down” stuff, but on his shrewd, stellar and steady management of the House business. He has managed to lose every single vote for this Prime Minister. No Prime Minister has ever got off to such a terrible start. He has managed to lose his Government majority by deselecting decent and honourable members of his party who have served their country and party with such distinction. He has lost control of the business of the House, and last night his unelected lords in the other place put up the white flag to what they call the surrender Bill. In the last few hours, we have had the resignation of the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in his desire to spend less time with his family.
There is only one piece of business that the Leader of the House craves: to secure his general election while still being able to get the no deal that the Government crave. To his great frustration and that of the Brexit cult that occupy the Government Benches, they have been unable to get away with it. His general election is coming, but everybody has to be certain that their no deal is dead and buried.
The funniest thing about the general election motion last night was the sight of Scottish Conservatives trooping through the Lobby in favour of an immediate general election on the day that an opinion poll showed that they would be decimated in Scotland. If we want to see a demonstration of slavish loyalty to the no-deal Brexit cult cause, we need look no further than these hon. Gentlemen. This is not just turkeys voting for Christmas; it is turkeys lathering themselves in cranberry sauce and shoving the stuffing up their own posteriors.
I have a feeling, though, that this will probably be the last opportunity to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. He wanted a legacy—how about: the least successful Leader of the House that we have ever had?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful as always to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic charm. What we have seen today is, I think in history, unprecedented, unknown and unseen. We have seen a frightened Scotsman. They are people who are known for their courage, their forthrightness and their sturdiness, and they are scared of going in front of their voters. They have run away from an election. They are—what is it?—“tim’rous beasties”, I think they must be called, who dare not face their voters. I just wonder whether that is because of the narrow majority that the hon. Gentleman has. He parades it as concern for Conservative Members, and he is worried that they may be in danger, but surely if that is what he really thinks, he should be embracing the opportunity for an election and pushing forward for it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Walsall South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has decided to leave Her Majesty’s Government. This is something that we know about across the country: families disagree on Brexit. My enormously distinguished, wise and good sister, Annunziata, has gone and joined the Brexit party—and not only joined it, but got elected to the European Parliament. We all have, within our families, these disagreements over an issue that is of fundamental importance to us—[Interruption.]
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of fundamental importance to us all, and that is why it is right to put this back to the British people in a general election, so that they can decide and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can restore the honour of the people of Scotland by showing he is not afraid.
Mr Speaker
These are richly enjoyable exchanges. That would ordinarily be the case in the presence of the Leader of the House in any circumstance, but I believe that it is more so because, unless I am much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Rees-Mogg present and observing our proceedings today. It is a great pleasure and privilege to welcome little Moggs in particular, of whom there are several, and other members of the Rees-Mogg dynasty.
Notwithstanding that joy, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker is to safeguard the rights of Members in respect of business to follow. I make that point simply to underline the imperative of brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike in observing that, exceptionally today, it may not be possible for everybody to be called on the business statement. We will do our best, and the quest for brevity can be led—I think with distinction—by Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have a statement or debate on the circumstances of the seizure of a British-flagged tanker by Iran in the Gulf? If there is not enough time for that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, because the Defence Committee on Monday has a session planned, but the former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—has so far not yet received the information that she requires from the Ministry of Defence to enable her to give testimony to us?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a matter of the utmost importance and I shall certainly ask my office to contact the Ministry of Defence. It is only right that Select Committees should get the information that they require.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement and for his apology. When I was considering the delay in the normal timing of the business statement this morning, I was wondering whether he was carrying on his normal practice of having a lie-in.
The Leader of the House will be aware that if Prorogation happens, the Backbench Business Committee ceases to exist and has to be re-elected. I will therefore be writing to him with a list of as yet unheard debates, should any time become available after Prorogation or possibly after a general election. They include debates on women’s mental health, which is vital; the role and sufficiency of youth work, which we have heard so much about recently; diabetes services with targeted prevention strategies; the 50th anniversary of the Open University; and parental mental illness with its impact on children’s outcomes. It is a list of things that are important and still need to be aired. By the way, if Prorogation does happen, there is also an application in for a debate about Baby Loss Awareness Week, which happens from 9 to 15 October every year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the whole House, for the wonderful work he does on the Backbench Business Committee and in ensuring that the House gets to debate the issues at the forefront of its mind and that Parliament functions effectively. I take very seriously what he said about the debates that may come up after an election or a Queen’s Speech and that require attention before the Backbench Business Committee has been reformed.
As to my recumbent position, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my office is drawing up a position paper for me and is coming up with a recline to take.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have indeed had a panoply of questions, apart from the obvious one: when the motion on the early general election is considered at the end of Monday, will the Bill that the House of Commons passed yesterday on ruling out no deal have received Royal Assent? The reason I ask is that I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition say yesterday that once the Bill became law, he would vote for an early general election. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite extraordinary, after this long Session of Parliament, which is clearly deadlocked, if every Member of Parliament—or at least two thirds—did not vote for an immediate general election to put this to the people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is indeed an addled Parliament that is not able to get things done, and the conclusion that my right hon. Friend draws is correct. Royal Assent will be given speedily once the Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and come back to us, if necessary, with any amendments. I obviously cannot predict what their lordships will do, but if it completes those stages, it will receive Royal Assent, and speedily.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
With the Government’s disgraceful proroguing of Parliament, not only will hon. Members be unable to scrutinise Ministers on Brexit, but I will be robbed of the opportunity to press Ministers following Tata’s announcement that it proposes to close all steelworks in Newport, so what will the Leader of the House do to facilitate a debate so that we can all fight to save our steel industry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There simply would not have been time for such a debate anyway, because we were about to go into the conference recess. We are losing four or five days of parliamentary time. There will then be a fresh new Session full of interest and excitement, with opportunities for debates on a range of issues.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
MPs across Staffordshire are very concerned about news that school transport provision will not now be available to those who have to pay for their school transport, due to a ruling about disability regulations. I will not go into the technical details now, and I appreciate that time is short, but would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important issue, and I have a nasty feeling that it is the result of some tiresome EU regulation, so after 31 October we may be free to deal with it ourselves.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
City airport consultation plans have proposed an additional 110 flights a day, many of which would fly over my constituency. Given that we already face noise and air pollution from the aircraft, and given that we are in a climate change emergency, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on airport expansions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
City airport is a fantastic airport—convenient to use and very well run—but I understand the concerns about the increasing number of flights from airports. The hon. Lady knows that there will be many opportunities to secure debates—Adjournment debates and Backbench Business debates—when Parliament returns in October.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent debate on planning? We have recently seen delays in various planning authorities—particularly the Planning Inspectorate—reviewing planning applications, which has led to the five-year lag in planning. That means that groups of applications that are not part of the planning process from the borough council are being put in, which particularly affects areas such as the monastery and the nunnery in West Malling.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always concerned about anything that might affect a monastery. If we have a Queen’s Speech, obviously we will have the normal days of debate that follow, during which I am sure it will be possible to raise the important issue of planning.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Jess, my constituent, was heavily pregnant when her husband was stealing from her bank account. She went to her bank but was told that, because she had given him her PIN, that was acceptable, and the police had no legislation to support her. Kirsty Ferguson was married and had homes, but when she and her husband divorced, he refused to sell them, against court orders. She was pushed into penury and emotional distress. What can we do after Prorogation, now that the Domestic Abuse Bill will fall, to support these women, not only in Batley and Spen but across the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issues that the hon. Lady raises are of fundamental importance. We will all have had similar cases brought to us in our constituencies. The Prime Minister is fully behind the Domestic Abuse Bill. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what precisely will be in the Queen’s Speech, but I think that I can give a steer that it would be a great surprise to all of us if the Bill were not revived very quickly, because her concern is shared across the House.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on when NHS England’s new genomic medicine service will be fully operational?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will certainly pass on that question to the Secretary of State.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
All summer, the hunger in communities such as mine across the country was tangible. Voluntary sector organisations are stepping in to feed our children. Why are the Government not doing more? May we have a debate on feeding our children in the holidays?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The Government carried out a pilot scheme that fed 50,000 children over the summer. The scheme is being evaluated to consider whether it should be rolled out more widely.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury previously made a statement from the Treasury Bench that a debt is owed to Equitable Life victims. When can we debate the matter further and ensure that the debt is repaid?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Equitable Life issue really ought to have been finished by now, but of course it concerns many Members and many of our constituents. I was a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
What is happening in Kashmir is an outrage. The UK Government must do everything they can to bring about lasting peace and stability and to restore human rights to the region. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the crisis in Kashmir?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I understand that the matter was covered very fully in Foreign Office questions, and the Foreign Office is taking it with the utmost seriousness. An opportunity to debate it will of course follow the Queen’s Speech.
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ask a Transport Minister to make a statement on the future of the Southeastern train contract? Under the franchise arrangements, the competition has been cancelled. My constituents are keen to see the benefits of the new trains that the new contract would deliver.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will pass on what my right hon. Friend has said to the relevant Secretary of State. Problems with trains always beset the House, and I fear that if we debated them all we would never have time for anything else.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I was alarmed to hear reports that the Leader of the House has previously suggested that all council workers should wear bowler hats, that Somerset should have its own time zone, that he has apparently met a group that favours the voluntary repatriation of black immigrants and that he has disputed climate change. Does he still believe these things, or has he finally decided to live on planet Earth?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The first half of that question referred to jokes, and the second half was wrong.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Hospital Radio Medway has raised a real concern about hospital radio stations being able to get appropriate licensing from Ofcom, which is preventing patients from accessing radio in hospital. That cannot be right. May we have an urgent statement or debate on that?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Hospital radio is very important for cheering people up when they are in hospital, and actually it is a very good training ground for people starting a career in radio. I think that it is a more suitable topic for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, rather than taking time in the Chamber.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has been extremely coy about when Prorogation will actually happen. He has not announced that it will be Tuesday or Thursday. If the general election motion falls again, will Prorogation we delayed so that he can have a third go?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Privy Council determined that a Commission should be established under the Lord High Chancellor, and that under the Great Seal, Parliament could be prorogued on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Parliament will be prorogued according to a decision made by that Commission. That Commission has not yet made its decision.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On Indian independence day, families were attacked outside the Indian high commission by thugs, and on Tuesday more thugs stoned and pelted the high commission. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary or another Minister on what actions can be taken to protect those diplomatic areas of our society for our allies and friends?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was unaware of that, but it is deeply shocking that the representative office of so close an ally should be attacked in the United Kingdom. We should take every measure, as part of our diplomatic obligations, to protect the offices of all embassies in this country, but particularly those of friends. It is a matter that I am sure the Foreign Secretary will take most seriously.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Is next Monday’s fixed-term Parliaments motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or another mechanism?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Later this month, the world’s third largest sporting event will take place in Japan: the rugby world cup. It would not be taking place without the exploits of a certain William Webb Ellis in my constituency back in 1823. The town will be celebrating, so may we take the opportunity to have a debate on the economic benefits of sporting events?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My general view of the world is that everything good that has ever happened started in Somerset, although I must confess that rugby did start in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I cannot claim to be part of Somerset—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says from a sedentary position that she is sure that I will try, but I think that would be too great a stretch, geographically. It is a fantastic sporting event, and I know that many people will enjoy watching it, and we should absolutely encourage people to participate. I think, Mr Speaker, that your predilection is for tennis, and mine is for cricket, so there are many sports that people will be interested in.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The post office network is in crisis. A Government contract allowing asylum seekers to access cash at post offices is due to expire in November. May we have a debate in Government time on the number of Government contracts that could be used to increase revenue for postmasters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
A postmaster came to see me in my constituency surgery recently to discuss that issue. I know that it concerns many Members because of the wonderful work that is done by post offices as part of their communities. However, the hon. Lady knows how to ask for debates and knows about the many mechanisms that are available.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of personal experience of paternity, as we see in the Gallery today. Does he agree that we must have an urgent debate on the return of maternity services to the Alex hospital in Redditch, as demanded by my constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do indeed attach great importance to paternity and, indeed, to maternity services. I think that this would be an entirely suitable subject for an Adjournment debate, Mr Speaker, although, of course, at your discretion.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In January 2019, the High Court ruled that it was illegal for the Department for Work and Pensions to deduct universal credit payments when people had received two payments within the assessment period. When will the Government make changes to comply with the law?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Her Majesty’s Government always comply with the rule of law. It is a fundamental principle of our constitution.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Charity Commission has asked abortion provider Marie Stopes, a charity funded largely by public money, why it paid its head £434,000 last year. May we have a debate on the high levels of executive pay in the charitable sector, which its regulator has described as an issue of public interest?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is indeed a matter of public interest. It is quite extraordinary that a charity should be paying someone so much more than the Prime Minister earns, or, even more shockingly, than Mr Speaker is paid. He stays in his seat for hour after hour in a very diligent way, and I think that if he were paid an hourly rate, he would find that he received less than if he worked at McDonald’s. It is very impressive. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will have to catch your eye in due course, Mr Speaker, before we run out of time.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but charities must report on the number of staff who are paid more than £60,000 a year in income bands in their annual report and accounts, and the Charity Commission has asked Marie Stopes International to provide an explanation of its chief executive officer’s quite extraordinary salary.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is no longer in the Chamber, but when he was in the Government, he promised that the next comprehensive spending review would provide £90 million for refuge funding. I note that not a single penny piece has been provided in this week’s review, and I now find it difficult to know what to believe when things are said from the Dispatch Box, but will the Leader of the House give me a commitment that that money, which was promised and planned for—and the Domestic Abuse Bill—will appear in the Queen’s Speech?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The general principle is that if commitments have been made from the Dispatch Box to spend money, those commitments are incumbent on the Government. They were made, and they continue. I cannot guarantee spending commitments—I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in case the hon. Lady had not noticed—but I share her concern about this important issue, and, if it will satisfy her, I will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clarify the position.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents in North Hykeham suffer from dreadful levels of travel congestion. Indeed, several hundred of them responded to a recent survey on the subject that was carried out in my area. The North Hykeham relief road is a key part of solving the problem. May we have a debate on it, please?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that my hon. Friend has been an amazingly effective campaigner for better transport in her constituency and is tireless in it. She probably does not want a debate so much as the money, although a debate may be easier to find than the money.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to wrap up this session by 1.40, so much briefer questions are now needed.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House has a big family, as I have. There is a woman in Tehran who cannot see her husband and cannot see her little daughter. While the House is not sitting, will the Leader of the House lead an all-party delegation to Iran—I would be with him—to see whether we can get that woman released?
Mr Speaker
I would happily join the Leader of the House on that delegation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a matter for the Foreign Secretary. I cannot constitutionally interfere in the Foreign Secretary’s business. However, I completely share the concern. If you were to lead a delegation Mr Speaker, I think that that would be very powerful, but I do hope you will make sure that you get back.
Mr Speaker
On the principle that Members always speak the truth in the Chamber, I have to assume that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he just said.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On the Chancellor’s desk since last July has been a shortlist of candidates to succeed Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Leader of the House aware of the Chancellor’s plans to make a statement on who he has recommended be appointed, so that the Treasury Committee may scrutinise that appointment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not aware of the Chancellor’s decision, or the timing of the Chancellor’s decision. However, as a former member of the Treasury Committee, I think it is of the utmost importance that the Committee carries out proper due diligence and scrutiny of appointments, which is hugely beneficial to the good running of the country.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House clearly thinks that we were all born yesterday, but we are not going to fall for trickery over a dissolution motion that has already been sought and that, would allow him to crash us out with a no-deal Brexit before 31 October. Why does he not publish the motion now, so that we can see it? Will he state whether it is amendable and when he plans to table it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for that question. The hon. Gentleman has just said that he expects his party to lose the election. Not only has the Labour party passed a surrender Bill, but it has now decided to surrender as a political force. What we have just heard is that Labour Members do not think that they can have an election on 15 October. Why? Because they would lose. If they are so confident that they would win, they can win and cancel Brexit, which is their real purpose, but they do not trust the people.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Barely a life in this place, or beyond in our constituencies—perhaps through family or friends—has not been touched by cancer and its treatment. You, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House will know of the critical relationship between detection, diagnosis and definitive treatment. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange either a statement or a debate on early diagnosis? It would assuage fear, prevent pain and, hopefully, stop people dying.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a matter of great importance, and one on which debates can be very useful, because they help to raise awareness. I am sure that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has heard that request.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I also point out that £34 billion more is to be provided for the national health service? I am sure that some of that will be used to improve cancer treatment services.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Government now think that they may need to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 after 31 October if we leave without a deal. That Act presumes that Parliament is sitting. Is it not therefore vital that we sit through 31 October, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the motion is published as soon as possible—before 2 o’clock—so that we can all decide what we are going to do on Monday?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is no question of the House not sitting around 31 October. No one has proposed that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Government back and give time to cross-party calls for the financial services industry to provide, or maintain, at least one free-to-use, 24/7 cashpoint machine for every high street that supports 5,000 residents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has presented a ten-minute rule Bill on that subject, and he may want to introduce a similar Bill in the new Session. Alternatively, he could enter the lottery for a private Member’s Bill, which could give him a great deal of time in which to discuss the issue. However, I share his concern about the need to ensure that people have access to cash.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The closure of the bank branch in Brora means that there will shortly be only one branch for the whole vast county of Sutherland. May I humbly request a debate, in Government time, about the continuing closure of rural bank branches? I have asked for one before, but, in the lingua franca, omnia tempus habent, sed dum spiro, spero.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is breathing and hoping. That is always extremely beneficial for all hon. Gentlemen and, indeed, all hon. Members—and right hon. ones, too. [Interruption.] I said “hon. Members”. I thought that the word “Members” included everyone, but I apologise if that is not the case.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is important, but I do not think that Government time is likely to be the right arena. Furthermore, I may be, to some extent, partial, as I represent a rural constituency, and I do not think that I should advocate debates in my own cause.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
During the summer recess, I met the wonderful international volunteers at Simeon Care in my constituency. May we have a debate that would celebrate and recognise the important role of international volunteers in our communities, so that charities such as Simeon can flourish?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing charitable work he does, because I know he has great personal concern and is very supportive of his local charities? Again, I think that is suitable for a Backbench Business debate and my hon. Friend knows the form for making applications for them.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is about time we had a further debate or a statement from the Government regarding the women who have been affected by the state pension age increase? It is okay for the Leader of the House to lie down on the job, but many 1950s-born women are being forced back into work by his Government or face poverty.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their kind words last week when a protest was proposed outside my house? I was very grateful for that and for their bipartisan approach; I think we all have a concern that Members’ houses should not be affected, and I am genuinely grateful.
The issue the hon. Lady raises is very serious, and I have great sympathy for the WASPI women—it is difficult for them—but the situation we inherited in 2010 in terms of the public finances necessitated it, and although I am not unsympathetic to a debate, I very much doubt the decision is going to be changed.
Mr Speaker
I very much endorse what the Leader of the House said about the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I have made that point myself before, but I take the opportunity to do so again: people who have political disagreements with public figures should not demonstrate in a way that causes real anxiety and fear either to that Member—that public servant—or to members of his or her family; that is intolerable.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement on UK Government support for the people and Government of the Bahamas given their very difficult situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Department for International Development has sent a team of experts to help to deal with the devastation and destruction caused by Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas. The team is working with the Bahamian Government to assess the situation and provide support. The Department for International Trade, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are monitoring the situation and getting support to those who need it. The Government are doing whatever they can, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Constituents have contacted me regarding proposals for a breeding kennel in Blaenau Gwent. Many residents have emphasised the importance of good animal welfare, so may we have a statement from the Government explaining what action is being taken right now so that dogs get the best possible protection in the future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that this issue concerns many people, and the Government have a particular concern for animal welfare. In the new Session of Parliament there may well be time to have a debate on it.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Royal Mail Group is trying to sell off Parcelforce as a separate business. Communication workers will be ready to strike and take action. With an election possibly coming up, will there be a statement from the Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sure that no responsible person would go on strike to interrupt the democratic process of a general election.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Plaid Cymru group will probably vote against the Government on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but would it not be reasonable for the official Opposition to have the courage of their convictions and do likewise?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What has happened to the men of Harlech? I thought they were meant to stand steady. Instead, they are running away from an election, which is very disappointing.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
A small family-run restaurant in my constituency was hit with an eye-watering Home Office fine for a minor administrative error in its staffing. I do not want a debate or a statement, but will the Leader of the House please get me a meeting with the Home Secretary so I may ask her directly to resolve this issue and why she has not responded to my letters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say that arranging meetings is not the job of the Leader the House. I am here to organise debates and to point people in the right direction for getting parliamentary responses—not, I am sorry to say, to be a diary secretary.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House assure me that during Prorogation the Home Secretary will not lay a statutory instrument to make it illegal to enter Kurdish Syria and that we will continue to be able to support our allies in Kurdistan?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The rules relating to the laying of statutory instruments when the House is sitting are complicated and detailed, and without knowing the precise form of the statutory instrument I will not be able to give any guarantee.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We have recently learned that free movement as we know it is to end on 31 October. During the referendum campaign the current Prime Minister made a great deal of decisions not being made without the democratic agreement of this Parliament. May we be assured that, in the current circumstances, the biggest change to immigration in this country in a decade will not be made without the approval of Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, Mr Speaker, let us have an election; let’s let the British people decide. Stop running away from it—not you, Mr Speaker, but others in this House. It is so ridiculous to say that the Government are outrageous, undemocratic, shocking and terrible because they are offering an election. An election gives the choice to the British people and validates whatever we do.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is very knowledgeable about procedural issues. If the House agrees to an election date of 15 October on Monday, is there any device the Prime Minister could use to move that date to beyond 31 October while the House is dissolved, to take the country out with no deal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The date of the election flows from the date of Dissolution. [Interruption.] No, it is not: the election follows 25 working days from the date of Dissolution, so if we are dissolved on Monday—[Interruption.] But the process for that—[Interruption.] No, that is a mistake: it is not a minimum once the Dissolution day is set; it is 25 working days from Dissolution.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, what the hon. Gentleman is confusing is when the day of Dissolution is set, and that is done by Royal Proclamation.
I can assure the House that the date will be set and the date will be stuck to. I think everybody in this House wants to see this issue settled; it is the one thing we have agreement about. The best way to settle it is through a general election—and a general election before 31 October.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House not understand that such is the lack of trust in this Government because of their behaviour that we simply will not vote for a general election unless and until an extension of article 50 has been secured, guaranteeing that this country cannot be dragged out with no deal? That is the condition.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The condition seems to change, because the condition was that the legislation was passed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
And enacted; given Royal Assent. [Interruption.] Royal Assent is the point at which it is enacted—it is when it becomes an Act. If that is the law of the land, that will be the law of the land, and if Members think it through they will realise that the Government would not want an election after that law had taken effect and we had had to ask for an extension. The last thing this Government want to do is ask for an extension.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Then win an election. That is the easy part of it; if Labour Members really have confidence in what they say, go for an election. That is the obvious point. The weasel wording to try to pretend they want an election, but they do not want an election, and they are not going to vote for one because we might leave is all about stopping Brexit by people who do not trust their own voters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In July of this year, there were a number of attacks on Christian villages in Plateau state, Nigeria, with some 75 houses burned and three Christians killed—a father and his seven-year-old son and the elder of a church were brutally beheaded. We had a debate in the Chamber some six weeks ago in which we discussed the persecution of Christians and the Truro report. May we have an update on where we are, because the murder of Christians is continuing across the world?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a very serious issue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern regarding the persecution of Christians across the world. We should do whatever we can—indeed, the Government are doing what they can—to help them. I believe the hon. Gentleman met my predecessor quite recently to discuss freedom of religion and belief, and I know he is in regular communication with the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief at the Foreign Office. These incidents are dreadful and we must do everything we can to stop them. I am happy to take this matter up further if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
There were 1,187 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year, but the Home Office has yet to dispatch a Minister to the drugs summit that the Scottish Government wish to hold. Why?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is an issue about exactly where power and authority lie and what parts are devolved and what parts are not devolved. I will happily take the matter up with the Home Office for the hon. Lady, and I will send a reply when I get a response.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Putting aside the vested interests of so many of the Government’s Members, relatives and chums in the other place, and in the light of the work of the noble Lords last night, may we have a debate in Government time on the role of the upper Chamber?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady may recall that not so many years ago we had a Second Reading debate for a couple of days on the role of the upper Chamber in an attempt to reform it, but it did not get very far. The problem with those debates is that so many people have so many different ideas that nobody can come to a conclusion about what ought to be done, so I would suggest that if people want such a debate, they have a word with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Last week, 50 new towns were added to the future high streets fund. Ellesmere Port was not one of them, which was hugely disappointing, but then I saw that the majority of successful bids were from Conservative constituencies. May we have a statement, please, from the relevant Minister to assure us that this is not a political fix ahead of a snap general election?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Oh, of course it is not a political fix! No Government would ever behave like that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
On Tuesday this week, the Office for National Statistics produced the suicide data for 2018, which showed an increase of 686 suicides over the previous year’s figure. Suicide is preventable, not inevitable, so may we have a debate in Government time as soon as possible on the figures and what we can do to reduce deaths by suicide?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is obviously an important and worrying issue, and one where any policy initiatives that can be made to help to reduce the suicide rate ought to be made, but I think it is a suitable matter for the Backbench Business Committee.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
My constituent Erin Campbell, who is our member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, runs the Keep in Mind mental health campaign to reduce the stigma of young people’s mental health and ask them to talk about it. If there is space next week, may we have a debate on the role of young people helping their own mental health through discussion and conversation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that fitting it in next week might prove a little difficult.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please apologise to the doctor whom he compared an hour ago to another now disgraced former doctor whose actions and misinformation led to the loss of this country’s herd immunity to measles earlier this year?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I will reiterate it because I think this doctor’s behaviour was disgraceful. To scaremonger and say that people are going to die because of Brexit is thoroughly irresponsible and unbefitting to his role.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is a stickler for good manners, except when it comes to members of the medical profession. I wonder whether he can help me. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) 76 days ago about the contaminated blood scandal. The fact is that 19 people have died in those 76 days without receiving any compensation. Can the Leader of the House assist me in getting a response from the right hon. Gentleman, which I can then pass on to everyone who has been affected by the scandal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Lady sends me a copy of her letter, I will of course chase it up, but 76 days ago my right hon. Friend was not yet Prime Minister. However, if she sends it to me, I absolutely promise I will take it up and try to get an answer as soon as possible.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House confirm whether it is a Government tactic to cause reputational damage to experts such as Dr David Nicholl, who dared to challenge the Government and raise legitimate concerns about the impact of no deal?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Frankly, I think when people start saying that people are going to die because of Brexit, their reputations are destroyed by themselves.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their brevity.
Point of Order
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government introduced a negative statutory instrument just three days before the summer recess for a pilot of managed migration to universal credit and payments to severely disabled people who lost out in transferring to it. The Secretary of State said that the Government had been advised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to use a negative SI, but my office has since been informed that the Committee had not reported on the instrument in question and that no such advice had therefore been given. Mr Speaker, will you please advise on how she could set the record straight?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me notice of her intention to raise it. Ministers are, of course, responsible for the accuracy of their answers in the House, and I am sure that the points made by the hon. Lady will have been noted on the Treasury Bench. It is open to the Secretary of State to correct the record if she thinks that that is the appropriate course of action. Moreover, I think there is a salience about this, and I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been alerted to the statement made by the Secretary of State and will be writing to the Department about this matter. In the light of that, I think we have to await the sequence of events, and people must draw the appropriate conclusions, both from what I have said and more widely.
Clean Growth: Emissions Reduction Targets
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science and Technology Committee
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mr Norman Lamb will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, the occupant of the Chair will call right hon. or hon. Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee to respond to these in turn. Members as per usual can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning. I now call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, who I regret to say I am wrongly advised is Norman Lamb. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee is, of course, Sir Norman Lamb.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
You are very kind, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a statement following the publication by my Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, of our report last month, “Clean growth: Technologies for meeting emissions reduction targets”. These technologies are essential to confront the climate emergency that we face.
I start by thanking the more than 80 organisations and individuals who provided us with written evidence and the 27 individuals who gave evidence. I would also like to thank my fellow Committee members, many of whom are here today. It has been an enormous pleasure working with hon. Members from across the House and also with the outstanding staff on our Committee. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who took a lead on this inquiry. This is an evidence-based report, and it would not have been possible without the input of the many organisations and individuals who have given evidence to us.
This summer, the UK had its hottest day on record in July and the hottest August bank holiday on record. This pattern was repeated across Europe. Weather is always variable, but trends in global climate are becoming clear. Global temperatures are rising and extreme weather is becoming more extreme and more common. To avert a climate catastrophe, the United Nations has agreed to keep global warming to within 2% of pre-industrial levels and to aim to keep it within 1.5° C. The Committee on Climate Change has determined that the UK’s contribution to this target should be to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The Government rightly adopted this target by amending the Climate Change Act 2008, a move that was widely supported in this House and recognised by the Committee, but it will take more than targets to achieve this ambition.
The UK can point to some historical success in cutting emissions. Since 2000, the UK has achieved greater decarbonisation than any other country in the G20, but we must look to what is needed going forward, not dwell on past successes. We need to compare ourselves not with other countries but with what we need to do to restrict global warming. On these measures, we risk falling short. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that the UK is not on track even to meet its fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which are interim targets designed to achieve only 80% decarbonisation by 2050 and not the net zero target that is now legally binding. That is why my Committee launched our inquiry to examine what the Government should be doing to put us on track.
The first thing we identified were 10 key areas in which Government policy to support the implementation of low-carbon technology has been delayed, cut back or undermined. For example, the plug-in grant for low emission cars has been scaled back and the feed-in tariff for low-carbon power generation has been closed. We have witnessed a dramatic fall in the number of new solar installations, for example, as a result. There has been no new policy to encourage those who can afford it to improve the energy efficiency of their homes—an absolutely essential ambition to achieve net zero. Despite a consultation on the topic in 2017, no action has followed since. Following the cancellation of the zero carbon homes policy in 2015, the Government said that they would consult on changes to building regulations in 2019 to improve energy efficiency, but no consultation has been launched, so we are building new homes that we will have to retrofit to achieve net zero. Fuel duty has been frozen for nine years in a row, while bus and train fares have been allowed to increase every year over the same period. There are even rumours that the Chancellor intends to cut fuel duty in the Budget. I urge him to consider improving public transport and incentivising people to use it instead.
What should the Government be doing? Much of the media coverage focused on just one aspect of our report—the future of car ownership—but I urge colleagues across the House to carefully consider all my Committee’s proposals for change. Some key priorities include the fact that transport emissions have barely changed since 2012, with transport now bring the heaviest-emitting sector of the UK economy. Indeed, emissions from new cars appear to be going up. In the near term, the Government should be using vehicle excise duty to encourage the purchase of lower-emitting models and working to make electric vehicle charging points much more widely available and interoperable. In the longer term, the Government should bring their proposed ban on sales of new conventional cars and vans forward to 2035 at the latest, and they should also move towards a future transport system that no longer requires widespread car ownership. Incidentally, this is not an imposition on people not to have cars, but there needs to be a national discussion about what our future transport system will look like and how we can get about without mass car ownership
The Government must also develop a strategy for decarbonising heating—absolutely vital to achieving net zero—and a mix of different low-carbon heating technologies is probably required. Large-scale trials of different technologies, such as hydrogen and heat pumps and heat networks, are needed now to gather evidence for future decisions. Whatever technologies are used, there will be massive benefits from having energy efficient homes. The cost of housing and of heating our homes will reduce substantially if we make them more efficient. The Government must ensure that regulations deliver new buildings ready for a net zero future. They should also learn from past policies to encourage homeowners to improve energy efficiency in their existing homes. My Committee recommended that the Government should consider amending stamp duty to provide the incentive and introduce a “help to improve” scheme, like Help to Buy, to help provide the finance for such improvements.
Power generation has already achieved impressive decarbonisation, but that must continue. However, the deployment of onshore wind and large-scale solar power has fallen drastically since 2015 as a result of planning policy and their exclusion from financial support frameworks. The Government must ensure that there is strong policy support for building new onshore wind power and large-scale solar power projects and repowering existing ones where there are projected cost savings for consumers over the long term and local support. Decisions are also needed on future funding mechanisms for nuclear power and the careful monitoring of the new smart export guarantee for renewable generation, which must provide a proper incentive.
To meet the Government’s original 2050 target, reaching net zero emissions will also require the active removal of significantly more greenhouse gas from the atmosphere than envisaged in any of the previous illustrative pathways. The step change required will necessitate a significant increase in current support for greenhouse gas removal technologies, and the Government should increase funding for their research, development and demonstration, ensuring that they are seizing currently available opportunities for greenhouse gas removal.
Carbon capture, usage and storage has been widely identified as a key technology for decarbonisation in several sectors. The Government must provide greater clarity on the details of its CCUS action plan and learn from previous carbon capture projects to ensure that a sufficient number of them, of sufficient scale, are undertaken and that the knowledge gained from publicly funded work is publicly accessible. The scale of the challenge ahead should not be underestimated, nor should the imperative of succeeding in it. Our report makes a wide range of recommendations, and I urge the Government to act on all our recommendations.
Finally, it is disturbing and worrying that this is one of the big challenges we face as a society, yet the Brexit quagmire that we are in is distracting the attention that this Parliament should be giving to how we confront this enormous existential threat. In many ways, it is sad and rather depressing that not enough people are in the Chamber today to debate such an important issue. At some point soon, this Parliament needs to get back to focusing on such issues, which are critical to the futures of our planet and our society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am spoilt for choice. I call Sarah Newton.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As both a former member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the Conservative Environment Network, I very much welcome this report. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that reducing emissions from people heating their homes is not only good for our climate change targets, but will reduce costs for people and enable us to end the scourge of fuel poverty?
Norman Lamb
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely central point that is a real win-win. We can achieve the essential decarbonisation of our economy by confronting the problem of how we heat our buildings, particularly our homes, but we can also achieve affordable housing. We often talk about affordable housing and the vital need to increase access to it, but housing is not affordable unless energy is cheap. We have the potential to minimise and, indeed, to eradicate the cost of energy in our homes if only we were to follow the objectives set out in this report.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this report and congratulate the Chair of the Committee and its members on the assiduity with which they have gone about their business and on the comprehensive and compelling report that they have produced as a result. Following the House’s decision to change the target for greenhouse gas removal from 80% by 2050 to net zero by 2050, it is clear that several of the actions that had previously been proposed, which were based on the carbon budgets and Government ambition relating to the 80% target, would have to be changed. Did the Committee take any evidence on the extent to which documents such as the Government’s clean growth plan should be amended or extended as a result of the change of target?
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that contribution. It is fair to say that the legislating for net zero came towards the end of our inquiry, so much of the evidence was received before that, but the consensus was clear that we need to significantly up the ambition of the policies that are in place in order to deliver net zero or, indeed, even to deliver the previous target of 80%. We not only have to will the end, but we have to will the means to get there.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
As a member of the Committee, I thank our Chairman, all the staff and all the people who gave evidence on this incredibly detailed and important report. I completely agree with him that not enough time is being devoted in this place to climate change, which is our biggest challenge.
It is fantastic news that we set that net zero target, but does the Chairman agree that, when targets are at risk of not being met, action needs to be taken to address it? It is important to recognise that the Government have taken action in some of these areas, such as saying no fossil fuel heating in new homes by 2025. We have seen extra electric vehicle charging points pop up in Chelmsford and in other parts of the country, and some of our recommendations are already in place.
The widespread use of personal vehicles is cause for concern. Does the Chairman agree that the report is not saying that everybody should no longer be allowed to own a car—we know that cars and vehicles are important, especially in rural areas and in many careers—but is pointing out that we need investment over the decades ahead to give people alternatives? Does he agree that what happened to the national grid this summer is a real wake-up call on the investment that is needed in this area? That investment needs to come from public and private sources.
Does the Chairman agree that carbon capture is vital not only to innovation but to protecting areas in the UK, such as our peat bogs, and overseas, like in the Amazon rainforest? Finally, does he agree that we will address this only when we work together with other countries and that next year’s global climate change conference, which is possibly coming to Britain, is a vital time for our future?
Norman Lamb
First, I thank the hon. Lady for all her work on the Committee during my time as Chair. This is probably my last appearance in the Chamber as Chair of the Committee or, indeed, as the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, and it has been an enormous pleasure to work with her and other Committee members.
I agree with all the hon. Lady’s questions. We are right to applaud the Government for setting the 2050 target in legislation, but, as she says, to maintain public trust and to confront this existential challenge, we now have to get the measures in place to deliver on the target.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to have been part of the Committee in drawing up this report, which is one of our most important reports over the last few years. Of course we need to take bold, ambitious steps. We cannot continue living our lives as we currently are, and we all need to look at what we are doing. With these bold steps, we also need to look at the bold, retrograde steps that have been taken, such as cutting offshore wind subsidies and removing feed-in tariffs. We could reverse those steps instantly, which would help to change the landscape of our energy use.
We all love our cars, and many journeys are currently not possible without them, but I recently got rid of my car after deciding to rethink my relationship with it. I live in a city, so that is possible, but it is more difficult in rural areas. Does the Chairman agree that we need to start thinking about whether our cars are necessary and whether our journeys could be taken another way, such as by bike, by walking or by public transport? Finally, will he commend the Scottish Government for our commitment to renewable energy? The majority of our electricity generation is from renewable sources, and we want to move that to 100%.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent work on the Committee, and it has been a pleasure working with her. I do think the Scottish Government have taken important steps in this context.
The hon. Lady mentions the areas in which policy has either stalled or fallen back, on which the report is clear. I pick out the zero-carbon homes standard, which was supposed to come in from 2015 but was abandoned, and the ludicrous situation—Lord Deben made this point in his evidence as chair of the Committee on Climate Change—in which we are building new homes that do not meet the standard we need to achieve and so will have to be retrofitted. How ridiculous and inefficient is that?
I also pick out the Government’s decision effectively to end new onshore wind in England, although obviously not in Scotland, where it is devolved. There are enormous opportunities to deliver cheaper energy to our citizens if we permit onshore wind, which is widely supported by the public provided we avoid areas with important and sensitive landscape.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I am also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and it has been a pleasure to serve under the right hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship for the last two years. I am proud to have served with him over that time, and I wish him all the best for the future, wherever it takes him.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share my concern that road vehicle emissions have either stagnated or increased somewhat. Does he agree there is a role for the Department for Transport in incentivising migration to electric cars and for making progress on the use of hydrogen propulsion for large goods vehicles on our roads today?
Norman Lamb
I totally agree. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments, and I thank him for his excellent contributions to the Committee and for always being prompt and reliable. He has the prize for being the most reliable member of all.
I very much agree on the need to incentivise people to shift to ultra low emissions vehicles. In a sense, there is a personal story here, because I am due to take delivery of an electric car.
Norman Lamb
Absolutely, but I am conscious that, financially, it is beyond most people’s reach, so we have to find ways of making it affordable. By incentivising the purchase, we will start to bring down prices so that they become competitive. Alongside that, we need the charging points that provide for their day-to-day use.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This is meant to be a 20-minute debate. We have now passed 20 minutes and we have quite a lot to get through, so if we could all speed up—I want to make sure everyone gets in.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the Chair and all the members of the Select Committee on this excellent report, particularly its emphasis on the need to take action to address the huge, existential threat that climate change presents and the role that technology can play. Does he agree that such technologies, given the right framework, could also create hundreds of thousands of good high-wage, high-skill and high-productivity jobs and that the right Government, with the right investment programme, would see the decarbonisation of our economy as an opportunity to transform our economic and manufacturing base, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and sharing prosperity around the country in the process?
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. She is right that we can generate economic growth in our country by greening our economy, but we also have massive export opportunities. We have the opportunity to assist the developing world in decarbonising its economies and in growing in a way that does not damage the planet. Unfortunately, through our development assistance, we are still not always consistent in that approach.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for what he has done and for this excellent report, and I associate myself completely with his initial remarks.
I understand that the previous Prime Minister took very seriously how we roll out electric charging points, but sadly it was right at the end of her tenure. Is the Chair any clearer on the Government’s strategy to increase the number of charging points?
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, and it is always a pleasure to see him as he comes and goes from this place over many years. He is right to raise this issue, and there is not yet clarity on the roll-out of charging points. Other countries, such as Norway, are well ahead of us in achieving that. To encourage people to buy electric, we have to assure them that they will be able to recharge without difficulty.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am not a member of the Committee, but, for the record, I would also like to extend my personal thanks to my right the right hon. Gentleman for all his kindness over the short years I have been here. I am particularly interested in his statement on offshore renewable energy, which is a success story in my constituency. What consideration did the Committee give to the development of further sites around the British Isles where this might be appropriate?
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. There is clearly an enormous opportunity to help decarbonise our electricity generation capacity in this country. It is clear from the evidence we received that there is great opportunity to increase offshore wind capacity around our shores.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
On a personal note, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his chairmanship, guidance and education during my short time on the Science and Technology Committee. It has been a great pleasure to serve under his chairmanship.
The report is hugely important and young people have managed to get climate change back on the front pages. Is it not the case that there is no single magic bullet to perfect what we need, but that the Government and all those involved must look at all the answers holistically and address all our suggestions and recommendations so that we can honour our young people for putting climate change back where it belongs?
Norman Lamb
I thank my friend for his massive contribution—when he has not been dragged away by HS2. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. He is right: this requires action on all fronts. There is a particular need to focus on the heating of buildings and on transport. We have made very little progress on those matters, and urgent progress is essential. Unless we attack where we put carbon into the atmosphere on all fronts, we will fail to meet the targets, and fail future generations.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I also commend the right hon. Gentleman for his report and congratulate him on his determinedness on the subject, for which I share his passion. Does he share my frustration that for so many years—since 2010—we have, through lack of tighter regulation, allowed housing to be built without energy efficiency or renewable energy provision in the regulatory framework? Including such provision would have transformed some of our communities. On the transport side, we need to invest more heavily in cycle routes and electric bicycles, which would transform our urban movement.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. More than a decade ago, a German teacher came to stay with us. He was building a zero carbon home in Germany with a ground source heat pump. That was more than a decade ago, yet we have made snail’s pace progress in this country on alternative ways of heating our homes. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the need to find ways of avoiding having to use cars. Cycling and walking are essential, and our urban areas in particular must be designed and adapted in such a way as to facilitate that.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out the importance of the report, not just to tackling climate change, but to bringing together the two questions of technology and climate change to achieve our net zero emissions. It was my privilege to lead on this in the Science and Technology Committee. Does he agree that the evidence across all policy areas in the report concluded that much stronger leadership was required from central Government—from the Prime Minister, with a cross-departmental and economy-wide mission—to meet the net zero target emissions? For whoever is on the Treasury Bench in the months and years ahead, the report provides an excellent evidence-based agenda of items that should be prioritised in achieving those targets.
I put on record my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent leadership of the Committee, which has been recognised not just by Members but by the science and technology community outside the House.
Norman Lamb
That is really kind. It has been an enormous pleasure working with the hon. Gentleman and I thank him for taking a lead role in this vital report. I entirely agree with his comments. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the Government to be the greenest ever. We have heard that before, but there now must be substance to back up that statement. That requires key policies that provide the incentives and the regulatory framework to deliver that essential target by 2050.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I also wish you well? The tributes, which have come from all sides, show what a great man you are. We wish you well in your retirement. I am not quite sure that it is retirement, but we wish you well in whatever future venture you undertake.
Backbench Business
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Shared Prosperity Fund
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that the Government is more than half a year behind its schedule to provide details of post-2020 funding through a UK Shared Prosperity Fund; supports the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recommendation that the Fund should at the very least match the £2.4 billion per year currently allocated through the EU structural funds; and calls on the Government to ensure that full details of the fund are published with urgency, that the devolved settlement is respected and that there is no reduction in the levels of funding to devolved governments or their role in distributing funds.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to bring this matter to the Chamber today. Scottish communities stand to lose millions of pounds from Brexit. Communities, charities and other organisations have been waiting for years to find out what funding will be available. There is also a threat to devolution. Long-term planning has been abandoned to Brexit.
We need clarity about the details of the so-called shared prosperity fund. We need to know whether the devolution settlement will be protected. Currently, until 2020, communities and charities can access funding worth £2.4 billion a year. Work by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions—the CPMR—shows that, for 2021-27, the UK would have received €13 billion in regional development funding. For Scotland, failure to replace that would mean a loss of €840 million. For the highlands and islands alone, that would be €130 million. It is therefore vital that that money is replaced.
That funding has underpinned further education, youth employment, smart cities, connectivity for islands and communities, small and medium-sized enterprises, apprenticeships, regeneration, innovation, productivity, social inclusion and much more. In Scotland, it has supported projects and development in West Lothian, the Orkney isles, Ayrshire, Fife, Argyll and Bute, Midlothian, East Lothian, Perth and Kinross, Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire, Stirling, Western Isles, Inverclyde, Clackmannanshire, Moray, Shetland, Edinburgh, Dumfries and Galloway, Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Dundee and more.
In the highlands and islands, we would be hard pushed to find any town or village, let alone our city of Inverness, that has not had investment since we joined the European Community in the 1970s. Indeed, two specific and unavoidable icons stand testament to that. The Kessock bridge was built through Europe before devolution because Westminster ignored the highlands for decades.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When the hon. Gentleman and I drive around the highlands, we cannot help but notice the signs with the stars on them on new bits of road that say that the development was funded by the EU. Without that funding, those roads would probably not have been built and transport across our vast constituencies would have been difficult for our constituents. Replacing the funding is essential. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has met me several times, tried to do his level best and knows the area, I am bound to say that we seem no further forward, which my constituents find not just frustrating but deeply worrying.
Drew Hendry
It is absolutely true that the money has had a massive impact on the infrastructure of the highlands and it must be replaced.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
This is an important debate and I know that the Minister has worked hard on the matter and been very good with Members. The hon. Gentleman talks about peripheral areas, and west Wales and the valleys have particularly benefited. However, small businesses tell me that they need to plan. They need some indication of what is happening. We have just talked about science and technology. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that research and development also require planning? Brexit has taken the Government’s eye off the ball, but we need some answers now.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments and I can confirm that I will underline those very points later in my speech.
Jake Berry
Show me the money.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has repeatedly referred to “EU money”. I hope he will acknowledge that it is not the EU’s money but British taxpayers’ money and that he will reflect on the fact that, in 2018, we paid £13.2 billion into the EU and they returned £4.2 billion to this country.
Drew Hendry
I will reflect on the fact that if it had not been for EU funding—that is what I am talking about: funding that is generated out of EU schemes—the highlands and islands, as others have pointed out, would have been ignored by Westminster.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between the European Union and the Government here in Westminster is that the European Union has a regional policy to counteract the effects of poverty, unlike this Government?
Drew Hendry
Yes—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Before I took those interventions, I was talking about the two icons, one of them being the Kessock bridge, which I will not go into now. It is there for everybody to see and is a monument to the fact that Europe has paid attention to the regions that need assistance. The other icon is the University of the Highlands and Islands. EU funding enables research capacity, new facilities and equipment and expert researchers, and it has enabled doctoral and post-doctoral students to support priority sectors such as life sciences, marine science, aquaculture, archaeology, Gaelic and the creative economy—all coming together to make the highlands the vibrant place it is. The University of the Highlands and Islands receives the largest Scottish grant of €7.17 million, out of €68.6 million throughout Scotland. The view of the University of the Highlands and Islands is that Brexit will reduce prospects in those areas.
Erasmus has enabled student and staff exchanges for more than 30 years. International collaboration and EU engagement are at the heart of the University of the Highlands and Islands, and have been since its inception. It was helped by the EU to achieve university status and title in 2011, and is a vital contributor to economic growth. More than £250 million of investment has been levered into the UHI through structural funding. Some 25% of the university’s non-teaching “other” income has come from the EU. If we were remaining in the EU, there would be much more potential for growth through the EU 2020-27 programmes.
Adam Haxell of MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, said to me:
“On UHI itself, it is important to emphasis what a remarkable success story it has been. The idea of having a university that covered this area in the early 1990s seemed totally unrealistic to many, and it is thanks to the determination and perseverance of those involved combined with the spread of funds they were able to draw down on, namely European funding streams, that made it happen. Today, the university stands as a pillar of the regional economy of the Highlands and Islands and an important element of the modern social fabric. The range of courses that are offered through this institution, some of which relate directly to the regional culture and heritage, combine to create a unique local offer that reflects the needs and ambitions of local residents. Moreover, in the last Research Excellence Framework, 69% of research at the institution was deemed world-leading or internationally excellent. For an institution that only gained university title in 2011, this is a phenomenal trajectory and could not have happened without the support it got.”
He went on to say that
“Kate Louise McCulough has written on the historic framing of the ‘Highland problem’ in Scottish and UK public policy and how European funds played a critical role in its transformation from the 1980s to become ‘…an example of what a successful peripheral region looks like’.”
Drew Hendry
I will not; I am going to make some progress, as I indicated. There is very limited time.
Communities and charities have used European funding to benefit people, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. The Shaw Trust says:
“Without ESF—
European social fund—
“funding, Shaw Trust would not have been able to support 70,000 disabled people”
and
“offenders…to gain new skills, improve their wellbeing and find work”.
Equally Ours—formerly the Equality and Diversity Forum—says that EU funding has provided vital, dedicated support to individuals experiencing disadvantage, discrimination and abuse, as well as the voluntary and community organisations that support them. It says that the continuing lack of consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund is creating significant uncertainty for communities, organisations and disadvantaged people.
Communities and charities have now been waiting for years to find out what funding will be available post Brexit, yet so far there is nothing from the UK Government, other than a name, that the Union flag will be on it and that it will be administered by the Minister for local government in England. That is in spite of a recognition of how valuable the funds have been and a commitment made to replace them. The UK shared prosperity fund was promised by the Tories in their 2017 manifesto. They said that it would
“reduce inequalities…across our four nations.”
They said it would be “cheap to administer” and “low in bureaucracy”. Without a like-for-like replacement, inequalities will increase, and that is what we are now looking at. The Tories were right in the second part of what they said: the fund is cheap and there is no bureaucracy—because it does not exist.
The Library notes that many considerations are required for the fund, including priorities, objectives, amounts of money, allocation, method of model, length of planning and who administers funds. The latter role currently rests with the devolved Governments. All the organisations and charities that have contacted me agree with the conclusions of the all-party group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, which in turn received many submissions, including from the Welsh Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish local authorities directly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and numerous educational and voluntary bodies. They all said, first, that the fund’s budget must be no less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces, and, secondly, that the devolved nations’ share should not be reduced and that it should remain a devolved matter.
The UK Government must now respect the devolution settlement and UK Ministers should commit to work with all the devolved Administrations to agree funding arrangements that make sense for all the nations of the UK. As I have said, currently the biggest piece of concrete information we have is a written statement from July 2018 that largely consists of a future planning framework for England, with, as mentioned, the English Communities Minister, who is judged on English community improvement, in charge of UK funding distribution.
The groups and communities aided by the funds do not believe that Westminster knows best how to act in the interests of the parts of Scotland that need the most support. They do not want to see a Westminster power grab. There have been no assurances about devolved powers, despite numerous questions raised in the House. In mid-November last year, we were promised that a consultation on the UK shared prosperity fund would be published before the end of that year, but there is still nothing. All the while, the hard-working volunteers, charities and communities face rising concerns about the future of the people they selflessly serve and about their own futures. They need more than the new Secretary of State for Scotland saying that he will put Union flags on all projects, with the attendant suggestion of misplaced priorities and a desire to interfere with devolution by insisting on UK Government agreement on all UK shared prosperity funding. It is unacceptable.
The Scottish Government are determined to defend and maintain the benefits that EU funding has given them, to defend the organisations I mentioned and to defend their hard-won fiscal responsibility. How will the shared prosperity fund ensure the flexibility, which currently exists with EU funding, to allow organisations to fund different policy areas, from biotech to tourism and education? How will the new fund enable strategic planning within organisations over the longer term, as EU funding has enabled? Will the Minister guarantee like-for-like funding for the €13 billion that would have come from the EU? Will he guarantee no detriment to the Scottish Government as a result of Brexit? Will he commit today to respecting the devolution settlement? If he cannot do those things—if he cannot make those commitments—he should work with his Government to revoke article 50, so that the money is not lost to our communities. If he is not able to do that, all it will do is show the people of Scotland that they need to make a new choice about their future—to be an independent country, taking their own seat in Europe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I want to make sure that everybody gets in and that we start the next debate on time, so Members will have up to six minutes. Please be aware of that.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a huge privilege to stand in the House today. We have a special word in the Cornish language: hireth. There really is no direct translation into English, but it is about a feeling that comes from being Cornish. It derives from our inspirational natural environment and from our history and culture.
As someone whose family has lived and worked in my constituency for generations, it has been a huge privilege to represent my home town. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, just before you leave the Chamber, let me say that you were in the Chair when I made my maiden speech. As the general election is just around the corner, this may well be my last speech in this House, and it will be a speech standing up for the people of Cornwall who sent me here. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for standing and listening to me say that.
There is no doubt in my mind that the funding that Cornwall has received via the European funds has been absolutely essential. Despite the many natural wonders of Cornwall, and the hugely talented, creative and resourceful people, the fact remains that we are still the poorest region in England. There is no doubt that a huge amount of progress is being made. In no small part, that is down to the funding that we have received via the European Union. Let me explain why.
Just before the summer recess, colleagues from across the House, including my Cornish colleagues and I, supported by 14 first tier local authorities, launched a report called “Britain’s Leading Edge”, which demonstrates beyond doubt that the English regions that do not have a major city have been historically underfunded and that there is a bias in the system of the allocation of public money towards the English regions that do have cities. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to the report and that we have seen some real progress in some of the funding formulae used to allocate funding, particularly in the NHS and the recent moves on the national funding formula for education. However, the models that the Treasury uses in the allocation of funds for transport and economic development are systematically biased against regional peripheral maritime regions such as Cornwall.
This is where the European funding that Cornwall has received comes in. It has enabled us to put that money on the table in our negotiations with the Treasury when we are securing vital investment for our infrastructure, such as roads, rail, superfast broadband and education. It is vital for future progress that anyone and everyone who represents Cornwall and the regions of the UK that do not have major cities ensures that there is dedicated funding to close those gaps and to make the progress we want.
Cornwall, like all these regions, has huge potential and capabilities that need to be unleashed. We want to play our full part in our nation. We do not want to be the poorest region. We certainly have the talent and the capability to deliver, particularly on some of the key challenges and opportunities our country faces. I think we can all agree that there is no greater challenge than facing up to climate change and environmental degradation, and our regions have the solutions; we produce the nation’s food as well as vast sources of renewable energy. We have talented people, great businesses and wonderful universities. With dedicated funding, we are more than able to meet the challenge of closing the gap. I know that the Government want to ensure that no one and no region in our country is left behind, and dedicated replacement funding for the EU funding will enable us to ensure that.
Mr Betts
I wish the hon. Lady all the best for the future, as she has indicated that she will not be in this place after the election.
It is important that areas such as Cornwall get the continuation of the funding they have had in the past when we are outside the EU. But there are other areas such as South Yorkshire, which are not currently objective 1 areas but which would get objective 1 funding in the future if we were still in the EU. It is important that that is recognised in any future settlement, so that areas such as South Yorkshire get the proper funding as well.
Sarah Newton
Let me put this beyond doubt; I am just being respectful of the fact that no one has a right to a seat on these Benches. If we have a general election, I do not make any assumption about whether I will be returned to this place, but I absolutely plan and hope that the general election does send me back to this place. Far too many people in this House are complacent and see themselves automatically being re-elected. In a forthcoming general election, I know that I will have to go out and earn my right to represent my constituents here. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to complete my speech, which I am very happy to do.
I would like Ministers to make an unequivocal commitment in our manifesto for the forthcoming general election that Cornwall will receive, pound for pound, what it would have received had we stayed in the European Union, so that we can unleash the huge potential that we can deliver to our great nation.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
European funding has been hugely important to Wales: particularly to my area of north Wales, but also to mid-Wales, and other areas. I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry): many of us are frustrated by the lack of information—any information at all, for that matter—about how the shared prosperity fund will operate. The delay in the consultation is just symptomatic of the lack of care that the Government have shown towards the European funding that we have already had and towards what will happen in future, suggesting that regional funding is a low priority for this Government.
This issue is incredibly important in Wales, because we get a large amount of European funding. In fact, we get four and a half times more per head from the European Union in funding than any other nation or region in the UK. Of course, this was not always the case. Some people here will recall that the maps were redrawn to delineate west Wales and the valleys as the area that would get funding. These maps are called nomenclature of territorial units for statistics maps—ludicrously known as NUTS maps, as that is the acronym. The previous NUTS map for Wales put poor west Wales, where I live, in with the rather more prosperous north-east Wales, and south-west Wales in with the rather more prosperous Cardiff area. When the map was redrawn, suddenly we were allocated funding under the European Union’s regional policy, showing the value of that policy and also that a degree of cleverness is required in acquiring that funding, which we eventually showed.
Wales—particularly my area—is economically on a par with the former communist parts of eastern Europe, Portugal and southern Spain. That is not something that we celebrate, of course, although it does bring us in a certain amount of funding. Rather, it is the consequence of decades of marginalisation, neglect and mismanagement by Westminster. Let me echo the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. At the very least, can we have an assurance from the Minister that not a penny less will come to Wales under this fund as compared with under European funding?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My reading is that, actually, the funding will continue. It will just not come from Europe; it will come from London—at least in the immediate future.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I would like some confirmation of that, and certainly more information than “the immediate future” because we are looking beyond 2021. There are projects whose timescales demand that. In fact, there are projects in my community that require funding for many years into the future, including projects at Bangor University.
What is also extremely unclear, to me at least—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—is the criteria for the allocation of money under the shared prosperity fund. I would argue for allocation on the basis of need. We will not accept the milking of funds that would otherwise have gone to Wales to fund projects elsewhere. That is certainly a fear. For example, Welsh farming might proportionately get considerably less money than one would expect if the criteria were based on, say, per head funding.
Albert Owen
I represent a neighbouring constituency, so I share many of these projects in north-west Wales with the hon. Gentleman. He talked about the agricultural community. Is it not important that any new allocation of funds is not made through the Barnett formula, as this would mean a huge reduction in moneys allocated? We are talking here about food production, much of which is exported to mainland Europe.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I raised it with the then Minister over two years ago and was given a verbal assurance that that would not be the case. Were we to use the Barnett formula, funding to Welsh farming would probably be halved. At that time, the Minister gave us a verbal assurance, but I seek a similar reassurance from the Minister today.
Funding should go directly to our Government in Cardiff, rather than being allocated directly from London to individual local authorities and organisations. There is much merit in ensuring that local organisations and local government get the maximum funding. I have heard the argument that diverting money through Cardiff would increase bureaucracy and cost, but the fundamental argument is that the competent authority should be the Government in Wales. Any move in any other direction would undermine the devolution settlement and would be resisted by Members on these Benches and others.
To close, I should point out again to the Government that Wales is another country and that EU membership has had a different value and quality for us in Wales, as reflected in the funding we have been getting. That is particularly the case in my own area of Gwynedd, despite its poverty. One might suppose that that would put us in with areas that voted strongly to leave the EU, because of the marginalisation, poverty and distance from London and the seat of power. In fact Gwynedd voted 60:40 to remain, because of our values, the way we see the world, our culture, our bilinguality and our happiness at being part of the EU, which is much more congenial to us. Gwynedd is a different place—Wales is a different place—and should be treated with respect.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
One of the promises the leave campaign made during the referendum was that European funding would be replaced. I am pleased the Government have pledged to introduce the shared prosperity fund, although I have to say that progress has been rather slow. European funding was designed to tackle inequalities between regions, and the shared prosperity fund should go in with exactly the same aim. I will be lobbying the Government strongly on behalf of my residents in North Cornwall to ensure we get our fair share of this funding. I will also be taking a lot of interest in the consultation, particularly after yesterday’s spending review.
The question whether the current European funding has been successful can be answered by asking the public in towns such Bodmin in my constituency, who, after two decades of regional development funding, have yet to see any tangible benefits to their incomes or small businesses. A recent report highlighted that only one job was created for every £250,000 of ERDF funding. I believe the UK Government can do much better than that.
Many large organisations, companies, professional public relations teams and consultants were able to successfully apply for this level of funding, but many small businesses in North Cornwall, which run their operations on tight budgets and do not have the time or the staff, or sometimes the expertise, to make those complicated and onerous bids, were not successful. As the Government look forward to the shared prosperity fund, we need to make it much easier for those small businesses to bid. The rules on these bids and structural funds were often dictated by Brussels. The shared prosperity fund must be easily accessible, be more streamlined and have a much simpler bidding process, so that small businesses in my constituency can benefit.
There are also disparities between urban and rural communities and, although programmes such as LEADER helped, we need to go much further. I know that the Minister was instrumental in the coastal communities fund, which was seen as a really positive fund for communities, including some that I represent, that were feeling left behind by globalisation. In North Cornwall, we have very mixed traditional industry, with many agricultural and fisheries businesses, but we are also keen to explore how 5G and fibreoptic technology can help people to run their businesses from home in small towns such as Bude in my patch.
People are making choices about where they live and work and, as they make those choices, they are looking at where they want to bring up their children, retire to or move their businesses to. Some of them are coming to places such as Cornwall. We want to be able to respond to the changing market conditions in places such as Cornwall by ensuring we have the business skills and the shared prosperity fund to support these small businesses as they grow. We need to ensure that as businesses are displaced from the cities we can accommodate them in rural places such as North Cornwall.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I actually share some of the hon. Member’s analysis and concerns about the former structures, and I speak as someone who had the pleasure of taking forward ESF funds. The urgency now, which was displayed by 100 chief executives writing to the Prime Minister in August, is to get on with it and make it happen for communities such as Cornwall and Weaver Vale. Does he agree?
Scott Mann
I agree absolutely. We faced a bottleneck after we did not leave the European Union in March—a bottleneck with businesses not investing—and we have to clear that bottleneck as quickly as we can. The replacements for the ERDF should be in place to help those businesses to grow and expand as the economy changes.
On one occasion, there were two businesses working alongside each other in North Cornwall. One was able to double its footprint due to a generous EU grant, but that placed the other business, which was working on the other side of the road, a family-owned business, into some difficulty. We have to be aware of some of the regional and local difficulties when implementing these funds and of how they can change the economies of the towns we work in.
To sum up, while North Cornwall will continue to ask for its fair share of these moneys, we also want to work with our local authority partners to ensure that we develop their programmes and their economic plans. During the upcoming consultation, I hope to be here and to speak up on behalf of the residents of North Cornwall to ensure that they get their fair share.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this important debate. It builds on the important Westminster Hall debate that we held recently on this subject called by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). In that debate, we sought to elicit more information from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund would operate, and we also focused on the loss of EU funding and the impact it would have on regions classed by the EU as less developed. That is of particular importance to me because I represent a constituency in the north-east. We need to know what will happen about the shared prosperity fund.
Since that debate, however, we have heard very little from the Government about how things are going to proceed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way and for her remarks. The UK is the most regionally unequal country in Europe and indeed the world in terms of how the economy is centralised around London. Does she share my concern that any fund administered from Whitehall will not meet the needs of regions such as ours—the north-east—or allow them to achieve their economic potential?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I absolutely agree. Indeed, we have pointed out in previous debates that, given what we know about regional inequality in this country, we do not trust this Government to use these funds to eradicate it.
As we have heard throughout this debate, we need a shared prosperity fund to replace the EU structural funds currently being paid to the UK regions through the European regional development fund and the European social fund. The total value to the UK of funding from these streams in the current funding round is £9.15 billion, or £1.3 billion per year, so we are talking substantial sums of money. There are also smaller pots of funding—the European maritime and fisheries fund, the LEADER programme, the youth employment initiative and so on—amounting to a further £100 million a year.
Although there are funding implications for the whole UK, our withdrawal from the EU and the loss of access to these funding streams is of particular importance to the regions of greatest need. If the UK were to remain in the EU, we would be due to receive significant additional funding in the next round. I am not sure that the Minister has taken this issue on board. It would be really good to hear him acknowledge what these regions would have got if we were staying in the EU. The three regions that are currently affected—Tees Valley and Durham, South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—are on course to slip below the threshold of 75% of EU average GDP per head, which means they will qualify for extra funding. They would join the three regions already acknowledged—west Wales, the valleys and Cornwall—in receiving a much higher level of funding: about £135 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Government should be very concerned that these regions are facing such inequality and experiencing a need to develop their economies further. We really do want to hear from the Government how they are going to achieve that.
We want to hear from the Government about how the shared prosperity fund will operate and about timescales. We want to hear what they are doing to address the growing regional inequality in the UK. How do they see the shared prosperity fund sitting alongside local growth funds, for example? How will those funds interact with other funds that are available to support regional development? Are the Government giving themselves a timeframe in which to eradicate regional inequality? To date, we have not had enough information from the Government. Even at this late stage, we know very little about how the fund will operate. What sort of money are we talking about, and will it be disbursed in the same way as it has been under the EU? Will the Government take into account the regions in greatest need, or not?
I feel very strongly about this issue, as do other Members of Parliament in regions that very much need investment to help our economies to grow and to reach their full potential. These are amazing regions with huge skills and talents among the population. They all need development in digital and higher-level skills, so we need to use our universities and colleges to drive up that development. They need investment in renewable energy—particularly the north-east, which has wonderful expertise in this—and in pharmaceuticals. We need to upgrade the transport system. We must ensure that everyone in these regions can reach their potential and contribute to the future prosperity that we all want to see, particularly in the communities that need more support from this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I stress to colleagues that there is real pressure on time, and if they could take more like five minutes than six minutes, that would enable us to have a fair allocation of speakers this afternoon?
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing this debate. I thought we were going to be singing from the same hymn sheet today, because in previous debates on this topic we have agreed, but unfortunately he has, yet again, let nationalism get in the way of some of the facts and figures, and the actual impetus and help that these structural funds deliver. He is quite right that in the period 2014 to 2022 the funding arrangement for the EU structural fund is about £15 billion for the United Kingdom. That gets topped up to about £26 billion, I am informed by the Library, with UK match funding.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about some of the roads being built in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). In those constituencies—yes, they are right—the EU flag does fly, but why does the Union flag not fly proudly alongside the EU flag and the Saltire when the UK has made a contribution, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm?
Scotland received around £1.2 billion from EU structural funds between 2010 and 2016, which is great, and I will come on to say why I want that to be secured and continued. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey parades and champions the EU structural funds, as will I, but he was less willing to recognise the £1.2 billion of additional funding awarded to Scotland by the Government in the spending round just yesterday, which will give our devolved Administration in Scotland over not a six-year or 10-year period but a one-year period the greatest settlement we have had in over a decade.
My constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire has only received £1.1 million to £1.3 million a year of EU funds between 2014 and 2020 so far. That is not enormous, but it is helpful. Although Scotland has 8% of the UK population, we receive around 14% of the UK allocation, so it is very important to us. I know from visiting companies such as the Loch Leven Equine Practice in my constituency that these funds can be very helpful to small businesses.
The funds are meant to help combat structural inequality and have a transformative effect on the economy, but from my constituency point of view, they have not been able to do that. In Clackmannanshire, we still have a job density of only 0.5 per head of population. We have higher rates of unemployment and youth unemployment than the Scottish and UK averages. In Perth and Kinross, on the other side of my constituency, we also see it reflected in some of the official figures in terms of deprivation and in the recent increase in the number of drug deaths per 1,000 people.
I am quite excited about the fact that the shared prosperity fund can be a fresh start. Unlike the SNP, Conservative Members will be requesting more funding and coming up with innovative solutions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey would like to make an intervention, I will gladly let him. He certainly did not let anyone on the Government Benches intervene on him.
Luke Graham
I will let him intervene, but before I do, the House will be well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) tried to intervene on the him, and he refused her multiple times. It is a friendly understanding among Scottish MPs, who have to get back to friends, family and constituencies on a Thursday, that we usually let one another intervene because travel is very restrictive. He failed to do that. However, I will extend the courtesy to him in the hope that it will be reciprocated to my colleagues in future.
Drew Hendry
I thought the hon. Gentleman was inviting me to intervene on him. He mentions extra money for Scotland, but he does not take into account the cumulative cuts of £12 billion that we have had over the whole decade.
Luke Graham
I secured a debate on Scottish funding and devolved funding just before the summer recess to which no SNP MP turned up. In that debate, I gave the opportunity to challenge those figures and have an in-depth, detailed discussion about them, because they are not recognised by the Library. If they are, I will be happy to welcome another debate on the topic, so that we can take it further.
I would like to go on to the positive things that we are trying to do. The shared prosperity fund allows us to formalise the process of applying for funds. It could also build and improve the city deal and growth deal projects that have already been awarded Scotland to the value of over £1 billion. The money in the city deals has been very welcome, but I think Members on both sides of the House would agree that the city deal and growth deal process could do with some improvement. We can have less bureaucracy, and central Government should provide support to not only the devolved Administrations but the local authorities and civic groups that are applying for these funds. So often, exciting and transformational opportunities are lost because local businesses and local groups do not have the skills to meet a Green Book or European set of qualifications to access the funding that they so require.
Bob Stewart
It seems to me that there is a requirement for the shared prosperity fund organisation to have a local office, particularly to help small businesses.
Luke Graham
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That is just the kind of innovative proposal that we should be putting forward and having a cross-party discussion about, to ensure that the shared prosperity fund works for the entire United Kingdom.
Although we could talk about this for a great many hours more, I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. I am pleased that the Government have guaranteed funding to 2022, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, so that we can give assurances to the charities, local government and businesses in our communities. We do not come with grievance; we come with solutions. Let us keep the central fund of around £1.2 billion plus inflation for the future, but let us also recognise that it has not delivered transformational change for our constituents in Scotland. Perhaps we could put some of the UK match funding into a new direct central fund that local authorities and businesses could bid into, along national lines, to provide greater clarity and guarantees for our local communities, so that they can access the funds they so badly need to thrive and survive.
I agree with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and England that these funds provide opportunities to all our regions. We want to combat structural inequality and improve the opportunities we have, and we want to do it through a fine United Kingdom system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid I will have to impose a time limit of five minutes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As we know, the central aim of the shared prosperity fund is to reduce inequality and enable all our communities to share in the country’s economic growth. It could not be any more needed than it is now, because regional inequality has grown since 2010.
My constituency is in the north-west, and it is no surprise to me that earlier in the year the Institute for Public Policy Research North published a report finding that the north has borne the brunt of the Government’s austerity drive. We have had a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, while the south has had a £5.1 billion rise in real terms. We have seen public sector employment fall by 2.8%, compared with 1.2% in London, and spending on transport rose by more than twice as much in London as in the rest of the country. We have seen weekly pay increase by only 2.4%, compared with 3.5% nationally, and the number of jobs that pay less than the living wage has risen by nearly 11%.
Of course, these cuts have had and continue to have a negative impact on our communities. There are now more than 200,000 extra children living in poverty in the north than there were five years ago, meaning that 800,000 children are now living in poor households. That is nothing short of a scandal. The economy has been growing consistently—very slowly, but consistently—throughout the last five years, so having such an extra number of children growing up in poverty during that period shows that the economy is not working for many in the north. The points that have been made about maintaining, at the very minimum, existing levels of expenditure are absolutely right. The budget for the UK shared prosperity fund must match, in real terms, what the EU has been paying, but we need to go much further. I am worried about the lack of transparency from the Government about how they are going to adopt this fund, because I believe we have good grounds to be worried.
Let us take the future high streets fund. It is potentially a good initiative, but one that I fear has already been hijacked for party political ends. Ellesmere Port put forward what I considered to be a good bid. Indeed, the Government seemed to think it was, because when it was rejected in the first round, the Department wrote back a very nice letter to say that it was impressed with the bid and that it was well placed for the second round that would be decided some time next year. However, somehow—out of the blue—another round of funding for successful bids was announced only last week. Sadly, Ellesmere Port missed out again, but when I saw that the majority of the lucky towns were in Conservative constituencies, I was overcome by a flush of cynicism. Could it be that the announcement was entirely connected to secret plans to hold a snap general election? I think that subsequent events have borne out my concerns in that area, which is why we cannot trust this Government to allocate these funds in a non-partisan manner.
Towns such as Ellesmere Port and Neston in my constituency have been struggling for a long time. The rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits are leading to shops closing on a weekly basis. The sums we need for a truly transformative approach will not come from one pot alone. If the shared prosperity pot is operated in tandem with other funding pots, as the Local Government Association suggests, there would be an opportunity for an integrated and creative approach that could lead to a better outcome for all. Although we must ensure that this does not reduce the scope for matching funds in relation to any other projects, it is vital that we can access as many funds as possible to ensure that the communities we represent are properly resourced, that the imbalances are shared out and that the inequalities across the country are actually eradicated altogether.
For too long, people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them. We do not want more platitudes from London. We need a new approach—one that really empowers our local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures, in line with local priorities and local need, because decisions that impact on local communities are best made by those communities themselves. It does not make sense that, in 2019, London still controls all the resources and holds all the levers. It is time we realised that business as usual is not going to cut it and that further Westminster handouts on Westminster terms are not what our communities want. We need this new prosperity fund to be really owned by local people so that it actually delivers for their priorities.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate, which is important for Scotland and the whole UK. In recent weeks Opposition Members have made many, fairly wild, allegations that the Government have not adequately planned for Brexit. Aside from the fact that we have seen daily evidence of considerable planning, and that we cannot possibly know today how effective such planning will be in the fullness of time, many are still determined to paint a bleak picture. I hope the provision of the UK shared prosperity fund will provide some reassurance to those who have instead kept an open mind and offer an indication that the Government have planned for some time to replace the structural funding that the UK receives via the EU. British taxpayers’ money is currently managed in the European Union, far away in Brussels, and I believe this fund will considerably benefit my constituents.
This funding is in the region of £2.4 billion per annum to boost economic development. It will provide support for businesses, employment and agriculture, and as stated in the industrial strategy, it will strengthen the “foundation of productivity”. Fisheries will be covered by separate funds. The funding will be administered by the different nations of the UK, and I understand that, as always, the UK Government will respect the devolution settlements regarding the allocation of funds.
The laudable aim of the fund, which could be said to be at the skeletal heads of terms stage following stakeholder engagement, is to reduce inequalities between communities. A consultation will follow, to enable flesh to be added to the bones. I welcome the statement that the new fund will be low in bureaucracy and duplication. The single most important fact is that the UK Government have guaranteed to maintain all EU funding that was agreed before the UK leaves the EU.
Let me reflect on infrastructure in Scotland, the bulk and best of which was built long before we joined the European Union. I will name just two iconic bridges—the Forth rail bridge and the Forth road bridge—neither of which encompasses Chinese steel. I believe that recent data show southern Scotland as a less developed area. When considering my constituency, I welcome the fact that this funding will provide support to local small businesses, several of which have highlighted to me that they routinely struggle to make a living, never mind a profit, under the burden of increasing rates and taxes, while also accommodating increased salary costs.
The unemployment rate in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is 6.9%, which is far above the Scottish and UK average of around 3.8%. My constituency has immense potential, and really needs this funding. That high unemployment rate would further concern me if, as part of its method of allocating spending between regions, the new UK shared prosperity fund replicated the measures used by the EU for its structural funds—namely GDP per person—because in some former mining areas that would result in a distorted picture.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested that the funding should be focused on “inclusive growth” and be
“allocated according to the employment rate and earnings of the least well off”.
That would be most beneficial for constituencies such as mine, and others across the United Kingdom.
I have met several constituents with good, innovative ideas and sound STEM and business backgrounds who could perhaps benefit not just local communities but the wider UK. They are people whose ideas, with the support of local councils and community partnerships, could come to fruition if the right funding was available for them to bid for. It is therefore vital that we conserve what was formerly ERDF and ESF funding.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his work on the all-party group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas. He produced an excellent report in November 2018. Will the Minister assure the House that the shared prosperity fund will be sufficiently funded and flexible enough to take account of the diverse needs of my constituency, with its many struggling rural ex-mining communities that bear the legacy of a harsh industrial past, as well as those towns whose high streets have been ravaged by the change in shopping trends and, sadly, the demise of local banks?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this important debate.
Over a year ago, I set up the all-party group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, with the aim of holding the Government to account on their promises regarding the introduction of a shared prosperity fund that would replace EU funding in full. I am afraid to report that in this past year, despite organisations across the country relying on information so that they can plan their 2021 budgets, the Government have done absolutely nothing to make progress on the shape of that new fund.
In November, the all-party group published a report that set out 18 questions that the Government needed to answer. These questions were based on submissions from around 80 organisations from across the country. I will not name all 18, but the most pressing questions that were unanimously agreed on by all stakeholder organisations were the following. First, the UK shared prosperity fund must comprise not a single penny less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces. Westminster must not use Brexit as an opportunity to short-change the poorest parts of the UK. Equally, the UK Government must not prevent local areas from having appropriate control over the funds. Secondly, this is not just about the money. There is a real fear that it will not only be a financial grab but a power grab, and that the Westminster Government will use this opportunity to reduce funding for the areas that need it most and to claw back powers that sit naturally with devolved Administrations and other local areas.
Those are very serious questions that need to be answered. Since November 2018, we have had positive and constructive meetings with the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Wales and the former Business Minister. Disappointingly, the all-party group has not yet been granted a meeting with the Minister who is in his place today. None of those whom we spoke to were able to give us any cast-iron answers to the questions I have just set out. We are therefore continuing to demand that the Government guarantee not a penny less, not a power lost.
A recent worrying development is that the Government are considering rolling the local growth fund for England in with the UK shared prosperity fund. We know this only by rumour and leaks than by any clear or transparent statement, which is of course the modus operandi for this Government. As it stands, our recent report shows that the UK Government must find £1.8 billion per year to replace EU funding for the UK’s poorest regions, but that figure will reach £4 billion per year if the two funds are merged. The possibility of combining existing UK-managed funds with the UK SPF has led to fears of double-counting.
There were already fears that funding for the UK SPF may fall short of the EU’s projected 2021-2026 budget, given that three areas of the UK—Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, and Tees Valley and Durham—have now fallen into a higher priority category. That is a damning indictment of the utter failure of this Government’s economic policies. They have gone into that higher priority category and would therefore receive more money in the next spending round than they each did between 2014 and 2020. That concern has now increased. I urge the Government to reconsider whether merging an England-only fund with a UK-wide fund is a logical step and to recognise that rolling the two funds together would inevitably create serious confusion and raise serious doubts about transparency. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister addressed that in his summing up and specifically answered this question: will the SPF and the local growth fund be rolled into one or not? We need clarity about when the SPF consultation will be published. That is an absolutely priority.
The great advantage of the current system is that it is data-driven and evidence-based, thus guarding against pork-barrel politics. There is a real worry that the SPF will become a politicised slush fund, with a Conservative Government using it to buy votes in marginal seats. I hope that the Minister’s response today will reassure us that our constituencies will not be left short-changed by a sleight of hand in Westminster.
Jane Dodds (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this really important issue. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing it before the House.
We have heard from colleagues from Wales, and I echo what they said about the importance of this pot of money for people in Wales, particularly for rural areas. As the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I know that we are particularly reliant on these sorts of funds to support our residents. I would like to say a few words about one project in particular: Workways+ in Powys, which helps young people to access jobs. In rural areas, we have a real challenge in keeping young people in our communities. Many want to move out to perhaps more exciting and more urban ways of living, but we want to keep them in our communities. They are our future. They are going to be the families of the future and the people who work in our communities, and we want to keep them there. Workways+ in Powys does a wonderful job of keeping our young people in our rural community.
I ask the Minister to address four points. First, will he give us a very clear timescale for publishing where the shared prosperity fund is going? Secondly, what is the consultation process? Thirdly, will he give us an assurance that the moneys from this fund will go to the devolved Governments? Certainly, in terms of Wales, he has had very clear representations on that. Finally, we all have our views on the politics of this issue, but we share a common interest: we want this fund, and we want the timescale for the fund and information to be given to us and our communities as quickly as possible.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) for setting out her stall for her constituency. In the short time that she has been here, she has been a strong advocate for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to discuss this fundamentally important issue.
It is difficult to think of an area of Scotland’s economy that has not benefited from structural funds, and my constituency is no exception. Being part of the EU has been beneficial to Scotland in many ways, just as it has for Cornwall, as the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) set out, and for Wales, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and other Members said. There is no doubt that communities will be poorer as a result of leaving the EU—culturally, socially and economically. Organisations in Glasgow Central have received over £241 million in European structural funds since 2014 according to figures from the Library.
The aims of European structural funds are closely aligned with those of the Scottish National party—to grow the economy while tackling inequalities. Our Madame Ecosse, Winnie Ewing, MEP, fought for European funds when Westminster got its sums wrong and tried to deny them to the highlands of Scotland. The Scottish Government have set out a programme of sustainable inclusive growth in their national performance framework and we are working as a responsible Government to improve outcomes across a range of indicators. It is extremely important that any replacement fund does not diverge from the aims of our inclusive growth strategy.
European structural funds have been vital in the delivery of inclusive growth in Scotland. The European social fund has been used to increase the skills available in Scotland’s labour market and to help to lift people out of poverty into increased social inclusion. The European regional development fund is supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and is investing in Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon economy. There is still a lot to be done to tackle inequality and we cannot let these issues be overshadowed by the process of Brexit.
The Scottish Government value the European structural funds dearly, not just because of the monetary value, but because we have a shared vision of what we can achieve when they are used in a strategic way. I am not convinced that the UK Government share that vision. I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) that local areas do not want handouts on Westminster terms. It is difficult for anybody in Scotland to know precisely what the UK Government’s intention is. We have been waiting an inordinate amount of time for details on the UK shared prosperity fund. From the 2017 Tory manifesto until now, we still do not know. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) himself called it skeletal—I think that is being generous, frankly. It is not a trivial amount of money that we are dealing with here. Third sector organisations, which are delivering vital services in our communities, need to know what their future will be.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) set out well the questions that he and his APPG have been seeking and referred to the lack of answers and clarity that, shockingly, we still have. We need to know how the new fund will be drawn and whether there will be criteria to allow for the treatment of contaminated land, for example, such as in Shawfield in the Clyde Gateway area. Decontamination programmes are crucial to development but cannot go ahead until funding is secured. Opportunities to clarify matters have come and gone, with the spending review only yesterday failing to address the issue.
These are vital funds, and many of the organisations that depend on them are doing valuable work to mitigate some of the worst excesses of this UK Tory Government. Those on the Tory Benches could barely be providing a better argument for Scottish independence. We are once again seeing a tale of two Governments, with the Scottish Government working to increase equality and grow the economy in a sustained and sensible way, and the UK Government hellbent on pursuing a hard exit from the EU without adequate preparations for what will come next.
The Scottish Government have been clear on the five key principles that they would like any new funding scheme to adhere to. First, there should be no reduction in the level of funding that Scotland currently receives from the EU. Secondly, the devolution settlement must be respected, and there must be no reduction in the powers that the Scottish Parliament currently has. Thirdly, the Scottish Government should be an equal partner in the development of the shared prosperity fund. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) let the cat out of the bag when he talked about the bypassing of the Scottish Government—
Luke Graham
The hon. Lady is misinterpreting me. I did not talk about bypassing the Scottish Government. I specifically said—I am sure that Hansard will have recorded this—guaranteeing the £1.2 billion plus inflation, plus an additional fund that could be administered centrally so that they could work together in partnership, because that is what our constituents want: devolution plus central Government in a United Kingdom.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is talking about a United Kingdom system here. He is talking about the UK choosing Scotland’s priorities. That is not what our communities deserve, that is not devolution and that does not respect the devolution settlement, and he knows that just fine.
Fourthly, the current flexibility in the allocation of funds should not be reduced. Fifthly, the replacement scheme should be operational in time to be implemented in early 2021, so that communities, organisations and businesses in Scotland do not lose out on much-needed funding. There must not be any gap, and the Minister needs to be able to guarantee that today.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
With the threat of actually being out of the EU in literally a matter of weeks, is not a gap inevitable, given that we are talking about the end of 2021?
Alison Thewliss
I agree with my hon. Friend that a gap is inevitable. We do not know what will happen, and the UK Government cannot tell us what will happen next week, never mind in 2021. We cannot believe anything that they tell us on these commitments.
Will the Minister today commit to giving the principles set out by the Scottish Government the consideration they deserve, because the people of Scotland did not vote for any of this Brexit mess and should not lose out on funding as a result? Scotland has benefited from EU funds while the UK Government looked the other way, from the Kessock bridge to inequalities, education and industry. Will he guarantee today that Scotland will have not one penny less under the shared prosperity fund than we would have received under the EU?
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
We have had 11 speakers and interventions, and I think they have all expressed their concern about the lack of detail. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing this to our attention.
The breaking news as I arrived in the Chamber was that the right hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Prime Minister’s brother, is standing down from Parliament, apparently to spend less time with his family.
As a Member of Parliament who represents a Merseyside seat, I very much appreciate, in a personal sense, the role that EU funds have played in ensuring investment in our region, as in other regions. I remember that Geoffrey Howe, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, talked about the managed decline of Merseyside in the early 1980s. The European economic community was virtually the only social and economic lifeline that the city region had.
The Minister can sit there chuntering and shouting from the Front Bench, but I think he should behave in a much more dignified way. The Tories are using bully-boy tactics at the moment, threatening everybody. The Minister should pause and think about the distress that his Government caused to so many regions, and continue to cause to so many regions now. We have a bully-boy Minister, a bully-boy Prime Minister, and a bully-boy adviser in Dominic Cummings. Let us see a little bit of respect for the Chamber and for the democracy that it embodies.
EEC funds helped Merseyside, and they helped other regions. The Government’s proposals raise a fundamental question that others have raised today and that the House must address. Even if the UK leaves the European Union and ends our participation in these funds—or substitute funds—can we trust the Government to ensure that the proposed prosperity fund will offer the same funding and reach the same communities? That question has been asked by virtually every Member, including Conservative Members, and there is also concern about the delay.
As was pointed out in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a report published recently by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions states that had the UK remained in the EU we would have been entitled to €13 billion from EU structural funds between 2021 and 2027. That amount, an increase from €10.6 billion, would have allowed five regions—including west Wales and the valleys, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Tees valley and Durham, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire—to receive the lion’s share of the funds, as they represent some of the least developed regions in Europe, where GDP falls below 75% of the European average. The fact that those regions fall below the 75% threshold is itself a indictment of a Government who have let them down and continue to do so. The very fact that the UK has gone from having two less developed regions to five in a matter of six years testifies to the failure of their economic policies.
Falling GDP is another legacy of the Conservative Government’s austerity agenda, which resulted in 200,000 more children living in poverty in the north than five years ago. As other Members have said, under this Government regional inequality is at an all-time high. According to analysis conducted by the Institute for Public Policy Research, the north of England has lost £6.3 billion of public spending as a result of the Conservatives’ economic policies, while the south has gained £3.2 billion. The Chancellor’s spending round statement yesterday did little to address regional inequality, despite what was promised earlier in the year.
The importance of the structural funds that the UK receives from the EU should not be underestimated. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, they are worth £2.4 billion a year, which goes to the very people whom the Government have left behind. That £2.4 billion is broken down between £1.2 billion a year from the EU and equal funding matched by other public and private sources. The funds finance research and development projects, support the retraining and skilling of workforces, help small and medium-sized businesses to grow, and encourage local areas to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Let me now deal specifically with the proposal for a shared prosperity fund. Previously, Ministers have committed themselves to maintaining the current arrangements for structural funds throughout the transition period. Given the Government’s commitment to pushing the UK towards a no-deal Brexit, perhaps the Minister will tell us for how long the Government will now commit themselves to similar levels of funding, and over what period. I am sure that he will be able to do so.
Similarly, while the Government have said that the fund will “reduce inequalities between communities”, they have consistently failed to offer further details about the specific design of the funds and who will be likely to administer them. Virtually every Member who has spoken today has drawn attention to that pattern. There is a fear, particularly among the devolved Governments and the metro mayors, that the shared prosperity fund will be yet another centralised fund controlled by Whitehall—a slush fund, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The clue is in this: the Prime Minister said at a recent leadership hustings in Cardiff that there should be a “strong Conservative influence” over how money that replaces EU structural funds is spent in Wales, implying at the very least that this Government will interfere with the distribution of funds far more than previously stated. That is key.
Ministers have claimed that a shared prosperity fund would be easier to administer and reduce bureaucracy, but again there is little detail on how this will be achieved, especially if the Treasury is hellbent on administering these funds centrally and with little flexibility for the involvement of the regions and devolved Governments.
The UK remains one of the most economically unequal countries in Europe. The gap between the richest and poorest is almost twice as large as in France and three quarters larger than in Germany. The EU structural funds have played an important role in addressing these regional inequalities, which the poorest communities cannot afford to lose. It is time for the Government to dispense with the smoke and mirrors, come clean about the details of the Government’s plan to replace EU structural funds and offer a cast-iron guarantee that the communities that rely on these funds will not be cut adrift and there will be as much devolution and subsidiarity in these funds as possible.
The prevarication and procrastination at the heart of the Government is affecting the continuity of services already being provided, with staff in various agencies currently funded by EU funds being laid off. For example, Members will probably have had contact from employment support providers for ex-offenders, particularly vulnerable people whom Jobcentre Plus is ill-equipped to help. Staff are having to be laid off because we do not know about the future of the fund.
At this stage, we still do not have any details on what the fund will cover. The Government are more than six months behind schedule in providing details of the post-2020 funding and have not yet published a consultation. The indecision of the Government in so many policy areas is damaging the country and their indecision on this particular fund follows that pattern. Ministers need to get a grip of this sooner rather than later.
The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth (Jake Berry)
It is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on proposing it. It presents us with a timely opportunity to update the House on the progress we are making.
I also congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken; I will not have time to name them or respond to all the points they have raised but this shows that across the House there is real passion for the communities that each of us represents, and I share that passion for my own constituency, of course, in east Lancashire.
Many of the Members who have contributed referred to our being the recipients of EU money, and I think it is really important that the point is made for people who may be watching our proceedings today at home and following our every word about the future of EU structural funding and the UK shared prosperity fund that this is not the EU’s money. This money belongs to the British taxpayer; it is taken into the EU and is sliced, diced and taken away. It is then returned to the British people wherever they may be in our United Kingdom with a whole load of strings attached.
In 2018, the UK contributed £13.2 billion to the European Union and it sent us back £4 billion—£4.3 billion to be precise. We know in this country better how to spend UK taxpayers’ money than the European Union does; many Members on this side of the House, if not the other side of the House, will certainly agree with that.
We in Government have a history of working with the devolved Administrations, metro mayors and local authorities across our United Kingdom, and that is why we are so pleased that we were able to commit over £500 million of Government funding to the Glasgow city region deal. Specifically in the Inverness and Highland city region, we are proud to have contributed £53 million, among other things, towards the funding of the University of the Highlands, about which the proposer of the debate spoke with such passion. I know he will let no opportunity pass him by to ensure that the Scottish Government, the European Union and the UK Government are all credited for the contributions they have made to that exciting growth deal.
Jamie Stone
An issue that I and others raised with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland is that, while we welcome the Inverness and Highland city region money, there is some evidence that the money is not going to some of the furthest corners of the highlands, such as Wick and Thurso in my constituency, where it has been badly needed.
Jake Berry
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on behalf of his constituents. I know it is not the first time he has made it, and we should certainly continue to monitor that. I, like him, suspect that there may not be a completely even-handed approach to disbursing money around the highlands, but he will know more about that than I do. However, these growth deals across our United Kingdom in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are an example of what we can achieve when we work together as four nations. The awesome foursome that makes up the United Kingdom is the most successful political partnership and Union that Europe has ever known, and that is why, despite what the separatists may say in today’s debate, we are stronger together.
Turning to the main points raised in this debate, I understand that recipient organisations of European funding have concerns about the certainty of the future of their funding, but it is important that we acknowledge—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) seeking to intervene?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes. I thank the Minister for giving way. He just referred to the funding as “European funding”, but I thought he said in his opening remarks that it was not European funding. Will he clarify that point?
Jake Berry
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is listening closely to my response. What I would say is that if he, like me, is concerned about protecting the British taxpayer’s pound, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that the Bill passed by Opposition parties last night in this Parliament will cost the UK taxpayer £1 billion a month for every additional month we spend in the European Union. That will cost up to £24 billion. Maybe he should be committed, as I am, to leaving on 31 October, as the British people want, if he is concerned about spending money.
Peter Dowd
I am glad the Minister is telling us how much it costs—£1 billion a week or a month or whatever it happens to be. He is very good with his numbers, so can he give us an estimate of how much a no-deal Brexit will cost the country each month?
Jake Berry
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from a version of Stockholm syndrome. I happen to believe that the British people and this British Parliament are best able to determine the future for our country. The rebel alliance is going to Europe with its flag fluttering behind it—a white cross on a white background—surrendering British sovereignty, but I am proud to be part of a Government that will never support that.
Peter Dowd
This stuff about surrendering is bizarre, because this is the Government who surrendered last night to what is apparently the surrender Bill. That is the situation we are in. They should publish the Yellowhammer report and make it transparent, so that we can see how much a no-deal crashing out will cost us. Let us get the facts on the table, so that we can examine them—if they do not prorogue Parliament before then.
Jake Berry
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to have blamed the passing of his surrender Bill on the House of Lords. The Members of Parliament who voted for it know that the Opposition parties have passed a law meaning that we cannot leave the European Union on 31 October, deal or no deal. If we do get to an election—if the Labour party finally has the backbone to have a general election—I will be reminding lots of those constituencies in the north of England that it was the Labour party that stopped us leaving on 31October.
Jake Berry
I am sorry, but I must make some progress, and I would like to briefly get on to responding to the debate.
Specifically, I want to deal with the two pertinent questions, which were repeated by many others, asked by the hon. Member for Aberavon in an extremely good speech. The first was about whether the UK shared prosperity fund will respect the devolution settlement, and the answer is absolutely yes. We are clear about that, and we want to work with the devolved Administrations and metro mayors as partners. We do not want to set the UKSPF up against the devolution settlement, which we will celebrate in the country.
The second question was about when the quantum will be clear, and it will not become clear until we have completed the comprehensive spending review. I will point out, however, that the quantum from the European Union would also not be clear until 2020. People have referred to the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions report, but that is of course a report by a think tank. It is not a report from the European Union setting out the quantum at this stage.
Finally, turning to the guarantee provided by the Government, it is quite right that areas are worried about the future of their funding, which is why the Government have set out a guarantee—deal or no deal. This week, I was involved in discussions approving new spending in the current period of European funding, and the guarantee enables commitments to be made until 2021, and it will apply to commitments that are paid out between now and 2023, so there is certainty for projects. Projects are still being approved. With the guarantee, there will be no gap, and clarity about the quantum and the form of the UK shared prosperity fund will become clear at the comprehensive spending review, notwithstanding the fact that we are already involved in deep consultation with both the recipients of the funding—British taxpayers’ cash—and the mayors and devolved Administrations. Official level consultation is ongoing between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The most recent meeting took place on 2 August, and additional consultations will happen later this month.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have loved to have said more, but—
Jake Berry
I am sorry, but I am unable to give way. I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion.
Drew Hendry
I thank all hon. Members who took part in today’s debate and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity. I must correct the Minister, because the CPMR is not a think tank. It is a representative organisation of local authorities from across Europe, and I know that because I used to be its vice-president. We asked the Minister to clarify the flexibility and timetable, but we have had no answer. We asked the Minister whether funding will be matched pound for pound, but we have had no answer. We have had no answer on whether devolution will be fully respected. He said—[Interruption.] I will allow the Minister in.
Jake Berry
To be absolutely clear and to repeat what I said in my contribution, the Government will fully respect the devolution settlement in respect of the UK shared prosperity fund and, I am sure, in all other respects.
Drew Hendry
In that case, I will accept the Minister’s comments, but he will be judged not on cheap words but on the actions of this Government and on whether they fail our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern that the Government is more than half a year behind its schedule to provide details of post-2020 funding through a UK Shared Prosperity Fund; supports the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recommendation that the Fund should at the very least match the £2.4 billion per year currently allocated through the EU structural funds; and calls on the Government to ensure that full details of the fund are published with urgency, that the devolved settlement is respected and that there is no reduction in the levels of funding to devolved governments or their role in distributing funds.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, following the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I asked about aspects of being Irish, British or both in relation to an upcoming review that the previous Prime Minister had promised. In response, the Secretary of State stated:
“It is vital that this House continues to respect the dual citizenship components that the hon. Gentleman talks about”.
I talked about the birth right to be Irish, the birth right to be British, or both. What is open to Members such as myself to ensure that the Secretary of State reads the Good Friday agreement and recognises that the utterances that they make in relation to the politics of Northern Ireland have grave consequences not only for the peace, but for the social and economic prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Obviously, I am sure he will understand that Ministers are responsible for what they say in the House. He has expressed concern about what was said earlier; he has made his point, and I am sure it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and will be reported back to the Minister.
British House Building Industry
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the ongoing shortage of housing and the housing crisis across England; further notes with concern the number of families in temporary accommodation and the number of people rough sleeping; acknowledges that there are over one million households on housing waiting lists; recognises the Government’s target to build 300,000 new homes each year; acknowledges that this target has been missed in each year that the Government has been in office and that the number of homes constructed by housebuilding companies that are deemed affordable is insufficient; notes the pay ratios between executives and employees in FTSE 350 housebuilding companies; and calls on the Government to tackle the housing crisis as an urgent priority.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for today’s debate and all the Members who will participate. It is amazing to see so many Members here, given the week we have had. At the request of Madam Deputy Speaker, I have stripped quite a lot from this speech because so many people want to speak—I will do my best. I want to give credit to the High Pay Centre and the best possible exposition of its amazing research for this debate on the state of the house building industry.
No Member of this House, whatever their party, can but be fully aware of the crisis in housing and homelessness in all our constituencies. I will open the debate by looking at the scale of the current housing crisis, by considering the record of the FTSE 350 house building companies and their contribution to solving this crisis and finally, and most amazingly, by analysing the utter pay inequality that is rife across the British house building industry.
On streets across our country and on the very doorstep of Parliament, British citizens who simply cannot afford a place to call home are sleeping rough. For the general public, they are the visual representation of our homelessness crisis. As highlighted by the Children’s Commissioner last month, homelessness is far more common in 21st-century Britain.
Not a single week goes by without a normal, hard-working family in my constituency being evicted from their privately rented property and sent to temporary accommodation miles away from family, their schools and their jobs. They join over 83,700 households across our country, including 124,000 children, who are living in temporary accommodation.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (IGC)
May I add to the picture the hon. Lady is painting by telling her that Enfield has significant problems on housing and homelessness? We have the capital’s highest eviction rate and the second highest number of residents in temporary accommodation, and homelessness has rocketed by 250% since 2011. Does she agree—from what she is saying, I think she clearly does—that the Government’s policy is not only hurting the housing market but causing a huge set of social problems, too?
Siobhain McDonagh
The social and financial cost of homelessness far exceeds what we spend on temporary accommodation, which was £1 billion of taxpayers’ money last year—every £1 of it badly spent. Some 6,980 families in my constituency are trapped in bed and breakfast accommodation, having been there longer than the six-week legal limit, including 810 children. Others are stuck in hostels far away from their schools, families and friends.
Some of my constituents are housed, at least temporarily, in Connect House, a warehouse on the busiest south London industrial estate. For anybody who wants to see what Connect House looks like, please have a look at the video on my Twitter account.
I am just crawling through my speech, because I see more and more people here.
Other families who have come to see me are on the ever-expanding waiting list, with 1.2 million families across our country now waiting for a place to call home—1.2 million. Just 6,464 new social homes were built in 2017-18, the second lowest number on record. At that rate, it could take 172 years to give a socially rented home to everyone on the current waiting list. That is utterly appalling when we compare those figures with the 150,000 social homes delivered each year in the mid-1960s or the 203,000 council homes that the Government delivered in 1953. It has been done before and we all know that we can do it again.
In Merton, where my constituency is based, 10,000 families are on the housing waiting list, with lettings for just 2.5% of them in 2018-19. What hope can I give the other 97.5% that they will ever find a place to go? I would like to provide statistics on home ownership but, again, I will move on to some of the other data in my speech.
The statistics and the stories that I have detailed this afternoon should provide thoroughly fertile ground for the British house building industry to get on and build, but its record does not match the potential. Here is the reality: our country’s housing target is 300,000 new homes a year—a figure that has not been reached, as we have already identified, since 1969, when councils and housing associations were building new homes. England is now on course for the worst decade for house building since the second world war.
I would like to look specifically at the performance of the leading house building companies in our country. To the best of my understanding, the figures are all correct as of June. In the last financial year, just 86,685 homes were completed by the 10 FTSE 350 house building companies, despite an extraordinary collective pre-tax profit of more than £5.37 billion. That is a mind-boggling figure, which is better understood when broken down.
Let us start with the four FTSE 100 housing companies: Barratt, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Berkeley. In the most recent financial year, Barratt completed just 17,579 homes—slightly more than Persimmon, which finished 16,449 homes, with profits of £1.1 billion, of which half was down to public subsidy through the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. Taylor Wimpey came third with 15,275 homes completed but, in fourth place, despite an astonishing pre-tax profit of £934.9 million, is Berkeley homes, which completed a pitiful 3,894 homes. Together, those four companies collected a pre-tax profit of an unimaginable £3.68 billion, despite completing just 53,198 homes—less than 18% of the Government’s house building target.
What went wrong? Did they perhaps just not have the land to build the houses? Those four companies are sitting on a land bank of more than 300,000 plots between them. If we add in the rest of the FTSE 350 house building companies—Bellway, Bovis, Countryside, Crest Nicholson, Galliford and Redrow—the collective land bank is a staggering 470,068 plots, yet they completed 86,685 homes between them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her excellent speech, with which I broadly agree. Does she agree that while, from a moral point of view, we obviously need to build more houses in the public and private sectors, we also need to radically reform the planning system, which takes far too long and is a big roadblock to getting the homes we need for people?
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and would love an opportunity to have a debate about planning law, building on the green belt and other matters. I could speak at great length about them, but I will not because I want to allow other people to get in.
I would like Members to focus their attention on pay. Some of the figures are staggering. Let me be clear: I am new Labour to the core. I have no problem with successful business people earning a lot of money, but what happens in this sector goes beyond earning a fair day’s money. I was furious to see that, almost exclusively on the back of the British taxpayer through Help to Buy, Persimmon awarded its former chief executive Jeff Fairburn a staggering £75 million bonus, despite an appalling record of utterly substandard homes. How can that be right or fair?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
That is a truly staggering pay packet. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that Persimmon has recently given back the freeholds in Cardiff that it mis-sold to a number of homeowners, it should do that for everyone to whom it has mis-sold in the whole country?
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on all the work he has been doing. Without the attention he has given the issue, much would not have happened.
Let us be clear: the money does not flow through the companies. Thanks to excellent new research from the High Pay Centre, I can reveal the quite extraordinary pay packets of the 10 FTSE 350 house building companies. In the heart of our country’s housing crisis, the four FTSE 100 house building companies spent an eye-watering £53.2 million on their CEO pay. David Thomas at Barratt earned £2.811 million; Peter Redfern of Taylor Wimpey earned £3.152 million; Tony Pidgley at Berkeley reached £8.256 million; and Mr Fairburn, formerly of Persimmon, got a whopping £38.9 million.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a great speech and I totally endorse everything she has said. I am really worried as to what the heck the shareholders are doing. Do they not question this when they have their annual general meeting? They are meant to bring the companies to account on such matters.
Siobhain McDonagh
Actually, the shareholders are doing quite well as well, because they are getting quite a lot of money on the back of Help to Buy. That could be the subject of another debate.
I have no doubt that those four men work hard and have a grasp and understanding of their industry that few others could provide, but surely high pay is supposed to be about high productivity and high quality of product. It seems to me that the more substandard the properties they build and the lower their rate of productivity, the more they get paid. There seems to be no consequence for poor performance. We are in a housing crisis—is it really appropriate to provide such preposterous pay packets, considering the house building record I have described?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady has said, but I ought to point out—I declare an interest, because as part of an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship I spent a day at Berkeley—that the main shareholder of Berkeley is Tony Pidgley, who started that business himself. He left school at 15, unable to read and write, and he has employed thousands of people, created a great deal of wealth for this country and paid a huge amount of tax. Moreover, he would deny—and he would be right to do so, unlike some of the others the hon. Lady rightly mentioned—that Berkeley produces poor quality. It does not; it produces extremely good quality. Berkeley refuses to be a member of the Home Builders Federation because it does not consider itself a volume house builder.
Siobhain McDonagh
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman in part. I have had the honour of meeting Mr Pidgley and I give him credit for his career and his actions. His profits do not come from Help to Buy, but, even so, it does seem like a very unequal company. I have no problem with people earning well at the top, but the people at the bottom should not earn badly.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. On her last point, as far as I understand it, Berkeley constructed no affordable housing last year, and for Barratt Homes, Persimmon and the others in the top four, the figures are around 18% to 20%. It is a complete scam. The amount of money they are taking out at the top, and not just for executive pay or shareholder pay—I have no problems with shareholders receiving dividends and so on—is at the expense of much-needed social and affordable housing. The whole viability element of the planning system is a complete scam and should be done away with.
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that he works really hard on that subject. Just like the issues about the whole planning system, that could be the topic of another debate, to which I am sure we would both want to contribute.
The median pay for FTSE 100 house building CEOs is 228 times that of the typical UK construction worker.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one way forward would be to increase the opportunities for self-build? It is incredibly difficult at the moment. If an individual wants to buy a plot of land and find a builder to construct a house for them, they find so many obstacles in their way. Does the hon. Lady agree that that may be a way forward to improve on the current situation?
Siobhain McDonagh
I think the hon. Gentleman has stolen the words of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who also does loads of work on self-build. It is an issue that small and medium-sized builders have been squeezed out, but unfortunately I do not have time to address that matter today.
Let me return to the matter of pay ratios. At Barratt, the pay ratio between median executive pay and median construction worker pay is a disappointing 113:1. At Taylor Wimpey, it is an awful 126:1. At Berkeley, it is a shocking 331:1. But at Persimmon, it is an absolutely deplorable 1,561:1. Jeff Fairburn, in his final year of employment as chief executive of Persimmon, received more than £38.9 million, yet his average member of staff earnt £37,118. That was for technical staff. We do not know what the company’s subcontracted electricians, roofers or other wet trades people might have received. How can that be fair?
The vast scale of inequality looks even worse in the light of UK housing prices. Assuming that the average UK house price is £230,630—I assure the House that it is not possible to buy anything in my constituency or in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for that price—and that the average UK construction worker saves 10% of their earnings to buy a house, it would take them 92 years to save up and 19 years just to save for the deposit alone. But the average FTSE 350 CEO could buy 28 houses outright in one year, 532 houses over 19 years—the years that the construction worker would be using to build a deposit—and 2,567 houses over the 92 years in which the construction worker would be saving up to afford their home. On no level can this be right or fair. It cannot be right for our society. It cannot be right for us as taxpayers. It is simply wrong. The system is broken. In the main, the market does not reward hard work, endeavour and meeting the housing need. In my view, it certainly should do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to Members that we have very little time left—not surprising in the current circumstances—and that lots of people want to speak. We will try to manage without a time limit. Let us see whether we can be courteous and consensual. If everyone takes around five minutes, we will get there.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
That is very helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) very sincerely? I realised how strange times are in this particular area of housing debate when I attended a lunch at the Institute of Economic Affairs, where the hon. Lady was the guest speaker. I realised that it is the case not so much that there is political cross-dressing going on, but that many of us are searching for solutions outside the traditional parameters; and that is because, as the title of the White Paper from January 2017 said, we have a broken housing market. We might have some differences about the causes of the situation she accurately describes and about the best prescriptions for solving it, but it is absolutely clear that supply does not rise to meet demand. She used the word “market” in her last couple of sentences, which rather implies that we have a market for housing, but we have no such thing; we have a tightly controlled oligopoly, and actually supply does not rise to meet demand, because most suppliers do not wish to damage their own profit margins by oversupplying the market so that prices fall. We would not expect that in any other area of business and we should not expect it in housing.
Fundamentally, we need to change the model. If we have a broken housing market, we need to create a different ecosystem, and one of the fundamental things we need to do is increase choice for consumers. It is by far the single biggest thing people spend money on —whether renting or buying, it is the thing that people spend most of their monthly income on—but it is the thing over which they have the least choice. In any ecosystem in which the consumer had any say, it would be the thing over which they had the most choice.
As well as increasing choice, we have to lower barriers to entry, and that is where I want to bring in my favourite subject, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), namely self-build and custom house building.
Matt Western
On choice, I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. One of the critical things, in addition to self-build, is the reintroduction of all the small and medium-sized enterprise builders we lost after 2007-08. Apparently, a quarter of all houses built are built by SMEs, whereas it used to be two thirds.
Mr Bacon
In 1988, it was indeed two thirds. If we increase the regulation and make it more difficult to get hold of land, it is the SMEs that will go, because only the big firms with the big balance sheets can afford it. It is a very risky enterprise, and actually local planning authorities prefer dealing with a small number of large companies because it is easier for them. That is one of the other things we have to change.
I am accused of wanting everyone to learn how to be a builder and build their own house. It has nothing to do with doing it yourself. It is very important to stress that. It is about self-commissioning and giving the customer more power. I will be briefing the Minister next week on the terms of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, which commenced three years ago in April 2016, and the way it was augmented successfully by the Housing and Planning Act 2016, so that now the more people who are on the local register, the greater the legal obligation on a council to provide suitable planning permissions.
The point about having individuals and associations of individuals under the terms of the legislation is that it could apply to anybody. It could be used by school governors wishing to use the provision of a serviced plot of land as a recruitment and retention tool; by local social services directors trying to recruit social work managers in parts of the country where it is difficult to find the right calibre of social worker; by NHS trusts trying to accommodate staff, whether young junior doctors, paramedics or ambulance staff; by local Army commanders trying to retain that very expensively trained staff sergeant with 20 years’ experience; by the Royal British Legion and other veterans groups trying to accommodate veterans; by probationers and ex-offenders trying to make sure that ex-offenders coming out of prison have accommodation that is not the drug dealer’s sofa; and by the homeless themselves—I have seen just outside Berlin, in Potsdam, homeless single mums building their own accommodation for an affordable rent.
That brings me to my next point: it has nothing to do with tenure. One can use self-build and custom house building both for private ownership and for all kinds of affordable accommodation models, including mutual housing co-operatives and various other types of social landlords.
I am keen to keep my remarks brief, but I want to say a few things to the Minister about what the Right to Build Task Force, which I have been involved with for some years, is now looking for. We had £350,000 of funding from the Nationwide Building Society, and with that we can evidence an additional 6,000 to 9,000 houses added to the pipeline in the last three years. If we can do that with £350,000, think what we could do with some serious money. I would like the Department to take on the funding for that, but also as part of a help-to-build team installed within Homes England with the task of facilitating the delivery of service plots, buying land and working with local authorities and other public sector partners on public sector land for a range of client groups, especially the young and those who have been most marginalised. That team should also reach out to anybody who wants to get a service plot so that we reach a point where someone can go to the plot shop in the local town hall in their home town and find a plot of land as easily as people can in the Netherlands, where I have seen it done.
We have to put help to build on a level playing field with Help to Buy. The Government are currently planning to spend £22 billion on Help to Buy, subsidising demand, when we should really be subsidising supply. If one wants more of something, then subsidise it and it will happen. I know from many people I have spoken to, including Treasury Ministers, that there is a desire to do something about the growing cost of Help to Buy. The obvious thing to do is to wean people off Help to Buy—a subsidy for demand—and wean them on to a subsidy for supply, thus increasing supply.
We have to remove the regulations that currently allow local authorities to charge people to be on the register each year. Most do not, but Camden and Islington councils charge £350, and people do not get any guarantee of a plot for that. That should be revoked. I said that to Gavin Barwell when the regulations were introduced. I was not put on the Committee for some reason, even though it was my own private Member’s Bill that became the Act, but I went along anyway and spoke. He said on the record—I can show this to the Minister—that if it proved to be a problem, he would take a look at it. Although he is no longer the Minister, the Government were committed to looking at it. I can tell the Minister that it has become an issue and we should now revoke these regulations. The charge is supposed to recover the cost of keeping a register, but that is really very small—it can be done in an exercise book kept in a drawer or on a spreadsheet.
We need to introduce a series of specific planning reforms, particularly allowing for exception sites where councils are not fulfilling their legal obligations. We need to make it clear that the national planning policy framework has a presumption in favour of sustainable development in circumstances where councils fail to meet their duties under the legislation, irrespective of whether there is a five-year land supply, in terms of providing service plots. We need to introduce changes to the planning system that provide greater predictability to reduce the planning risk—for example, through the compulsory use of form-based codes or through local development orders. We need to take forward the proposals in the White Paper to facilitate land pooling, which has worked very successfully in Germany and elsewhere on the continent.
We do have a broken system, and doing more of the same will not produce a different result. We have to think differently and do differently. I encourage the Minister to take that responsibility seriously.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who made a typically thoughtful and interesting contribution to the debate on housing.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on her survey of the state of the market and some of the negative aspects of it that we need to address. Anybody who reads her speech in Hansard tomorrow or at some later point will consider some of the companies that she named to be a roll call of disrepute.
On that theme, I wrote to the chief executive of Redrow, the developer, about a leasehold scandal following conversations with concerned residents of Summerhill Park in my constituency. Summerhill Park has over 455 houses and 70 flats. There is a two-tier system of ground rents in operation. Residents who purchased their properties early on in the development pay ground rents of £150 a year, while those who purchased homes in the later phases pay £250 a year. My constituents want to be enfranchised. They want to purchase their freeholds and are willing to pay a fair price. They believe—and I agree with them—that a fair price would be 10 times the annual ground rent, which they think is fair and reasonable and are willing to pay. Redrow, however, is asking for 26 times the annual ground rent, which I think, frankly, is unfair and unreasonable.
In the light of the Government’s reform proposals and the Law Commission’s ongoing work on leasehold reform, I approached Redrow to arrange a meeting to discuss the residents’ ideas further. Redrow contended in its response that the lease agreements are fair and transparent, which my constituents strongly disagree with, as do I. Its business model is considered by many—including, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Government—both unreasonable and unjustifiable. The offer of giving residents the opportunity to purchase the freehold at a fixed price of 26 times the annual ground rent is not, in my view—and, I hope, in the Government’s view—reasonable or fair.
In response to my letter, Redrow said:
“it would be inappropriate to move away from the practice that has been adopted over the last two years, with all Redrow households, including those [who] have already acquired their freehold at Summerhill Park.”
I wrote back to say that I did not agree and I would still like a meeting. Surprise, surprise, Redrow said, “There is little point in a meeting.” All Members of this House have a reasonable expectation that if they request a meeting with an organisation or company in the private or public sector to discuss an issue that is of concern in their constituency, they will get that meeting. Redrow arrogantly—not to me, but to the people I represent—declined to hold such a meeting. I deplore that, as I hope others do.
It is unjustified and unfair, and I fail to see how pressing on with that policy is either reasonable or acceptable. Redrow is doing this simply because it can and because it can continue to make money out of the residents I represent in this House. The leasehold scandal has caused a great deal of distress for homebuyers across England, particularly in the north-west, with many homebuyers trapped in their current properties, some unable to afford to purchase their freehold and others even unable to sell their property. Redrow is not unique in this. Other developers are just as involved in this scandal.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I have a situation in the Winnington part of my constituency of Weaver Vale, where resident Emily Martin and many others are caught in this leasehold trap. In terms of the next phase, people have benefited from the reforms that we in this place have campaigned for, and the properties then become unsellable.
Sir George Howarth
That adds to the unfairness of it. Redrow is not unique in this, and all these companies need to look at themselves, the business model they are adopting and the ethics involved.
I will conclude by asking the Minister three questions. First, may I invite her to join me in condemning Redrow and the other companies that are still involved in this practice? Does she agree that the freehold purchase cost of 10 times the ground rent is fair and reasonable, whereas 26 times is sheer daylight robbery? Finally, does she agree that it is desperately important that we have legislation to curtail the naked greed of those developers engaged in this disreputable practice?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the Minister on her appointment? It is good to see her in her place at the Dispatch Box.
The house building market in the United Kingdom is highly oligopolistic, dominated by very few very large players, some of whom are extremely unresponsive to the needs of local communities, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) laid out so well in her speech. They can have an adverse impact on communities in the long term, but they can also have an adverse impact in the short term, while their houses are being built.
We had an example of that in Rayleigh on Monday morning. The schools came back, so clearly the traffic increased, but it was massively exacerbated by three contraflows all in operation at the same time on three different housing developments: Barratt David Wilson at Hullbridge, where a nearby key road called Watery Lane has been closed for many weeks because of the works; Countryside at Rawreth Lane in Rayleigh, which has a contraflow in place; and Silver City, a lesser known, smaller developer which has a contraflow on the London Road in Rayleigh. The cumulative effect, made worse by a road traffic accident that morning, was that the town was in effect gridlocked, and many of my constituents were extremely frustrated as they were simply trying to get to work.
I have remonstrated with the county council’s highways department for granting permits to work on the highway to all these developers at the same time. It has a strategic overview of the highways network, and I think it should look at that again. I have also contacted all the developers directly and encouraged them to get this work done as fast as possible and then get out of the way, and the responses have been instructive. The smallest, Silver City, has promised that it will be finished by the end of the week and that it will be off the highway network. Countryside, an Essex-based developer, has said that it will no longer operate its contraflow in the morning and evening rush hours, thus considerably easing the congestion.
Barratt David Wilson, the major national house builder, has been the least responsive of all. It has been on site since February, and my constituents in Hullbridge are just about sick and tired of it. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has pointed out, its chief executive, Mr David Thomas, is on a nice little earner. According to its 2018 annual report, he earned a total package of just shy of £3 million—some 20 times the salary the Prime Minister earns for the responsibility of running the country. I suspect that Mr David Thomas could not find Hullbridge in my constituency with a TomTom.
Barratt David Wilson has now, under pressure, contemplated extending the hours of its work to try to finish the job, but it still will not give me a firm date for when its works will be completed, Watery Lane can be reopened and it will get out of the way. In short, it is a bad neighbour in my constituency, and I think it is about time that this large, unresponsive, uncaring national house builder, run by a fat cat on £3 million a year, was held to account. My constituents deserve better than this, and these developers should put more people on the job, get the job done quicker and get off the roadway.
We are tight for time, but in my last minute I want to mention Sanctuary Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency. I had an Adjournment debate on 18 July about what is wrong with it, so I shall not reiterate it all now, suffice it to say that I had a meeting with its chief executive, Mr Craig Moule, and its outgoing chairman, Mr Jonathan Lander, yesterday. It was a deeply unsatisfactory meeting. Basically, it had promised to build 50 affordable houses a year, but it got nowhere near that. It had no clear plan or strategy to achieve the target. I am afraid the outgoing chairman of the board clearly did not take the meeting seriously. In fact, his attitude was patronising. If he had said, “I hear what you say, Mr Francois” one more time, I think I would have screamed.
There is a governance issue at Sanctuary. It is badly run and badly governed. It is not properly accountable to the tenants it serves, which is why it was slated by “Dispatches” a few months ago. My plea to the Minister is that we need tighter regulation of the registered social landlords market. Some of these are very large organisations indeed. They are not properly regulated by the Government, and Sanctuary is most certainly not properly regulated by its rather useless board.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We really do need to keep aiming for the limit of five minutes, because I am sure that people will want to hear what the Minister has to say. She has been asked many questions, and the answers must be heard, too.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
We are in the grip of a major housing crisis. You will not remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can just remember “Cathy Come Home”, and the determination of our predecessors in the 1960s—this picks up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in her excellent opening speech—that the lives of families should not be destroyed by housing misery. Today, lives are being destroyed again. One day—sooner, I hope, rather than later—we will again need a major national programme of council house building to give those families a chance.
Last month, I had the privilege of hosting a visit to my constituency by members of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Housing, Church and Community. We had “Faith in the City” in the 1980s, “Unemployment and the Future of Work” in the 1990s, and both those Church reports caught the mood of the times and profoundly influenced the policies of Governments. I hope that the archbishop’s housing commission report will do the same when it is published. We visited a family in my constituency—mum, dad and a young son—who are essentially living in one room in a ramshackle property above East Ham High Street. There is serious damp and a rat infestation. They have been there for five years, and both of the couple have been employed and were working in the NHS. Recently, a second child was born and, tragically, very soon died, probably because of the conditions in the home. That is how it is for thousands of people. After the visit, one commission member emailed me and commented, quite rightly, that our society should not tolerate people having to live in such conditions.
I was delighted to take the commission members to the Didsbury site, where Newham Council’s own developer, Red Door Ventures, which was set up in 2014, is building new homes on council land that was previously occupied by a community centre. It is committed to building 50% of its homes for social rent, and 50% at market rent, and it plans to build hundreds of homes over the next few years—thousands, I hope, before too long.
As my hon. Friend reminded the House, after world war two, social housing was built at a rate of well over 100,000 homes a year. The crisis today is just as bad as it was then, and we need that scale of ambition to deliver such a programme again. There is no time to lose.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate. I have spent much of my working life taking an interest in this core topic, and after becoming a Member of Parliament, housing has continued to be a passion of mine. I have been involved with the housing sector since I served on a planning committee for 12 years, and then as leader of Derbyshire County Council and director of a housing association. As an MP, I serve on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I chair the all-party group for SME house builders. In both roles, I have had the pleasure of working with people from across the private and social housing sectors. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has made fantastic progress in championing self-build homes, and I hope he has continued success in that area.
Another area of success can be seen in the excellent work of Northampton Partnership Homes. Its chairman, David Latham, and chief executive, Mike Kay, have laid out ambitious plans for the future of social housing and tackling homelessness in my constituency, but national support from the Government, and local support, will be required to get those plans advanced. I have been encouraged by the Government’s commitment of £1.2 billion funding to tackle homelessness through to 2020, and by the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. I know that has been hugely beneficial in Northampton, and I hope it can help to get people back on their feet and with a roof over their head. Is there more to do? Of course there is, and I look forward to hearing about that from the Minister.
I was pleased to meet Sir Edward Lister, in his then capacity of chairman of Homes England, at a recent meeting of my all-party group. I was thoroughly impressed by what he said and I was encouraged by the approach he had been taking. It felt like there has been a shift and a change of culture at Homes England, or at least the start of a shift. The change needs to be seen primarily in money allocated by Ministers going to where it is needed most and by SME housebuilders getting that access. The sector does not feel that it is anywhere near as straightforward yet as it should be for SMEs in particular.
I am encouraged by the steps and the commitments the Government have already taken in this area, but I hope my right hon. Friend will make reference to, and address how, money from Homes England will get not only to the private and the social sectors, but to the shared ownership housing sector, a sector with a lot more potential than it has yet been able to realise.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Week in, week out, housing problems are the No.1 issue in my constituency surgeries: a lack of affordable housing, poor living conditions, homelessness or landlords not acting to rectify problems. We should not forget that at the heart of this debate are real people facing very real difficulties because over the past nine years the Government have failed to act to tackle the housing crisis. I have too many people coming to see me who are sleeping on couches, in tents or in cars. That situation is becoming far too regular in my surgeries. It is an absolute disgrace.
Since the Government came into power, rents have become increasingly unaffordable, with private renters spending on average 41% of their household income on rent. Shelter reports that a third of low-income renters are struggling to the extent that they have to borrow money to pay their rent and keep a roof over their heads. In those circumstances, putting money aside to save for a deposit so they can eventually own their own home is completely unrealistic. There is a massive job ahead of us to replenish the depleted housing stock in this country and I am pleased to see that, after many years of stagnation, there is now significant house building in my constituency, particularly on brownfield sites. Very few, however, have affordable housing in them—or, as I would like to call it, council housing. That is because permissions were all granted some time ago and the developers have used rules brought in under the coalition Government to plead poverty and tell us that the requirement to build affordable homes means they cannot maintain their 20% profit margins. As a result, there is no affordable housing being built on just about any private development in my constituency. Most developers sought release from those obligations four or five years ago, but have only started building them in the past couple of years. It is clear that the affordable housing requirements were not what was stopping them; it was greed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) set out, it certainly has not harmed their profit margins.
It is greed that has poisoned many of the public’s opinion of the house building industry as a result of the leasehold scandal. As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), said about the voluntary scheme developers introduced to deal with some of the injustices of the scandal,
“Given the evidence we heard from leaseholders during our inquiry, we know it will be difficult for them to trust developers and freeholders to deliver on such pledges.”
The only way trust can be rebuilt is for there to be a full, independent public inquiry to get to the root of the issues. How did developers first dream up the business model of commoditising people’s homes? How did lawyers draw up the onerous terms? How did sales staff present, or not present, the leases? How did the conveyancers, surveyors and lenders all miss the implications of them? How has the Government’s Help to Buy cash propped up the whole scam?
The news this week that Persimmon has reached an out of court settlement on an estate in Cardiff by giving the homeowners the freeholds and repaying the ground rent is welcome, but unfortunately that is just one estate, in one city and one developer. There must be scores of identical scenarios around the country where developers have not been forced to come to the table, so a proper PPI-style compensation scheme is vital. As I have said in the past, this is the PPI of the house building industry and it needs to be treated as such. The admission by Persimmon that people did not know what they were buying should flag up huge alarm bells for every developer involved in leasehold that time is running out for them to put this right.
The National Leasehold Campaign has this week written to all developers involved in the scam to ask for the freeholds back. They should do it now and start to rebuild trust. As we know from the profit margins we have heard about, they can well afford to do it. The fact that they are still building homes on estates where there is no leasehold now, but where people who bought them a year or two ago are still in leasehold properties, is an absolutely injustice and a scandal. It needs to end.
It really is time that we had real action from the Government, so that those already trapped in unfair leases can expect to be released from them. I think we all agree that the situation is unfair and a significant injustice, but what are we going to do to force developers to put things right? There are plenty of ideas out there about how we can do that for those stuck with existing onerous and unfair leases. The Government may have lost control of the Chamber, but if they made proposals along the lines set out in my private Member’s Bill, for example, or in my party’s proposals, there is no doubt that there would be more than enough support on both sides of the House to get something on the statute book that would bring real, tangible change to help people and get many of the thousands who are stuck in toxic leases free of that obligation at last. Let us make a real difference to people’s lives. Let us pass these laws and build the homes that we need to get this country moving again.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the previous speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his excellent speech on leasehold issues. He is such an expert—as ever—because he has such a problem in his area, but that is not unique and we have some of the same issues in London with flatted developments.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for the excellent work that she has been doing on this important issue and for securing this debate. I am not sure whether it is a relief to discuss something other than Brexit, but this is as much, if not more, of a crisis, certainly for those who are affected.
In my maiden speech, I referred to my forebears, who recognised the importance of good-quality housing for people’s wellbeing, lives and, I have to say, their productivity in their factory. My forebears built good-quality, affordable housing until the state took on that responsibility. From the ’40s onwards, Governments of both persuasions built tens of thousands of council homes a year to ensure that the British people were adequately housed, but we have been walking away from that in the last 10 or more years.
For most of my political life, I was a councillor in Hounslow. Even in outer London until about 10 years ago, a family on an ordinary income could afford to buy their own home, so they did not need social rented housing. They did not put additional pressure on council housing. Since house prices have increased, however, people need a household income of £72,000 in Hounslow to buy even a two-bedroom flat, yet the average household income is £40,000.
We need 1.2 million new council and social rented homes in this country because that is the number of households on the housing needs register. That does not count people who are not disabled and working-age adults who have to rent. The number of people in that category has gone up 100% in just over 10 years. Under the right to buy, most councils, including even those that are building housing—Hounslow is building about 400 new council homes a year—are losing council homes faster than they are building them. Right to buy homes are often becoming private rented stock at three times the council rent levels.
Of course, we need house builders to be on our side. As others have mentioned so eloquently, they need to address the leasehold issue. They also need to take responsibility for the shocking faults in many new build properties. There is variation between developers, and they cannot hide behind the fact that there is a skills shortage. There is one and they need to take responsibility for it, but so do the Government, because much of the skills shortage in construction results from the fact that a large proportion of our construction workforce are EU nationals and many are leaving, or are no longer coming in the same numbers because of the uncertainty that has been mentioned many times in this Chamber. They do not feel welcome and do not have security as workers in this country.
I am sure that the Minister will respond with warm and hopeful words, as Ministers always do. The new Government may even intend to do something significant about the housing crisis, although I suspect that they will not be around for long enough to implement anything. I advise them, however, not to fall into having the problems that some previous Ministers have had. This includes the risk of unintended consequences of poorly thought-out policies. I will mention two of them.
Let us have no more schemes, such as Help to Buy, that just give discounts to those who can afford to buy anyway. Let us not rush through planning changes such as those to permitted development rights, which have allowed the appalling chicken coops in old factories and offices, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. She is right to highlight these issues. Surely, in this world of inequality, individuals should not be lining their own pockets with millions of pounds in bonuses taken from taxpayers’ money. Our focus needs to be on all our people, not just the few. Other Members raised the issue of leasehold. I invite the Minister to solve the crisis by adopting our approach to leasehold.
A home is at the heart of our lives. It is the foundation on which we grow up and raise our own families—the bedrock for our dreams and aspirations. It helps us to belong and shapes who we are and what we do. Yet, as others have said, we have a housing crisis in our country. We all know it, but successive Ministers seem to have had little motivation to do anything about it. There has been a steady rise in homelessness, in rough sleeping and in hidden homelessness—people or families who are considered homeless but whose situation is not visible—either on the streets or in official statistics, with those forced into the world of sofa surfing, living in make- shift rooms in overcrowded dwellings, or maybe even in a car. That was also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). It is not a situation fit for 21st-century Britain.
When Labour left office, housing was at the heart of our decision making: we had just pulled the country back from the cliff edge of the global recession; we had just switched funding from other Departments to deliver the biggest investment in social housing in a generation; and we had just protected people’s homes with Labour’s mortgage rescue scheme, which, along with other actions, meant that repossessions were over a third lower than in 1991, when Tory inaction led to 75,000 homes being repossessed. Over the whole 13 years that Labour spent in power, home ownership soared. Since then the number of home-owning households has fallen under the Tories. Under Labour, the number rose by over 1 million. House building grew. We built almost 2 million homes. After years of high homelessness under the Tories, Labour cut it by 62%. We brought over 1 million homes up to standard as part of our decent homes programme.
Since 2010, however, the number of new social rented homes has fallen by over 95%, and we are now building 30,000 fewer social rented homes each year; house building still has not recovered to the level it was at before the global financial crisis; the overall level of home ownership has fallen since 2010, from 67% to 64% last year; average private rents have risen by £1,900 a year; and—something that should shame us all—in the sixth biggest economy in the world, we have seen rough sleeping more than double over the past nine years.
After nearly a decade of failure, it is clear that the Conservatives have no credible plan to build the number of homes we need. Labour will draw a line under the failure of the past and put building new homes at the heart of government. For the first time ever, a Labour Government will establish a fully-fledged department for housing. Ministers will be challenged at each step by a new Office for Budget Responsibility-style office for housing delivery, which will be an independent auditor of house building projections, delivery plans and progress against Government targets. We will set the new department a target of building at least 1 million new, genuinely affordable homes in England over 10 years, including a major council house building programme. We will bring forward more land for development at a lower price, by setting a new role for the Homes and Communities Agency as the Government’s main housing delivery body, and we will protect the green belt.
We will introduce a revolutionary new type of housing, “first buy homes”, with housing costs for new build homes benchmarked at a third of local average incomes so that homes are priced at what local people can afford, not what makes developers the most money. We will also introduce a tough “first dibs” rule on new housing developments to give local people confidence that homes built in their area can be for them and their families. Developers will be forced to market new homes to local first-time buyers first, not to overseas buyers or those with no connection to the area. We will act on those 750,000 empty plots that are sitting doing nothing and bring them into use.
Some may question what exactly we can do to tackle homelessness. Last week, I visited St Mungo’s and learned about its initiatives to help reduce the impact of homelessness, including “no second night out”. I also visited AKT—formerly the Albert Kennedy Trust—and heard directly from some young LGBT people who had experienced homelessness and who told me what housing support they needed. Organisations such as St Mungo’s and AKT do excellent work in supporting people who need help, and they truly set an example of what can be achieved with vision and passion. Any Government could learn much from both those organisations.
Ultimately, this comes back to the availability of housing stock. We cannot provide people with decent, affordable homes if we simply do not have the stock. We need to build, and build fast. However, we cannot compromise on quality or affordability. It means very little for thousands of new homes to spring up in an area if the people who live in that area cannot afford them.
Rental costs should not account for two thirds of tenants’ incomes, and it is on social housing that we must focus to address the housing crisis. Labour has already made a commitment to stop the sell-off of 50,000 social rented homes a year by suspending the right to buy and to transform the planning system with a new duty to deliver affordable homes to make more land available more cheaply. Councils are not adequately staffed to oversee planning applications, and the industry does not have the skills and innovation to deliver what we need. Labour will ensure that both councils and the industry have what they require.
Everyone should have a safe place that they can call home, but that is so often not the case. A young person may not be able to return to the family home because he or she is at risk of harm. An older person may not be able to go upstairs safely and may therefore need a different type of accommodation. A survivor of domestic violence may need somewhere safe to rebuild his or her life. A family may be sleeping in a car because it is cleaner, and perhaps safer, than temporary accommodation. I am thinking of some of the destroyed families referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
Successive Tory Governments have failed all those people. It is time that we had a Labour Government putting housing front and centre, putting right the failures and sorting out the crisis that so many face today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, we have done it before and we will do it again.
The Minister for Housing (Ms Esther McVey)
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing the debate to the Floor of the House and I thank everyone who has contributed to it.
There has been much agreement across the Floor on what we would like to happen, and, more importantly, what we do not like the look of and is not the way forward. None of us can agree with the exorbitant pay packets that some people have received. We are also all agreed that—in the hon. Lady’s words—the market is not working. That is right: it is not. We might have different ways of resolving that problem, but we would say that, if there are not enough houses in the market, it is not working. Various implementation schemes should operate for a short period, until we have ensured that there are more houses in the market, and that is what we are doing.
It has been a scandal how fewer houses have been built decade after decade, but we are turning that around. Let us look at some of the figures. We have delivered more than 1.3 million new homes since 2010, including more than 430,000 affordable homes. In the most recent year, we have delivered more than 220,000 additional homes, the highest level in all but one of the last 31 years. The latest indicators show that we are on track to meet our 2015 manifesto commitment to add 1 million more homes by 2020.
Those who have talked about homelessness will be heartened to learn that, for the first time since 2010, the annual rough sleeping statistics have shown a decrease in the number of those sleeping rough. That reflects the Government’s substantial investment and support over the last few years. But what we want to see is the right houses being built; choice in who is building them; and an SME market, not just a market of the top four or five in the building sector. We as a Conservative Government want to bring back the SMEs; 30% were lost during the financial crash and never came back. We want those businesses back and, more importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) said, we want there to be the right to build: we want to be able to make sure there are not just a few companies, building thousands of homes, because there could be thousands of individuals making their own homes. That is what we are about: choice and opportunity as we go forward.
We have said we would deliver 300,000 homes by the mid-2020s. That is my ambition and the ambition of the Conservative party. How will we go about it? I have said that we have been delivering more each year, but we want to bring together a centre of excellence for construction and engineering in the north of the country. We want to have a global leader for construction and engineering, bringing forth those technological solutions we have been talking about such as modern methods of construction and environmental innovations in the housing market.
However, let me pick up on some of the things we do not want that many Members talked about. I want to work with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer). We do not want to see the misuse of leaseholds and the exorbitant costs people are paying. We have brought a consultation forward. We are going to stop the misuse and the bad practices in that field, and we can work on that together from both sides of the House, because we should not have that and we do not want it, and we have already started on that course to make sure it does not happen.
Sir George Howarth
I am grateful for that response. Will the right hon. Lady therefore join me in condemning companies such as Redrow for being unwilling to even discuss what residents want?
Ms McVey
Companies and businesses should work towards what their purchasers and customers want. Therefore, they should be listening if they want to be the best company they can possibly be. Equally, we are listening as Members of Parliament. We have all shone a light on that bad practice and we will be taking that issue forward.
We are also looking at what housing associations are doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has brought forward what is happening with Sanctuary Housing. We have a Green Paper setting out the principles that will underpin a new fairer deal for social housing residents: safe and decent homes, swift and effective resolution of disputes, empowering residents and ensuring their voices are heard.
Although we talk about the industry, we really want to support the people who are living in those houses; we are talking about homes, safety and security. We do not want people in temporary accommodation. We do not want people to be homeless; we want them in permanent accommodation, and that can only be brought about by fixing the market and making sure we build more homes, which is what we are doing.
Mike Amesbury
Weaver Vale Housing Trust covers my area as well as the Minister’s. It has real concerns about the lack of clarity on funding going forward. She mentioned social housing; the key is to build more social and affordable housing. There is not clarity at present, so we are not building the numbers of homes that we need.
Ms McVey
We are and will be building more affordable homes. We have put in a significant amount—billions of pounds—for affordable homes and have also removed the cap so councils are able to build homes, too. That is what we have to do. We are a party that believes in choice. I come from a council house. I believed in the right to buy in the 1980s to make sure people could be in charge of their own homes. Homes were not being repaired properly. People bought them and looked after them. Now we have to make sure we build more homes, so there is a virtuous cycle and there are more homes. We are a nation that believes in home ownership. We need to enable people to have their own homes. We know that 80% of people want their own homes. What are we doing? We want to offer an array of choice and support. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, this is also about the ability of individuals to build their own homes.
Alex Cunningham
Home ownership under the Tories in the past nine years has dropped from 67% to 64%. How is the Minister going to put that right?
Ms McVey
Through an array of support. Obviously, I have been heartened by the fact that first-time ownership has increased for the first time in 11 years. People are getting on the housing ladder. We have helped more than 500,000 people through Help to Buy and the right to buy, and we intend to continue to do that.
Mr Bacon
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the £25 billion a year housing benefit budget, which represents 3% of all public spending? It will be £0.25 trillion over the next 10 years, and it has been £0.5 trillion over the past 20 years or so. The permanent secretary in her former Department, Peter Schofield, who used to be the director of communities in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, came with us to Berlin to look at more creative and innovative ways of delivering housing. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend talks to the Department for Work and Pensions about trying to use some of that housing benefit budget —admittedly, it is helping some housing associations, but it is also propping up private landlords—for capital investment in a greater quantity and quality of housing stock?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that that is exactly what we intend to do. How do we enable people to get on the housing ladder and to be homeowners in an array of homes they would like and need? How do we best use housing benefits to enable that to happen? As I have said, we have built more homes in this last year than in every one of the last 31 years. We are correcting a market that has been undeniably not supported for the last 31 years. We are getting it right. We have built more houses. Where we see the misuse of leaseholds, we will get rid of that. We will be supporting people with an array of opportunities.
Ruth Cadbury
With due respect to the Minister, I think that the hon. Member for South Norfolk was talking about the housing benefit bill, which is not relevant to people who can buy their own homes. He was saying that that money would be far better spent on building affordable social rent homes for people who will never be able to buy their own homes. Meanwhile, the Help to Buy programme has simply increased the price of flats in London.
Ms McVey
I did understand what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk was talking about. He talked about the £24 billion that was going into housing benefit and asked how we could best use that to help to build more homes, which could include social and council homes. I understand that, but at the same time, we have to ensure that more people can get on the housing ladder.
We are at the start of building 300,000 homes a year. That is not just about the homes; it is about reshaping an industry. At the same time, we want to be a global visionary centre of expertise in building. Let us think about all the jobs that that will provide, if we have the commitment to do it together. That is why we will have a centre of excellence in the north of England to look at the best ways forward for construction and engineering. That is what a determined Conservative party is going to do. We are going to build the right houses, champion home ownership and make a centre of excellence for building.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. In the few seconds I have left, I want to ask that we ban the word “affordable” in the context of housing. “Affordable” means 80% of market rent, but the vast proportion of our constituents could never afford 80% of market rent. Let us talk about social housing rent and owner occupation, but let us also clearly address the question of what is affordable, because the “affordable housing” is not affordable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the ongoing shortage of housing and the housing crisis across England; further notes with concern the number of families in temporary accommodation and the number of people rough sleeping; acknowledges that there are over one million households on housing waiting lists; recognises the Government’s target to build 300,000 new homes each year; acknowledges that this target has been missed in each year that the Government has been in office and that the number of homes constructed by housebuilding companies that are deemed affordable is insufficient; notes the pay ratios between executives and employees in FTSE 350 housebuilding companies; and calls on the Government to tackle the housing crisis as an urgent priority.
Skerne River: Discover Brightwater Project
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I want to take this time to talk about a heritage and environmental project in my constituency that will over the next few years restore, reveal and celebrate life along the River Skerne. The river flows through the length of my constituency before reaching the River Tees at Hurworth Place after flowing through Darlington. Unlike the vast majority of rivers, it flows inland instead of running to the sea. The Skerne is not widely known, except perhaps to local people. It is not the Thames, the Wear, the Tees or the Tyne, and it is not the Severn or the Tweed. In parts it resembles a stream and can be seen in geographical terms as a tributary of the Tees, but the Skerne’s significance can be measured in other ways.
The Skerne is the only river to appear on the back of a five-pound note. The note in question was issued in 1993 to celebrate the success of the railway pioneer George Stephenson and includes an image of Locomotion No. 1 travelling across the Skerne bridge over the river. The bridge is almost 200 years old and is the oldest continuously used railway bridge in the world. Historic England called the bridge irreplaceable, along with the Angel of the North and Holy Island off Lindisfarne. The bridge is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), but the early trains that crossed the Skerne at this point first travelled from Heighington Crossing in my constituency of Sedgefield, of which more later.
That link to the industrial revolution is the reason why the Discover Brightwater project is necessary. The project is a £3.3 million landscape partnership programme supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. To date, about £7.6 billion has been spent on improving landscapes and preserving heritage in programmes like this around the country. The Discover Brightwater project focuses on improving the natural and cultural environment endeavours to work with community groups to discover and reveal the history of the area, improve existing environments and create new nature reserves for the benefit of wildlife and land users. The Brightwater partnership includes Durham Wildlife Trust, Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council, the Environment Agency, the Tees River Trust, the local access forum, and the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland—known as “Arch & Arch”.
“Skerne” is an ancient word, which is believed to originate from the old Norse word “skir” meaning “bright” and “clean”, hence the name of the Discover Brightwater project. Many years ago, the Skerne was full of fens and wetlands, hence the name of my constituency and the nearest town of Sedgefield. The wetlands still exist in part, but land has been reclaimed for farming since the start of the industrial revolution and water was pumped away due to the growth of the coal industry. Experts believe that the water table fell by as much as 70 metres, so the fens and wetlands are not what they used to be. Names of ancient settlements reveal what the area was like centuries ago. The name Sedgefield is a case in point, as is Bradbury and the Isle, Great Isle farm, and the term “carr” meaning a boggy area or wood in old Norse, which is why we have Preston Carr and Mordon Carr.
The Brightwater Project is important because it wants to manage the local environment and restore the Skerne to some of its past glory. There are plans to create fenland covering 50 acres, which would include the existing Bishop fen near Bishop Middleham and Hardwick Park, and the Woodham fen near Newton Aycliffe. The idea behind creating a managed fen is to spread biodiversity, mitigate climate change and attract tourism. There is also a potential plan to significantly increase the size of the fen to create a Great North fen. Since the end of the industrial revolution and the coal-mining era, the landscape has wanted to return to the way it once was, and that should be allowed to happen, but obviously in a managed way that has the support of landowners, Government agencies and local people. The project is not only about the past. It is about the present and revealing the natural environment and heritage for residents living in this part of south-east Durham, and it is about the future. It is about making south-east Durham a place to visit. There is so much to see and enjoy but, at present, so much remains hidden, with so many stories untold.
Let me take the House on a journey along the 25 miles of the river, which finds its source near Trimdon, the village where I was brought up, and then flows inland to Hurworth Place, which is also in my constituency and is where the Skerne enters the River Tees. The River Skerne starts in the magnesium limestone escarpment between Trimdon and Trimdon Grange in the north of my constituency, just a few hundred metres from the 12th-century St Mary Magdalene church on Trimdon village green, which is the spot where my predecessor, Tony Blair, made his “people’s princess” speech in 1997 following the tragic death of Diana.
During the 19th century, the population of Trimdon expanded rapidly with the opening of the colliery. The importance of the industry to the area helped turn the Skerne from a bright water to the seventh most polluted river in Europe by the 1970s. That is why the Discover Brightwater project is vital to bringing the river back to its former beauty.
The Trimdons grew from the coal industry and supplied the industrial revolution, with collieries at Trimdon Grange, where a pit disaster in 1882 killed 74 men and boys, and at Trimdon and Deaf Hill, as well as a foundry at a place called, strangely enough, Trimdon Foundry.
From there, the River Skerne flows to the east and Hurworth Burn reservoir before meandering south-west, where it enters fertile fields and farmland. The river flows between the village of Fishburn and the market town of Sedgefield. Fishburn is where my mother was born, and my father worked down Fishburn colliery from the ’40s until its closure in 1973. A coke works also operated in the village from 1919 to ’86.
At their peak, the collieries in the Skerne river area —at the Trimdons, Deaf Hill, Fishburn, Dean Bank, Bishop Middleham and Mainsforth—employed almost 10,000 people. Again, the growth of the villages led to pollution of the river, and phosphates used by local farmers washed from the farmland into the river, causing further pollution.
On the opposite bank from the old colliery is the north-east technology park—NETPark—which is one of the country’s premier science, engineering and technology parks for the commercialisation of cutting-edge research and development. It is home to 32 innovative companies, providing over 450 highly skilled jobs. By 2025, NETPark will be not only the destination of choice but the destination of necessity for universities and blue chip companies.
This area on the banks of the Skerne has the remains of a once great industry on one side and flourishing future industries on the other. It is the centre of the constituency.
As part of the Discover Brightwater project, there have been archaeological digs involving 126 dedicated volunteers on the outskirts of Sedgefield, where remains of a Roman village and pottery have been discovered—the first Roman pottery to be discovered in the north-east. The Discover Brightwater team has been working with DigVentures of Barnard Castle at the East Park Roman site in Sedgefield and at the ruins of the Bishop’s castle in Bishop Middleham a couple of miles away. The discovery of further structures at the site of the Bishop’s castle, which was used by the bishops of Durham, has led archaeologists to believe there were once more substantial buildings than previously thought. This is making archaeologists think again about what was originally at the site of the castle.
From Bishop Middleham and Sedgefield, the Skerne flows through Bradbury and the Isle, an area of wetland through which the A1(M) and the east coast main line travel between Durham and Darlington. It is the geographic heart of my constituency. Because of the wetland, the motorway actually floats on the land.
From there, the Skerne travels past Newton Aycliffe and through Ketton, an ancient area of my constituency that is a broad valley created by the small Skerne river. One feature of the Ketton landscape is a 17th-century packhorse bridge, which stands alone because centuries ago farmers straightened the river, moving its flow from under the bridge. It stands alone as a listed structure. There is written evidence of a bridge at the site since 1294.
The area is also famous for the Durham ox, a massive beast that in 1810 sold for £1,000 and weighed 271 stone. It was a bit of a celebrity in its day and travelled 3,000 miles around the country to be exhibited.
The Discover Brightwater project has improved the River Skerne in the Ketton area from Aycliffe to Skerningham, with the help of volunteers and local communities. The project also wants to improve access to Ketton Valley, so that people can enjoy the beauty of the landscape and the heritage of the Skerne and learn of the many local historical stories that go unheard.
From Ketton, we reach Newton Aycliffe, which is the largest conurbation in my constituency. It is a new town with a population of around 28,000 people, and is home to the Discover Brightwater headquarters. Newton Aycliffe business park is the biggest in the north-east of England, with 10,000 to 12,000 employees.
Newton Aycliffe also played a crucial part during the second world war. It was the site of a Royal Ordnance factory known as ROF Aycliffe. Opened in 1941, at a cost of £7 million, the munitions factory was home to the famous Aycliffe Angels, one of whom was my grandmother. The 17,000 strong workforce of almost entirely female employees worked around the clock turning out 700 million bullets, as well as shells and mines for the allied war effort. Their work was dangerous, with numerous accidents and deaths at the factory, including one explosion that killed eight girls. However, those incidents went unrecorded and unacknowledged because of the secrecy of the site. The Aycliffe Angels finally received the recognition they deserved for their commitment and bravery in 2000, with a memorial service and a permanent memorial, which now rests in Newton Aycliffe town centre.
However, the factory’s essential and invaluable work produced pollutants that ended up in the Skerne.
On the very edge of the business park sits Heighington Crossing and beside it a building that was once a pub called the Locomotion, now closed for several years. The pub was called the Locomotion to commemorate the fact that it was at Heighington Crossing in September 1825 that George Stephenson assembled Locomotion No. 1 to enter service on the Stockton and Darlington railway. The route would eventually take the latest invention on the Skerne bridge over the Skerne river, marking the start of the railway age, which would eventually be celebrated on the reverse of the £5 note. The pub the Locomotion is the original ticket office and waiting room. The original very short platform is still there today, and the route of the railway line from Heighington down into Darlington is still used.
On the other side of the railway line, Hitachi has built its new train manufacturing facility. From the original Locomotion No. 1 to the latest high-speed intercity Azuma train, train manufacturing has come full circle, back to the birthplace of the railways.
The length of the River Skerne is steeped in history. Much of it might be unknown, but the Brightwater project provides the opportunity for that history to be known. It also provides the opportunity for the river to return to its original meaning of “bright water”. There are signs of that happening, with sightings of otters and trout in parts of the river where they have not been seen for a long time.
After decades of the industrial revolution, the landscape is starting to return to how it once was. Obviously, that process must be managed. However, the benefits of such a project speak for themselves: biodiversity, the mitigation of climate change, the potential for tourism, the preservation of our heritage, with benefits for the local area and the country and the coming together of our communities as Brightwater engages with them. The Skerne has perhaps been neglected for centuries, but it could now be about to tell its story again. I wish the Discover Brightwater project the best of luck in its endeavour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Rebecca Pow)
It is an honour to respond to an Adjournment debate under your auspices again, Dame Eleanor.
I thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) so much for bringing the debate to the Chamber. It struck me how much we learn about our nation and our colleagues through the things that are said in this Chamber. I was fascinated to hear all about the Skerne river. The hon. Gentleman took us on a great journey down a river that I knew little about before he started, but I now know a great deal about it—and about the hon. Gentleman’s life and roots. I am very pleased to be here talking about the subject today.
I have been to Sedgefield because my son is at Durham University and we stayed in Sedgefield only recently. If I had only known about the pub, I would have gone for a beer. I would say that most people know Sedgefield only for the racecourse, but now we will be talking about the river.
As Minister for arts, heritage and tourism, it is of real interest to me to talk about the Discover Brightwater project, which will restore an important area of the north-east and bring wealth and benefits to the surrounding communities. Although it is still at a relatively early stage, it highlights how important projects that build on tourism and heritage can be to the local economy.
Let me say a little about tourism, which is a huge industry for the nation. As Minister, I see it as one of my roles to make sure it becomes even more important, and I know I have support on the Government Benches in that respect. Tourism already contributes £68 billion directly to the UK economy each year. Inbound tourism has risen in the past three years, and in 2018 more than 37 million people visited the country and spent a phenomenal £22 billion. That is not to be overlooked.
Visitors are spread far and wide throughout the country and travel to all parts of our nation—all regions and areas—so tourism is a good way to spread wealth. Whether they go to England’s coast, to historic cities, to the highlands of Scotland, to the glens of Antrim or to castles in Wales, there is all sorts to attract them. Indeed, there are also our natural landscapes, whether it is the Somerset levels in my constituency of Taunton Deane, the Yorkshire dales or the North York moors national park just beyond the boundaries of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Tourism creates jobs in every local authority in the country, and the money that visitors spend directly supports local economies and benefits communities. It also creates great opportunities for investment and growth. Indeed, in the north-east the benefits have already been felt, to a great extent: international visits have hit new heights in the past five years, and visitors have spent a great deal of money, with £300 million spent in 2018. That is not insignificant.
I am of course fully aware of the importance of the UK’s unique and far-reaching heritage offer and the key role it plays in attracting visitors up and down the country, helping to drive tourism. Visitors travel in their thousands to see outstanding heritage sites such as Fountains Abbey and Belsay Hall—both in the north-east—or Wells cathedral and Glastonbury tor, both down in Somerset. There is a plethora of wonderful sites to choose from.
Heritage makes a big contribution to the economy: the heritage sector alone brings in £29 billion of the £68 billion that tourism attracts, and it employs 450,000 people. Heritage tourists made more than 230 million visits in 2018. I am well aware of the part that heritage plays, and we heard from the hon. Gentleman lots of examples of how heritage is part of the Discover Brightwater project.
If one builds around heritage, pride rises in the community. I recently responded to a debate in Westminster Hall about Hull, which has been a city of culture. All the investment in the culture and heritage in that city has meant that pride in the city has risen, and three out of every four people in Hull are now very proud to live there. Apparently, that was not the case a few years ago. A lot of that is because of the work to build on the projects in which people have been engaged.
For all those reasons, I was very interested to hear about the Discover Brightwater project, to which the National Lottery Heritage Fund, with which my Department enjoys a close relationship, committed £2.64 million of spending in spring 2018. As we have heard, the project brings together a partnership of local bodies and charities, all working to restore and reveal the considerably rich industrial and agricultural heritage along the length of the river. I was really interested to hear about the collieries and that side of things, as well as the armaments factory and the archaeological digs.
I wish to touch on a couple of the treasures that are already in this patch. One is the Stockton and Darlington railway, which was the first public railway in the world to use steam locomotives. It was opened in 1825 and connected the collieries with the port of Stockton-on-Tees. It crossed the River Skerne at Darlington on the impressive Skerne bridge, which is the oldest continuously operated railway bridge in existence—I have definitely learned something there. It was indeed on a stamp, and because the bridge was on the stamp, so too was the river, so it is already quite famous.
Then there is that amazing beast, the Durham ox, which we have heard about—an early example of the shorthorn cattle breed that helped to establish breed standards in the dairy industry. This matter is close to my heart, as I was brought up on a dairy farm where my father bred Ayrshire cattle, which I used to show with him at the local shows. Such examples are a really important part of our history that went on to influence our agricultural industry. The Discover Brightwater programme will build on that project to help interpret and share those stories, and I think it will be very popular.
I was pleased to learn about the wider community involvement and traineeships that are part of this project, including 20 short heritage skills courses and lots of community-led research. All these things chime very well with the tourism sector deal that we launched recently. I will mention that a bit more in a minute.
As a great lover of the great outdoors, I was especially glad to hear that the project will open up access to green spaces. I was also pleased to hear about the community involvement. Of course, access to green open space provides rewards for our mental health and physical wellbeing. There is a lot of data to show that access to green space can really help in those areas. The project is near some quite deprived areas, which often do not have such good access to green space, so I see it as being really beneficial there.
In a world where sustainability and the environment are increasingly important, I was glad to hear about the wider environmental benefits of the project, particularly with regard to improving water quality. We heard how terribly polluted the river was before, and that the situation has really been turned around. I was very interested to hear about the former wetland and the work to alleviate flooding and strengthen the nature-rich habitats. All this work will be a draw to visitors, as I know from experience because I come from the Somerset levels area—one of the world’s most famous international wetland sites. The area is really popular for tourists because of all the nature and wildlife it attracts. We have already heard that the otters and trout have returned to the River Skerne, which is absolutely wonderful, especially when one thinks of how polluted it was before. There has been a real turnaround and I think it will be a big draw.
I gather that the project will also open up better access, as well as cycle routes, walkways and walking routes, all of which I am sure will be popular. For lots of those reasons, I commend the Discover Brightwater project and other similar examples around the country, because they build on strengths such as heritage, working with communities and developing our already attractive areas, and make a great deal more of them. Tourism is a growing industry, with the number of international visitors set to rise, and we need to be ready for them with a good offer once we attract them here. That offer has to be of the highest calibre, and that means not just the attractions, but the accommodation—places for the people to stay, just as I stayed in Sedgefield—as well as the provenance of the food and drink. All these things can be built into the project, together with working on the prized landscape. The River Skerne project offers all this potential.
The £40 million Discover England fund, which was launched in 2016, demonstrated that this Government are committed to investing in the country’s visitor offer, making it as easy as possible for travellers to discover the variety and range that England has to offer. I will give a couple of examples. The England’s Coast project allows visitors to build itineraries and experiences based on England’s glorious coastal offer. We have a fabulous coast and fabulous beaches. In the north-east, that includes the Durham heritage coast—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it well—and the historic seaside resorts of Redcar and Saltburn-by-the-Sea. The Discover England fund is not the only way the Government have invested in tourism in the north-east either. Earlier this year, the coastal communities fund awarded £1.3 million to the Durham heritage coast partnership to create a visitor and events hub at Crimdon beach.
Those projects, and indeed all those supported by the Discover England fund and other funds in the past three years, illustrate the Government’s commitment to tourism in regions all around the country. I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday, which I was pleased to play a small part in, of another £5.5 million for the Discover England fund, which will enable it to carry on for the next year and, we hope, for a long time into the future. These projects demonstrate how well they work and what they can generate for the economy.
The Chancellor also announced an excellent deal yesterday for our arm’s length bodies, which include the Arts Council, which dispenses funds around the country for projects, and all our museums and galleries, all of which play a part in our visitor and heritage offer and attract many visitors. That was a really welcome announcement in the spending round yesterday.
The tourism sector deal, which was launched in June, is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to the tourism industry and its potential for boosting productivity and ensuring that we are ready for the extra visitors we are expecting. It was the 10th sector deal that the Government have announced, and it includes a raft of measures that the whole industry came to agree were important to grow the industry. Those measures include a £250,000 conference centre broadband competition so that events and conference centres can bid for money to improve the connectivity of their conference centres. That is a big and growing sector with a lot of opportunity. I am not sure if there are any opportunities on the River Skerne for a conference or a centre, but you never know.
The sector deal also includes an ambition to build another 130,000 hotel rooms across the UK and to build in apprenticeships and mentoring schemes with business, all of which will help to strengthen this and make the whole industry increasingly professional. I was pleased, therefore, to hear from the hon. Member about the skills and the training in relation to the Skerne project. It will be very important to upskilling locals and keeping them in the area to earn their living.
To sum up, tourism is vital to the UK economy, and of course heritage is a big part of that, as well as all the things we have mentioned today, such as landscapes, access, places to stay—all the suggestions and ideas going into this project, not least the Durham Ox. I do not know if that is going to be a museum about the ox or a model being built of the ox, but I will be fascinated to find out what happens. I really hope that the hon. Member keeps the Department posted about how it is going. I wish him all the best of luck with it. Such projects always deserve a champion, and the House of Commons is just the right place to raise it, to get a bit of attention for the project and to entice more people up there. As the arts, heritage and tourism Minister, I would like to commend it and celebrate it. We need to celebrate and showcase these great things about our nation that will benefit the economy, bring local communities together, make them proud of where they live and make the rest of us proud of our glorious UK.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the unusual nature of raising a point of order at this time of day, after the Adjournment debate, but I wonder whether you have had any notice of a possible statement at some point by the Home Secretary to explain why the Prime Minister is currently attending a clearly party political electioneering stunt in Wakefield with what appears to be upwards of 50 police officers surrounding him for the benefit of the media and the Prime Minister’s clearly political speech. This is clearly entirely inappropriate.
I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and we have regularly raised concerns about the lack of police resources. Many of us are often pictured with police officers—I am sure you have been yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—when they are doing hard work in our communities, as they should be. Serious questions need to be asked about the use of police time in this way and the potential politicisation of the police. I wonder whether you have had any notice of the Home Secretary coming to explain why on earth this is going on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a somewhat unusual point in the proceedings for a point of order, but I understand why he wished to bring it forward at this moment, its having presumably only just come to his attention. I have had no notice of any forthcoming statement or debate from any Ministers on this matter. However, the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers are certainly very careful to make sure that the House is always kept informed about matters concerning security—security for Members of Parliament, security for Ministers, and also, one would presume, the security of the Prime Minister. I am sure that if any further explanation about what is currently happening is required, Ministers will keep the House informed. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore
Earlier today, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a £33.9 billion cash-terms increase in the NHS budget by 2023-24. This includes a £6.2 billion increase in NHS funding next year. This historic NHS settlement provides the largest cash increase in public services since the second world war. There is not time to go into the specific details of how this will be spent, but I would urge everyone, as part of their bedtime reading, to turn to page 9 of the Blue Book of spending round 2019 to see how some of that money is being spent. I am delighted that it will also include a £250 million funding boost for Health Education England next year, which is equivalent to 3.4% real-terms growth.
[Official Report, 4 September 2019, Vol. 664, c. 326-327.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Health:
An error has been identified in my response to the debate on Department of Health and Social Care: Treasury Funding.
The correct response should have been:
Chris Skidmore
Earlier today, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a £33.9 billion cash-terms increase in the NHS budget by 2023-24. This includes a £6.2 billion increase in NHS funding next year. This historic NHS settlement provides the largest cash increase in public services since the second world war. There is not time to go into the specific details of how this will be spent, but I would urge everyone, as part of their bedtime reading, to turn to page 9 of the Blue Book of spending round 2019 to see how some of that money is being spent. I am delighted that it will also include a £210 million funding boost for Health Education England next year, which is equivalent to 3.4% real-terms growth.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas
Estimates of homelessness among veterans of our armed forces range from the low thousands to approximately 11,000. Why does the Minister think that the Government have failed veterans of our services?
Mrs Wheeler
As Members might imagine, as the Minister with responsibility for veterans in MHCLG, I have taken a great interest in this matter. In London, we have data from the combined homelessness and information network—so-called CHAIN data—which gives us very good and specific data about the number of veterans who are on the streets. Similarly, the homelessness case level information classification, or H-CLIC, contains data that all councils put into it. It is still experimental, because it has been going for less than 18 months, but the latest figures show that the number of veterans on the streets is lower than it has ever been, and lower than 3%.
[Official Report, 22 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 1084.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave, as the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
The correct answer should have been:
Mrs Wheeler
As Members might imagine, as the Minister with responsibility for veterans in MHCLG, I have taken a great interest in this matter. In London, we have data from the combined homelessness and information network—so-called CHAIN data—which gives us very good and specific data about the number of veterans who are on the streets. Similarly, the homelessness case level information classification, or H-CLIC, contains data that all councils put into it. It is still experimental, because it has been going for less than 18 months. The latest figures show that the number of veterans on the streets in London is lower than it has ever been, and lower than 3%.
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 7 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
Backbench Business
(4 years, 7 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
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
(4 years, 7 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
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered involvement of patients in the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Paisley. I am delighted to have been granted this important debate, and I am pleased to see a number—particularly for a Thursday—of Members from all parts of the House present to take part. I declare at the outset that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on heart and circulatory diseases. Earlier this year, the APPG conducted an inquiry, with the support of the British Heart Foundation, to better understand patient perspectives on artificial intelligence. It found huge potential for AI to transform the lives of those living with heart and circulatory diseases and a greater need for those affected to be included in discussions about the development and adoption of new technologies.
Before I go further, I want to speak briefly about what AI is. Put simply, AI is the term given to a set of computer actions that mimic human intelligence. Our report outlines that what separates modern AI, such as machine learning, from other types of computer program is that it can learn and improve at tasks. AI is particularly strong at finding patterns and trends in data that are not obvious through human analysis. I have mentioned machine learning, which is one type of AI. It is where algorithms—a set of rules that a computer uses to make a calculation—are used to look for patterns in data, and the computer then uses those patterns to make decisions. It looks for patterns in many different types of data, from scrutinising images to analysing genomic data.
Every day, we interact with something that uses AI. Whether it is entertainment, online shopping, wearable devices, virtual assistants, chat bots or advertising, the use of AI is ubiquitous. Whether it is through faster or more accurate diagnosis, more personalised treatment, better targeting of demand, improvements in service planning and delivery or better predictions, AI has the potential to touch all aspects of healthcare delivery and management.
Our APPG’s report, “Putting patients at the heart of artificial intelligence”, was launched in May this year. It warns that the spread of misinformation risks undermining public confidence in the use of AI in healthcare. The APPG has therefore recommended that policy makers, parliamentarians, the NHS, charities, healthcare professionals and the health technology industry should seek to engage and involve patients in the design, development and diffusion of AI. If they do not, developments in AI might not reflect the needs of the very people who could benefit from it.
It is important to ensure that fake news and the desire for a quick headline do not undermine the public’s trust and confidence in this important area of research and clinical practice. In a survey conducted for the inquiry, 91% of people with heart and circulatory diseases said that the public should be well-informed about how AI is used in healthcare. Some 90% believe it to be the responsibility of the NHS to inform the public about current and potential uses of AI in healthcare, and 48% of patients surveyed strongly support doctors using artificial intelligence technologies to assist them in diagnosing and treating heart and circulatory diseases.
Heart and circulatory diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke and vascular dementia, affect millions of families across the UK. The halving of deaths from heart and circulatory diseases since the 1970s has been a major health success for the UK. However, such conditions still cause a quarter of all deaths in the UK and are the largest cause of premature mortality, particularly in deprived areas. Together, they make up the single biggest driver of health inequalities and cost the NHS in England at least £7.4 billion a year. As outlined in the long-term plan, it is the single biggest area where the NHS can save lives over the next 10 years.
In assessing the potential for AI, it is important to note the scale of heart and circulatory diseases in this country. The British Heart Foundation, which provides secretariat support to the APPG, reports that heart and circulatory diseases still cause a quarter of all deaths in the UK, on average killing one person every three minutes. The number of people living with heart and circulatory diseases also remains high, at 5.9 million in England. There are more than 42,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease each year in the UK. We must therefore utilise the enormous potential of AI across all areas to transform the way we prevent, diagnose, treat and support those living with or at risk from heart and circulatory diseases.
In my constituency of Crawley, 11,000 people were living with a heart and circulatory condition in 2017-18. Of those, 3,679 had coronary heart disease and 1,865 were living with stroke, 774 were living with heart failure and 1,985 were living with atrial fibrillation. In addition, 16,682 constituents have been diagnosed with high blood pressure, including me, and 7,555 with diabetes. While those numbers may seem high, the British Heart Foundation tells me that according to the quality outcomes framework data, Crawley is ranked 548th out of the 650 UK parliamentary constituencies for the prevalence of cardiovascular disease.
In communities around the country, including Crawley, one of the challenges of introducing AI into everyday practice in healthcare is its potential to exacerbate health inequalities. Age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic demographic factors can influence access to the best technologies. Access to new technologies is relevant because AI is currently being implemented in consumer-facing technologies, such as smartphones, which can help manage adherence to blood pressure medication, smart watches, which can track and analyse heart rates, and voice-activated assistants such as Alexa or Siri, which can act as useful reminders to take medications.
As I mentioned, the APPG on heart and circulatory diseases launched its report on AI earlier this year. Our group was grateful for the involvement and enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who also took the time to speak at the report’s launch. Given the number of people in Crawley who have heart conditions, I wanted to keep local residents updated about my work chairing the group. Shortly after the report’s launch, I wrote in the Crawley & Horley Observer about the importance of tackling such conditions and reiterated the salience of the Department of Health and Social Care ensuring that some of this Government’s increased funding for our NHS is used to address the use of AI and its potential in the health service.
It was very much with that call in mind that, almost a month ago, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement that £250 million is to be spent on the new national artificial intelligence lab to improve the health and lives of patients. The Department of Health and Social Care has said that the AI lab will bring together the industry’s best academics, specialists and technology companies. They will be working on some of the biggest challenges in health and care, identifying the patients most at risk of conditions such as heart disease. That will allow for earlier diagnosis and cheaper, more focused and personalised prevention.
The new national artificial intelligence lab will sit within NHSX, the new organisation that will oversee the digitisation of the health and care system in partnership with the accelerated access collaborative. One of the key recommendations of the APPG report is that NHSX should set up discussions with charities and the public to explore the views and concerns of patients about the use of AI in healthcare, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurances that through the development of the new lab, NHSX will be exploring the opinions of patients and thoroughly engaging them throughout that ongoing process.
In the past five years, we have seen AI go from struggling to identify images of cats to being able to identify skin cancer in histological sections of biopsies just as well as a team of specialist doctors with decades of combined experience. In debates on this topic, it is easy to discuss issues in what seem like abstract terms, but when patients go to see their GP, they want to see their GP. In such cases, AI could be used to create automatically the GP’s notes about their patient, reducing the time that the doctor will spend looking at their screen, for example.
There is also the issue of self-management. From dedicated apps that people use while going out for a run to the most basic step counters, more and more people use their own devices, on some level, to keep an eye on their health. AI can be used more and more in this area. Patients could use wearable devices and sensors to manage their condition at home and in the community instead of in hospital. AI systems could then monitor for unusual patient-specific patterns, such as a deterioration in a heart failure patient, and relay that information to a clinical team for further intervention. That also presents an opportunity to put patients in much better control of their care.
Our inquiry heard from experts from the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, who told us that NHS health checks could be better at distinguishing the risk of different types of heart condition, to ensure that the most suitable treatment can be received by the patient. On 16 August, the Department of Health and Social Care announced a review of the NHS health check service, which is offered to everyone between the ages of 40 and 74 to spot the early signs of major conditions that cause early death, including stroke, kidney disease, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
Although the NHS health check programme has identified more than 700,000 people at high risk of cardiovascular disease over the last five years and has saved an estimated 500 lives each year, the Department of Health is right that there is potential for people to benefit even more from an enhanced tailored service. The APPG’s survey of patients with heart and circulatory diseases found that 64% had at least some awareness of the potential future uses of AI to diagnose and treat heart and circulatory diseases. However, only 17% of respondents were aware of any current uses. That represents a huge opportunity to inform patients about the opportunities of AI.
People are becoming more and more wary about the use of their personal data. From cold calls to unsubscribing from mass emails, there is increased caution from people about giving up personal information. When it came to the APPG’s inquiry, however, 86% of respondents were comfortable with their personal health data being used to help better to diagnose medical conditions. Policy makers should feel confident that patients support the use of AI in healthcare if it is done to improve health outcomes.
Trust works both ways of course, and it is important that those implementing policy and programmes are open with the public about how their information will be used. That is why patients, and the wider public, should feel involved with not only the details of what their data will be used for but the wider work of the NHS to use artificial intelligence to improve our health service. In June, when speaking on the use of AI, NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens said that
“from April next year we propose to change the way we fund care so that NHS organisations who invest in this world-leading technology will be properly rewarded for doing so.”
I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on what form that is due to take. I am sure that such an update would be welcome if colleagues are to make representations with their own health authorities and trusts.
Our report raised the issue of what patients need to know. Transparency is welcome, and it is important to specify what type of transparency, as well as its intended outcome, in addition to being clear about for whom the transparency is intended. Transparency can include outlining why an algorithm was developed, what types of data were used, and how the development was funded. Some experts have argued that the black box of AI—the difficulty in understanding how AI models reach their decisions—is not really a problem at all, as humans are equally opaque in how they arrive at decisions.
However, the ability to scrutinise, conduct quality assurance, and undertake due diligence are important parts of regulating the health system and ensuring patient safety. In November 2017, the national data guardian for health and care, Dame Fiona Caldicott, told the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee about the challenges of using patient data in technology, saying:
“What we have not done is take the public with us in these discussions, and we really need their views.”
That needs to be addressed. If patients are to trust the use of AI in healthcare, they need to know they are a vital part of the journey.
Our report also looked at the regulatory framework, and how the development of such technological innovations means that health systems are becoming more complex environments to regulate. At the same time, it is important that the regulatory burden is not added to, so that the spread and adoption of new innovations is not stifled. Our inquiry found that a
“balancing act between managing expectations and encouraging hope and enthusiasm is always challenging but nevertheless important. When we say patients should be informed and clear on what AI can do for the NHS, it is not a tick-box measure. It is to provide the clarity that is needed for better diffusion of AI.”
NHS England and NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, should encourage the development and use of reporting standards for AI research, in order to provide best practice for artificial intelligence researchers. That could also lead to greater recognition of quality in AI research, particularly among the media, policy makers, clinicians and the public.
With regard to my constituents, I mentioned the importance of Government, policy makers and NHS staff, all of whom have an important role to play in supporting patients. I am also grateful for the secretariat support provided to the APPG by the British Heart Foundation, and I pay tribute to the charity’s hardworking volunteers, including those whom I have been pleased to meet throughout Crawley, and those at the British Heart Foundation shops located on Queensway and on the Broadway in my constituency.
There is much to welcome in the NHS long-term plan. Indeed, NHS funding will grow on average by 3.4% in real terms each year from 2019-20 to 2023-24, which is of course welcome. The current funding increase will mean that the NHS can lay further foundations for service improvements. Thanks to our NHS staff, millions more people are being treated every year. Although services return to Crawley Hospital—and I continue to call for even greater provision—it remains the case that the worst decision in the history of Crawley as a new town was the removal of A&E in 2005. Our constituents expect to see improved GP provision, reduced waiting times and enhanced frontline services.
The APPG on heart and circulatory diseases welcomes the great strides made in recent years to speed up the development and diffusion of AI in the NHS. The Office for Artificial Intelligence and the AI Council have huge potential to bolster the UK’s position as a world leader in AI as part of the Government’s AI sector deal. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation can also cement the UK’s leadership in ethical AI and ensure that society can shape the direction of travel and reap the benefits of AI, and we hope that those initiatives will continue to be taken forward.
The chief executive of NHS England has called for this country to become a world leader in the use of AI and machine learning, stating that exploiting the boom in AI technology can help meet the target in the NHS long-term plan of making up to 30 million outpatient appointments unnecessary, in addition to saving more than £1 billion in what would have been increasing outpatient visits. The money can be reinvested in frontline care and save patients unnecessary journeys to hospitals. That reminds us that patients must be at the heart of today’s debate, and hopefully future debates in Parliament on this issue.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) not only on securing the debate but on his thoughtful and comprehensive introduction to an extraordinarily complicated subject that I suspect will require much more debate in this place in future. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics and represent a constituency that is, of course, well known for its health services, innovation and tech cluster, not just in the city but around it.
The issue is therefore close to my heart. When I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Cambridge, I never imagined that I would spend quite so much time on such issues, but there are many jobs involved and huge opportunities available, exactly as the hon. Gentleman said. However, I suspect that I will be slightly less optimistic than him, because as I have begun to look at the issue more closely, it has struck me, as he said, that the only way that we will make it work is by maintaining the trust of patients, which is difficult—particularly given the behaviour of some of the major tech companies. It is not a lost cause, in my view, but we are going to need a qualitative change in regulation and protection if we are to secure some of the benefits that have already been referenced. Every day in Cambridge, I hear about new innovations and developments that convince me and, I think, many others that we really are on the cusp of a technological revolution across a range of sectors. Everywhere one goes in Cambridge, one sees people working on the most extraordinary things, and the gains are potentially huge, not just for our citizens but across the world.
It is hard to explain a lot of this to the public. I feel that I am in a privileged position going around Cambridge; I sometimes feel that I am the only person who is seeing all the various things that are going on, and one of my challenges is to try to spread the word about all the stuff that is happening. My worry is that often it is poorly communicated and poorly understood, and that misunderstanding can easily lead to a public backlash. I read with great interest the report from the all-party parliamentary group on heart and circulatory diseases; a very distinguished panel of people was behind it, and I will highlight some of the crucial points.
Ensuring that artificial intelligence really does enhance patient healthcare—and that it does not, as some of us fear could easily happen, get diverted on to a profit-seeking route—requires the following key elements: stakeholder engagement; an exact explanation of the risks and benefits; keeping researchers and academics involved; digital inclusion in general; proper development of policy, focusing on AI for public values; and the development of standards.
There are others, of course, working in a similar field. I am delighted to see present a fellow member of the APPG on data analytics, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). A few months ago he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) led a very good inquiry and produced, with a similarly illustrious panel of experts, an excellent report entitled “Trust, Transparency and Technology”. It is amazing how many people are working in this field at the moment. Part of that report—I suspect the hon. Gentleman will refer to it when he speaks—was focused on healthcare. He did the work, so I do not want to steal his thunder, but I will pick out a particular couple of things.
We drew on a 2018 survey by the Open Data Institute, whose statistics reflected those cited by the hon. Member for Crawley. Some 64% of consumers trusted the NHS and healthcare organisations with their personal data, which is more than the 57% who trusted their family and friends. Consumers also trusted the NHS more than they trusted their bank, the figure for which was also 57%; local government, for which it was 41%; and online retailers, for which it was 22%. I do not think they asked about the level of trust in politics; that is probably not recorded. Nearly half of respondents—47% of them—were prepared to share medical data about themselves. I have seen different figures, and I would also reflect on the fact that 53% were not prepared to share data. However, those people were prepared to share their data provided that it helped develop new medicines and treatments. In terms of the trade-offs for data sharing, they were most keen to participate when it was for medical research.
As we know in politics, however, trust is hard won and easily lost, and we have to be careful. A few months ago, I was asked to write a foreword to a report by the think-tank Polygeia, entitled “Technology in Healthcare: Advancing AI in the NHS”. The report is consistent with other work in this field and comes to broadly similar conclusions to those we have already heard. There is also a sense that NHS staff need to be closely involved in these developments, to ensure that they are not just kept informed but given a sense of understanding and confidence about how this can work. The black box algorithm to which the hon. Member for Crawley referred is still a little baffling and scary to a lot of people. If we are going to make this work, it is crucial that we consult, educate and take people with us. We must rely on the advice of medical and healthcare professionals, who are best placed to understand the concerns of both their patients and their colleagues.
We are constantly seeing new developments in the news. One of the joys of modern life is that when we go on holiday, we still watch our iPad. This summer I noticed the debate about DeepMind and its new ability to predict acute kidney failure; it wins an extra 48 hours by looking at huge volumes of data and doing the number crunching. That is bound to be a good thing but, typically, there were people who questioned the methodology and who raised concerns about unforeseen consequences. I also think there are some unforeseen consequences to these kinds of changes, and I will touch on one or two.
So far, I have been profoundly non-partisan and non-political, but I have to say that the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did rather wade in early on with his support for Babylon Health and GP at Hand. Those kinds of technologies provide tremendous opportunities but, as the hon. Member for Crawley said, such developments can be disruptive to the organisation of the national health service. There has been disruption to funding flows, particularly across London, and I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about that. Simon Stevens made a commitment, but these changes are happening quickly and one of the things that we know about the NHS is that it is quite a tanker to turn around. Quick, unintended consequences are not always benign ones for the people on the receiving end.
The wider point, of course, is that some of us are worried that the NHS, which is free at the point of use, is being undermined by the creeping in of a potentially competitive system. That can be resolved in some ways: we can change the administrative structures, for example, and sort out the financial flows. My bigger fear relates to confidentiality and what is happening with patient data. It is frequently argued that the data will be anonymised, and this is where we get into the realm of the techies. Plenty of people have explained to me that it is possible to reverse that anonymisation process, because as clever as these machines are in terms of machine learning, they are also pretty clever at doing the reverse. I am now pretty much persuaded that there is no such thing as anonymity. We must face the fact that there are consequences to these tremendous gains, and think through how we should deal with some of them.
This does not necessarily matter. I remember years ago when, under the previous Labour Government, Alistair Darling unfortunately had to come to Parliament and explain that his Department had lost millions of people’s data. That week, everyone thought the world was going to come to an end, but it did not. An awful lot of data is out there already, which is not great because we do not know who knows what about us. That is not necessarily a disaster, but if data is being used for the wrong purposes, it could be very difficult. This is my key point, I suppose: I am afraid that the evidence from the big tech companies, as we see almost daily, is that they have been doing things with our data that we did not know about. That is a problem that we previously experienced with the Care.data failure in the NHS, which damaged public trust. It is absolutely essential that we do better in future if we are going to keep the public on board.
The report from the APPG on data analytics states:
“Key lessons from this failure are around data security and consent, and reinforce the need for proper public engagement in the development of data collection programmes, and gaining the right level of consent, if such consent is not subsequently to be withdrawn with major clinical and value for money implications. In the case of DeepMind, Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian at the Department of Health, concluded that she ‘did not believe that when the patient data was shared with Google DeepMind, implied consent for direct care was an appropriate legal basis’.”
There is a significant number of concerns and the issues are profound and difficult. We have a whole range of structures in place to try to deal with some of them, and I have huge respect for the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner frequently tells those of us who ask that that office does have the appropriate resources. Given the scale and difficulty of the task, I must say that I find that hard to believe, because it is a very big task indeed. The hon. Member for Crawley mentioned the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, which is at an early stage. Frankly, it, too, will struggle to find the resources to meet the scale of the task.
I sat on the Bill Committee for the Data Protection Act 2018, which introduced the general data protection regulations. Some parts could have been strengthened. I tabled amendments that would have tightened up the assurance that research institutions must process healthcare data ethically for patient gain, but sadly, the Government chose not to adopt them. I hope that they might look at the issue again. A feature of the lengthy discussions in Committee, particularly in the Opposition’s observations, was that although the legislation is worthy, it felt like it was for the previous period, rather than the future, given the pace of change that we are likely to encounter. We were not convinced that it would keep up.
We need a much more radical set of safeguards. To stray slightly into the technical areas, when my local paper asked what my summer reading was going to be, it was surprised to hear that it was Shoshana Zuboff’s magnum opus, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”. It is a thought-provoking work and astonishing in the way she untangles the range of uses to which our data is being put every time we pick up our smartphone—or, in some cases, when we do not even turn it on. Many people are surprised to find that, far from being a phone, it is a tracking device. As she says, the question is not just who knows about us, but who decides what data is used, and who decides who decides what that data is used for. She talks about a shadow text, effectively; there is the data that we put on there and then there are all the connections that are made.
Staggeringly, huge amounts of information are being held about all of us that we do not have any access to—that we do not know about. At the moment, those companies consider that it belongs to them. We have to change that, because I think if it is about us, it belongs to us. That is a huge challenge, because if it were to happen, it would fundamentally challenge the business model of those hugely fabulously wealthy tech giants, which are hardly likely to give it up easily. The only way to tackle it, however, is through Governments and regulation. I hate to mention the issue of the hour, but that is one reason, of course, why those companies dislike the European Union—because we need large organisations to counter the giant power that we face.
We have a fantastic opportunity, particularly with our national health service, which, as is often observed, has access to huge amounts of data that no other health system in the world has. In this country, we have the fantastic raw material and a fantastic data science industry. We have the expertise and the knowledge. We also, just about, have the good will of our citizens. We have a great opportunity, but we will need much tougher regulatory frameworks to unlock that potential in the right way. I fear that, so far, compared with what we have to do, we have merely been tinkering.
There are huge opportunities. I have raised a range of issues that go beyond the immediate ones. I hope that Parliament will find an opportunity to have those discussions in the period ahead. If I were asked whether we are in a position to meet the challenge, I would say, “Not yet.” I do not think it is impossible, but it will be difficult, so it is vital to start the discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley for giving us the opportunity to do that today.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate. He is a doughty champion and campaigner for this area of public health policy. It is great to have the opportunity to talk about it and the innovations and where it can go in the long term.
I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics for its sterling work on this important report, which brings together a substantial amount of work and demonstrates the possibilities for the country and the sector to make progress in the coming years. I also welcome the Minister to her new role and I look forward to the work that she will be doing in this and many other areas—hopefully for longer than the coming days. I hope to see her in her place for many years to come.
I welcome the debate because it is a massively important subject for our country and the health of our citizens. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who highlighted some of the work that I have been involved in, in a tiny way, over the last few months. I thank the APPG for its kindness in allowing me and the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) to do that. The commission that we co-chair, which looked into the importance of ethics in the aggregation of data and the use of technology, brought it home to me that we need to have more discussions such as this and that it is important for public policy to focus on these things.
I also welcome the debate because, for once, we are not talking about Brexit. It is a fantastic opportunity not to do that. I slightly regret bringing it up, but I will do it anyway. For me, this is the kind of debate that will be transformative for the people in our society and communities over the next 30 years. It will transform the royal hospital that serves my constituents in north-east Derbyshire and the hospitals in Sheffield, in the same way that automation, artificial intelligence, big data and machine learning will transform my local economy and the skills we need to teach in my local schools. If there had been more such debates, instead of the ones we have seen in the last few days, Parliament would have been in a healthier place in the last few months.
AI has the potential to be hugely transformative, as I saw as part of the commission. We need to look at it more, not just in healthcare but in education and elsewhere. Again, I congratulate the APPG on the report, which is a great start in the area of healthcare, but that is an area about which we have to be incredibly careful, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has eloquently outlined—much more eloquently that I can. Our population has trust in our healthcare systems and is willing, at the moment, to innovate in those areas, but those things are hard-won, are not particularly guaranteed and will be easily lost if we are not careful. The worst situation that we could end up with is one where there is huge potential in the area but we are unable to do anything because people do not wish it to be utilised or do not have confidence in it being utilised in the way they want.
I am pleased by some of the statistics in the report, particularly the level of confidence that is already there. Some 85% of people support in principle the use of artificial intelligence to move that area forward and 86% of people are willing to have their anonymised data shared. The hon. Member for Cambridge has already outlined, however, the challenge with that, because we may all like the idea of our data being shared as long as it is anonymous, but it is almost impossible to anonymise it. There are numerous reports that say that it takes only a few data attributes in the same area, even with a population dataset that is not particularly large, to retrofit them and work out where the data has come from and, ultimately, who the data points in it are. That is a challenge that we have to get over if we are to innovate, develop and utilise the technology.
Other aspects of AI’s use concern me greatly, such as security. We have to make sure that we consider security, whatever we are using AI technology for, whether in operations or additions to people. There is also a question about the development of the technology. We have a trade-off to make in which, as the hon. Member for Cambridge rightly said, the development will be judged and accelerated or decelerated by our appetite in this country for how we use data, what we do with it, what consent we have behind it and what the population are willing to do.
Countries elsewhere in the world do not have the same structures, rules, morals and ethics that we do in relation to the usage of data. We see that already in other areas. In China in particular the Government use personal data for the control of their citizens and people are incredibly uncomfortable with how that data is used. We have to create a framework around that. I am a small-state Conservative who believes in as little regulation as possible—not no regulation, as I believe in regulation where it is appropriate, but not in significant amounts. This is one area where, while I am not necessarily convinced that we need lots of regulation, we need to talk about what the regulation is and where we ultimately want to get to. The creation of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation is positive. I know the Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister are working hard on this subject, but we need to have more conversations about it. This is a great start. I really welcome the debate and the report.
I have a personal interest, too. My father had a double heart bypass a number of years ago, after a heart attack. Luckily, he came through that. He is now busy doing whatever he is doing today—decorating or whatever. He would not be here today without the innovations of the last 40 or 50 years. I want to make sure that other people’s dads and mums are here in the next 50 years, because of this kind of technology, so long as it is used properly. The APPG is doing sterling work in ensuring that that is the case.
Finally—not to go back to Brexit!—my last point is that we need more of this sort of debate, please, and less of what we have had in the last few days in the other Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise to the Minister and all hon. Members for not being here on time. I was in the main Chamber, as I had a business question that I wanted to ask the Leader of the House. I apologise for my late arrival. I hope that everyone will be happy with me speaking, having arrived more than 10 minutes late.
It is a pleasure to speak on this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for bringing forward an issue on which he and I are much in tandem in thought, deed and speech, as so often; today is another one of those occasions. It is also nice to see the Minister in her place. I promise not to ask any questions that will throw her off guard, as I did yesterday. That was not intentional, by the way; I just wanted to add to the debate. I hope to get a response on that question at some time in the future. No doubt, if we have the opportunity to have debates in Westminster Hall, the Minister will be in a position to answer many of my questions. I also thank the hon. Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), as well as those who will follow me, for their contributions.
Mr Paisley, you know that I am not au fait with computer technology. I honestly cannot use a computer. My children can, and my grandchildren can, but this auld boy cannot. It is one of those things. When someone relies on the staff in their office to do all the computer work, perhaps they do not have to. It is only in the last few years that my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in this very Chamber, taught me how to text; I learned to text just over two years ago. So I have advanced greatly in my aspirations, although I suspect that others will say that if that is all I have done, I have not done very much!
I am not all that au fait with computers, but the presence of modern technology in science and medicine has saved billions of lives and can only be lauded, especially when it is matched with the brilliance of the human mind and human hands—the skill of the surgeon, the knowledge of the doctor and the care of the nurses. All those things coming together are a very important combination. Putting patients at the heart of artificial intelligence is what we are discussing.
The background information on the debate we received pointed out in its news section various articles in the media where the NHS and all those with health problems can see the benefits of artificial intelligence and healthcare. As the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned, it can be used to tackle staff shortages. We can also use it to address and help those with kidney problems. That is an issue very close to my heart: my nephew had a kidney transplant, so the issue of kidney problems is real for me and my family.
Other articles note that artificial intelligence could “restore the care” in healthcare, that scientists claim to have developed the world’s first AI vaccine, and that smart tech can help people with dementia. How real that issue is in my constituency. Over this last period of time, I have noticed that many more people with issues with dementia and Alzheimer’s are coming forward to make me aware of their problems. It is a terrible disease to watch, as it greatly changes lives.
The role of technology is ongoing and vital to a vibrant NHS, but we can never be in the position whereby it overtakes a doctor who can act on experience hand in hand with their medical knowledge. We need to have both the human element and the artificial intelligence aspect working together as we move forward.
I welcomed the Government’s announcement of 8 August 2019, in which they outlined some £250 million of investment to help establish a national AI laboratory, which would sit within NHSX. That money is incredible. They also purposefully set aside money within that; the Office for Life Sciences has established five centres of excellence in digital pathology and radiology with artificial intelligence, supported by an initial £50 million industrial strategy challenge fund investment and a further £50 million to scale up funding from the Department of Health and Social Care.
The centres are working with NHS and industry partners. We cannot do anything if we do not have partnerships, one of which I will give as an example later on. Those partners include innovative small and medium-sized enterprises, and they are working to develop pioneering artificial intelligence-enabled pathology and radiology tools. We need the NHS and partnerships with universities and business to ensure that we can move forward and that we can all benefit.
I read an interesting article that highlighted the fact that medical imaging—where AI can be trained on thousands of scans—has led the charge. This is marvellous technology; clinical trials have proven that it is as good as leading doctors at spotting lung cancer, skin cancer, and more than 50 eye conditions from scans.
If we can advance medical expertise and knowledge, let us do that and encourage it. It has the potential to allow doctors to focus on the most urgent cases and rule out those who do not need treatment immediately, or identify where a minor treatment would do. Other tools have been developed that can predict ovarian cancer survival rates and help to choose which treatment could and should be given.
Diagnosis is, of course, important. Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform the delivery of healthcare in the NHS, from streamlining workflow processes to improving the accuracy of diagnosis and personalising treatment, as well as helping staff to work more efficiently and effectively. With modern AI, a mix of human and artificial intelligences can be developed across discipline boundaries to generate a greater collective intelligence.
I laid an early-day motion this week—I am not sure whether hon. Members have had a chance to look at it; I would encourage them to sign it. Mr Paisley, hailing from Northern Ireland, as I do, will understand its importance. It is about Queen’s University in Belfast, which is doing some fantastic work addressing cancer issues. The EDM says:
“That this House congratulates all of those involved at Queens University, Belfast for its breakthrough early research findings on discovering a biomarker panel for ovarian cancer that may be able to detect epithelial ovarian cancer two years earlier than existing testing methods; thanks those who work so tirelessly to bring about such a difference to lives of people throughout the globe; and expresses pride in one of the foremost medical research universities in the world.”
Queen’s University is doing tremendous work, as are other universities. A number of my friends over the years have had ovarian cancer—I am sure others here will have also had that experience. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of ovarian cancer is often, “Go home and get your affairs in order.” There is a limited time to live. That work will hopefully predict ovarian cancer two years in advance of what we are able to do now, and is a fantastic, tremendous breakthrough. We welcome it. It shows that partnerships between the health service, universities and big business can make things happen.
As I said, I want to ensure that there is hands-on, human co-operation with AI methods of diagnosis, and another concern I have is safeguarding information. It is important that we protect people in the process. There are people who pride themselves on hacking information from Government services, just for the joy of knowing they have outsmarted them. There are also those who do it to garner information for nefarious use. We had a breach of information in this place that led to my staff’s home details being leaked, which we took very seriously. How much more serious would that be for vulnerable, ill people?
Any investment in AI within the NHS can go hand in hand only with top-level data protection and cyber-security, especially when we bear in mind that in May 2017—it will be real to many of us in the House, and indeed to almost everyone in Westminster Hall—the NHS was hit by a large-scale cyber-attack that disrupted hospital and GP appointments. It was high level, very disruptive and clearly down to someone intentionally disrupting what took place. It is a tight rope that we walk, and I believe that it can be walked. I ask the Minister to assure us that security is a priority in any use and sharing of patient data that is essential to the use of artificial intelligence in the NHS.
I believe we must move with the times and use all tools at our disposal to diagnose early, which allows more effective treatment, and we also need to ensure that our medically trained professionals are on hand and using the tools, and that they are not being replaced by such tools. In some of the futuristic films that we see—I am not sure whether anyone watches them—the robots take over. Everything happens. That is not a society that I particularly want to see. I want to see us working hand in hand with AI, and I want to see the human input into that. Finally, we need to ensure that all information is safely shared.
We recognise the investment by the Government. Let us not be churlish—the Government have made significant progress on this issue, which I welcome, but I also want to ensure that some of the things that hon. Members and I have brought to the Minister’s attention are responded to. I believe the investment by the Government will be money well spent, if we safeguard each aspect of it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley—I believe it is the first time I have done so in Westminster Hall, which is particularly pleasing to me. I thank everyone who has taken part in this excellent debate, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing it. I think the one thing on which we can have cross-party agreement is that the more debates we have in which Brexit is not the focus, the better. I am sure we could all go through the Lobbies to agree on that.
This is such an important debate, and I think the public and many of ourselves as MPs are just beginning to catch up with how important it is, which is why I am particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Crawley secured it. He linked technology, the NHS and artificial intelligence in such a detailed speech, and he chairs an important all-party parliamentary group. We can see that technological advances are saving lives on the frontline, which is tremendously important to people right across the United Kingdom. That is why we cannot over-focus on this issue. More and more debates will be about it in so many different domains, particularly in health.
The hon. Gentleman brought up an important issue: education of the public, which will be absolutely key going forward. It is such a crucial issue for us all to consider, because it is not just about medical and healthcare professionals becoming educated, and perhaps their training changing over time to incorporate all these new techniques and procedures, and about how the world is becoming much more digitalised, with 5G and so on coming on stream; it is also about public understanding and ensuring that the public are involved in their healthcare going forward, and that they are absolutely able to engage with it.
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am a real technophobe. It took me over a year to try to pay for things by tapping a debit card on machines in stores. Now, I love it. I probably do not even carry any money now, but at first I was so anxious that I would be walking about and having money removed from my bank account that I avoided using it. That is one of the concerns about the technology. It is about bringing the public and those of us who, unlike my own kids, have not grown up with such technology as the norm.
We have to get people on board and ensure that, across the lifespan, people can really benefit from the digital revolution that is happening, and that people do not become more isolated and left out of society because they are left behind. That is important for their physical health—monitoring prevention and so on—and for their mental health, in terms of feeling really engaged and involved in society. We have to integrate all this with the professionals in our healthcare settings, with the public being a key focus.
As has been said, artificial intelligence will be so crucial at every step of the patient’s journey. It will include prevention—we have already heard about some of the developments. There is some amazing work being done at Queen’s University Belfast on early prevention, detection of ovarian cancer—my goodness, how life-saving will that be?—and early interventions, not just for physical health, but for mental health. I am very keen for us to look at how we can engage more with AI and digital technology, perhaps in relation to depression, anxiety and how patients can monitor their mood, and at how technological advances can promote what we want to do: achieve parity of esteem for mental health services and physical health services. There is also treatment and recovery. It will be about prevention, early intervention, treatment and recovery, and the technology will be crucial at every step of the way.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) talk about developing standards, because everything in healthcare is about developing standards, best practice and guidelines, and that is what fosters the public’s faith in the work that we do. Our NHS is so loved right across the United Kingdom. When private companies bring their expertise in research and technology into such a beloved institution as the NHS, it is extremely important that the public have a sense of those companies’ remit and the sensitive nature of the data, that protection and security issues are addressed, and that standards are of the utmost importance for maintaining that.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), too, spoke of the importance of security and international collaboration and research. Again, we have to think about other countries and how they manage data. We take part in lots of clinical trials—I am going to mention the EU, then move on to talk about, more broadly, the situation internationally. We have to look at developing standards commensurate with those of other countries, and we must at least know the limitations of the collaboration that can be undertaken when it involves our NHS and is about our patients’ data. He also mentioned his personal family circumstances and how important the advances have been for his own family and their healthcare. It is always very poignant to have that personal experience to bring to debates, and to speak about the impact that has made.
I looked around a few times just as I sat down, and I thought, “Why is the chair behind me empty, and where is the hon. Member for Strangford?” Then I turned round again a third time, and there he was. He never fails to take part in as many debates as possible in the House of Commons, and to ensure that his constituents are so well supported and their issues addressed at every step of the way. I am pleased that he recently learned to text, because it sounds like he is similar to me in being trepidatious about technology. Both our examples show why we have to educate the public and try to ensure that we all become up to speed with the technology. I mentioned the wonderful facilities at Queen’s University Belfast, where I was going to go and study before deciding to stay at Glasgow University; when I was training as a clinical psychologist, I had also applied to Queen’s. I could have gone to Queen’s if I had not gone to Glasgow, so I have always had a soft spot for it. I am delighted that its research is formative and will make such a difference.
From my experience of working in health, I know that computer programs managing data are very important, but the systems do not link up. For instance, health boards pay millions of pounds for systems that work for child services and for adult services, but the data cannot be transferred between the two. Children become adults, so how do we merge the data across their lifespan? Will the Minister look at that issue? For most people, transferring data seems commonsensical, but it is not happening in practice. Aligning it better would save a lot of money; we should not have to change systems that have already cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.
I was pleased to secure a debate on smart cities just before the recess, in which we talked about 5G. Driverless technology will enable ambulances to get to incidents much quicker when we have 5G technology and the next industrial revolution—this technological revolution—happens. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how 5G fits in with the issues we are debating and the advances that are being made. Where does she see the future lying?
I have spoken about this issue with some international delegations, particularly from Japan and China. We talked about the fact that technology and artificial intelligence have had an impact on social care. Robotics is being used in care homes—for example, robots can remind patients to take their medication. I would be interested to know a bit more about how we are linking to our international partners. We must collaborate safely in a way that enables patients in social care and the NHS to benefit from technological advances.
We have talked about how important this technology will be for surgical procedures. That was described very well. I agree wholeheartedly that there must be a partnership between robotic techniques and skilled clinicians. That is what the public wants, and that will always be the safeguard as we take these issues forward.
On the issue of prevention, smartphones and smart watches, technology has had a massive impact on reducing missed appointments in the NHS. Sending patients a text to remind them to come to appointments saves money and clinicians’ valuable appointment time.
Social media must be responsible when it comes to health. Through its technological advances, it is already playing a huge part, but young people in particular often get inappropriate information from websites that are not properly regulated. The large companies must take much more ownership of those issues. I have discussed these issues with Facebook and Twitter recently. There are sites that tell people how to develop an eating disorder or harm themselves. We must look at regulating them further. Will the Minister address their impact on mental health? Will she think about not just mental health treatments that we can develop through technology, but about how we ensure appropriate regulation is in place for sites that are not managed by our NHS or professionals and are causing harm to the public?
I am pleased to say that Scotland is to have its own £15.8 million AI health research centre based at the University of Glasgow. It will be a genuine collaboration between NHS research and other industries. We are keen to ensure that all partners are involved and that we can generate the very best practice in technology and healthcare.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this debate on a very important subject. I welcome the Minister to her place. I, too, am very pleased to be talking about something other than Brexit. I thank all hon. Members for their informed contributions, and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for sharing their personal family experiences. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said, that always adds poignancy to debates and keeps us rooted in reality. I thank the APPG on heart and circulatory diseases for its excellent report, “Putting patients at the heart of artificial intelligence”, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I learned a great deal from it.
This is a fascinating debate. When Charles Babbage created the difference engine in the 19th century, he could not have envisaged where modern computing would take us. We are living in a brave new world. We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is already massively transforming our lives. Artificial intelligence is already widely used at our airports and in our homes. Virtual care assistants are being trialled, and driverless cars will soon be a common sight on our roads. It would be strange therefore if we did not take full advantage of the contribution that AI can make to healthcare.
There are many different types of AI. I am not a scientist and do not understand all the complexities of AI—although I can text—but I do understand that it involves a computer equipped with a sophisticated algorithm capable of analysing thousands of sets of data. A computer learns patterns from the data and is able to make predictions based on it. The more data the computer has, the smarter it gets. Tasks that require extraordinary attention to detail, such as radiography, diagnosis, robot-assisted surgery, administration and many others, can be transformed using AI. The prospects are exciting. The ability to deliver early and speedy diagnosis and to develop personalised treatment plans is welcome in a health service besieged by unprecedented demand, long waiting lists and staff shortages.
AI is a game changer for the NHS and healthcare in general. The UK has the potential to be the world leader in digital-assisted healthcare. In our lifetimes, there will come a point when conditions like cancers and strokes can be pre-detected instantly from simple scans, enabling the patient to get the very best early intervention treatment. Only this week, researchers at Oxford University reported that they have developed artificial intelligence that will be able to detect, from a scan of an apparently healthy individual, heart attacks that are 10 years away.
We must be careful, however, in enabling this revolution. Technology is a double-edged sword, and for every monster it destroys, it has the potential to create one in its place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) reminded us. We must be grounded in reality. It is easy to get excited about a vision, but we must keep bringing ourselves back to what it means to real people, and what the potential dangers are. We must proceed with caution. Above all, we must ensure that AI is not something that is done to patients. We must proceed with an engaged and well-informed population. Legislation and regulation must keep pace with scientific innovation. No one wants to see unnecessary regulation. I note the points made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire.
It is absolutely vital, however, that the regulation is adequate and keeps pace. Above all, we must protect patient safety. We must act sensibly and legislate robustly, with proper scientific input to ensure that changes are to the benefit and not the detriment of patients. Patients must be kept at the heart of the changes and we must retain their trust, which, as other hon. Members have said, is hard to gain but easily lost.
If patients are to trust and fully embrace this revolutionary transformation of care, they need full explanations and to understand what is involved. People need to understand, for example, that artificial intelligence will not replace their GP with a robot, but will mean that a GP session may be recorded and transcribed by computer, which then produces a diagnosis. We need to pay special attention to the needs of the vulnerable, elderly and, in particular, the mentally ill. We must make it plain to patients that AI is not and never will be a replacement for human health professionals. It should always be clear that AI is not a means of providing health services on the cheap, but a way of enhancing diagnosis and treatments to assist, not replace, well-qualified health professionals.
There are obvious implications for data protection and the misuse of data. Although ideas such as allowing Amazon’s Alexa to use NHS 111 information to guide patients to the most effective non-emergency treatment are beneficial, the idea of inadvertently letting such companies have unfettered access to patient records, which they could use for other unconnected purposes, is clearly unacceptable.
We must ensure that patients know that our laws protect them from predatory companies. All data used in the NHS—even if through third-party contractors—must stay within the NHS. If we are to embrace this revolution, it must be patient-focused and not a market-centred approach. AI must improve life outcomes and not be used to sell diet pills in the name of healthcare. Patients and medical professionals must be properly educated in what AI will mean for them, and both should be involved as much as possible in the design process.
Artificial intelligence can bring many benefits, but its use in healthcare brings significant challenges. We have nothing to fear from embracing it, as long as all provision is properly regulated in a way that protects patients without stifling continued innovation—there is a fine balance. The key is to ensure that health professionals are involved in every stage of development and, most importantly of all, that the NHS ensures that patients are fully informed and engaged.
The APPG concluded:
“Meaningful, early and proactive engagement on how AI is used in healthcare is essential for effective implementation and sustainability.”
That is well put and I agree. Unless patients are fully engaged, AI will just not progress in the way that it could and opportunities will be lost. I hope that the Minister will outline the Government’s plans for implementing the report’s recommendations. Will she reassure us that the NHS will lead on this with all its resources, ensuring that patients are at the heart of this exciting new technology, and that all patients, irrespective of their socioeconomic background or personal ability to access technology, will be able to benefit?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The debate has been really interesting, particularly in the light of the number of Members who stood up and admitted that, although they could not send emails, only recently learned how to text and do not use contactless payment cards, they were very much in support of the potential of AI technology and what it can offer patients, healthcare settings and the public at large.
AI is exciting and innovative. I have been in my Department only a few days and I have learned some more from this debate. I hope to have some answers for hon. Members, every one of whom gave an example of the exciting breakthroughs and areas of application of AI, as well as of what it can deliver for patients. That is incredibly exciting.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for securing this debate. He made the point about misinformation and fake news. We need more of these debates because Westminster Hall, and this place as a whole, is a good forum to knock down those myths, get rid of fake news and stop fearmongering about the use of AI, because journalists who are interested in AI will follow these debates and quote what hon. Members say. We should have more debates on this subject in future.
Artificial intelligence has the potential to make a massive difference to health and care. There are significant opportunities to save money, improve care and save lives. AI technology could help personalise NHS screening and treatments for cancer, eye diseases and a range of other conditions, as well as free up staff time.
Almost all health and care services can benefit from AI in some way, but realising its potential for our health and care system depends on the involvement of patients. We are committed to working with patients to ensure that they understand and are involved in the decision making about how we use AI to deliver the impact that we both want and need.
I will give a few examples of how AI is working. Some patients have already benefited from it, as hon. Members have highlighted. John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford has developed a system that uses AI to improve detection of heart disease and lung cancer, as the shadow Minister mentioned. Currently, 20% of heart scans result in a false positive diagnosis, and the subsequent 12,000 unnecessary operations cost the NHS about £600 million a year. The potential financial savings are huge.
Another fantastic example of the use of AI is that of Moorfields Eye Hospital’s implementation of the DeepMind AI algorithm for retina scans. The AI can correctly recommend patient treatment referrals, to the same or better standard as world-leading doctors, for more than 50 sight-threatening eye diseases. Tens of thousands of scans were taken of people with both healthy and diseased retinas, and DeepMind developed software that could detect—long before a doctor could—sight-threatening diseases and the patterns that lead to them. That is just one example.
The use of AI goes further than just diagnostics. NHS 111 online, once fully implemented, will automatically triage patients by using AI technology. The system sends patients to the most appropriate care setting and reduces unnecessary A&E visits, meaning that patients can access the care that they need faster.
We must make best use of the available resources within the NHS to harness the full potential of AI, which relies heavily on enormous amounts of data to learn and become effective at its task. That data must be shared safely, however. Health data that is shared fairly, ethically and transparently has the potential to improve outcomes for patients, improve the efficiency and efficacy of the NHS, and underpin the next wave of innovative research taking place in the UK.
To help the NHS and researchers share health data in a safe, secure and lawful way, the Government have committed to developing a policy framework that sets out our expectations for how the NHS should engage with researchers and innovators when entering data-sharing partnerships. That builds on the work of the code of conduct for data-driven health and care technology. We are committed to involving patients and the public in the development of that policy. That is key and comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Patients must be at the heart of and engaged in projects, understanding how their data will be used in future and reassured of its safety.
To support the NHS in embedding the framework in practice, we will also set up a national centre of expertise. The centre will sit in NHSX and provide hands-on commercial and legal expertise to NHS organisations to support them in reaching fair, ethical and transparent agreements for data. Although AI has been the subject of much speculative reporting, on both benefits and risks, we know that it will bring big changes to the way in which care is developed and experienced.
While we promote the latest data-driven scientific advances in healthcare, we must always ensure that patient data is respected and properly protected. Data is vital to the delivery of safe and high-quality care, but we need to ensure that an understandable and trusted system is in place, which patients can be confident will protect their data. The Government are clear that patient data will only ever be used and/or shared when anonymised, or with the consent of the individual, unless for direct patient care. That is an important point and one that almost everyone made.
We have therefore put in place several safeguards, including legislation such as the Data Protection Act 2018, enacting GDPR; data and cyber-security standards applicable across the health and care system; and legislation that is under way to put the National Data Guardian on a statutory footing to provide an independent and authoritative voice on how data is used across the health and care system. We have also launched the national data opt-out, which gives individuals choice of how their data is used beyond their individual care. That gives patients choice, which is important.
In some instances, it will be appropriate for patient data to be shared for secondary purposes, such as when consent has been given on behalf of the patient, or there is an overwhelming public interest in sharing. The National Data Guardian is supporting work with NHSX to clarify and update guidance on the lawful use of patient data to support the understanding of the public, clinicians and industry. We do not want to hinder the progression of innovations, but all patient data should be handled with the respect and care that the public rightly expect.
We are also very aware of the ethical issues that can be raised by artificial intelligence at a personal, group and system level. Bias is a current common issue with the use of AI, and we must curtail any bias within algorithms by ensuring that the data feeding them reflects our diverse population and range of health economies. Initiatives such as DeepMind’s ethics and society research group and the Partnership on AI, which counts IBM, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon among its members, show that industry is alive to the issues. We are already taking steps to ensure the safe development, deployment and use of AI, and the published code of conduct for data-driven health and care technology that I mentioned earlier encourages technology companies to meet a gold-standard set of principles to protect patient data to the highest standards.
NHSX announced that it would set up an “AI lab” to bring together the industry’s best academics, specialists and technology companies to build groundbreaking diagnostic tools and treatments in line with the NHS’s priorities. NHSX is delivering the Prime Minister’s grand challenge mission to use data, artificial intelligence and innovation to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases by 2030.
The NHS AI lab will harness the power of data science and AI to continue the UK’s great tradition of using evidence-based decisions in health, public health and social care, and to position the NHS as a world leader in artificial intelligence and machine learning. It will collaborate widely to identify impactful ways to improve the NHS through more sophisticated use of its data. Once identified, the lab will develop, test and deploy early-stage software solutions to be handed over to the NHS to implement at scale.
The operations of the AI lab will align to the core values of the NHS. Most relevant to this debate, the AI lab will protect patient privacy—to go back to the substantive concern expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge in his speech. The AI lab will sit within the NHS and will protect patient data. It will also guarantee that the value of the healthcare data is retained by the UK public.
As well as ensuring that the technology meets the highest standards and sufficiently stringent regulation, we must ensure that the public are aware of that technology. The public must understand the principles well enough to be confident in a particular technology’s capabilities, irrespective of the statistical evidence supporting it. For the NHS to maintain the confidence that the UK public place in its brand, it must ensure that the apps and data-driven technologies that it recommends are examples of the best practice, not simply in transparency but in what they do and where the personal data goes.
There is now an opportunity for the UK to do that well, making the UK’s standards for MedTech an international benchmark, strengthening the position of digital health in the UK and enabling it to make great leaps forward. As I mentioned, the National Data Guardian and NHSX will work together to produce clarifications on the circumstances in which it is appropriate to share data. We recognise the findings of the “Putting patients at the heart of Artificial Intelligence” report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on heart and circulatory diseases and its calls for greater public engagement to avoid a souring of opinion on AI. We will continue to engage patients in the design and development of AI, where appropriate, and to raise the profile of the effectiveness and efficacy of using AI to provide health and care.
I will now go on to the points made by Members and their requests for reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley asked how an NHS organisation investing in the new technologies would be rewarded. We are investigating how best to do that by engaging with commissioners, clinicians, business and academics. We will announce more detail in due course.
The hon. Member for Cambridge asked for an assurance that the additional NHS funding that has been announced will go ahead. Yes, the additional funding will go ahead, but we are still investigating how best to distribute it. My assurance to him is that, yes, the funding will be distributed. He himself highlighted the complexity of ensuring the fair distribution of such funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) mentioned mitigating the risks. I hope that I covered that in my speech. A huge amount is going into mitigating such risks. For example, the Information Commissioner provides anonymisation guidance. I also refer to the points I have already made about NHSX.
The Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked about mental health and patients. This morning, I heard about a great example of AI helping a patient suffering with dementia. It is being used to track normal movement and behaviours. When something different or unusual happens in the home to cause concern, an alert is sent out to a first carer who can be on the scene immediately. That is another great use.
The hon. Lady also asked what we were doing about 5G. I will not try to wing this one, but will simply repeat the answer that my officials gave me word for word: we are working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is leading test beds—is that right?—for 5G in Liverpool and Birmingham, showing how it can improve access to services and exchange of information between patients and clinicians.
The hon. Lady also asked about international collaboration. NHSX will engage with the World Health Organisation through the Global Digital Health Partnership, and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has a strong tradition of international engagement with both the US’s Food and Drug Administration and the European Union, which is key to solving difficult regulatory questions.
In conclusion, I reiterate that AI’s potential to transform the way in which we deliver health and care in the UK is huge. Advancements in diagnosis, treatments and prevention facilitated by AI will provide frontline NHS staff with more time to spend providing care to those who need it most. Through our involvement in the Prime Minister’s grand challenge, the AI lab and our work with the National Data Guardian, we will raise the profile of AI as a health and care project, and ensure that the public are fully aware of both its benefits and the expectations they should place on the NHS.
In the last few seconds, would my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley like to wind up?
Henry Smith
Thank you very much again for your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), for their contributions to this important debate. I congratulate the Minister, and I welcome her to her well-deserved position.
The key word I heard was “trust”, and as we go forward with AI, we need to instil that for patients.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Hernia Mesh in Men
(4 years, 7 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered hernia mesh in men.
I have brought this issue to the House because, to be truthful, I was not aware of this problem among men. I am well aware of the hernia mesh issue for women, and have represented their viewpoint for a number of years in this House and back home, where the Northern Ireland health service has responsibility. I asked for this debate after a number of gentlemen came to see me some months ago—I will give a little background on that in a few minutes.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this topic for debate. Back in July I accepted its offer of this first Thursday back, even though I know it is the graveyard shift, unless there is a three-line Whip in the main Chamber. Given today’s one-line Whip, many Members have returned home after everything that has happened in the last two days. None the less, I am very pleased to bring this matter to Westminster Hall. I am also pleased to see the Minister in her place. This will be a hat-trick of debates for her—one yesterday and two today. I look forward to her response.
I raised this issue after a meeting I had with some men in Northern Ireland. My party colleague and health spokesperson in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Paula Bradley, who represents North Belfast, initially made me aware of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) also brought it to my attention, as he had met constituents to discuss the matter. It is only over the past nine months that I have been aware of it. The men I met that day were aged between 30 and about 55. I understand that in Northern Ireland some 400 men have had problems, and the number across Great Britain will be even higher. They outlined their experiences and the difficulties that they attributed to hernia mesh. I thought that their problems should be considered in this place, as those problems have been replicated throughout the United Kingdom.
The matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Care. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), the Scots nats spokesperson, is aware of the issue and will offer his experience. I will not steal his speech, but I understand he will tell us a wee bit about what he has experienced personally and about the health service in Scotland. I am also pleased to see the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), in her place.
I urge that serious consideration be given to an investigation, on the same scale as the Australian investigation, and that action be taken after the findings are collated. Australia took action, and I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government will do the same. I promised my constituents and those 400 men across Northern Ireland who have had problems with hernia mesh that I would raise awareness in this House because, unfortunately, we do not have a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly so cannot raise the issue there.
In November 2018, the Health Issues Centre undertook social research to investigate adverse health experiences among Australian men and women who had undergone a medical device implant. The research was product non-specific, to identify any devices that demonstrated a pattern of failure. Many hernia operations are successful. In our job as elective representatives, people do not tell us how good things are; they tell us their complaints. Therefore, we do not always hear about the successful hernia mesh implants, but we certainly hear about the problems.
The issue was highlighted on the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme on 26 December 2018. A spokesperson from the Royal College of Surgeons said that hernia mesh complications “affect more than 100,000” people. They went on to say:
“It is clearly tragic if even a single patient suffers horrible complications from any type of surgery, not just hernia operations. Unfortunately the nature of surgery in general, not just mesh surgery, carries with it an inherent risk of complications which surgeons will always seek to assess, and will discuss with patients according to their individual clinical circumstances before surgery takes place.
It is important to make a distinction between groin hernia, the most commonly carried out repair and other forms of abdominal wall repair where a hernia has arisen, for example, in an incision or scar after a previous operation. These are more difficult and the complications rates are much higher.
A recent 2018 study found that both mesh and non-mesh hernia repairs were effective for patients and are not associated with different rates of chronic pain. The Victoria Derbyshire programme is right to point out how a minority of hernia mesh operations are associated with complications. However, it is also important to stress that such complications range dramatically from minor and correctable irritations to the more serious complications highlighted in its programme. Complications can also occur with non-mesh hernia repairs, and by not operating on a hernia at all. It is extremely important that patients are given the full picture by surgeons, regulators, and the media.”
A large number of studies have looked at the available treatments, but unfortunately we do not have all the appropriate information. The spokesperson continued:
“There have already been a number of scientific studies looking at the use of different types of mesh in hernia and we should continue to review the evidence and patients’ experiences to make sure the right advice is given and the right action is taken. Along with the regulatory authorities, we will continue to listen to patients’ experiences. Patients suffering complications or pain need help, not silence.”
That is very important and we must underline that point. They continued:
“There must also be an ongoing review of the data to make sure that previous studies have not missed any serious, widespread issue. It remains vital that surgeons continue to make patients aware of all the possible side effects associated with performing a hernia repair.”
Those gentlemen who came to see me earlier this year to ld me that they were not aware of the complications. I will give an example a little later. I do not want to criticise surgeons because they are under incredible pressure, but people have told me that they were not aware of the ins and outs and relevant information, so I believe there is a case to answer.
The Health Issues Centre inquiry specifically focused on people who had suffered a hernia, to better understand the nature and the impact of adverse outcomes. Over a period of four weeks, 183 respondents reported hernia mesh-related injury across a range of brands and of categories of hernia. Several serious problems with hernia mesh implants arose, too. It is hard sometimes to explain the physical, emotional and mental effect. The people I met were very clear that in the vast numbers of cases that they knew of, there were several serious problems. The vast majority of respondents—87% of them—did not feel that they were given enough information before their treatment to give informed consent. Indeed, they were never told about the risks and the impacts. They were not aware of any problems.
A senior member of the Conservative party—I will not mention his name—told me yesterday, “I have had a hernia mesh implant, but mine was successful.” Many are successful, but we should highlight those that are not. Some 91% of respondents suffer ongoing post-operative chronic pain as well as other health impacts. For example, some of the men who spoke to me have had serious bouts of depression and allergic reactions. Only 8.7% of respondents said that they had had successful treatment to address the problematic outcome of the operation.
Past cases of mine have involved women who have had mesh operations, which are intimate operations. I have had cases of ladies who have been unable to work or keep relationships going. They have been unable to cope with life, so the impacts of hernia mesh when it goes wrong are very real.
Men represented some 70% of the respondents to the survey. Those figures are from Australia, of course, but I just want to illustrate the matter. I will move on to the United Kingdom, but those figures are relevant.
Years ago in Northern Ireland a man developed a limp four years after surgery. People told him, “We have experienced pain as a result of similar surgery.” Damien Murtagh, who lives in Banbridge and has given me permission to tell his story, has been left with a limp as a result of his operation six years ago. He said:
“For years no one could tell me what is causing this pain. I can no longer ride my bike, go fishing, I work part-time”,
because of the chronic pain and the effect it has had on his lifestyle. He continued:
“The pain in the lower stomach and groin area makes me feel physically sick. I have no private life.”
It has been difficult for him to maintain relationships with other people. The issues caused off the back of the surgery are genuine and life changing.
I find it odd that this surgery can create such problems. I am not a medical professional. I can make no judgment about the operations, but I can ask whether they should continue without the assurance that every possible investigation has been carried out into the prolonged side effects. The patients should know, at every stage, the potential implications if the operation does not go as planned.
Figures specific to the United Kingdom also outline the problem. In a survey of 653 people, 18.8% said that they had developed antibiotic-resistant infections as a result of mesh complications. A person’s general health can go down dramatically. Some 40% of respondents described their pain levels at worst to be 10 out of 10. Usually, 10 out of 10 means someone is doing well, but in this case it means they are not and that they are in severe pain. In addition, 85.6% of respondents said that they could not sleep because of the pain. The men told me that their sleep patterns had been destroyed. They are in constant, nagging pain that never leaves them. When it gets to that stage and someone’s personal life is so affected, we have to look very seriously at the issue.
The problems of lack of information are not specific to Australia. Some 91.7% of respondents were not even told that they would be getting a mesh implant. Some did not even know what was happening. They went for the operation and knew there would be a repair job; they accepted that, but they were not aware of the implications. Some 96.2% said they were not shown the mesh implant that they were about to be given, while 91.7% were not told that the mesh implant was made of plastic, and 98% said they were not told the size of the mesh implant. When it comes to serious operations—in most cases it is probably a minor operation, but it has the potential to change lives—we need to make sure that patients are aware of such things.
Patients feel that they are not being told the risks of the surgery and the potential issues. We understand that that is partly because a decision is made when the patient is open and the need dictates the method; sometimes a decision has to be taken when the operation is at an advanced stage and it might not be possible to let the person know. I understand the pressures that surgeons and their staff are under, but I feel that an essential part of the care is an understanding of what to expect, and that can make a difference to the outcome. It would certainly have made a difference to the 400 men in Northern Ireland who have experienced problems. It would certainly have changed their lives if they had known about the implications for them. None the less, we find ourselves in a very difficult position, and they find themselves physically, mentally and emotionally changed. For some of them, their relationships have broken down as well.
Informed consent is fundamental to any surgery. I had three minor operations in 2017 and, to be honest, I would have signed any paper just to get the operations over because the pain was so extreme. At the end of the day, you sign the paper and you understand. In my case, it was a straightforward operation on the three occasions.
I mentioned Damien from Banbridge earlier. Outlining his case could help people make the all-important decision to go ahead with surgery, knowing that there could possibly be some serious downsides, although not in every case. That would be a more ideal situation for the patients, rather than being struck with post-operation issues without having been aware of the risks. At least they would know that they had taken the risk, not the surgeon, who they might feel had hidden the risk from them. It is a natural reaction. It is not pointing the finger or judgmental. I stress again that in no way can I ever accuse surgical teams of deliberately withholding information from their patients.
In an ideal world, post-operative problems would not exist and the NHS and private hospitals, which some patients are transferred to, would be able to shape the surgery in such a way that the pain that many patients cite would not occur. Problems created by surgery have knock-on effects. Physical problems quickly become mental problems. If Members had heard the stories of the gentlemen I met, they would understand where the mental problems come from. The pain is absolutely unbearable. Many experience depression as a result of surgery. They all cite anxiety, panic attacks and nightmares, and—this is serious—some people hear things that are not there. It clearly affects them mentally.
I congratulate and thank the men for making their information and backgrounds known. I also thank my colleagues from my own party who took the time to let me know about their individual cases. When we hear their stories, we clearly see how their lives have been changed.
In the United Kingdom study, 27.6% of respondents had been formally diagnosed with a mental health condition such as PTSD, which can affect people in many different ways, and 4.7% said that they had self-harmed because of mesh complications. That is probably off the back of the depression and the pain that becomes almost unbearable. I never realised just how much pain can affect people. I met a lady who had a problem following an operation—it was nothing to do with hernia mesh. The pain was so bad that she asked for her right knee to be taken off to remove the pain. Doing that removed the pain, because that is where the pain was, but it was a dramatic step to take, so when people start to self-harm, as some have said they have, because of the mesh complications, we must take serious cognizance of what has happened.
Some 24.3% of respondents had psychotherapy or counselling as a result of mesh complications. Again, the counselling was to try to stop them self-harming, and to help them to deal with a physical, surgical problem that would be long-term. Almost half of respondents—43.6%—revealed that they had suicidal thoughts, which underlines their clear anxiety and the importance of doing something; and 4.7% had tried to take their own lives. Unfortunately, nearly every day of the week we elected representatives deal, in our offices, with people suffering depression and anxiety, whatever the reasons may be. We understand what drives people to the brink of despair. It can be money issues, marital problems, family issues or a physical problem, as in the case we are considering. The figures reveal the dark reality of post-operation life for many of the respondents, and reinforce the urgency of the issue, which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. That is why I have brought the matter to the House for consideration, and it is why the Backbench Business Committee was pleased to provide an opportunity to highlight it. Many complications surround the issue of hernia mesh surgery, and there is a need to give urgent attention to solving them. The figures more than reinforce that point.
I mentioned the effect on families. The gentlemen who came to see me and my colleague, Paula Bradley MLA, on the occasion I spoke of, were able to tell me something about that. More often than not, when someone is sick or ill or having problems they are not the only one travelling that road; their wife or partner and family travel it with them, so there are also family issues. Post-operation care is prevalent among the issues, and 33.1% of respondents in the UK survey said that their partner was now their carer. When we get married we know it is for better or for worse—and sometimes a partner becomes a carer. Clearly that is a great responsibility for them. Three per cent. of respondents said that they had to put their parents into a retirement home as a result of mesh complications and problems with the surgery. People would obviously have loyalty and feel a duty to try to look after them, so that tells me, and should tell everyone present in the Chamber, that clearly the problem affects all the family. If one suffers, all suffer.
I have been told that there are clear problems associated with mesh implants that need to be addressed. We are dealing with issues, following the surgery, that people believe are related to it. They include adverse mental health issues and the fact that 78.4% of people experience depression—more than three quarters of the people in question. For the people I met, depression was clearly now a part of life. Some had stopped work altogether. Family relationships had broken down; they were no longer able to hold them together. Some 40.7% of respondents said that their child acted as a temporary carer. I know the good things that many children do for parents and perhaps siblings, but whenever a child, growing up, who should be enjoying childhood and focusing on their education, must be a temporary carer, there are clearly issues to address. Some men cannot have children after surgery, as some of the men I met told me. That is another issue that means we need to hasten an investigation.
There is also a need to address the issue of post-operative pain that lasts many years. I understand that what I have said is perhaps topical and anecdotal. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk will tell the House about some of the cases, but it is clear to me from meeting the men I have mentioned, and from the evidence that I have seen, that some hernia mesh operations in men have led to serious physical problems. That is why I have brought the matter forward today for consideration. It is the reason for this debate in Westminster Hall today.
We need a governmental investigation, and there must be a directive to do that, and funding to enable it to happen. That is why I look to the Minister. I hope that we will get a helpful response. I hope that in the future all the post-operation issues with hernia mesh surgery can be resolved. I hope that the NHS will receive appropriate funding to tackle mental health issues caused by the surgery. I am very pleased that in the Chancellor’s statement yesterday he reaffirmed the commitment to spending on health—I think it was £34 billion. Is the Minister in a position to suggest that some of that money could be focused on enabling the investigation to happen, and getting the data to try to address the issue? The mental health issues can never be ignored, any more than the physical ones. Perhaps the NHS will be able to improve the surgery process so that patients will not have to cope with being left in serious pain for years and perhaps for ever afterwards.
Now that the issue has been raised it is important that it gets the attention that it deserves and that the problems are tackled. I again ask the Minister—and she knows I do so respectfully and sincerely—whether we can start the process of answering the questions and providing empirical data on the side effects of hernia mesh in the United Kingdom. I know that her responsibility is to the mainland, but the inquiry will have to start somewhere, and I hope that it starts here.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has summarised the case very succinctly. We move seamlessly to Front-Bench responses. I call Mr Martyn Day.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing the debate. He has a brought a number of debates to the House over the years, and I have learned an immense amount about issues that I did not know about. This, however, is one of which I have had some personal experience. Indeed, in my personal life since I have been in Parliament I have had two such hernia mesh operations—in my case, both successful. However, 2015 and 2018 are well within the timeframe that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, in which people have developed complications. So far, touch wood, everything has gone fine.
Hernias are fairly common operations. They usually go without any problem, but not everyone has the same experience, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the issue as it affects men. Health issues are, of course, devolved in Scotland, and the Scottish National party Scottish Government have a strong record of ensuring that no one suffers unduly from mesh. In 2014, the SNP Government requested a suspension of the use of medical mesh by the NHS in Scotland, pending safety investigations, and in 2015 the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Shona Robison, apologised to women who had been left in severe pain by such operations. Between 2009 and 2016, the number of women receiving mesh surgery in Scotland fell from 2,267 to just 135.
An independent review published in March last year in Scotland made eight recommendations—notably that surgical mesh implants should be used only after all other appropriate alternatives have been exhausted. Scotland’s chief medical officer accepted those recommendations in full.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned people not being told adequately about the potential complications. I have to be honest: having been through the process myself, I probably agree. We were told some things, but a patient suffering from a hernia is more concerned about when they will get their operation and be able to get back on with their life, so they probably do not pay appropriate attention to what is a fairly minor risk. Perhaps that risk needs to be emphasised to people, or they need to be reminded at a later stage in the process; as I know from experience, it can take a while after having seen the consultant to get the operation.
Although health is devolved, the regulation of mesh is a reserved matter. We therefore call on the UK Government urgently to review its effects and to legislate accordingly. Although regulation of these devices is reserved, we really need a UK-wide clinical audit database for recording device identifiers. We were pleased with the review of the guidelines for mesh following the finding by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that the evidence for the long-term efficacy of vaginal mesh implants was inadequate in quantity and quality, but we would like to see a review of the use of mesh to repair hernias.
Scottish Government officials are working with UK colleagues to consider the possibility of an automated implant registry, which would allow unique device identifiers to be entered on the patient’s electronic record. The SNP hopes that Ministers will be willing to work with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and consider a UK-wide summit on that issue.
It is imperative that the highest possible standards for mesh are maintained. EU regulation 2017/745 on medical devices will change mesh implants for long-term or permanent use from class IIb to class III devices, meaning they are generally regarded as high risk. Those regulations will not take effect until 2020, after the date on which the Government desire to leave the EU. How will important EU regulations to monitor the use of devices across EU territories be implemented or reflected in UK law and regulation after Brexit? I reiterate that it is important that we maintain the highest possible standards, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
When I saw the title of the debate, I knew my Whips would be in touch because I had personal experience; having missed various other engagements while waiting for my operations, I knew I could not get out of doing this. In some parts I feel more mesh than man, but as I say, so far, so very successful.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for his characteristically passionate, thought-provoking and knowledgeable speech. Although, for all the reasons he gave, the debate is not heavily subscribed, it is an extremely important debate about an issue we have not yet addressed in this place. I know that all the men and, indeed, women watching—be they wives, partners, family members or mesh sufferers themselves—will thank him for bringing this issue before the House too. I also thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his remarks on behalf of the SNP.
I welcome the Minister to her new role. We were both elected in 2005—I remember seeing her at the induction on my first day—but I think this is the first time we have faced each other speaking from our respective Front Benches in this capacity. I look forward to shadowing her on some of her policy areas and to holding her Government to account on all things public health and patient safety, which tends to be the area I cover. I also look forward to her response to the debate, but first I have some questions of my own for her.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, we have had a number of debates in this Chamber and the main Chamber about the impact of vaginal mesh on women—including, sadly, as I am sure Members have heard, my own mam. She is a sufferer of vaginal mesh, which I have spoken about at length in other debates. Although this debate is about hernia mesh in men, it is clear, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there are similarities between the two that need to be addressed. First, the devices are made of the same material—usually polypropylene plastic, which is also used for plastic bottles. It is hard to believe that it is being inserted inside people; obviously, we are now hearing about the damage that causes. The other similarities are a lack of data and a lack of information about the risks for patients, both of which cause harm to patients.
As we heard, the majority of hernia mesh operations are successful, and the Royal College of Surgeons states that the implants remain “the most effective way” to treat a hernia. However, that does not mean we should ignore the patients who tell us that the operation caused them extreme pain and discomfort. The surgery might be successful in the sense that it repairs the hernia, but if it causes extreme pain and life-changing symptoms for some patients, it cannot be right to call it successful.
As I have said in debates about vaginal mesh, if a car, a washing machine or a drier failed in such numbers, there would be a full recall and sales would cease immediately, no ifs or buts. Research shows that between 10% and 15% of people who have hernia mesh surgery suffer from chronic pain and complications after the surgery. That is just not acceptable. That is not a tiny number of people—it is not just the odd one—and it is devastating for the lives of every one of them.
According to NHS data, 10% of people who have hernia mesh fitted go back to their clinician at some point after their surgery. Some surgical experts claim that complications occur in as many as 30% of hernia mesh surgeries, and that those can be every bit as harmful as with vaginal mesh. Until today, hernia mesh patients have not had their voices heard, because the extent of the problem is just not measured. What assessment has the Minister made of the number of complications following hernia mesh surgery, and what consideration has she given to establishing a hernia mesh database to audit the number of surgeries and any associated complications?
The lack of data collection means patients cannot adequately be informed about the risks before surgery. I hope that changes as a result of the debate. Hon. Members may have heard of Dai Greene, a world-class hurdler who captained the Great Britain athletics team at the 2012 Olympic games and was subsequently treated with hernia mesh. He says he cannot remember being warned about any associated risks but was told he would be back training after a few weeks. That was not to be the case: Greene lost five years of his career due to complications after the surgery.
We all trust that surgery will be safe for patients and will improve their quality of life. Patients trust that they will be informed of any associated risks. With vaginal and hernia mesh, that has not been the case for thousands of patients. How will the Minister address these serious concerns? Patient safety and trust must not be compromised in favour of a cheap or quick procedure. My mam was told, “Oh, it’ll be 15 minutes that will change your life.” My word, it changed her life—but not for the better.
I understand that the independent medicines and medical devices safety review is due to report its findings soon. I attended one of its sessions in Newcastle with my mam. It was very well attended, as I believe they all were. Baroness Cumberlege was there, and she was very attentive and compassionate to all the women in attendance. I look forward to her report. Hernia mesh is not included in the review, but given the parallels between vaginal and hernia mesh, which have been highlighted not just today but consistently— the hon. Member for Strangford cited Victoria Derbyshire, who has also done great work on this issue—the Minister should consider the review’s findings in the light of this debate and treat hernia mesh with the same seriousness as vaginal mesh.
Will the Minister work with NICE and NHS England to ensure that patients are clearly informed in good time before surgery about the risks associated with their treatment so that they can make properly informed decisions, with updates on risks as research develops? This is about patient safety and confidence, which is paramount to our NHS.
In closing, I welcome again the Minister to her role. I appreciate that this week must have been a baptism of fire, trying to get on top of so many issues. I understand that she has had to respond to three debates—as the hon. Gentleman said, she has got a hat-trick. Nevertheless, I hope she will address these concerns today and take away any that she cannot. No doubt, we will revisit this issue for debate at a later date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I was alarmed when you walked in, because I think you have held more ministerial posts than anyone else in the House of Commons—or you are pretty close to holding the record, anyway. So to have you in the Chair, judging me as a Minister, is quite daunting.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing up this important debate. You always bring debates to the Chamber that you are heartfelt and passionate about. That is so important. It is a delight to be opposite the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). We have both been in this place for 15 years, and I know that you also bring the same passion and commitment. You always speak from your heart. We might be a bit similar in that way.
Ms Dorries
Of course, Mr Hanson. I am amazed that after 10 years in the Chair I make these mistakes—it is because I am nervous. I am delighted to serve opposite the hon. Lady; it will be great.
This is a serious subject. It is incredibly important to hear the voices of patients who have suffered as a result of inguinal hernia mesh repair operations, because without allowing those patients to be heard, we cannot move forward to find solutions to deal with this issue. I will go off-piste from my speech, because there has been some conflation during the debate of vaginal mesh repair for the purpose of urinary incontinence and inguinal mesh repair for an inguinal hernia. The two operations are entirely different and have completely different outcomes. Vaginal mesh repair is for urinary incontinence. Inguinal mesh repair is for hernia, and without repair, there is a possibility of death. That is because of the pattern of development of an inguinal hernia. It is due to a break in the muscle wall. The hernia is a part of the bowel that comes through the muscle wall, and it can quickly strangulate and develop into peritonitis. The result of that can be death.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I join the debate late on, but perhaps I can be the example the Minister is looking for. I had a double hernia just a few months ago that was treated at Queen’s Hospital in my constituency, where I received fantastic care. Mesh was used to repair a double hernia, which I got as a result of doing too much exercise—I am not as fit or strong as I thought I was. I was nervous about having mesh because I had heard all the rumours about how damaging it could be, so I questioned the consultant and surgeon. For me, it was brilliant: it meant keyhole surgery and a quicker recovery. I say to all those men out there who might be going in for a hernia operation: do not dismiss mesh, because it makes the operation simpler and the recovery time quicker. I recommend it.
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for his absolute honesty and openness in bringing forward his own case.
The bowel can come through the opening in the muscle wall, strangulate and develop into peritonitis, with dire consequences. The fact is that the alternative method of repair—just to stitch the muscle wall—is nowhere near as effective, and the same dangers can present. There can be a rupture, and the hernia will present again with the same complications.
Mrs Hodgson
The Minister, with her medical knowledge, can give the details on hernia repairs in men that otherwise would have been missing from the debate. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) speaks from his experience. Although I do not want to be a harbinger of doom, for him it is very early days; often the pain that comes in 10% to 15% of cases appears a few years later, as the hon. Member for Strangford said in his speech. The Minister rightly points out that it is a good operation for what is a life-threatening condition in men, as opposed to stress incontinence in women, but still in 10% to 15% of cases we are talking about real pain. I would like her to elaborate on what we should do about that.
Ms Dorries
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. No one should suffer with chronic pain. There is a difference between acute and chronic pain, with acute pain happening immediately post operation and the chronic pain continuing afterwards. In inguinal mesh repair operations, the chronic pain is due to the mesh—like a small piece of net curtain—rubbing up against nerve endings and causing inflammation. For many men, the pain is quickly cured by an injection of local anaesthetic such as lignocaine with a steroid, which reduces the inflammation and takes away the pain completely. For many men who present back in out-patients, their pain is quickly sorted.
I do not want it to sound as though I am trivialising in any way the problems of those who continue to suffer pain. I believe that the Cumberlege report covers mesh as a wider issue, as well as issues related to the use of mesh, so we may gather more information from the report that will inform the debate on inguinal hernia mesh repair.
There are, however, other options. The best practice is shared decision making between the patient and the clinician, with the clinician fully explaining the operation to the patient, what is involved and what the options are. One option for patients who present with a hernia is for the clinician to reduce it in the clinic back in through the muscle wall. At that point, the patient may know how to handle it and manage it by not over-exercising and being careful when they cough. The patient will be registered as having had a hernia reduced and, if they want it operated on, they just ring up and go straight on to the operating list. That is a good option for many men if they think they can carefully and responsibly manage the hernia and come back to hospital only if it gets worse, if it pops again or if they need immediate attention. Whatever happens, they will be registered as having had an inguinal hernia and seen a clinician and therefore in need of treatment should it reoccur.
We are encouraging clinicians to have that conversation with patients. I do not know whether the clinicians treating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) did, but clinicians should do so that patients can decide whether they want to go ahead with an operation.
Andrew Griffiths
I had exactly that conversation: it was my choice whether I had an operation and how I managed it. Also, it was just four months between seeing my GP and having the keyhole surgery at my local hospital, which took an afternoon. The service at the hospital was brilliant; I cannot praise it enough.
Ms Dorries
I am delighted to hear that.
I am pleased to say that shared decision making is set out in the NHS long-term plan and I hope we will see more of it in other areas. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, it has the full backing of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Anaesthetists. I know from my own experiences in the health service that the role of patient voices is critical at every stage along the treatment pathway. Indeed, as we have said, the Government have asked Baroness Cumberlege to lead a review on the theme of patients’ voices. I will say more about that later.
All of us, including Ministers, regulators and clinicians, must listen to patients, such as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford who has had an ongoing problem, when they raise concerns. Only by listening to those patients’ voices and understanding the issues they have after hernia repair can we learn and develop what we need to do to ensure that it does not happen to people in the future. We must strike a fine balance as we steer through innovation, emerging science, clinical advice and the voices of a multitude of patients.
Hernias are relatively common. One in five men will get an inguinal hernia in their lifetime and it is worthwhile briefly outlining why men are mostly affected. Inguinal hernias are a type of groin hernia, which are the most common type of hernia. Some 98% of them are found in men, as the male anatomy is particularly vulnerable in this region. The main reason to operate on a hernia is to reduce the risk of bowel obstruction or necrosis, which is tissue death. Both of these conditions require major emergency surgery, where there is a risk of death.
Hernia surgery is therefore often a necessity. I have been advised by clinicians that when an individual’s condition indicates surgery, mesh repair is the standard operation for adults with inguinal hernias. It is safer than non-mesh repair in the first instance and is less likely to lead to pain post operation. It is also less likely to lead to hernia recurrence. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford, I hope he understands not only that this treatment is the most effective but that the alternative is more likely to result in complications. Mesh is therefore used in approximately 97% of all surgical inguinal hernia repairs in England.
All the expert scientific advice that Ministers have received does not support a ban. It is important to emphasise that internationally no other country has banned the use of mesh to treat hernias. According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, approximately 70,000 surgical inguinal hernia repairs are performed in England each year, at a cost to the NHS of £56 million a year. These mesh repairs are performed by either open surgery or laparoscopic surgery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton described.
NICE has developed guidance which recommends laparoscopic surgery as one of the treatment options for the repair of inguinal hernia. The guidance states that it should only be performed by appropriately trained surgeons who regularly carry out the procedure. This evidence was reviewed by NICE in February 2016 and the recommendations have remained in place since then. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and others will continue to review the situation as further evidence and analysis emerges, and will take any appropriate action on that basis. That is why this debate and the recounting of the experiences of constituents is important. They have ensured and will continue to ensure the safety of patients who need treatment.
Unfortunately, no type of surgery is without risk, both during and post surgery. The right balance between risks and benefits for individual patients must be achieved, which places patient autonomy and consent at its heart. I stress that I am deeply concerned to hear about instances where these conversations may not have happened, or have not been conducted in a manner that sufficiently informs the patient. Every patient should expect to receive safe and effective care, and to have an opportunity to raise concerns and feel confident that they will be listened to.
I will talk about the pain and suffering experienced by some men after mesh surgery. The vast majority of patients who undergo surgery using mesh to treat hernias go on to live normal, independent lives. While we do not know the exact number of complications, we believe it is low. However, I understand that those who experience the most adverse outcomes are those who suffer chronic pain or long-term discomfort.
I have been advised that 10% to 12% of men experience moderate to severe chronic pain post surgery. While that number is high, it is lower than for those who have non-mesh repair. I have been advised that acute pain is normal during healing, but chronic pain is not normal. As I said, one example of pain management is to treat chronic pain by injecting local anaesthetic and steroid. Long-term discomfort or pain is fortunately rare, but can still occur in one in 20 inguinal hernia repairs. While this number is still concerning, and, I believe, too high, the risk is dependent on the circumstances of each case. For example, there is an increased likelihood of it where patients have small hernias and where the predominant symptom before the operation is pain. Patients present at the clinic with pain and continue to have the pain after the operation. Both these adverse outcomes—the severity and the longevity of pain—remind us that regrettably complications can arise when any person undergoes surgery.
Mrs Hodgson
What we are establishing is that there are still many unknowns with regard to the numbers and when the pain occurs. That is what we need to drill down on. The hon. Member for Burton said that his surgery has been totally successful, however many months it is since it took place. However, the problem is not just post-surgery. Often, as we have heard, people are fine for two or three years and then suddenly, “Boom!”—they are hit with whole host of pain and autoimmune reactions. We need to drill down on that when we are looking at the problem. Will the Minister commit to trying to use the data to do that?
Ms Dorries
I am hopeful that the Cumberlege report will touch on that area to some degree. I will study the report in some detail, as will officials in the Department, and we will decide where we go from it, but I emphasise that the alternative of not having the mesh repair is more dangerous and has more complications, as we know from the data, than having it.
Jim Shannon
To follow on from the shadow spokesperson’s question, has it been possible within the investigation and review to understand why the vast majority of people can have the operation without any side effects, while a large number of people do? There were 400 such people in Northern Ireland. If we take that population across the whole country, that means about 24,000 people across the rest of the United Kingdom, so the figures show a large number of people who have had problems. Is it possible to say why, or to investigate and ascertain why those problems take place, as they did in Australia?
Ms Dorries
We will take that question away. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, because that is a detailed question with more complexity in it than I could answer today. For those people who suffer from pain, is it alleviated by the steroid and local anaesthetic injection? Are those numbers just people who present back once with pain, or do they go on to have chronic long-term pain, and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West says, come back three or four years later? Some drilling down into that data is needed.
Work is under way both within and independent of Government to improve safety and how we listen to patients, in order to gather the information to work with. In July, we launched the patient safety strategy, which sets out the direction of travel for future patient safety. It was developed through speaking to not just staff and senior leaders but, importantly, patients from across the country. As much as it looks at system improvements, such as digital developments and new technologies, it also looks at culture, so that the NHS becomes ever more an organisation with a just culture of openness to concerns, whether they are raised by patients, family members or staff. Concerns of all kinds should be welcomed, valued and acted on appropriately.
We are also waiting to hear back from the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, which is led by Baroness Cumberlege. The review examines how the healthcare system has responded to concerns raised by patients and families around three medical interventions, one of which is vaginal mesh. To do so, the review has focused on meetings with a broad range of stakeholder groups; I think the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West may have attended one of those with her mother.
I close by acknowledging just how difficult the subject matter is. No one should suffer from chronic long-term pain without every effort being made to reduce it and find out why it occurs in the first place. This is not an easy subject for men who are suffering from ongoing pain to speak about. We know that men are always very reluctant to come forward and go to the doctors about anything. I pay tribute to the many impassioned contributions of the brave men who have allowed their stories to be told, who have visited their MPs and contributed, because men are not good at sharing information when it comes to their health.
As I mentioned earlier, however, it is vital that the use of mesh to treat hernias continues. It remains the best course of action for patients where the appropriate treatment pathway leads to surgery. As with all treatment, shared decision making should be central to this process. It is vital that we continually examine the evidence together on the best means of treatment. Decisions in healthcare are often about weighing potential benefits against risks, and I thank those in our healthcare system who strive always to offer us the best treatment possible.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
Although we have finished early, the hon. Member for Strangford can have three minutes to respond should he wish to, but no more than three minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Hanson. I will certainly take no longer than three minutes. I had that advantage earlier on—I may have taken advantage of it, but there we are. Three minutes is more than enough.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for his contribution. If we wanted a headline for the hon. Gentleman, it would be “More mesh than man” because of the number of operations he has had, if he does not mind me saying so.
Jim Shannon
It was the hon. Gentleman’s quotation, so I am just quoting him again. He has personal knowledge of what has taken place. Again, to be fair, his operation has been successful. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, brought a lot of information to the debate. The problems are really real.
We set out two subjects in this debate: No. 1 was awareness, which is important, but No. 2 was that everyone should understand, before they have the operation, what the implications could be. That does not mean that they will not go ahead with the operation, but it ensures that they understand it. The hon. Lady referred to the “devastating” effect that this can have on lives. It is not a quick or cheap procedure, either, and patient safety is critical.
I thank the Minister for her response. She first confirmed in her contribution that we are raising awareness, and secondly referred to a safety review. I appreciate that and understand why. That does not in any way dismiss—no one can dismiss—those problems that have arisen out of the hernia mesh operations in men as not real. I ask her, if she has the opportunity, to perhaps look at the Australian investigation, although maybe she has already done so.
Jim Shannon
There we are; the Minister is ahead of me there. Well done. That investigation might give us some ideas for what we could do here as well.
I also thank the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), as always when he turns up, for his contribution. I know many people who have had the operation successfully, but my job here is to bring to the attention of the Minister and this House the many others who live with the mental, physical and emotional problems. That is what this debate is about. I thank everyone for their contributions, and I thank you, Mr Hanson, for chairing the meeting admirably, as you always do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered hernia mesh in men.
Written Statements
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
General Affairs Council July 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 18 July 2019. From September 1 until exit day, the UK will no longer attend most EU meetings, in order to make the best possible use of UK resources. The UK is still committed to the duty of sincere cooperation and this decision is not intended in any way to frustrate the functioning of the EU. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2019/07/18/
Multiannual financial framework 2021 – 2027
The presidency presented its plan for approaching the next phase of negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-27, and indicated its commitment to the European Council’s objective of concluding the MFF by the end of the year. To prepare for discussions between EU Leaders on the MFF in October, the presidency outlined a new timetable for delivery and prepared a questionnaire for member states to complete over the summer. The Commission welcomed the timetable and noted the need to consider the views of the new European Parliament.
Presentation of the priorities of the Finnish presidency
The presidency delivered a presentation on its priorities for the next six months. The overarching priorities include strengthening common values and the rule of law; making the EU more competitive and socially inclusive; strengthening the EU’s position as a global leader in climate action; and protecting the security of citizens comprehensively. Other issues to be discussed throughout 2019 in the GAC format include the MFF, rule of law, enlargement and hybrid threats.
Implementation of the strategic agenda 2019-2024
Ministers discussed the implementation of the new EU strategic agenda 2019-24. The strategic agenda was adopted by the European Council on 20 June 2019 and will guide the overarching priorities for the next institutional cycle. The priority areas are: protecting citizens and freedoms; developing a strong and vibrant economic base; building a climate-neutral green, fair and social Europe; and promoting European interests and values on the global stage.
Ministers discussed how the strategic agenda could be implemented. The discussion was guided by a presidency paper which provided an initial indication as to which Council configuration would consider the main issues and set out proposed timings for these discussions. Member states agreed on ensuring a coherent agenda across all three institutions; supported greater engagement with citizens and national Parliaments through clear communication; and stressed the importance of achieving concrete results. I intervened to welcome the broad themes of the Finnish presidency and stated that the UK would support its delivery of priorities whilst we remained a member state. I also reaffirmed the UK’s continued commitment and support for the security and competitiveness of the EU, and welcomed the greater focus on hybrid threats and cyber threats.
Several member states referred to the programme set out by Commission President-elect von der Leyen, and called for the strategic agenda to inform the commission work programme. The GAC will return to this agenda item in October and December, while the European Council will discuss the follow-up to the strategic agenda at the October European Council.
Commission communication on further strengthening the Rule of Law
The Commission presented its new communication on further strengthening the rule of law in the EU which was adopted on 17 July. The proposals centred on the three pillars of promotion, prevention and response and included a Commission-driven “Rule of Law Review Cycle” and an “Annual Rule of Law Review”. These proposals will engage all member states to prevent backtracking on the rule of law.
Rule of law in Poland / Article 7 (1) TEU reasoned proposal
The Commission provided a further update on the rule of law in Poland. This followed the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Poland’s Supreme Court law.
[HCWS1818]
Building Safety
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I updated the House today in an oral statement on the Government’s progress on building safety and set out this Administration’s approach. As set out in the statement, I am consulting on changes to fire safety regulations for new-build blocks of flats. We will seek to commit to requiring sprinkler systems as standard in a wider range of new flats. We will also consult on requiring better signs and evacuation alert systems to support effective firefighting. A link to the consultation document “Sprinklers and other fire safety measures in new high-rise blocks of flats” is here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ sprinklers-and-other-fire-safety-measures-in-new-high-rise-blocks-of-flats and I will deposit copies of this consultation in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1820]
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I will, later today, lay a draft remedial order to amend the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, along with the Government statement, setting out our response to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other representations my Department received on the proposal for the draft order when this was laid in Parliament between 28 June and 31 October 2018.
The draft remedial order ensures the right to a fair hearing for a small group of claimants who had lodged an appeal against a sanction decision that was retrospectively validated by the 2013 Act, if that appeal case had not been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn before 26 March 2013. For these appeal cases, the draft order gives the courts the ability to find in the individual’s favour and enables the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to change the sanction decision and refund the amount withheld, without those affected individuals having to continue with their appeal, wherever possible.
In 2013, the courts ruled that the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Schemes) Regulations 2011 (ESE regulations) that underpinned a range of programmes of support to help people into work did not describe the individual schemes in enough detail, and that our referral letters did not say enough about the activities required. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 (MWA regulations) contained identical requirements about the content of referral letters. The 2013 Act reinstated the original policy intent of these regulations. This ensured that job seekers who had failed to take all reasonable steps to increase their chances of finding work between 2011 and 2013 did not unfairly obtain advantage over claimants who complied with the benefit conditionality requirements.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the 2013 Act is effective in retrospectively validating sanction decisions and notifications. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the 2013 Act was incompatible with article 6(1) (the right to a fair hearing) of the European convention on human rights. It did not prevent people from appealing if they felt they had a good reason for not participating in one of the employment schemes, but it meant that their appeal would be unsuccessful if it related to their compliance with the ESE regulations or the referral notification they received under the ESE regulations or the MWA regulations. The Court of Appeal found that the 2013 Act was effective and that there was no breach of the European convention on human rights for the vast majority of claimants affected by the 2013 Act. The incompatibility with article 6 (1) arises only where a claimant had an undetermined appeal still in the tribunal system on the 26 March 2013, the date the Act came into force. The court’s decision does not affect the continuing validity of the 2013 Act.
I used the non-urgent remedial order process to allow time for parliamentary scrutiny. This requires that an initial proposed draft remedial order is laid in both Houses for a period of 60 days for consultation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also consulted on the proposal and published its report on 31 October 2019. The initial proposed draft remedial order restored the right to a fair hearing for ESE regulation appeal cases because the appellants in the Court of Appeal case were appealing sanctions decisions made under these regulations. An upper tribunal judge has since questioned whether a limited group of mandatory work activity (MWA) appeal cases might also be included, as their rights under article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights arguably may also have been affected by the 2013 Act.
I have thoroughly considered his question and I believe that certain MWA regulation appeal cases are in a similar position to the ESE appeal cases that were specifically examined by the Court of Appeal. I have, therefore, revised the proposed draft remedial order to ensure that all claimants who had a pending appeal in the tribunal system on 26 March 2013 that may have been affected when the retrospective provisions of the 2013 Act came into effect are included in the draft remedial order.
There are no other groups similarly affected by the 2013 Act. The revised draft remedial order remains limited to circumstances that were incompatible with article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights. I will lay the draft order later today for consideration by Parliament for a period of 60 days, it is then subject to affirmative resolution.
[HCWS1819]
House of Lords
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sexually Transmitted Infections: England
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections in England has changed over the last 10 years.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Bloomsbury Network and patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, we are seeing a mixed picture in relation to trends in sexually transmitted infections. There have been increases in some infections such as syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia, but diagnoses of first-episode genital warts have fallen. We are also seeing a steep decline in new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men. Condoms remain the most effective way of reducing the risk of STDs.
Lord Black of Brentwood
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. While the news on HIV is obviously very welcome, is it not the truth that other STIs are now on the rampage, with rates of increase for gonorrhoea, syphilis and chlamydia sky-rocketing ferociously? Does my noble friend agree that what is needed is a cross-sector sexual health strategy and some vision and ambition for what we, as a country, want to achieve around sexual health? Can my noble friend, who I know cares deeply about these issues, tell us exactly what yesterday’s spending announcements mean for sexual health funding, which has been cut by £700 million in the last few years, with appalling consequences?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his Question and I congratulate him on his important work in this area. He is absolutely right that the Health and Social Care Committee recommended a new sexual health strategy and we will respond to its report shortly. In addition to that, the Green Paper consultation on prevention sought views on priorities for a possible new strategy and we will consider those responses very carefully. As he rightly says, the spending review yesterday announced 1% real-terms growth for the public health grant, which I know will be very welcome because it means that local authorities can continue to invest in prevention and essential front-line health services, including sexual health services.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that I intervene as a non-aligned Member of this House and declare my interest as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I thank the Minister for her response to the Question. What progress has been made towards PrEP being routinely commissioned for all who need it before the end of the trial in 2020? Does she agree that PrEP needs to be made available as part of routine sexual health services from April 2020 and that no gay or bisexual man should be discouraged from being placed on the PrEP impact trial?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord will agree that this Government have shown significant commitment to the roll-out of PrEP since the start of the PrEP impact trial in October 2017. Over half of the 26,000 places have been filled, which is welcome progress. The trial is scheduled to continue until autumn 2020 and work is now starting to consider future commissioning for PrEP after the trial has ended.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, there is good news. Walking into the House this morning through Lambeth, I saw posters telling us that HIV is on the way out, but to be aware of STIs. What proportion of the Chancellor’s money announced yesterday will be allocated to local authorities delivering public health and what guidance is given to local authorities on developing sexual health services by Public Health England?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
We will need to confirm the distribution of the grant in due course. I am sure that will be the subject of questions as we go forward. As for the guidance that comes from Public Health England, in developing its plans, local systems work in close partnership with directors of public health to respond to local health needs and deliver on the commitments for the long-term plan. Public Health England works very closely with those directors of public health.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, do the Government agree that drug resistance to some of these STIs is very serious and a strategy would help to make people more aware of the problem?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is expert in this area and often raises this issue. She is absolutely right that antimicrobial resistance among some STIs is a growing concern. Public Health England has a world-class surveillance system to enable early detection and management of antimicrobial resistance. It is particularly an issue when it comes to gonorrhoea, and it uses that intelligence to advise the national gonorrhoea treatment guidelines. We will continue to keep on high alert when it comes to these matters.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the number of reported gonorrhoea cases has increased by 176.6% among multi-race persons over the last six years. How exactly is the issue being tackled in this community and what funding will be made available for it?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is absolutely right that increases in particular STIs are worrying and we need to make sure that we drive forward our response to that. Some BAME groups are at particularly high risk of STI acquisition, particularly those from a black Caribbean background possibly due to a higher number of sexual partners. PHE’s reproductive, sexual health and HIV innovation fund is spearheading new, innovative, community-led interventions to support those at increased risk of infection and we will continue to look for new ways to respond to these challenges.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, it is very unwise to group all STIs together and the organism that I should like to concentrate on for the moment is chlamydia. We may not be diagnosing chlamydia in the right way. Given that the NICE guidelines now mean that we hardly ever do laparoscopies, we cannot show whether people have tubal damage, which is said to be an important part of chlamydia. In my view, that is greatly overestimated. What does the Minister think about research into whether chlamydia really does cause infertility and other problems with conception?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is of course an expert in where we should target our research. The NIHR is a £1 billion fund which is not targeted specifically. However, it is right that we should target research into STIs to ensure our response to the challenges. We know that STIs are increasing so we should include research into them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, how much is the Department of Health and Social Care doing with the Department for Education to ensure that in schools young people are aware of the emergence of antimicrobial resistance among STIs and to make the use of condoms more fashionable? Many young people feel that they are not the things to use, when they are actually the best form of protection.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The Government have made it clear that we want all young people to be happy, healthy and safe, especially when it comes to relationships. That is why we are making relationship and sex education compulsory for all secondary-age pupils from September 2020. That is intended to equip young people with the skills to maintain their sexual health and overall well-being. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that that will be effective only if it is cool and works well in terms of communication with young people.
National School Breakfast Programme
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to continue their funding of the National School Breakfast Programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the department is investing up to £26 million in a breakfast club programme, using funds from the soft drinks industry levy. This money will kick-start or improve breakfast clubs in over 1,700 schools. The focus of these clubs has been to target the most disadvantaged areas of the country, including the Department for Education’s opportunity areas. Decisions about funding beyond March 2020 will be taken as part of the spending review.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response and for the current commitment to the school breakfast programme. However, contracts are due to end, complex supply chains are in existence and, as yet, decisions have not been taken as to whether or not this programme will be funded. If the Government do not commit to the continued funding of this programme, there is a risk that more than 280,000 children will arrive at school one morning and find that there is no breakfast. Will the Minister please reassure the House that the Government will commit to the continued funding of this programme?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I said, any decision to renew the contract for this national school breakfast programme will be part of this year’s spending round, of which headline details were announced yesterday by the Chancellor. My officials are working closely with the contractor on ensuring that breakfast clubs are sustainable. We will announce plans in relation to this shortly. However, I want to ensure that we do not entrench existing suppliers. We must remain alert to other ideas and other methods of delivery.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that where breakfast clubs operate it ensures that children’s attendance and punctuality improve, healthy food is eaten, attainment achievement is often improved and socialisation takes place. He will also be aware that 62% of teachers say that increasing numbers of children are coming to school undernourished and wanting food. When this decision on spending takes place, will he put those important issues into consideration so that this programme can not only continue but be extended?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I completely agree with the noble Lord on the importance of a healthy breakfast for children—there is masses of evidence to support the benefits. It improves concentration and provides nutrition, which does not always happen at home. I agree with that. We are reviewing the future of the programme. We had our spending settlement letter and announcement from the Chancellor only yesterday. We want to ensure that we can extend this programme in an effective way. We have targeted it initially in the opportunity areas, which, as noble Lords will know, are some of the areas of greatest deprivation. We want to create a system that is sustainable into the long term.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
No one has any doubt about the importance of breakfast and yet, at the moment, apart from the scheme mentioned by my noble friend Lord Curry, almost all these breakfasts are being provided by charities such as Magic Breakfast. However, even Magic Breakfast reckons that 1.8 million children go to school hungry every morning. Surely this matter should not be haphazardly funded by the sugar tax or by desperate mothers and charities such as Magic Breakfast. Does the Minister agree that this should be a responsibility of the Department for Education and of all of us because we know how fundamentally important it is?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Baroness makes important points. There is both a macro and a micro issue here. For example, today I looked at the LIFFE futures price for wheat: it is £130 a tonne. When I last worked on my father’s farm in 1978 it was about £100 a tonne. Food has never been cheaper. We have had a revolution in the provision of food in this country and, indeed, in the western world. We need to understand why these families are struggling to produce meals at home. A great deal of that centres around education. I appeared before a Select Committee yesterday on holiday hunger and we need to learn a lot more about this. We have introduced the infant free school meals in the past couple of years. That programme is feeding 1.5 million children and has an 85% take-up.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that much of the funding for these schemes comes from the soft drinks industry? Can he confirm that it is difficult to avoid a conflict of interest when those that might be providing sustenance which is not always as healthy as it should be are involved in schemes such as these?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is quite right. I should perhaps declare my own interest as someone who grows 3,500 tonnes of sugar beet every year. Of course, a lot of that sugar does not go to the right places. The levy is designed as a pump-primer for the system. We want to see this money encouraging schools to start breakfast clubs that are sustainable in the long term. Noble Lords will be aware that we have just announced a tremendous funding settlement for schools over the next three years. I am confident that there are now resources coming into schools that will enable them to sustain them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it should be a source of shame to the Government that after nine years in power some children in England turn up at school in the morning too hungry to learn. I was astonished to hear the Minister say that he cannot understand why that is the situation. There is a simple one-word answer to that: austerity. That is said to be over now, but it has a long way to run in its effects. The National School Breakfast Programme is a necessity but, as other noble Lords have said, its funding needs to be not just continued but increased—a point made by the CEO of the charity that delivers the programme in his recent report. The problem is that the sugar tax funds it. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reduce the sugar tax, so where does that leave the National School Breakfast Programme? Labour will enter the general election with a commitment to provide universal free school meals to all primary schoolchildren. What will the Tory party’s response to that be?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, first, we very much look forward to the general election and at the moment it is the Labour Opposition who are blocking it. Let us deal with the core issues. We know without dispute that children growing up in a home where adults are working are around five times less likely to be in poverty than a child in a household where nobody works. Since 2010, 3.7 million more people are in work. There are 1 million fewer workless households. Children are benefiting from this, and I am very proud of our track record.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, according to the Food Foundation, there are 3.7 million children in this country living in households where a healthy diet is unaffordable. Does the Minister agree that that is a disgraceful situation for one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Can he tell us what the Government are doing to address this problem?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I come back to my answer to an earlier question. As I said, there is the top line and the micro line. Why are these families struggling? I disagree with the noble Lord opposite that it is down to austerity. I think it is down to learning more about parenting. At a meeting of a committee looking at holiday hunger, one mother said that her children go to the fridge and help themselves to food whenever they want it, whereas at school there are regular, fixed mealtimes. It is simple things such as this. We want to help parents to understand that they need to produce structure and to know how to cook healthy and affordable meals.
Maritime Security
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mountevans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) recent events in the Persian Gulf, and (2) the importance of protecting United Kingdom waters following European Union Exit; and in the light of any such assessments, what steps they are taking to put the funding of (a) the National Maritime Information Centre, and (b) the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre, onto a sustainable, permanent footing.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my maritime interests recorded in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are taking immediate steps to protect UK interests in our own and international waters by advancing a one-off payment of £9 million to the NMIC and JMOCC, which were recently brought together under a single director as a joint maritime security centre. These additional moneys will be used to develop maritime domain awareness and operational co-ordination capacity. A bid for longer-term assured funding will be submitted under next year’s spending review.
Lord Mountevans
I thank the Minister for her response. Little did I imagine when I put my name down in the ballot that there would be such a positive response 30 or 40 days later. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the excellent news. The maritime industry takes security extremely importantly and these two organisations do vital work in this important area. I am delighted that there is more money available. Would I be right in assuming that that is for one year? If that is the case, can she assure me that her department will press to put this funding on a longer-term secure footing?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I assure the noble Lord that the funding is currently for one year, but the department recognises the critical work that these two organisations do, and it will be pressing very hard for a longer-term commitment in future.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that positive response about the funding. We have been trying to do that for a long time. The Minister will know that the previous Labour Government set up the NMIC, so I am delighted it is going down the right track. However, we have a dearth of assets among all the departments, including the Navy, which is responsible for our offshore tapestry—our territorial seas and protection of the coast—so it is essential that those few assets are properly co-ordinated. Can the Minister assure me that the man now in charge of this centre has the authority to take command and control of assets belonging to different departments to respond to a specific emergency?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
It is always a pleasure to receive a question from the noble Lord. Indeed, the man now in charge is in your Lordships’ House today. It was, of course, the current Government who set up JMOCC, which works very closely with the NMIC. The noble Lord is quite right that maritime assets are spread over a number of organisations: Border Force, the Royal Navy and the coastguard. Co-ordination of these assets is incredibly important. JMOCC was set up in October 2017, so it is not even two years old. It has a lot of capability to deal with live incidents and make sure that maritime assets are in the right place. One of the things this £9 million will do is provide extra capacity so that a planning team can be built to make sure we have optimum deployment of all vessels where we need them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Would the Minister perhaps address the part of the Question related to the Persian Gulf, which she managed to pass over in total silence in her original reply? Would she not agree that probably the best way to strengthen maritime security in the Persian Gulf is to work with our other European allies to get a dialogue going about how to preserve the nuclear agreement with Iran and how to avoid tensions, which risk spiralling out of control?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
There is quite a lot in the noble Lord’s question and I will endeavour to cover as much of it as possible. I did not mean to gloss over it. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is incredibly important. The NMIC has been giving valuable support, which I have witnessed myself, by monitoring vessels in the Persian Gulf, not only tracking Red Ensign vessels in transit, which of course is very important, but looking at vessels of interest to see what they might be doing. We are working very closely with our international partners. We are part of the international maritime security construct. We have committed to a frigate or destroyer for that construct, a Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker and, of course, staff in the command structure and below that. We are working with our international partners. It is absolutely important that Iran does not develop a nuclear capability. Our actions with our partners are part of that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the second part of the Question relates to fisheries. Could the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of our capabilities to ensure that UK territorial waters will be sufficiently secure in the light of a possible Brexit? The £9 million will not go very far towards that, so is additional funding being put into insuring our fisheries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am not entirely sure on what evidence the noble Baroness suggests that £9 million is not sufficient. It is the case that as Brexit happens and we leave the European Union we will look at our EEZ. We will be responsible for all vessels in our EEZ and it is likely that we will have to take a closer watch of what is going on within our coastal waters. It is right that we have fewer assets to deploy. However, and this is very important, there are now far better technologies available to maintain our watch over our coastal waters. There is a working group, led by the new director of the joint maritime security centre, looking at the threats and risks following Brexit. It will make sure that we have vessels deployed appropriately.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are not events in the Persian Gulf, with £30,000 Iranian speedboats buzzing around our ships, rather an excellent example of applying the constant call of the noble Lord, Lord West, for more frigates and for more flexibility in our naval dispositions, as well as of the dangers, as in the past, of the great leaders of naval strategy deciding to put all of our cash into vast aircraft carriers, which might have their uses but are not much good in this kind of situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Our maritime assets, particularly our frigates, are under review. We are looking at how we may want to strengthen that in future if we can. However, in the Strait of Hormuz we already have HMS “Montrose” in operation, and HMS “Duncan” will replace it. HMS “Kent” will maintain a presence and HMS “Defender” is also available. Not all these will be working within the international maritime security construct, but we are able to respond.
Brexit: Medicine Supply and NHS Staffing
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of a no-deal Brexit on (1) the supply of medicines, and (2) the staffing of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that leaving the EU could affect a wide range of areas across the health and care system. We are doing everything possible to prepare, and our plans should help to ensure that the supply of medicines remains uninterrupted. We continue to monitor staffing levels, and we are working to ensure that there will continue to be sufficient staff to deliver the high-quality services on which the public rely.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I suspect that this Question is an appropriate one, given the debate we are going to have later. Given that the majority of the House is trying to save the Government from their foolishness of crashing out of the EU, these are very important questions because they affect people’s lives and their futures.
I have two questions. What is the department doing to sort out the fact that the Home Office is still completely failing to deliver how settled status can be offered? We are losing European staff from the NHS, including senior and experienced doctors, at a huge rate, which will mean enormous problems. Secondly, on medicines, what measures have the Government put in place to ensure that the shortage protocol does not negatively impact patient safety, and how are the Government going to prevent the UK from becoming a third-tier market for medicines and ensure that we can access medicines and new drugs in a timely fashion if we crash out of the EU?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive questions. Regarding the EU settlement scheme, we are very pleased that there are now record levels of EU nationals working in the NHS and the social care system. We hugely value their contribution. We need them, and we want them to stay. EU nationals working in the NHS can obtain their long-term status in the UK through the EU settlement scheme, and we are supporting NHS Employers in promoting the EU settlement scheme. On 15 August, the Home Office said that 1 million people had been granted settlement status. Where there have been challenges to working through that, there is support to address it. The EU settlement scheme statistics confirm that not a single person has been refused the status that they applied for. About three-quarters of people receive that status without the Home Office needing to ask for additional evidence on the length of residence; we are checking that is working as it should.
When it comes to medicines, we continue to implement a multi-layered approach to minimise any disruptions of medicines and medical products in a no-deal scenario to ensure that patients will have access to the medicines they need. There are about 7,000 prescription-only and pharmacy-only medicines, and we have been working very closely with suppliers, asking them to hold at least six weeks of stock. The shortage protocol will be led by clinicians, to ensure that patients can access the medicines that they need and are not put at risk. Any decision about this will be made between the patient and their clinician, to ensure that it is appropriate for the care of the individual patient in question.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Government have claimed that they have done a detailed account of what would happen if we were to leave the European Union, as far as the health service is concerned. Why have they not published that detailed account, why do we not know any of those details and why is the whole country being kept in the dark on all these issues? The Minister has the facts. Can we please have them now, so that we know what we are debating about?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I do not believe that the noble Lord is presenting an accurate picture of the case. We have been very clear with the public, and a lot of information has been published on the MHRA website, on GOV.UK, on nhs.uk and in a number of other places, regarding the information about the analysis of the impact of no deal on patients and on the NHS. We have been very clear about the risks that we think there may be to the supply of medicines due to temporary disruption at the border and the mitigating measures that we have taken to ensure that the supply will continue uninterrupted to patients and to the healthcare system. If the noble Lord wishes to have more information, I am sure that he would be very happy to write to me, and I will place a copy of my reply in the Library.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that virtually every pharmacist and every GP is experiencing dire shortages of certain medicines already. If the Government have such a good alternative plan for a no-deal Brexit, why do they not bring forward those plans to deal with the shortage that patients are facing today?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
At any given time, there are about 100 to 150 medicine shortages within our system. There is a team specifically set up in the Department for Health and Social Care to deal with these shortages. There is no evidence whatsoever that the shortages within the medicine system at the moment are related to Brexit. I work to respond to those shortages every day. The system that we have set up to respond to the potential risks of no deal—which we do not want to happen—is prospective. We are confident that it will be able to respond to any potential border disruption on the short straits.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, what proportion of our pharmaceuticals are manufactured in the UK? Have Brexit deal negotiators discussed pharmaceutical supplies and, if so, what was the outcome? How many people will be immediately affected if a no-deal Brexit is the final outcome?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I do not have the data for the proportion manufactured in the UK, but I can tell her that there are 7,000 prescription-only and pharmacy medicines with an EU touchpoint which we believe we need to import into the UK at the point of no deal. We have been working very closely with those suppliers, asking them to hold a six-week stock, over and above the usual buffer stock that they hold in case of a potential shortage, which they always hold a risk of. We have also put in place a number of other multi-layered mitigation measures, which include securing capacity for re-routing freight. We have also put in place a number of other measures, such as providing assurance of readiness for logistics and supply chains to meet new customs and border requirements. We have been working to ensure that we communicate that to all those along the supply chains, in the NHS system and in the pharmacy chain.
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves her Motion, I thought I should speak very briefly about our business for Monday and the items of business that were not reached yesterday—or, more accurately, this morning. At the end of today’s Second Reading debate, we will take the Third Reading of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, followed by the Report stage of the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill. No amendments have been tabled, and we expect both Bills to be taken formally.
The two items of substantive business that have been displaced are the debate on the reports concerning the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act and the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill. They will take place on Monday. The running order will be confirmed via the next edition of House of Lords business.
Finally, I understand that the Public Bill Office will be accepting amendments for the Committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill from now until 30 minutes after the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
I will continue to talk to the usual channels about any further business for next week and will keep the House updated.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That:
(1) Standing Order 40(3) to 40(9) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to allow proceedings on the European Union Withdrawal (No.6) Bill to start immediately after this motion has been agreed to on Thursday, 5 September and immediately after Prayers on Friday, 6 September and to take priority over other public business.
(2) Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow more than one stage of the bill to be taken on one day.
(3) Proceedings on Second Reading, so far as not already concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7pm this day and if the bill is read a second time then, notwithstanding Standing Order 47(1) (Commitment of Bills), it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without Question put.
(4) Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and Passing of the bill, so far as not already concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5pm on Friday, 6 September.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the Chief Whip for his very helpful explanation of how the business is working out. I wish to say a few words in proposing the new business Motion; I think that everyone wants to get on and have the substantive debates.
I would like to say a few thank yous. After a long night of debate, I want to reflect on how often this House—supposedly the senior House—sits so much later than the other place. It happens on many occasions.
First, I thank the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House for their courtesy and resilience last night in our numerous meetings to get to a position agreed by and acceptable to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to them and to all noble Lords who, until very late in the evening, sat here and engaged in the debate. Their engagement on this difficult issue was amazing and people were very patient. I also thank all noble Lords who advised and engaged with us during our discussions.
It is also right that we as a House place on record our thanks to the staff, particularly of the three Front Benches. I mention specifically the doorkeepers and the staff of the House, whose courtesy, friendliness and helpfulness last night exceeded our expectations. They had no knowledge that we were likely to sit so late, but they did so with great charm; we are very grateful to them.
I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I echo briefly the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in expressing thanks from these Benches for the Government Front Bench’s co-operation late in the evening, which enabled the House to deal with its normal business today rather than still being on a rather ridiculous merry-go-round. I also echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to our staff, especially the staff of the House, who kept the show on the road with their usual efficiency and cheerfulness.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
On behalf on these Benches, I echo what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, particularly in relation to the staff, who were such a help to us until a late hour last night.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to convey to the Leader of the House our relief that she is in her place again. After her intervention early in the debate yesterday, her disappearance caused some concern; there was a rumour that she had either resigned, been sacked or been kidnapped by Mr Dominic Cummings. Given yet another ministerial resignation this morning—that of Mr Jo Johnson—I hope that we can note that her activities behind the scenes and the diplomacy that she was clearly using to bring the House together are always appreciated. Of course, she is not just a member of the Cabinet and a party representative; she is also the representative of the whole House and we respect her role in defending our reputation.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill
Thursday 5th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 View all European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 202-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (5 Sep 2019)
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of the elected House. I am not here to debate leave, remain or Brexit. The Bill is about how Brexit is carried through so that the UK does not leave without a deal and that, once a deal is there to be voted on, we will leave, if the House of Commons agrees, via its meaningful vote.
Of course, this House does not have a meaningful vote. The Bill has come from the elected Commons but this is not a normal situation. The timetable has been forced on Parliament by the Prime Minister. Our role is not necessarily to rubber-stamp the elected Commons but, given the Prime Minister’s Prorogation timetable, the House has no real time to amend the Bill without jettisoning it as a whole—it is too risky. This is not the preferred way to scrutinise. It has been forced on the House. In this respect, I much regret that the Leader of the Lords saw fit to be part of the Privy Council’s forcing an early close-down of Parliament. Knowing the sensitivity of being the Leader of the House, she should, I believe, have declined that invitation. There are plenty of privy counsellors around to choose for the task.
It is not the case that it must be certain privy counsellors. In 2005, for the Prorogation Privy Council, there were three privy counsellors present at Windsor. None of them was from the House of Commons; two were Ministers from the Lords, of which I was one, and another was a member of neither the Government nor the House of Commons. There are plenty of privy counsellors. The Leader of the House did not have to accept that invitation; it has dragged this House into the issue of closing down Parliament early when it was not necessary. We need to consider what is sent to the Lords and the context in which it is sent. There is a clear breakdown of trust in the Commons, which is under extreme pressure. It has now decided, as it did earlier in the year, to try to take some responsibility for and control of the decision on a no-deal Brexit. To coin a phrase, the Commons has acted to stop a no-deal Brexit by any means necessary. We have gone past the stage where many of the public thought that no deal meant not leaving—the Operation Yellowhammer papers have made that clear to everyone concerned.
I always preface my presentations for the Peers in Schools programme by saying that we have two Houses of Parliament, but they are not equal. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and sometimes to ask the Commons to think again, but knowing that the Commons always has the last word. But we are not in normal times. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister’s timetable means that we are in no real position, whatever the business arrangements for Monday, to ask the Commons to think again on this Bill. It almost amounts to a national emergency in legislative terms. We need to treat the Commons with respect as it tries to achieve the objective. It alone has the legal and political responsibility for the meaningful vote. It is as divided as the nation, but it has sent us a Bill.
We should now, as far as the Prorogation timetable allows, operate the conventions to give the Commons the last word. The conventions are in play as never before —we saw that yesterday. Indeed, the conventions are being changed. A convention breached requires what we might see as an unconventional approach, hence the business Motion and hence effectively timetabling consideration of this Bill.
When I was young and out of order, my mother used to call me Jeffrey, rather than Jeff, and often told me, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Today I have to ask: if the wrongs are not two but more, many more—eight, nine, or a dozen at least—what do we do? We have the early closing down of Parliament, misleading on the negotiation, ignoring purdah rules, spending without the OBR, attempting to leave come what may, refusing to publish the consequences of leaving for the poor, failing to table amendments to the withdrawal agreement, attacking Dublin, running the clock down, leaving UK citizens high and dry in the EU and EU citizens in the UK in limbo, and putting the union in peril. That, to me, is a massive breach of the conventions that we should be operating under, which has caused this reality with this Bill. It is an unconventional response to the breaching of the conventions. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is actually a simple and quite straightforward Bill, but that does not make it unimportant. What it seeks to prevent—a no-deal crash-out on the simple say-so of the Prime Minister—has major implications.
Like other noble Lords, I spent August in France where, at a birthday party, I met Monsieur Serge Ratel, born in Normandy soon after the war. Learning that I was British, he fixed me with a steady but rather sad eye and—I hope I have translated this properly, because my French is not perfect—said, “You Brits have done so much for us. You rescued us during the war and then, in the way that you engineered the post-war reconstruction, you enabled us to recover in a way that made possible the European Union. Since you have been in, you have helped steer our whole continent and helped us remain at peace with ourselves and with each other”. He went on to say that while, as strong allies, the EU could survive without us, as it had done in its early years, our leaving without a deal would harm not just the UK but the EU itself.
That is what the Bill is about. It is not about whether we leave but about the method of our going—whether we depart as friends, neighbours and allies, with agreement between us and in a way that best supports our economy, security and the people across the continent. It matters for them, but how we leave also matters for our democracy. It must not happen without the consent of the Commons.
We rehearsed the economic and security risks of no deal in your Lordships’ House on Tuesday. This Bill is about something else. It does not say that we could never leave without a deal. It says that that could happen only provided the Commons agrees. We have already in your Lordships’ House helped write into the withdrawal Act that any deal on which we leave must have the consent of the Commons, so this Bill simply extends that to include leaving without a deal. To ensure that that is the case, it requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, either to provide time for that deal or to allow the Commons to concur with a no-deal exit, if that is what the Prime Minister is to recommend.
So the Bill is actually quite simple, it is democratic and we will support it from these Benches.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. As has been said, a broad coalition came together to support this short Bill, which is simple and has a narrow focus: to prevent a crash-out Brexit for which there is no mandate. As Hilary Benn MP said, preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central most important question facing the country. The new MP Jane Dodds, who made her maiden speech yesterday, gave an illustration of what would happen to sheep farmers in her constituency.
I pay tribute to the responsible senior politicians from all parties who came together in the national interest. As we know, that included two distinguished Conservative former Chancellors of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond and Ken Clarke. What is notable is that many people have commented that it is an odd world in which an individual’s Conservatism is measured by how recklessly they wish to leave the EU. We are in a topsy-turvy world.
Supporters of the Bill are open about the fact that, beyond preventing the devastating harm and disruption of no deal, they have very different views on how to resolve the Brexit question. None of those options is precluded by the Bill, which, as I said, has a narrow scope. As Alistair Burt, one of the co-sponsors of the Bill, said,
“is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating”.—[Official Report, Commons,4/9/19; col.224.]
It simply prevents no deal unless the Commons agrees to it and gives the Commons powers over the extension process—so it is taking back control to Parliament in action rather than in empty rhetoric.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The noble Baroness talked about the coalition of people who have grouped together to propose the Bill, which essentially delays Brexit for a minimum of three months. Can she tell us what that coalition of people intend to do with those three months?
Baroness Ludford
I covered that point. The Bill does not prevent a deal, because a deal could be agreed within the extension period—that is specifically covered. I said that the coalition is perfectly open about the fact that it has coalesced on a specific, narrow purpose: to prevent massive harm to the people of this country. Beyond that, there will be further discussion about how to proceed.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Will the noble Baroness now answer the noble Lord’s question?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly raise some concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on children in low-income families. I welcome this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in opening the debate, there is particular concern about families on low incomes, and the adverse economic impact on them that would follow a no-deal Brexit. In the course of austerity, we have seen families on low incomes suffering significantly. Cuts to local authorities have reduced support for vulnerable families. Consequently, what we have seen and what has been recorded in numerous reports is that the number of children coming into local authority care is rising year on year. Generally, it is children from the poorest families who are taken into the care of the state.
I warmly welcome this Bill as it prevents a no-deal exit. I am concerned that, if we proceed with a no-deal exit, we will see more harm done to these families. I am also concerned about the number of children who are not fully documented and who have uncertain immigration status, and in particular those in care. Local authorities are finding it difficult to get proper documentation for about 3,000 or 4,000 children in their care. In his response, I would be grateful if the Minister could address concerns about their welfare. In fact, he will not be responding. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, or the Opposition might say a few words about their concerns about the impact on low-income families and about the documentation of children with uncertain immigration status, particularly those in local authority care.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this Bill will of course go through, but any idea that it will solve all our problems can dismissed here and now. We have already heard of some of the dilemmas ahead and they will be not only for my party and the Government but for the Labour Party, as the morning newspapers and broadcasts make clear. There are some difficult questions for Labour to resolve, which it has not yet done.
In the light of this difficulty for all the parties, there is, possibly, a way out that begins to have some light in it for remainers and remoaners, leavers and believers—in fact, for all of us. That could occur on or around 17 October, with the possibility, at present dismissed by almost everybody, of an amended withdrawal agreement with—using the words of Monsieur Macron, Angela Merkel and, although perhaps not the Taoiseach himself, many people in the Republic of Ireland—the “unnecessary” backstop modified or removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, eloquently and again and again, says there is no hint of alternatives. There are massive alternatives that have been worked out with huge authority by a vast range of people—by consulting border operations throughout the world, by taking examples everywhere, by drawing back into the history of the Northern Ireland border in immense detail, by analysing precisely the kind of traffic going across every day and by taking into account that we remain, with the Republic, in the common travel area and outside Schengen. These details exist. It suits everybody involved at the moment to say that there are no details. It suits Monsieur Barnier to say that there is no hint of an alternative. He is quite wrong. He is bound to say it for the moment, but there are massive volumes containing immense detail, which could provide the alternative to the backstop. The date is 17 October.
Lord Krebs (CB)
One is very interested to hear about this massive detail. I may be mistaken but I read in the paper that, when the Prime Minister met Chancellor Merkel a few weeks ago, it was agreed that he would produce his alternative plan within 30 days. One wondered why he needed 30 days if the plan already existed. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us—if he knows—whether Mr Johnson has revealed this cunning plan to Chancellor Merkel and whether she has accepted that it is an appropriate alternative to the backstop.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, the word “reveal” is a misnomer. The full reports of the alternative arrangements group exist. The summaries exist. All the background material is available for anyone to read. To what extent it has been pressed by government negotiators in Brussels—Mr Frost and others—I do not know. You do not need to reveal something that has already been published. These things have been worked out and are available. I am not saying that anyone will agree to them, and it pays people at the moment to pretend they do not exist or have not been revealed. They have and they are there.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Perhaps I can encourage my noble friend to help the House on one point. Can he name anywhere in the world where different customs unions share a border, without the sort of hard border which is of concern to everyone? Just name any one. The United States and Canada: no. Switzerland and France: no. Where are there two countries with different customs unions side by side that do not have a hard border?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think Members of this House and others have visited the Norway-Sweden border.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is enormously experienced in these matters, particularly in Northern Ireland. He, above all, knows that the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland situation is unique. There is nothing like it in the rest of the world. I was involved with Mr Whitelaw in trying to reinforce the military side of the border to stop the Provos coming up from Dundalk. We tried, but it did not work because there are a thousand other outlets. Even if people wanted to recreate a visible border, it would not work. My noble friend knows perfectly well that the Irish situation is unique and that there are, therefore, opportunities for unique solutions. I am not saying that it will be admitted. I do not expect even my noble friend to admit that anything I am saying at the moment is correct. The facts, the documents and the expertise on many other frontiers are there. I do not have all the details in front of me at this moment to quote in the debate. They are there for reading and I am sure he has read them.
That was my first point. There is a way out if we are careful and sensible and deal with the matter in a mature way. I am not that hopeful it will happen, given all the interruptions, but there we are.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am sorry to correct the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect. When I was a member of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, we took evidence from the border people in Norway and Sweden. To the best of my recollection, the conclusion was that they were very proud of the smoothness of their arrangements, but that every lorry was delayed by at least 10 minutes at that border.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not want to continue with this, but if the noble Lord—for whom I have great respect as well—cares to read the alternative arrangements report, he will see that the detailed analyses of what goes on at various borders are examined by experts. The evidence is there. There are pages of it. He will see exactly which bits could apply to the border in Northern Ireland and which do not.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I have read that report and none of the proposals is credible, which is the reason Her Majesty’s Government have not published those proposals as their own.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I simply repeat: the alternative arrangements documents are there and go into considerable detail. They can be dismissed or agreed to, depending on your state of mind, but they are a way out. I now want to say something on a different area. Are there any other interruptions before we leave this? There is one more.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I have enormous respect for my noble friend and what he has been trying to achieve in this House. If we are honest, the hard border and any mitigations are trying only to make a hard border slightly less hard. The only way, if we leave the customs union and single market, to solve the problem in Ireland is to have a border down the Irish Sea and cut off Northern Ireland. Is that what the Conservative and Unionist Party wishes to do?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That statement—“the only way”—again reveals the Manichean approach. There are already controls on livestock and weapons down the Irish Sea. They already exist. There are controls all around the invisible border to Northern Ireland, so this constant either/or is misleading us and guiding us away from sensible compromise solutions, which a calmer atmosphere would soon reveal and resolve.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I am afraid the arguments today are already becoming as circular as ever. Is the truth not that remainers will not accept the position, just as leavers have their views too? What my noble friend is saying is absolutely true: those who really understand it know there are ways of doing this, but the baying leavers will not accept it. I urge my noble friend to save his breath and move on to something else.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank my noble friend for that encouragement. I turn now to a matter addressed to my own party, which will possibly produce more agreement opposite. The so-called Cummings purge is a major political blunder. These blunders happen at the end of a sequence of earlier blunders. You can watch how earlier mistakes and errors, blunder after blunder, lead to a point where, suddenly, there seems no choice and the new folly is committed. The new folly of my party is to reduce its membership by 21 and exclude two ex-Chancellors, an ex-Deputy Prime Minister and my dear friend Sir Nicholas Soames. I just hope it will pass. I hope Rory Stewart’s view that this will pass is right, and that they are restored to the party. This is again part of the Manichean tone in which matters are presented, when everything is either right or wrong, in black and white.
Delay of the Bill will solve nothing, although it seems a way out. In another three months, we will be back to exactly where we were before. The referendum so beloved of the Lib Dems, even if we get it through, will not solve anything either. An election is bound to come sometime, but I say to my noble friends that, whether it comes or not, normal times will never return. We are living in a completely different digital age, in which populism is in power. Both parties—mine and the great Labour Party—will have to reunite and change on entirely different terms. Neither can build on the basis of the old dogmas. If that is the one lesson that emerges from this unhappy situation, let us at least take account of it.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is already evident in some of the terms of this conversation—of this debate—that we have to get away from this binary thinking about leave or remain. They were terms that pertained to the referendum in 2016 where the question was “what”. Where we have got stuck is on the question of “how”. You do not need a degree in logic or philosophy to recognise that they are different questions. The Members of the other place and of this House trying to take their obligations seriously under the constitution to serve the people of this country means that we have got to this sort of impasse. It is not because of negligence, or because of waging ongoing campaigns from three years ago. I deeply resent the constant insinuation that if you voted remain then you remain a remainer and anything you do has to be suspected as being a plot to ensure that we remain. Many people in this House who voted remain have gone on to say that the referendum result was to leave and we have to move on to the question of how to do that but with the responsibility to look to the interests of our country.
If, as the Prime Minister said fairly recently, we will easily cope with no deal, why not publish what the actual costs of no deal will be, as for example King’s College London, the UK and the EU project have done, and others are doing? Why not listen to those from Ireland and Northern Ireland, who look somewhat askance at some of the discussions going on here about them—rather than with them, if I can use that term? We are still wrestling with the question of “how”. In my own imagination, I have flirted with what the virtues of no deal would be. One of them would be that it would force us to behave like adults: you face reality, you count the cost and you suffer the consequences. If we are to cope easily and there are to be no terrible consequences, fair enough, but that is not what we are hearing from those doing the detailed work. I know we have to discount experts and intellectuals, but who else will do the work?
If we are to have an extension, there will be two factors at play. The first is that an extension is not a vacation; it is for work to go on and a deal to be sought. The Prime Minister assures us that negotiations are going on, but everything we hear from the EU is that they are not—who do we believe? The second factor is that the timetable—the programme—will be conditioned to some extent by factors that we have no control over, such as the EU budget programme and its timings for establishing its future without us. We cannot simply extend for ever, but what is the content of the conversation that will go on during any extension?
The last thing I want to say to shine some light into this debate is that, while we focus on Brexit and the costs and benefits of however we leave the EU, we will still need, when all that is done—that will be the beginning of the process, not the end, as this was supposed to be the easy bit—a vision for what Brexit is supposed to deliver for the people of our country. What are the big values? What is the big picture? What is the country that we want to live in? We are told that this is to be the greatest place on earth to live, but let us flesh that out. What will it look like? What will it look like for Britain to be “great”, rather than just have that as a title or a slogan? That is the imaginative work that we need to begin in this House, in the other place and in the discourse in the wider country. What sort of country do we want to be? What values will shape it? What price truth, reality and behaving like adults, where we face the cost and are willing to suffer or enjoy the consequences? That is the conversation we need to move on to and I fear that we will have to do so fairly soon.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I fear that I will disappoint the right reverend Prelate because I unashamedly believe that it is against the interests of the people of the UK that we should leave the EU. Throughout my political life, I have believed in two things: the union of the UK and the membership of the UK in the EU. In the next two or three years, I could see both struck down. I imagine that I will not be the only person in that position. Since I unashamedly and profoundly believe that our interest is best preserved by remaining—to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, taken up quite legitimately by the noble Lord, Lord Howard—I shall use the time available to argue that case as fervently as I possibly can.
I turn to the question of Scotland. Would it not be a quite extraordinary outcome if a party describing itself as the “Conservative and Unionist Party” were to preside over the break-up of the United Kingdom? I do not know how often noble Lords go north of the border but it is worth doing that, if only for a couple of days, to understand the sense of injustice that so many people in Scotland feel about the attitude and policies of the present Prime Minister. That can only put wind in the sails of the Scottish National Party—and, God knows, it is adept at ensuring that any puff of wind in its direction is put to the best possible use. In my view, that would be damaging not just to Scotland but to the UK. For my part, I will not allow that to pass unless I am satisfied that I have done everything in my power to prevent it.
My second point is political. People often say, “All we joined was a customs union”, but it always was a political union, just as NATO, a defence union, was always was a political union. Why was it political? Because it was to try to avoid the fact that within 21 years two wars had taken place on the continent of Europe. If you are old enough to remember the Pathé newsreels of the devastation that had been caused to Europe, you will hardly find it surprising that the people whose countries had been invaded and occupied were determined to find an alternative way of living, and that has been remarkably successful. When the EU, in the shape of Mr Barnier and others, is reluctant to do anything that would detract from the EU’s economic integrity, that is as much about security as anything else because in economic integrity lies security integrity as well.
I hope that from time to time we look outside our own borders. We have a meddling Russia. As Russia’s economy goes further down Mr Putin has to keep meddling, trying to put the so-called West off its stride. The EU is a challenge to him, just as NATO is. His policies are the undermining of one and, if he can, the destabilisation of the other. We have an expansionist China, whose expansion is not just military but economic. Look at the extent of Chinese investment in this country and ask yourself whether that has had any impact upon the attitude expressed publicly by our Government in relation to the events in Hong Kong, to which, even if we have a declining legal obligation, we most certainly have a continuing moral obligation. Also, look at the White House. Can anyone ever remember a White House so uncertain and unpredictable? In this extraordinarily changed world, does it make sense to leave a political and economic union that has been so successful since its first creation?
Those are the reasons why I am a remainer. If the Bill is passed, I shall use every minute available to ensure that that case continues to be put to the people of the United Kingdom.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, with whom I have had the pleasure of jousting over many decades. Occasionally I have even agreed with him. I will not follow his speech in its entirety, but before I address the remarks that I prepared I will deal with one of the observations he made and challenge one of the myths that has grown about the role and achievements of the European Union.
It is often said and rarely challenged that one of the great achievements of the European Union was peace in western Europe after the Second World War. I do not believe that to be true. The peace that has existed in western Europe after the Second World War actually owes more to the Soviet Union than it does to the European Union. It was inconceivable for almost 50 years after the end of the Second World War, when western Europe faced an existential threat from the ambitions of the Soviet Union, that any further fighting should take place in the western part of the continent. They were obliged to unite to face that threat. That was why we had peace in western Europe for 50 years after the Second World War. Of course, happily, after that period had lasted and the Soviet Union had disintegrated, the countries of western Europe had got out of the habit of fighting each other and we have been able to enjoy peace ever since.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Does my noble friend seriously think that the only reason for Franco-German reconciliation after the war, which is at the heart of European peace and building a new Europe out of the moral, economic and political rubble, was the Soviet threat? It might have contributed, but there were far bigger political issues that produced that, thank heavens for all of us.
Lord Howard of Lympne
We can argue about whether it was the only reason. Of course other factors encouraged Franco-German reconciliation, but the peace of the western half of the continent was an inevitable consequence of the threat those countries faced from the Soviet Union to the east.
Lord Liddle
This is a very interesting historical debate, but I add to it to the point that one reason why Franco-German reconciliation occurred was because of the construction of the Federal Republic of Germany —in which Britain, in the post-war Labour Government, in particular its Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, played an absolutely central role—and its being one of the most successful states in Europe since the Second World War. That has been an essential underpinning of European union and peace.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I can go a long way towards agreeing with the noble Lord, but that is a somewhat different matter from the role of the European Union.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, just said, would my noble friend agree that we would not have had a peaceful Europe without a strong, stable Europe? Fundamental to creating that stability was the Coal and Steel Community, out of which came the European Common Market, as it was originally called. I believe it was a profound mistake, which a very great British Prime Minister tried to put right, that we were not in much earlier. My noble friend cannot say that it was just the Soviet threat that created a strong, stable Europe because that is manifestly untrue.
Lord Howard of Lympne
With respect to my noble friend, I did not say that. I repeat what I said: peace in western Europe after the Second World War owed more to the Soviet Union than it did to the European Union. I did not say that the Soviet Union’s threat was the only factor. Of course there were other factors. Many of the things said in questions to me in the past few minutes have considerable truth to them, but it is ridiculous to ignore the extent to which peace in western Europe was a consequence of the existential threat that the western part of the continent faced from the Soviet Union to the east. I would like to proceed to consider the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I do not intend to prolong this historical debate, other than to say to the noble Lord that he is falling into the trap that an earlier speaker warned us about—he is being too Manichean. He is juxtaposing the Soviet Union threat, the NATO response and the European Union. It is all of them together. It is because they are all working together to common aims that we have managed to come through better. When war broke out in Europe again in the 1990s, in the Balkans, the longer-term response to that has come mainly from the European Union. Surely we can move away from this distorted view of history and accept that the European Union has played an integral part in our security and prosperity but not the only part.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. His intervention establishes that we have made some progress because, in common parlance, the European Union is frequently given the entire credit for creating peace in western Europe after the Second World War but I do not believe that to be true.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I shall not give way on this any more. I want to move on to consider the Bill before your Lordships’ House today, on which we ought to focus our attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom we all admire and for whom we have so much affection, has recently propounded a novel theory of government and has given it a name—he calls it the government of good chaps. He is in a better position to explain his theory than I am but, as I understand it, one of the elements is that the constituent parts of government and our unwritten constitution should behave within their respective roles as understood by convention and tradition under those unwritten rules. I contend that the legislation before the House is a fundamental breach of the good chap theory of government.
I shall endeavour to explain why I have reached that conclusion. Our unwritten constitution is based on the separation of powers—in particular, between the Executive and the legislature. It is the role of the Executive to govern; it is the role of the legislature to hold the Executive to account—to hold to account but not itself to govern. This Bill represents an attempt by the legislature to assume the mantle of government. That is why it is wrong and illegitimate, constitutes a fundamental breach of the good chap theory of government and is in breach of the conventions of our unwritten constitution. These observations would apply regardless of the underlying reason which gives rise to the Bill; and the fact that the underlying reason underpinning the Bill relates to Brexit makes it even worse.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
If the only role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account, how does the noble Lord explain the fact that we pass laws which bind the Government? We often amend Bills that the Government introduce in a way that they do not want. We do more than hold the Government to account; we set the way in which the law of this country and the Government act.
Lord Howard of Lympne
Parliament passes laws initiated by government, and when Parliament passes, and indeed amends, those laws, it does not enter into the detailed prescription of government contained in this Bill. That is why this Bill and its predecessor, introduced earlier this year, represent so fundamental a breach of precedent. They were facilitated only by the fact that the Speaker in the other place decided to dispense with precedent and, as far as we are aware, to dispense with the advice he was given and to allow the Opposition to take charge of the business of the House.
I want to take the House back to the Second Reading of the referendum Bill in the other place—the Bill that provided for the referendum. That debate was introduced by the then Foreign Secretary, one Philip Hammond. He said that,
“whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
I repeat,
“or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
He said that the decision should be,
“for the common sense of the British people”,
and that this Bill,
“delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1056.]
The Bill which provided for that referendum was of course passed by a very large majority, but the difficulty that we have faced ever since is that the British people delivered a result that Parliament neither expected nor wanted. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I do not want to take up much time but it is very clear that, if we had to take the decision again, we would not have a referendum.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord is entitled to his view but I would not agree with him.
That is the root cause of the difficulties that we have faced over the last three years. Parliament took a different view. Parliament got the result from the British people, and certainly the then Foreign Secretary, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, got a result very different from the one that he wanted or expected. I regret to say that Parliament has, at every turn, sought to thwart the implementation of that decision of the British people, and this Bill is but the latest instalment of that sad endeavour. Of course, it gets us nowhere. We have had one extension as a result of the Bill’s predecessor. It has given six months of extra time, which has resulted in no conclusion. The failure of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was eloquent in its admission that those who came together to support the Bill before your Lordships, both in the other place and in this House, are not in any sense in agreement about the next steps and what ought to be done.
This situation is made even more serious by the refusal of those who proclaim their belief in democracy to put that belief into practice. It is bad enough that Parliament thinks that it knows better than the British people on this issue; it is even worse that, as things stand at the moment, Parliament is denying the British people a general election in which they would have the right to decide and to express their view on the performance of the malfunctioning of the other place and to insist on the implementation of the decision that they took in 2016. This Bill is, I hope, one of the final acts of a House of Commons that has proved itself manifestly incapable of meeting the challenges in front of it. I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, we have had only one speech from the Cross Benches so far. I suggest that one more might be appropriate at this juncture.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
The noble Lord would be regarded as a good chap if he were to give way to me, which he declined to do before. I have never said, nor did I say in my remarks, that the European Union was the sole cause of stability in Europe. Of course, NATO played its part. Indeed, I implied that when I referred to the attitudes and policies of Mr Putin. If he is endeavouring to infer that I believe that Europe alone has kept the peace, that is not the case.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Lord did not say so; I entirely agree. However, it is very commonly said—and it is not true.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as foreshadowed by its strange nickname—the surrender Bill—this Bill seems fated to be pigeonholed in the public debate as a remainer instrument that would need to be instantly repealed in the event of a Conservative victory at what we must assume to be the forthcoming general election. Of course, it gives some short-term comfort to those, like me, who still believe that our national interest is best served by staying in—but I suggest that this Bill, if passed, may prove to be of assistance even to dedicated leavers, should they soon find themselves with a parliamentary majority. It will save them from the consequences of the impetuous decision to set the date of 31 October in stone. It will do so in particular by allowing desperately needed time for two things the Government say they want: a withdrawal agreement and preparatory legislation.
Let us assume—generously, perhaps—that the Government are sincere in their stated preference for a negotiated Brexit. Their current position appears to be that an election in mid-October could be followed by a few days’ frenzied negotiation on the basis of proposals not yet submitted, a deal at the European summit in mid-October, the subsequent ratification of that deal—not only by this House but by the European Parliament—and the passage of a new and no doubt lengthy withdrawal agreement Bill, all by 31 October.
The Bill introduces an element of realism into that equation. It will have no effect if the Government achieve their stated aim of a deal by the European summit. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, even a subsequent deal will deactivate its requirements, according to Clause 1(5). If the Government do not achieve their aim, the extension that must be requested under the Bill is long enough for negotiations but not for a further referendum. Indeed, Clause 2 proceeds on the assumption that negotiations will progress during that period.
If our fate is to crash out with no deal, legislation will be required, and here too the Bill gives much-needed time. The Government were saying earlier this year that six new Bills were needed before a no-deal Brexit. Five of those Bills are still before Parliament. They will obviously not progress over the next few weeks, and I understand that it may not be possible even to carry over some of them into a new Session. Without those Bills, the Government will not be able—to give a few examples—to establish a trade remedies authority, set fishing quotas or even end free movement, if that is what they wish to do. To the dangers of a no-deal Brexit must be added the hazards of a legal vacuum.
Then there are the 100 Brexit-related statutory instruments that the Brexit Secretary said on 27 June were required before Brexit day. According to today’s UK Constitutional Law Association blog, only 27 of those have been laid, and Parliament is about to lose its ability to sift and scrutinise any that may be laid in the weeks to come.
We are all being urged to be ready for Brexit. This Bill is, among other things, an essential part of that process, and it has my support.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, whom I am very glad to count among my friends.
We should not be here, but we are. A few months ago, a resolution was passed in your Lordships’ House to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses, built upon a suggestion I made three years ago, to talk about the problems that this country would face and evaluate the cost of no-deal exit. I greatly regret that that opportunity was missed. Indeed, it was flagrantly ignored by those who had the power to accept it in another place: those who sat on the Government Benches.
My noble friend Lord Howard talked about the “good chaps” theory of government. We owe a great deal to a number of good chaps and chapesseswho are responsible for this Bill. They are giving us the opportunity of drawing back from the brink. While I agree very much with the general sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I came to the conclusion that the referendum, having happened and having produced what I consider to be an extremely disappointing and potentially very damaging result, had nevertheless been sanctioned by us and a clear but narrow result was achieved. I wanted to bend my efforts to ensuring that we left in a seemly and proper manner. What we are really talking about today is our continuing relationship with our friends and allies—and they are both—in continental Europe. It would be desperately damaging to our country, as well as to the peace of Europe, if we left in a fractious manner. It is crucial that we maintain our strong friendships. We are part of the continent of Europe; an insular part but a part none the less.
As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, even though I have a Scottish family background, my identity is English and my nationality is British. But my civilisation is European and that is something that we all share, whether we acknowledge it or not. Whether I go across the road to the great abbey, or across the road at home to the great cathedral of Lincoln, I see an embodiment of European civilisation. It is crucial that, in a continent that has been devastated by war far too often, we maintain the closest, friendliest and most co-operative relations with the nations of Europe. If we crash out without a deal, in a spirit of inevitable acrimony—we saw yesterday how that could arise in this very House, among friends and colleagues—then we are reneging on our joint parliamentary duties, in the other place and in this House.
We owe a great deal to the bravery of the 21. I believe that the vindictive and appalling treatment of them is a blot on our party, which must be expunged as quickly as possible. The very future of our country and our political system is at stake. My noble friend Lord Howell, in his interesting speech, talked about changes. I think of my favourite poet, Tennyson, who said:
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.
Maybe we will have to look at new political alignments in our country, because if the Conservative Party becomes a rebranded Brexit Party, as Ken Clarke indicated the other day, where is the place for one-nation conservatism? Where is the place for a party that has contributed so much, as other parties have, to our country’s history and present position? If the Conservative Party is led in this direction, and those who have given such notable and distinguished service as Ken Clarke are extinguished from it, maybe we will have to look for a new centre party, embodying what is best in the political system in our country.
The tragedy of British politics today is that we have a Conservative Party being led in a particular manner and a Labour Party that brings shame upon itself and deserves, in the tradition of Attlee, Gaitskell, Wilson and Callaghan, to have a statesman at its head. Whatever one’s views of Mr Corbyn, one can never define him as a statesman. All of us, on both sides of this House, face real problems. We will compound those problems in a terrible manner if we crash out of the European Union and heap upon ourselves problems that we do not need to heap upon ourselves.
We have missed opportunities. I referred to the failure to take up the suggestion of the Joint Committee. I believe we missed an opportunity in not being more embracing of the deal that my noble friend Lord Callanan, who is just leaving the Chamber, did so much to defend here. I hope that his exit does not indicate a change of mind on it, because the May deal was not even the beginning of the end; it was really the beginning of the beginning, because there is a great deal more work and negotiation to be done, whatever happens. I hope that, because of the deep, visceral divisions in our country, we will give some thought, when the election comes, to having a referendum on the same day. Some may utter notes of dissent, but a good many of my friends who have not been supporters of a second referendum believe that this may well be a way of separating the issues of who people want to govern the country and our place in Europe.
There is a lot to play for but it is crucial in the context of today’s debate that we have a proper and organised exit that maintains relations with countries with which we have had such close relations, in a continent in which we have played such a seminal part through the centuries. From the Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic wars, and beyond to the wars of the last century, this country’s role has been one of which we can be proud. Do not let us descend into an insular status of which our grandchildren would be ashamed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who I also consider a friend. I agreed with most of what he said on the European context, as much as I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, a few moments ago.
I welcome the comments with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, opened this debate, referring to the context of our times in which this debate takes place. It was 80 years ago this week that the Second World War started. At that time we did not turn our backs on Europe. The existence of the European Union has grown from the desire of people to avoid ever again fighting civil wars on our continent in the way that happened so disastrously twice in the last century. That is the context of what we are debating now.
I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the way he introduced it. My party, Plaid Cymru, played a constructive role in the discussions that took place and led to this Bill, particularly through Liz Saville Roberts MP, our leader in the House of Commons. As a party, we campaigned to remain—and so did I. However, we were willing to seek a compromise because we recognised that Wales and Britain had voted no to Europe. In fact, a White Paper was brought forward jointly by the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru with a compromise that would have involved a customs union and single market involvement. It could have found a majority across party boundaries in the House of Commons, but it was ruled out by the red lines that Mrs May introduced. I regret very much indeed that that opportunity was missed.
Of course, things have now moved on. We are faced with a very real danger of crashing out of the European Union on a no-deal basis. This would be utterly disastrous in the Irish context, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will talk about in a few moments’ time. It would also be disastrous at home in Wales. Take agriculture: in the first week of November, where will our sheep farmers take their sheep when there is no market for them? That it true not just in Wales but in the north of England and Scotland. When we have an unknown trading relationship with the continent into which we are so integrated, how will the manufacturing companies in my part of north Wales, such as Airbus and Toyota, be able to continue trading, given the just-in-time basis on which deliveries take place? The same is true for our universities, the tourism sector and NHS staff. It will be a disaster if we crash out. I support the Second Reading of this Bill in order to systematically and definitively avoid no deal.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I do not think the Labour Benches have spoken recently. It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as it was to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is indeed a friend as well.
I fear that the new Prime Minister, his advisers and his Ministers are clearly hell-bent on crashing this United Kingdom out of the European Union without a deal. There is a dogmatic, hard-right elite in No. 10. In passing this Bill, Parliament is standing up for the decent majority in this country and against that malevolent elite. This sinister, self-serving, ideologically obsessed, wilfully destructive approach has to be stopped in its tracks. We in your Lordships’ House have a chance to do that today in supporting the elected House of Commons.
A salutary measure of the reckless dogmatism of the Brexiteers is that surveys show that two-thirds of Conservative Party members and the same proportion of Leave supporters simply do not care if Brexit means a hard Irish border or Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. For them Brexit is everything, come what may. You might say that, for them, Brexit trumps everything.
With the clock ticking rapidly towards 31 October, the new Government have done precisely nothing in their couple of months in office—deliberately so. Whatever the Prime Minister’s disingenuous protestations, he is running down the clock to crash out of the European Union on 31 October unless we stop him.
We simply cannot believe what he says. As Aidan O’Neill QC said of the Prime Minister in submissions to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on behalf of the 77 parliamentarians in the challenge to the Government’s arbitrary Prorogation of Parliament:
“You look at the record, you try as best you can to determine the credibility and reliability of what is said against a background of an individual whose personal, professional and political life has been characterised by incontinent mendacity or, to make it plainer, an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge and speak the truth”.
I see that the Prime Minister’s EU negotiator was back in Brussels again yesterday, again with nothing to say, nothing to offer and nothing to propose—a briefcase full of blank sheets of paper, I suspect, and a waste of taxpayers’ money on his Eurostar fare, I would venture. Apparently, this negotiator is an able and experienced diplomat. Having worked with his predecessors, I have no doubt that he is, but his political masters will not let him use those talents and do his job. Instead, the Prime Minister travels to Paris and Berlin— Dublin next Monday, too—then exaggerates or fabricates what exactly happened.
“We’re making real progress”, claims the Prime Minister. I have checked directly with government contacts in the main capitals and with people in Brussels and that is simply not true. Look at the comments on the record from Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Dublin, and it is crystal clear that not one single proposal has been made. It is also clear that they are not budging. Why would you in any negotiation if the other side has not made any counterproposal at all?
The tragedy is that this is not incompetence. This is not a Government taking their time in the background to prepare a serious, considered new idea. It is deliberate inaction, running down that clock and being gratuitously insulting to our friends in the Irish Republic, hoping to make it to a no-deal exit designed to turn this country upside down and convert it into a free-for-all, deregulated and fundamentally unequal society blissfully disengaged from its neighbours and isolated from the outside world.
Today, we get a chance to make the Prime Minister stop that clock. I do not want Brexit at all and I think the people should have another say in a public vote to stop this madness, but if the choice ends up being between a deal and no deal, we have to stop no deal.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Following on from the noble Lord’s comments about checking with other European capitals, I did likewise this morning and asked whether any full proposal has been put forward in relation to any aspect of the negotiations. I received the categoric response that no proposals have been put forward.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention because he is absolutely right and confirms what I was asserting.
Nowhere is the serial dishonesty of the Prime Minister starker than on the Irish border. Do not take it from me; take it from our very own Civil Service, whose work on no-deal planning emerged in mid-August in what was known as Operation Yellowhammer. Its analysis made it crystal clear that, although Ministers keep saying that they will not do so, not putting up border controls will be unsustainable because of,
“economic, legal and biosecurity risks”,
and that this could lead to “direct action” and road blockades. I fear that that is an understatement.
Next, there is the Northern Ireland Civil Service, an organisation under considerable pressure because of not just Brexit but the shameful lack of a Government in Belfast. Its top official said bluntly that the impact would be much more severe than in Great Britain and would have profound and lasting social and economic consequences, and that the overall consequences for Northern Ireland would be grave.
Worse again—if that is possible—the new chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland warned that Brexit could become a “trigger” and a “fuelling point” to attract more people to extremist groups. His assistant chief constable was reported to have said in an interview that,
“we would be concerned for a six to 12-month time frame there would be some sort of upsurge in support for dissident republican groupings and activities”.
Those are not my words; they are the words of police chiefs. I could go on but, on the basis of just those three assessments by professional public servants, I ask this: why in God’s name would we ever wilfully facilitate these no-deal outcomes? The Prime Minister seems happy to do so, but I am not—and I trust that this House is not happy either.
At the root of the problem is that the Prime Minister and his fellow Brexiteers never have had a proper plan of their own for Brexit. They never put one forward in the referendum, and on the Irish border he still does not have a plan. That is why many of them openly favour no deal: because it is the only alternative if you have no plan.
The truth is that no deal equals a hard border because that is what falling out under World Trade Organization rules means. I am no fan of former Prime Minister May’s withdrawal agreement, but I accept the backstop knowing the complexities of Northern Ireland from my time as Secretary of State. In his reckless, bull-headed fashion, the Prime Minister has made the backstop the villain of the piece, but it is an insurance policy and, if alternative arrangements are found to achieve the same objectives, of the same open border as we have now, then it is set aside. What is wrong with that?
The Prime Minister and many commentators here—and, sadly, some elements in Belfast as well—try to pretend that Northern Ireland is no different from anywhere else: that it is just another border, like, as he famously said, that between two London boroughs and just another straightforward place where trade in goods is the only issue. In fact, the Prime Minister seems to have dumbed this down even further and decided that the only goods traded are animals and food. I thought the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was extremely telling. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but he did not answer his noble friend’s question: there is no other border in the whole world like the Irish border. That is why it needs a particular solution and not a no-deal outcome.
The Prime Minister surely knows deep down that it is not true either that this border is simply about animals and food. It is a 300-mile border with some 300 crossings—those are the formal crossings; leave aside the farms that cross the border and other communities that straddle it—unlike almost every other border in the world. It has unique arrangements under the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for north-south co-operation and that agreement is an international treaty. A little-noticed document published on 7 December by the Department for Exiting the EU lists no fewer than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation on the island of Ireland, north and south, and many have been facilitated by Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of the EU. These areas are the things of everyday life; they go well beyond animals and food and must never have a new border erected to block, discourage or thwart them. They include food, tourism, schools, colleges, farming, fighting crime, tackling environmental pollution, water quality and supply, waste management, bus services, train services, cancer care, GPs and prescriptions, blood transfusions and gas and electricity supply.
Almost every one of these areas is about people’s everyday cross-border lives and almost all are linked to the European Union, and Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of it since 1973—we joined at the same time. To interfere with those arrangements—either through no deal, the terms of any divorce deal or any new trade agreements that we may someday, somehow strike with EU partners—would be a terrible step backwards for which the people of the island of Ireland would pay a terrible price, as would we in Great Britain.
With other Peers, I learned one other thing the other day. With Stormont suspended and unlikely to be resurrected unless Brexit is stopped, if no deal occurred there would be no legal powers left for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to maintain the necessary civil contingency and security arrangements in border communities and beyond. In other words, no deal means direct rule. That is the serious consequence for the island of Ireland of no deal.
I am desperately worried for the future of Britain under no deal, but I am absolutely livid about the impact on the island of Ireland. It will destroy the work of successive UK and Irish Governments in helping courageous and visionary leaders in Northern Ireland to remove borders and instead put them back up. If for no other reason than to maintain peace and progress in Northern Ireland and good relations with the Republic, I urge that this Bill pass without amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I want to make two brief points, one of which is directly concerned with the Bill, from which we have been drifting somewhat. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made a compelling case for the unification of Ireland—but that may be for another day—and that the effect of terrorism seems to have achieved what the terrorists wanted.
Turning to the Bill, it does not answer the question of what the situation will be if there is still no deal by the end of January. Will the extension be continued? Nothing in the Bill prevents the continuation of extensions, months after months, years after years—nothing at all. It is an eternal Bill, an ongoing loop of requests for extensions. It also does not answer the question of what our response will be if Europe grants an extension but subject to conditions. I am sure they will be tempted to add conditions to do with extra payments, losing votes, residence, immigration, tax and so on. There is no answer in the Bill at all.
The only bright thing I see in this Bill, which I regard otherwise as a moment of great national humiliation, is called the Kinnock amendment. I have not seen it in the Bill, but I have read that, somehow, an amendment put in by the MP Stephen Kinnock would allow Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement to return. I would put money on that agreement coming back, sooner or later, maybe with a tweak or two. In a fit, either of exhaustion or realism, that Bill will go through. It may be that history will say that there was a woman, St Theresa of Maidenhead, who laid down her political life to achieve an agreement. If that happens, much of the last three years will have been wasted. I am not the only one putting money on it coming back, as it may be the only solution.
The right reverend Prelate raised the notion of vision. People often talk about the vision of Britain after Brexit. I ask what the European vision is. If this had been put before the public three years ago, the outcome might have been different. I have been looking for a European vision for more than 25 years, since I decided that I did not want any part of it. The only answer has ever been more union, more Europe, marching on. Foreign policy has been raised. It has made us weaker. What is the European attitude towards Iran, Russia, China or the Middle East? We get division, hesitation and some countries that are beholden to Russia, one way or another, because of gas or their former existence under the Soviet shadow.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Baroness asked some questions about the European attitude. The European attitude towards Iran is clear: it wishes to sustain the joint agreement, which stops Iran developing nuclear weapons, and to ease sanctions on Iran. Its position on Russia is clear: it intends to maintain sanctions against Russia, because of its interference in Ukraine and seizure of Crimea. The attitude towards China is clear: the European Union believes that many Chinese trade practices are wrong and need to change. On the Middle East, it is clear that we have supported a two-state solution ever since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, persuaded the European Union to take it up in 1980. Is that enough?
Baroness Deech
The account of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, expresses exactly the failure to which I refer. Not one of these so-called attitudes has paid off, in the least. Our foreign policy, on our own, has been and will in the future be much more successful.
Baroness Deech
There was genocide in Kosovo and nothing was done by Europe. Crimea was taken over and nothing was done by Europe. Europe is not paying its subventions to NATO.
Then we look further into Europe, which is much vaunted for its human rights. In Catalonia, strivers for independence are in prison. Poland lacks judicial independence and freedom of speech and refuses to take any except Christian migrants. Italy is chaotic. Greece has been driven into poverty, and there is youth unemployment in Spain and Portugal. In Germany and many other countries, the right wing is on the rise. In France, the gilets jaunes are an expression of a much deeper malaise. French security is an oxymoron, as is Belgian intelligence. I will be happy for Hansard to record my deep fears about the future of the European Union because empires—it was a Franco-German empire and is now just a German empire—end like this, with too much power in the middle and too much unhappiness on the periphery, and the push-back gives rise to the extremism which we see rising around Europe and which is lapping at our ankles now.
On that count, I think that our membership cannot but be something of a record of failure to stem what has happened in Europe. I wish the other 27 well in future, but if I were a citizen of one of the countries I have just mentioned, I would feel very fearful for my future welfare. I hope that we can get some answers from the Benches opposite about what the Bill will do to prevent the eternal burden of membership of the European Union.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, I must say I am slightly lost for words and do not know quite what to say in—.
Lord Mandelson
I think it is the turn of this side, but there is plenty of time.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as a woman I find it very difficult to get in in these sorts of debate, but I rise to speak on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and to contribute to the scrutiny. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. We should thank her for the excellent speech she made yesterday which helped us to move forward and to be here today to scrutinise the No. 6 Bill. I am also grateful for the midnight peace talks admirably led by the new Chief Whip. Thanks to him, we all had some beauty sleep.
My amendments were not reached yesterday, but I was horrified by the way the procedures of our House were being perverted. I knew a plot was afoot because on Tuesday I walked into the Moses Room by mistake. I was too well-behaved to eavesdrop or to tweet what was going on—I have a good convent education to thank for that. Scrutiny is at the heart of the work of this House, as I think we agreed yesterday. Today’s debate and tomorrow’s Committee and Report stages give us an opportunity to go through this Bill line by line, which is what I hope we will be able to do.
I believe there is growing evidence of the negative impact of Brexit on the economy and society. I am in business, and uncertainty has been rising. It is extremely difficult for all involved. Noble Lords will know that I am a remainer and have worked for most of my career on EU matters. However, I share the view of growing numbers of people in this country that we must get on with Brexit. Months, or even years, of delay to Brexit day, which I think this Bill accommodates, will make matters worse, not better. We cannot have another three years of going round in circles. I think that is a risk. We need an agreement.
However, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, from my long experience in Brussels, we have to keep open the option of no deal; otherwise our negotiating position in the Brexit negotiations is undermined. Indeed, on the matter of no deal, I was glad to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who asked us to look critically at the actual impact of no deal. I took some comfort from the Statement earlier this week by my noble friend Lord Callanan, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is heading up no-deal contingency planning with enormous drive and professionalism. I think the pace of transformation is at a completely different scale and rate from what we saw under the May premiership. That is just in case we cannot come up with the agreement that we want.
Lord Krebs
On the matter of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he said on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday morning that there would be no shortages of fresh food, but the British Retail Consortium, with which the noble Baroness will be very familiar from her work with one of our major food retailers, immediately said that that was categorically untrue. Does she accept what the Chancellor of the Duchy is saying, or does she accept that the trade association for the business in which she used to work knows what it is talking about?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I know what I know and I know what I do not know, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is pushing things forward with an enormous amount of energy. No doubt after that exchange he will have been straight on to Defra, or whoever is responsible for these things, to talk further about the arrangements. Clearly, there are going to be problems from Brexit, whether with a deal or with no deal, and of course I know that food is a particularly difficult area. However, I am saying that we need to have proper management across the board, and I think we are seeing signs of that.
You have to look at both sides of the argument, but this debate has been very one-sided so far. I am interested in talking about the Bill rather than wider polemics or history, which I can help the House with less. My current inclination is to oppose the Bill and vote against it if I have the opportunity.
That brings me on to my questions, and I hope the noble Lords opposite—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is in his place—will be able to help me with a more detailed justification of the Bill’s provisions so that there will be more explanation and fewer polemics in the debate. The Bill as it stands—and I have read it—appears to force the Prime Minister’s hand. It seems that he would have to accept almost any deal that the EU offered up. I am also concerned that the Bill gives the EU too much power over timing. Clauses 3(1) to (3) seem to tie the Prime Minister’s hands quite tightly. I am not sure what Clause 3(4) does and whether it moderates any risk.
I am keen to assist with the scrutiny of the Bill, but I fear that we may come to regret some of its provisions, especially if we do not look very carefully at something that was pushed through at great speed under the guillotine culture of the other place, which we discussed yesterday. We need to find the right result for our economy and our people and to end this cloud of uncertainty that is a real problem for the country. I hope I am wrong and that this will help us, but I remain extremely unsure.
Lord Mandelson
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, with whom I have seen eye to eye on almost all business questions—certainly the majority of them—in the past.
Before I comment briefly on the Bill itself, I shall make two preliminary remarks. The first is that, as a former Northern Ireland Secretary, I strongly endorse the remarks and arguments made by my noble friend Lord Hain. He was not indulging in hyperbole. This is reality; it is real-life politics in Northern Ireland. There is an enormous amount at stake and any of us would be very ill-advised if, for the sake of boredom with the subject, including the backstop, we were simply to pass over what he has said. There are genuine risks involved in relation to peace in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I will comment on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. From the discussions I have had in national capitals and in Brussels, I can confirm that he is absolutely right that no proposals have been made by the British Government that are negotiable and would lead to a deal being concluded in October, November, December or any other month. However, certain ideas are being canvassed which concern the sectoral coverage of the backstop, its possible duration and the conditions surrounding both those aspects of it. The reason in my view that they have not been tabled is that a judgment has already been made that they will be unacceptable to those with whom we are going to negotiate. They involve a compromising and an undermining of the backstop which would negate its purpose and effect.
Therefore, the chances of what is being considered in Whitehall and was taken to Brussels by David Frost —who is a credible interlocutor and diplomat representing the British Government—being accepted in Brussels are hovering on zero. That is why we cannot take at face value the Prime Minister’s statement that he is negotiating in good faith. I do not believe that he wants to negotiate a deal. I think he would like to present, as it were, a fait accompli—something that he would ideally like to see—but not to negotiate. That is simply not going to happen.
I support the Bill for one reason, which is that crashing out of the European Union on 31 October without a deal would be, to put it mildly, highly sub-optimal for our country. It would prevent us from securing the continuity of our enforceable trade rights in what is our biggest export market in the world; it would prevent us from securing the continuity for many businesses operating in the European market of their enforceable business contracts. There are a host—a waterfront—of pacts, agreements and laws that underpin our commercial and related relationships with the European Union that have been built up over half a century, all of which we would be unable to guarantee the continuity of from the stroke of midnight on leaving the European Union without a deal.
I am not saying that aircraft would fall out of the sky or that many of these agreements would simply disappear and dematerialise before our eyes. However, over time they would come to be contested. There would be people, for a variety of reasons, wanting to pull threads and then pull a rug from underneath a variety of these pacts and agreements. If we were to leave without securing their continuity, we would create the risk of huge damage and jeopardy to our commercial relations, and therefore to our economy and to the jobs, livelihoods and investments of hundreds of thousands of people in Britain.
It would also do something else: it would destroy what lingering goodwill exists in Europe towards us. If we were to crash out and leave in such a disorderly way, it would inflict great damage not only on our own country but on all member states of the European Union. Such an act would make their willingness and our ability to negotiate a future free trade agreement between ourselves and the European Union infinitely harder to achieve. For that reason also, we should avoid crashing out without a deal.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am listening to the enormous expertise of the noble Lord and indeed I am in considerable agreement, particularly about the crash-out, which in a way I am rather happy this Bill possibly postpones and possibly avoids. I am listening also to the great expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. But are they both quite sure that the enormous amount of work that has been done on volumes such as the one that I have here on alternative arrangements in the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, which is quite unlike any other border in the world, are non-starters before they are even discussed in Brussels? Is he quite sure that all the proposals for special regions, trusted traders and new arrangements for all-Ireland animal livestock and so on can be thrown out of the window before we even start? I am not so sure myself.
Lord Mandelson
Nor am I. I am not so sure that we should just push them all to one side as though they have absolutely no potential whatever. That is not my view. My view is that they are not realisable in the foreseeable future and that, in the meantime, we would put the Good Friday agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland in great jeopardy in a way that would be unjustified and unforgivable. There is a very interesting discussion to be had about the future. It depends on certain modalities, technology and related approaches that have potential—I fully accept that—but they are not for now; in my view, they are for the future.
There is not only the obvious economic, business and commercial argument to be had concerning people’s jobs and livelihoods that are at stake; in my view, there is also a very strong democratic argument to which we should attach great importance in our consideration of this Bill. Quite simply, it is that there was no mandate from the 2016 referendum for a no-deal Brexit. I know that people will say that it was not explicitly ruled out, but to all intents and purposes it was ruled out by the fact that nobody referred to it, nobody explained it, nobody justified it and nobody set out the arguments for it. Not one of the advocates of the leave campaign ever entertained the idea that this would be the outcome of our leaving the European Union.
Such a possibility was almost literally airbrushed out of the picture by the promises that were made by the advocates of the leave campaign—that getting a deal would be “the easiest in history”. Plus, there was a later guarantee—I remember that “guarantee” was the word used by No. 10 in repeating what the then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, had said. The precise words used were that we would have the “exact same trade benefits” after we left the European Union. Not only has that promise of the easiest trade deal in history turned out to be wrong and unfulfillable but the exact same trade benefits will, as we know, be nothing of the kind. They cannot be anything of the kind. We will sustain frictionless trade that is exactly the same as the trade benefits that we have at the moment only if, at the very least, we stay in a customs union with the European Union and fully in the single market. That is the only way in which those promises that were made—that guarantee put forward by No. 10 —could possibly be redeemed, yet it is firmly, consistently and explicitly excluded by the Government.
Baroness Deech
I have a point of order about the non-envisioning of a no deal. Of course it was not raised at the time. First, Article 50 mandates that the EU shall negotiate a treaty, which it has failed to do. Secondly, it was never envisaged that the remainers would fight this all the way along for several years. Thirdly, the agreement that we talked about in a broad sense and was mentioned at the time was to do with trade. The actual withdrawal agreement, when we get to it, is about much more than trade. In that sense, it is perfectly understandable that there was no explicit discussion of no deal.
Lord Mandelson
I do not remember any of those intricacies, highways and byways being set out by anyone at the time or since—but, of course, the House will be interested in what the noble Baroness has to say.
The fact that any possibility of maintaining frictionless trade has been explicitly excluded by the Government is extremely serious for the manufacturing sector in this country and the long-term health of our economy. I do not see and cannot understand how, given the nature of just-in-time, sophisticated manufacturing supply chains and the way in which they operate between the UK and the continent, it will be possible for Japanese car companies or Airbus or any significant manufacturing enterprise to sustain production in Britain in the medium term.
That does not mean to say that they are all going to pull stumps, shut the doors and pull the shutters down and leave the day after tomorrow. Of course they are not, and any sense that they might is an absurd piece of hyperbole. However, over time—by which I mean between five and 10 years and probably on the shorter end of that spectrum—these great manufacturing companies are going to have to make new arrangements. They are going to have to move production in a way that enables them to secure continuity of their supply chains and the frictionless trade that they will no longer have when sustaining production in this country.
Let us not go back over all the customs union and single market arguments. I do not know what has happened to the Kinnock amendment and his and his colleagues’ advocacy of Norway. All I would say is that it would appear that there is no political possibility of those options being reintroduced or attracting and sustaining a majority, certainly in the other House. Let us acknowledge that they would in any case raise issues of regulatory dependence by this country on the European Union, while having no say in the making of those regulations.
I do not dismiss that. Having been on both sides of this as a UK Business Secretary and a member of the European Commission, I take rather seriously the idea that we in this country would simply be on the receiving end of laws and regulations made in Brussels over which we would have been able to express no view. There are real issues involved here and I acknowledge them.
In conclusion, the central point—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made it earlier—is that the referendum in 2016 was an in/out one. It was an in-principle referendum. It was not about the how and the terms on which we would leave the European Union. No hint of those terms was spelled out between a soft and a hard Brexit, and of course there was absolutely no indication of leaving without n deal at all.
So now, as we find ourselves, at the behest of the new Prime Minister, hurtling towards a no-deal exit, I believe that the Government should accept that this really cannot and should not happen without the express approval either of Parliament or the public. I will wind up, if I may—it is nice to see the Government Front Bench intervening in a debate at long last. Here is my further point in conclusion. I do not believe that the express approval of the British public for how we leave the European Union can possibly be expressed by means of a general election.
Lord Framlingham
The noble Lord is maintaining that there is no debate about what would happen after the referendum. Does he not recall that the leave people made lots of forecasts—some of which have not happened—and that the Government spent a fortune sending leaflets to every household in the country, warning about all the problems in great detail? There was a huge amount of debate at the time of the referendum. It was not simply in or out and nothing else.
Lord Mandelson
Perhaps my recollection is at fault, but I do not remember a huge amount of debate about the respective merits of a soft and hard Brexit, let alone a no-deal Brexit.
In conclusion, I do not think that you can arrive at a clear choice about how we leave the European Union by means of a general election in which so many issues, subjects and personalities are at play. We should look to a clear-choice referendum where the options are properly explained and a full debate is had. The public can give their final say one way or the other about how—and, if the how on offer is unsatisfactory, if—we eventually leave the European Union.
It may be that the Government want one of these options to be a no deal. If so, it is up to the Government to put forward a no-deal option in a clear, final-say referendum. If they want to do that, so be it. If they have exhausted all the alternative negotiating possibilities, let that be put fairly and squarely to the public in a referendum. It must be a clear alternative—a clear choice—that the public are asked to make. Without it, I am afraid we are never going to find a way of resolving what is a most acute conundrum.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, somebody died this week who was a prominent northern circuit silk—a Queen’s Counsel—in my years in the law. He was known throughout the profession as the Alka-Seltzer because he settled everything. It was of great credit to him and brought him great repute. It is a pity that there are not more Alka-Seltzers in both Houses of Parliament today.
I speak as a remainer who has long been reconciled to having to leave. I strongly and consistently supported the May deal over recent months. One of its merits was that it satisfied no one. There would be no winners, and only when there are no winners are there no outright losers who will continue to bedevil relations in this country.
I am no supporter of the Prime Minister, nor of his team. I am against Prorogation. I am against crashing out without a deal. I am against the narrowing down of the basis of the Tory party and almost everything else. However, I cannot support this Bill. It is truly remarkable—an Opposition Bill; a curiosity which raises one’s suspicions from the outset. It is designed and calculated to have these twin consequences. First, it immediately tells the EU 27 that, if they do not now offer a more acceptable deal than the May deal, instead of the no-deal Brexit—the Prime Minister’s intended consequence which the EU 27 must, heaven knows, in logic be desperate to avoid—they can rest immediately secure in the knowledge that, without an acceptable deal, we will instead remain for at least three months, and who knows on what recurring basis into the future, on whatever terms they choose to impose.
The second twin consequence is that, in the event that there is no deal by 19 October, which is logically more likely because of the weakening of the negotiating position—the first consequence I mentioned—the Bill compels the Prime Minister of this country to go to Brussels, cap in hand, no doubt with Dominic Cummings to heel, in order not merely to seek but to obtain and secure a further extension of what has already been twice extended, on whatever terms the 27 choose to impose this time.
Ordinarily, of course, one normally simply accepts a majority decision of the House of Commons. This House has its very limited scrutiny and revision role. It plays ping-pong, a misnomer if ever there was one. In the game of ping-pong, you are allowed to return service, but that is it. If the server then comes back at you, you are, just occasionally, allowed one more shot. At that stage, your opponent—and he is an opponent—is entitled to win.
In my respectful submission, I seriously question why the usual convention should apply in the particular circumstances of this case, when those promoting this Bill are at one and the same time intent on compelling the deep abasement of our sitting Prime Minister and yet refusing the Government the opportunity by general election to reinforce its right to govern, which we generally take for granted. It seems pretty difficult to me to suggest that the promoters of this Bill are obviously faithfully fulfilling the clear will and mandate of the electorate. The country really wants an end to this. Bring on the Alka-Seltzers to achieve it—by adopting, with some sensible modification, if necessary, the May solution.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene in this debate—and that is true. Having sat through much of the night, benefiting from the wisdom of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Dobbs while envying my noble friend Lord Forsyth—by then in his sleeper on the way to Scotland as the rest of us dealt with the filibustering that he had launched with his usual panache—I thought that I had probably had enough of all of this. However, one of the dangers of coming in and listening to a debate is that one is provoked into wanting to make one or two contributions. This is particularly the case whenever I listen to my noble friend Lord Howard. I can honestly say that, while I have disagreed with him on many subjects over the years, I have never doubted that he was anything other than a good chap.
I will come back to good chaps in a moment. There were two points I wanted to make as prequels to three points—which I will cover very briefly because they have been dealt with admirably by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Mandelson.
I want to endorse what was said earlier about the departure from the Government of the Higher Education and Science Minister, Jo Johnson. I will not make the obvious points about Johnsons and one’s preference. However, Jo Johnson was at my university, where I am now a chancellor. I did not always agree with the legislation he brought forward on higher education in the last Session, but he was an outstandingly good and conscientious Higher Education Minister, as well as very intelligent. He is a real loss to the Administration, and I hope he is not a loss to public service for family reasons. He is a very good man.
Secondly, I want to identify myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cormack earlier about the treatment of some of our former, present colleagues. I am sure it was inadvertence which meant that my noble friend Lord Howard did not refer to them either. We were both colleagues of theirs in government. I am sure he shares my high view of their public integrity and public service. My noble friend has known one or two of them even longer than I have—he was at Cambridge with them. I am surprised that we did not hear about the appalling and hypocritical way in which they have been treated. I hope that will be undone as rapidly as possible; it was not Mr Cummings’s or Mr Johnson’s finest hour.
I shall briefly make three points, which have been touched on in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. The first is on the trade negotiations. We have been told again and again that the reason this Bill is so suspect is that it cuts the Prime Minister off at the knees in the negotiations over our future relationship with the European Union but, as my noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out, the question is: what negotiations? There is no rustling in the shrubbery. You ask the President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the French Republic, the Chancellor of Germany and the Taoiseach about the proposals that justify our Prime Minister in his observation that things are going well and the Government are putting forward all sorts of bright ideas, but there is no reply. It would be nice to hear from the Front Bench later this evening what the state of play is in these negotiations and what we are proposing—presumably somebody knows. Maybe we should just take it from Mr Cummings, the éminence grise in the regime—maybe one should call him the éminence—who has brought a new approach to personnel management at No. 10, that all this is a sham. But if it is a sham, that is all the more reason for having this legislation in place. If it is not a sham and we are making terrific progress, it seems very likely that we need rather more time to complete the progress, hence one of the advantages in a reply to a question posed earlier, and hence the advantage of a few more months being built in, if absolutely necessary.
The second point, related to that, is touched on by the “good chaps” theory, which, to be operable, needs a sense that the people you are dealing with are good chaps. One thing we know, and which underpins some of the discussions about when there should next be an election, is that there is a strong sense and suspicion—I put the point no more firmly than this, but I use a word used by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke—of the disingenuousness of the Prime Minister. Maybe there are those who are not absolutely sure that he and the people who surround him are good chaps. We know that eight of them voted again and again as bad chaps against the proposals that the last Prime Minister brought forward. One reason we have had this long period of delay is the activities—the high productivity rates—of the ERG during the negotiations so far.
There is another aspect of the “good chaps” thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, which needs touching on. I thought my noble friend Lord Howard was rather curious in the division he drew between the Executive and the legislature in international affairs and international negotiations. I, like him, was a Secretary of State for the Environment. I used to go to international negotiations on the environment with the reports of Select Committees and with legislation from the House of Commons determining what I should try to do about ozone-depleting substances, or water or air quality. When I was a Development Minister, I had to operate within the terms that the House of Commons had agreed on the proportion of our GDP to be spent on overseas development. I had to comply with what the OECD said about that as well. When I was a colonial despot, I had to implement what Parliament had decided about the joint declaration and the terms within which Britain should exercise its stewardship in our last colonial dependency. So do not tell me that there is an absolute division between what Executives can do abroad and what the legislature has a right to determine.
My final point is about Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat the points made very well by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Mandelson, nor shall I repeat what I have said on other occasions in this House about the Northern Ireland border. It is a sign of the beginning of dementia when you start quoting your own speeches. However, in the second speech I made on the withdrawal Bill, I said that one of only two interventions made by the last Prime Minister during the referendum campaign was about the appalling difficulties of managing the border if we leave the European Union, which was true. Two points have regularly been made about the border. First, there are terrible difficulties as soon as you leave the single market for the customs union. Some of us posed a question to the intellectually sprightly Lord, my noble friend Lord Howell, about where else in the world one could find two countries side by side with different tax regimes and different customs unions that do not have a border, and the answer is that there are none. There are ways of making it easier to deal with a border, but when you have different customs unions and different tax arrangements side by side, there is no way that you cannot have a border. The problem with that in Northern Ireland is very simple.
Lord Howell of Guildford
There are different arrangements either side of the border; there have been for years. The VAT is different, the currencies are different, there are all sorts of differences, and many similarities. You cannot just brush these things aside with generalities.
Lord Patten of Barnes
The point I continually make is that absolutely everywhere, whether it is in Switzerland and France, Norway and Sweden or the United States and Canada, if one is in a different customs union from one’s neighbour, there is a hard border.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I would be very interested to know how he reconciles what he has just said with the fact that when, for a few weeks earlier in the year, it looked as though we might be leaving the European Union without an agreement, the Government said that they had no intention of putting up a hard border on the island of Ireland, and Mr Varadkar, Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker also said that they had no intention of putting up a hard border on the Republic side of the border. If no one intended to put up a hard border in the event of no deal, there must be a way through.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My noble friend knows perfectly well that under WTO rules, and for other reasons as well, if the Republic of Ireland is in a separate customs union from Great Britain, there has to be a border. It is a WTO rule. There is a border and traffic is stopped there.
There is a point that resonates even more than the economic argument, which is the question of security. I am sorry to personalise this, but a lot of our knowledge—and our prejudices, perhaps—in politics come from our personal experiences. The first time I saw dead bodies, apart from those of my parents, was near the Newry customs post in Northern Ireland, where I saw part of a leg on top of a rhododendron bush. We know perfectly well that if we do not get this right, there is a danger of people being killed—not just of businesses being destroyed or communities being devastated, but of people dying. If people do not believe that, they should read what is said again and again by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána.
These are terribly important issues and I just hope that we will bear in mind these facts, as well as the questions of economics and trade, when we are determining the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which many people still seem to treat as though we have viceregal authority over it. These are great friends of ours and we should treat them rather better than we do.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, I had not intended to speak today, in particular because I spent so many hours yesterday voting on a variety of closure Motions and amendments that appeared, I thought, somewhat unnecessary. The whole procedure contributed to the sense that it was not Parliament’s finest hour—a strange position to be in when, surely, the whole purpose of the vote to leave the European Union was for the United Kingdom to take back control. We do not seem to be doing a very good job of that.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I have at various points felt that we are in the heart of a great national humiliation. However, I suspect my reasons for thinking it is a national humiliation and those of the noble Baroness are a little different. I have spent a lot of time talking to colleagues in other European Union countries and every conversation includes: “We’re so sorry about Brexit”, “What on earth is happening in the United Kingdom?” and “How did you get to the point of capitulation?” The word “capitulation” came back in December when the then Prime Minister had negotiated her withdrawal agreement. The EU 27 spent months wanting to know what David Cameron wanted in his renegotiation, they spent months wanting to know what Theresa May wanted in her negotiation, and they are now spending time asking what the United Kingdom wants, if it wants to change something.
We were given a six-month extension and told not to waste it. What have we done? Most ordinary people in the United Kingdom have not had the opportunity to do anything at all on Brexit since 29 March. Unless one was a member of the Conservative Party, there was no opportunity to vote for a new leader of that party and no opportunity to vote for who the new Prime Minister would be. Everything has changed since the extension was announced, yet in some ways nothing has changed. The United Kingdom has been unable to agree on the withdrawal agreement. We have heard already today calls from some who oppose the Bill that the European Union needs to make an agreement. The EU 27 made clear before Article 50 was triggered what their position was. They have remained united ever since the United Kingdom triggered Article 50. The problem is that the United Kingdom is as divided today as it was on 23 June 2016, if not more divided.
We have had the general election that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, called for. He said that we need a general election. We had a referendum in 2016, the date that some people seem to suggest democracy stopped—the date that we should always have frozen in aspic as the date when the people spoke. A year later, we had a general election. The composition of the House of Commons today is the result of that election in 2017—an election called by Theresa May to enhance her mandate for the sort of Brexit that she thought she wanted. That did not go very well.
We heard earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that there was a problem—that we need to deal with Brexit, that this peculiarity of a Bill coming from the Opposition seems quite wrong, and that we should listen to the Government. But the Government have no majority, even with the DUP’s confidence and supply agreement, which seems to be more absent than present. On the day after the Summer Recess, the departure of Phillip Lee ensured that the Prime Minister lost his majority, and taking the Whip away from 21 of his colleagues ensured that it has no hope of a majority.
This country has been ripped apart by the referendum. David Cameron said that he wanted to stop his party obsessing about Europe, but what we have seen is his own party ripped apart. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who I am sorry is not in his place, talked eloquently about those colleagues who have been lost to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, spoke similarly. Despite being a Liberal Democrat, I have friends on the Conservative Benches. I feel personally the loss of committed parliamentarians who feel that they can no longer sit in the House of Commons because of what has happened over Brexit.
This is a national humiliation and to allow the Prime Minister to take us out of the European Union on 31 October without a deal would be a travesty of democracy, because democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. We have had a general election since then. We need another general election. Everyone can agree on that. But we cannot agree that a general election should be called before there is some guarantee that we will have an ongoing relationship with the European Union with some sort of withdrawal arrangement. That is what the proposed Bill offers.
The Bill does not say that the Prime Minister has to have a withdrawal agreement: it allows for the House of Commons by a Motion to say that we will leave without a deal. What it does not allow is for the Prime Minister to think that he is some sort of unelected dictator. We still live in a democracy. The Government do not have a majority in the House of Commons and if the House of Commons wishes to vote against the Government and say that we need a deal, so be it.
If and when we get agreement on ensuring that the United Kingdom does not crash out of the EU, that is the time for a general election. Perhaps the Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when they come to respond, will consider the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. If we need to allow the people to have a say on how we leave the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, a general election is not the way to do it. How about a simultaneous referendum, so that the general election can do what a general election is meant to do and help us form a Government, and a referendum would allow the people to have a final say? I am no fan of referendums, but ultimately, what the people decided only the people can ratify.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I support the Bill, which is extremely necessary, timely and rather skilfully drafted. I shall not dwell long on the rather dispiriting debates we had yesterday. I note that when you are making sweet white wine, it is usual to leave the grapes on the vine until they have been attacked by something called noble rot. Well, there was quite a lot of noble rot around in this House last night.
I will look, rather, to the future, I want to address one of the central planks of the Government’s belief: that they need to be able to leave without a deal as a negotiating tool. It is something the Prime Minister has said again and again. Most recently he spoke about the Bill as cutting him off at the knees. The trouble with this thesis is that it is not supported by any evidence. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Prime Minister or his predecessor made any progress at all by threatening to leave without a deal. After all, the previous Prime Minister coined that dreadful phrase “No deal is better than a bad deal” at Lancaster House more than two and a half years ago, and if the European Union 27 really are quaking in their shoes about such an event, we might have seen a bit of quaking by now. We have not seen such quaking, so I think this whole approach—using no deal as a lever—is completely unfounded and false. It does not work. Frankly, we should stop kidding ourselves, on the government side at least, that this is “open sesame” in Brussels. It is not.
The other point, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and one or two others, is that we still do not have a clear picture of the costs and implications of leaving without a deal. This House made a perfectly imaginative proposal to the other place in July, which was ignored and treated with contumely, but would have meant that by the end of September we would have had a joint parliamentary inquiry which could have taken evidence not from people who are parti pris, as many speakers in this House are—I admit I am one—but from organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the budgetary responsibility people, the CBI, the TUC and others. Out of that we could have had, by the end of September, a really clear picture of what was entailed. Do we have a clear picture? No. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked on the radio this morning how much it would cost, did not know. This is why it is essential that this piece of legislation means that when decisions have to be taken, in late October, we actually have some control over it.
My third point has been alluded to by many other speakers and concerns our British union. I am the son of a Scottish father and was brought up for quite a bit of time in Scotland. I am a unionist through and through and if anyone tells me that crashing out without a deal is not going to damage the stability and continuity of that union, in Scotland, Wales and above all in Northern Ireland, frankly they lack all credibility. The Bill is necessary. It was made the more necessary by the decision to prorogue. I will not go on at great length about that. Of course the Government have the right to recommend Prorogation to Her Majesty, but the underhand way this was done and the perfectly obvious intention to deprive Parliament of quite a few sitting days in which it could have considered these matters has triggered and emphasised the need for this piece of legislation.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I will not talk about European history, nor start psychoanalysing the Conservative Party. I will leave that to others. I will talk briefly about the Bill, because that is what is before us.
As many noble Lords may know, I voted to remain. Our side lost but I have always believed that we need to honour the result of the referendum and leave the European Union. There are clearly only two ways in which we can do that: with a deal or without one. We here and in the other place have spent the best part of a year trying to reach a parliamentary consensus around a deal. Compromise has been tried. I have argued for compromise many times, and some have attacked me for doing so. It has failed conclusively.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and others have said, there is no parliamentary majority, as we all know, for the withdrawal agreement, for the UK to remain in the customs union or the European Economic Area, or to hold a second referendum. The only approach that might command the support of the majority is to renegotiate the Irish backstop, which we have had a considerable ding-dong about today and which I do not want to get into. However—here I entirely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—there seems absolutely no chance that the European Union will start changing its position on that right now, and it will certainly not succumb to the demand to take that out of the withdrawal agreement entirely. If you believe that there is a democratic imperative to leave, and there is no parliamentary majority to leave with a deal, that clearly leaves only one option: leaving without a deal.
That brings us to this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others have made clear, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said when introducing the Bill, its purpose is clear enough: to extend the negotiations and avoid our crashing out without a deal. However, this leads to a whole series of questions, which, to be honest, although we have had an interesting debate about the future of Europe, we have not got to the bottom of, and some of which my noble friend Lord Howard, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have touched on.
The core question is this: if this Bill were passed—and it seems clear that it will be—and Brexit were to be delayed yet again and the negotiations go on beyond 31 October, what precisely will the UK be negotiating for? What is the negotiating mandate? We know that there is no majority in the other place for any other approach. I have just said this; the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said it. We have spent years trying to reach this consensus, so what is this negotiating mandate? I have yet to hear the answer. I know that it is not necessarily for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to say, but perhaps someone can tell me. I do not know what it is, and even with the amendment in the name of Mr Stephen Kinnock it seems completely unclear.
This brings me on to a second point. Again, I may be a bear of very little brain and someone may be able to answer this, but who will be doing the negotiating? We can debate all we like what it says in the Bill, but Mr Johnson has said that he will not go to Brussels. So who will be leading the negotiating team there? Will it be Mr Jeremy Corbyn? The Speaker? Someone else? Who will create this? It is just not clear. The reason it is not clear is that none of us knows.
Noble Lords may say that they have heard me say this before, and I do not like succumbing to the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lord Patten of repeating speeches I have already given, but sadly this is a speech I gave two and a half years ago standing at that Dispatch Box when an amendment passed—I admire your Lordships for your consistency on this—which was going to give the other place the right to block no deal. I made these points and opposed this amendment then, and I oppose this Bill now for that precise reason.
Parliament exists to make decisions, not to dither, which is why, when this Bill becomes law, it will show beyond doubt that it cannot fulfil that primary purpose —to decide on our nation’s future. So, as I have been saying for months, the brutal reality is that the current Parliament is broken and it is time for a new one. We need a general election and we need it now. Now that it has been agreed that this Bill, flawed though it is, will become law, I humbly argue to those in the Opposition, some of whom I consider friends, that they should stop blocking giving people the chance to express their views in the ballot box and agree to a general election on 15 October, so that on that day—three years, three months and 23 days since 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union—people can decide on their nation’s future.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I have never spoken on Brexit before and I hope to provide at least a fresh voice and maybe a few fresh thoughts. This debate sounds rather like almost every Brexit debate of the past three years and is a slightly despondent dance upon the head of a pin to some rather miserable mood music.
I will speak for my contemporaries: parents with young children, young workers just establishing a career, entrepreneurs establishing their businesses, and those just getting by. I increasingly hear that they just do not care and do not identify as remainers or leavers. They just want us to get on with it. Let us do that and give ourselves and our children a certain future. As the right reverend Prelate said, the question now must not be whether we leave, but how we leave. I have a suggestion. While the Bill purports to take no deal off the table, perhaps in the spirit of new compromise we could equally consider taking remain off the table. We could focus all our considerable skill, erudition and efforts on leaving, leaving well and healing all these bickerous divisions. We owe it to our children. It was my kids’ first day back at school yesterday and I spent the day in much more childish play than they did.
I was once a remainer. Indeed, as a Burgundian family that set up shop in Devon over 800 years ago, we have done rather well out of a previous European union. But now I am firmly a post-Brexiteer. We have to look to the future. We have left Europe before many times and we have rejoined Europe before. Remember Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, the Field of the Cloth of Gold, the Reformation and the Glorious Revolution. I hope, having had family members proudly active in all those engagements, that my presence here can remind your Lordships that a negotiated departure from the current European Union does not preclude us from an active and leading role in our continent, or indeed perhaps rejoining it at some point, whether sooner or later.
I support the Bill if it allows us to move on and finally to get on with our national life. I also support the brave efforts to prevent the current Government herding us like lemmings off the no-deal cliff, with the parade of Yellowhammer horribles that would follow us. For farmers, fishermen, families, Ireland and the whole future of our United Kingdom, I really support the Bill.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Before the noble Earl sits down, I must say that he lives in a very different world from some of us. My children, all the friends of my children and the vast majority of students with whom I come into contact daily at Oxford University—I refer to my entry in the register—all want to stay in the European Union because they all recognise that their place is there and that that is where they will maximise their opportunities and potential. I wish to place on record that I live in a very different world from that inhabited by the noble Earl.
Earl of Devon
My Lords, if I may respond, I wholly agree. My experience is that the younger generation really do want to remain, but if we continue to fight we will be trashing their futures. If we continue to fight about this we will be absolutely rubbishing their options. If we can get out now, well and cleanly, they will have years ahead of them in which they can get back in. They can get back into a new, better and different European Union, but I do not think we are doing them any favours by spending three years churning through politicians and Governments, depressing our economy and trashing our farming just by arguing about this issue. I have sat quietly on this for a number of years and I firmly believe, although I am devout remainer, that we just have to get on and get it done with, rip off the plaster and start afresh. I am sorry.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because I completely agree with him. I have not prepared a speech, so what I say will not be in order. I am a European. My mother is of Russian origin, my father was French and I have lived in Germany, America and the United Kingdom. I am sometimes a little surprised by the word “European” because European countries are all very different and have very different mentalities. In my opinion, the European Union we are talking about is of the past. There was a union for various reasons, and I will not go through the history of the coal community—I cannot remember the name—that led to the European Union. One reason was to protect us against the eastern bloc and the political reason was because we were afraid of the resurgence of the Nazi movement. Then there was trade, which was very useful for all our countries.
The point I am trying to make is that Europe today is very different from the Europe we are talking about. I live in France and I go to Germany quite often, and their view of us is very different from what we think it is. We are friends and we can work together. I strongly believe that we can leave the European Union but remain Europeans in the terminology we are talking about. The United Kingdom is very different from Europe. We used to call it “the continent” in the old days because we are different. For better or for worse—I believe for better, because I love this country—we are in a different world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech —who is no longer in her place—pointed out, Europe is not a place I particularly want to remain a member of because I look at it as something that will not work long term. I find that a lot of Europeans are very disillusioned with the European Union and feel very remote from its government. One thing I observe is that people feel left behind. The resurgence of nationalism is a direct result of the European integration forced upon them. People want a sense of nationality.
Baroness Ludford
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Since her remarks seem to include observations about anti-EU feeling in different states, can she give an example of a member state where a majority want to copy the UK in voting to leave? My understanding of the polls is that support for membership of the EU has gone up in every EU country.
Baroness Meyer
That is not the case in every country. It is certainly not like that among the eastern members. In France, there is quite a strong movement to get out of the European Union. Look at Italy; look at the gilets jaunes. I know it is not reported very much here but there is a strong feeling that people feel not part of the club—a club that was built many years ago. I think we have moved on. That is my opinion, but this is a place where I think it is important to share one’s opinion.
I go back to the point that we are where we are: I voted on one side and you voted on the other side, but somewhere along the line everyone in the other House agreed to hold a referendum. What I fear most, which reflects what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was talking about, is that if we do not deliver what the people voted for, we will be in deep trouble. There will be a real reaction, and that is how revolutions are started. My grandparents were evicted from Russia as a result of the same sort of mentality. The centre, in the form of Russia’s royal family and the Government, had no idea of how the people in the streets were feeling; they were so remote that they were not inclusive.
If I had a choice, I would not go for this Bill. My reasons for saying that are, first, that we must give the Prime Minister a new—
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
The noble Baroness talks about revolutions, but does she agree that the EU has been hugely instrumental in keeping the peace in Europe since the Second World War?
Baroness Meyer
We are going back into the past and I think that the results of the Second World War were a little more complicated than that. The European Union was initially created as a body against the eastern bloc. I am not going to go into the causes of war—the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, gave us examples —but the European Union has not always been very cohesive in its defence policy. The world has changed. Cyber attacks are now dangerous, so we need to look outwards a little more.
The point is that people voted to leave in a democratic vote and we should respect their decision. I know that along with my husband, some noble Lords voted to remain, but we should not undercut the negotiating powers—some are saying that Boris Johnson has no negotiating powers—of a Prime Minister. He has to have the support of parliamentarians. His job is to deliver what the people wanted.
Lord Judd (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she accept that perhaps the major tragedy of this whole saga is that our political community has never grasped the reality of the fact that when the Coal and Steel Community and the Common Market were set up, while they were certainly about rational and necessary economic arrangements, right from the beginning they were a means to an end? Right from the beginning the purpose was political: to build a stable and peaceful Europe. When she describes the uncertainty in Europe at the moment, which is true, surely this is the time for us to be there, determined to build, together with others, the fortress that will keep Europe stable and peaceful. Why does she take this defeatist attitude?
Baroness Meyer
On the contrary, I take a positive attitude. This country can do very well on its own and we do not necessarily need the Europeans. People say that we have been chained by Europe. I take your point that, originally, we were worried about the eastern bloc, but I would say that the cancer is now inside Europe because it is disintegrating. If we leave the club, before it is too late, we may be better off. We now have this opportunity, so at least give the Prime Minister a chance to see if he can negotiate a deal that we can all agree to, and then we should move towards reuniting this country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is not the reality, as we can see from the gilets jaunes and from what is happening in Italy, Greece and Spain, that, as the polls show, many people are thoroughly discontented with the European Union, but, thanks to Gordon Brown, who saved us from the euro, we are able to leave in a way that would be extremely difficult for them?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not know whether the Front Bench will be doing its normal practice of looking after the conventions of the House but I believe that only people who were here for the opening speeches normally intervene.
Baroness Meyer
Do you want me to stop talking? I think that I have made my point that we all have different opinions. I come from a different side. I just want this country to get together and move on. We can blame David Cameron for having called a referendum, but, for better or worse, the point is that it happened and we have to move forward. That is what I am trying to say. There is a future for this country on its own. We need to look at the rest of the world, where there are a lot of opportunities, and stop looking at the past and seeing the European Union as something that used to be fantastic—it is now changing. As my noble friend just said, when you look at what is happening economically in all those countries, it is not great. We will have more flexibility if we are out. That is my point.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it has been a very long time since we have heard from this side. I reassure the noble Lords who have just given way that I did not intend to speak either and will be extremely brief.
As some noble Lords know, I worked for 15 years in the European Parliament with the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords. I am not making any political points—this is exactly how I feel—but the European Union represented by some in this House is not the European Union that I have experienced and that I know well. It is a European Union of representatives of their countries who come together in order to reach a compromise to serve the greater good and the greater number of people. Governments come together in the Council of Ministers to work and vote together, and, if there is a big issue, it is that when those Governments vote in the Council of Ministers they very rarely reveal to their national parliaments how they voted. It is about voluntarily pooling sovereignty to achieve far more than would be achieved by acting alone. That is the European Union that I know—working with colleagues as the rapporteur on the Schengen movement and ensuring that, within that, there is no discrimination at the border on pivotal grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation or values.
Unless we go back to the past, we will recreate it. I believe that the European Union was quite literally born out of the ashes of the Second World War. Others have heard me say this and I will revisit it again and again. Countries decided that they would no longer fight one another for land, power, coal or steel but would work together. From the ashes of the Second World War, of people’s hopes and dreams, and of crematoria dotted across Europe, there was a determination that we would never look away again while a group, a minority or a country was targeted and scapegoated—and that is deeply personal to me. If I, as a gay man, had been living in certain parts of Europe during the Second World War, I could literally have been taken to one of those camps and been worked to death. I must connect with the 6 million-plus Jews who were obliterated because of their religion and with others.
If there is discrimination and a rise of the right wing in Europe in the countries that have been cited, is that not all the more reason to work together to ensure that that is brought to an end? We should not turn away and say, “It is only the things that matter to Britain that I am concerned with”. What makes us human is our ability to stand in the shoes of the other and ask, “Would I want that to happen to me or my children?”.
I can see certain Members on the Front Bench getting perhaps a little impatient with me. What is his point? Do not mumble from a sedentary position. If the noble Lord has something to say, can he please stand and say it? I will always give way.
The reason I have decided to speak today, after a long silence since my original initiation in the early debates, is that no one has mentioned those individuals within the groups who face appalling uncertainty: the 3 million EU citizens who live in this country. If for no other reason, this insurance policy—this Bill before us today—gives them a degree of certainty and hope, and if for no other reason I would grab this Bill with both hands.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said: what about division? By going for a no deal Brexit, what happens to the 16 million-plus, such as me, who with our values would feel completely disconnected from our country? Do we heal the division there? No— we reinforce it. Therefore, for no other reason than the ability to stand in the shoes of others—yes, including those who voted leave and who want a resolution—we have to work together.
The noble Lord and others referred to having trust in the Prime Minister, but one of our concerns is that we do not believe what he says. Other noble Lords have referred to reports from other capitals. But if this Bill, which we have before us today, gives the Prime Minister in whom most of your Lordships seem to have faith and belief the time to reach a deal that brings parts of this country together that, at the moment, seem forever divided, we should give your Prime Minister this insurance policy of extra time.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. There are moments when one is reminded of what a privilege it is to be in this place. This debate is one of them. I think, in particular, of what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, just said; how the noble Lord, Lord Patten, ended with his warning on Northern Ireland; what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said; and what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said. I do not intend to address any of the great themes that they touched on today, but it is a privilege to take part in a debate of such calibre. I did not feel that about yesterday’s debate for some reason.
I want to address two themes: a constitutional theme and a negotiating theme. One concerns our domestic affairs and the other our relationship with the EU 27. Both arise directly from the terms of the Bill we are debating. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, quoted my hero, Kenneth Clarke, who yesterday, in the House of Commons, referred to an element of disingenuousness in the prime ministerial position. I found it shocking that the documents revealed in the court case in Edinburgh show that the Prorogation plan and timing was decided in the middle of August and, for another two weeks, the No. 10 spokesman denied that there was or could be any such plan. I found it very shocking that the Prime Minister, when the plan became clear and the proclamation was issued, maintained that his motives had nothing to do with Brexit. Nobody in the country believed that, but it was still shocking to me to see in these documents from Edinburgh that it was precisely about Brexit. It was knowingly and deliberately about Brexit. Ken Clarke said that it was “disingenuous”. We have an issue of trust here.
The No. 10 spokesman said this morning that, if the Bill we are debating now becomes an Act, the Government and Prime Minister will not abide by it. I assume he misspoke, but we recall Mr Gove discussing this with Andrew Marr last Sunday and refusing to say whether the Government would implement the law of the land. They will wait and see what it says. On the same day, we saw that, among the clever plans that Mr Cummings is cooking up is simply not sending the Bill for Royal Assent. This is not exactly the “good chaps” theory of government. I find it difficult to deal with this issue of trust. I spent a long time in public service, and one did not see one’s political masters being disingenuous or telling lies. One saw them avoiding answering difficult questions. One found ways to help them avoid answering difficult questions. One gave them answers to other questions, which might be suitable, but one never drafted a lie. In 36 years of public service, I do not think I ever told a lie. Telling a lie is a stupid thing to do, because it creates a subsequent problem of trust. So we are legislating against a peculiar background.
I was interested in the discussion of legitimacy by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and this being an opposition Bill. I found that discussion more interesting than the historical disquisition, where I do not entirely share his views. I do not share his views on the discussion of legitimacy at all. A Bill is a Bill. A Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and comes to us here. It is legitimate and the voice of the House of Commons. If we approve the Bill, it is then the voice of two Houses of Parliament. It does not matter who drafted the original; it is legitimate. It would be wholly illegitimate for the Government to decide to do what Mr Cummings hinted, which was to sit on it and not send it to the Palace, or what the spokesman this morning said they would do, which was to ignore it. That is a major constitutional issue.
When the Government reply to this debate, I hope they confirm that, if the Bill is passed by this House tomorrow, it will be sent for Royal Assent; and that, once it has received Royal Assent, it will be acted on. These are ridiculous questions to ask in our parliamentary democracy, but such is the issue of trust that one has to ask them.
My second theme is our relationship with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
It may help the noble Lord if I inform him that, as part of the agreement last night, we said that, if the Bill is passed and becomes an Act, it would be available to the House of Commons on Monday and sent for Royal Assent.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
It will be sent for Royal Assent, but would it then be acted on? No one asked that question yesterday because it is an absurd question. I only ask it because a No. 10 spokesman said today that it would not be acted on and that the Prime Minister would not abide by it.
Lord Callanan
The reason I used that form of wording is that one of the original proposals was that we would guarantee that it would receive Royal Assent. Obviously, we cannot speak on behalf of the Palace so we merely said that we would enable it to be sent for Royal Assent. I think the original guarantee that we were asked for was that it would receive Royal Assent by Monday evening. We could not give a guarantee because obviously that depends on the ability of Her Majesty, so we will send it for Royal Assent if it becomes an Act.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
But of course it would be open to Her Majesty’s Ministers to advise her to give Royal Assent, and I assume that is what would happen. Can that be confirmed?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
May I repeat to the Minister the question that Mr Marr put to Mr Gove? Will the Government act on the law of the land if this Bill becomes an Act and receives Royal Assent?
Lord Cormack
I remind the noble Lord that the last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne, over 300 years ago. Subsequently, every Act passed by Parliament has been submitted for, and received, Royal Assent.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I want to move on to the European theme and the question of negotiation. The scripts spoken to yesterday by a number of noble Lords contained the familiar argument, which the Prime Minister has been using extensively, that the legs would be knocked out from under his negotiating strategy if no deal was taken off the table. I have spoken on this before and I do not want to bore the House, but I believe that is completely untrue. Saying, “If you don’t give me what I’m asking for in this negotiation, I will shoot myself”, is not a credible threat.
We know that the pain is asymmetric; although everyone is damaged by a no-deal crash-out Brexit, it is the UK that will be damaged hugely more than anyone else. We know that and they know that. We know that there is a problem of asymmetric preparation. They are better prepared than we are, even though they have proportionally less of a problem than we have.
Everything that I have said up to now I have bored the House with before, but here comes a new point. It is now not possible, or it will very shortly not be possible, to get a new deal agreed at the European Council on 17 October. I think the Prime Minister may listen too much to Mr Cummings, who is an expert on game theory and has studied it very closely; I do not think he has done much international negotiation, but he knows a lot about game theory. I believe that he is playing the game of chicken, which we know from American movies in the 1950s and 1960s, where you put your foot down hard on the accelerator, ideally throw away the steering wheel and drive straight at each other, each believing that the other guy will swerve. There are two problems in applying that theory to negotiation with the EU. One is that it is a union, consisting of 27 member states. It takes them a long time to make a decision to swerve. They need to get instructions in Brussels on whatever you put forward; they need to debate that, send the reactions back and then hear what the Government think.
Today’s papers say that Mr David Frost was saying yesterday in Brussels that the British could not put forward any proposals now because they would be attacked by the ERG, published by the EU and criticised in the Article 50 working group. Each element of that is probably true, but it should not mean that we do not put forward any proposals. When Barnier says “paralysis” and our Prime Minister says “remarkable progress, wonderful progress”, the question of disingenuousness creeps in again. I tend to believe Mr Barnier; I find it harder to believe our Prime Minister, which is a very worrying thing to say. It will take them a lot of time. Any proposals to be discussed on 17 October ought certainly to be in negotiation now with the Article 50 working group.
It is my belief that Mr Cummings, in addition to believing in the game of chicken, does not mind if we have a no-deal crash-out. Given what Mr Farage has been saying, he may actually see benefit in a no-deal crash-out. Mr Farage has said that if the Prime Minister negotiates some new variant of Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement, his party will run against the Conservative Party in every Conservative-held seat, whereas if Mr Johnson sticks to his promise to go, do or die, on 31 October with no deal, various forms of pact, informal or formal, are possible. That is what Mr Farage is saying. I have a theory that Mr Cummings may be listening.
In addition to the problem of trust in respect of the text of the Bill before us, we seem to have a problem of whether it will be interpreted not just in the letter but in the spirit. The Prime Minister, obliged to write the letter that the Act would require him to write if the circumstances set out in Clause 1 arose—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirms that the Prime Minister would feel so obliged—could send it and make sure that the European Union did not agree. The European Union needs unanimity. He could talk to a friend in, let us say, Budapest; as a classicist, he could also put his oral presentations in a “num” rather than a “nonne” way; by adding threats and undertakings of what we intend to do, he could make sure that we do not get from the European Union the extension that we have required him to seek if the circumstances arose.
The problem of trust is quite a big one. It would be good if the Government in responding to this debate said that they will not only act on the law but do so in the spirit in which the House of Commons passed it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that we would be going cap in hand to the European Council and who knows what terms we could obtain. That is a bugbear. Honestly, either you are in the European Union or you are out of it; there is no middle position that we could be put into. The noble and learned Lord implied—perhaps I got him wrong—that for the period of any extension the terms of our membership would be for the 27 to decide. No, sir, we are either a member with the full rights of a member or we are not in. I am very sad that we are not exercising the full rights of a member any more; I am very sad that, from 1 September, there are important working groups, important meetings of COREPER and important councils in which the British are following the policy of the empty seat. It did the French no good when General de Gaulle tried it; it will do us no good. Wherever we are going to be—in or out, close or far from the European Union—it must be in our interest, until the last possible moment, to exert as much influence as we can on the direction and legislation of the European Union.
That is my answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We can put ourselves in a half-in, half-out position, but the European Union cannot. However, I am nervous that we have not necessarily solved the problem with this Bill—for which I shall vote—because it seems to me that, in addition to the risk that the Government will not act on the Bill, there may be a bigger risk that they will act on it in a disingenuous way and that the purposes set out in it may therefore not be achieved.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entries in the register, from which you will see that I am now in my 41st year of appointment in Brussels, with 25 as an MEP and the last 15 in other capacities. It will not tell you that I worked in international organisations for the 19 years before that, from when I left school at 16. I was first in the Crown Agents of the colonies, briefly in a junior position in the Foreign Office, and then working for the Co-operative movement.
My whole life has been devoted to multilateralism, and it has always been a difficult proposition. From the East African Common Services Organisation in 1961—which was the first multilateral body I came across—to today, there have always been opportunities for misunderstandings or clashes of different cultures. However, the important thing is that multilateralism has worked. Multilateralism has been of great benefit in many different areas of this world.
I do not believe that, if we left the European Union, the world would end. We would of course survive—we are a big and strong country—but it would be fundamentally the wrong decision to take. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said exactly what I feel very early on in this debate: to quote someone who may be better known on those Benches than these, I see this Bill as a “transitional demand”, because I want to stay in the European Union. I have never hidden that. This prolongs the time that we are in.
Next to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I see my colleague—my friend, rather—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who served with me on the Cambridge Says Yes committee, where we got well over 70% voting to remain. In Cambridge, when we argued for the referendum, I did not argue about money or the fact that we could do this or get that. It was a straightforward moral proposition that it is right to be in a multilateral organisation and co-operate with your friends, and that the pooling of sovereignty is the gaining of sovereignty. You have to realise that. We speak as though it were a one-way street, but it is not. It is a two-way street, and more comes towards us from co-operation than flows away.
Last night, the Labour Party decided that it did not wish to support an election until this Bill is passed. I hope that the Labour Party will support an election when it is passed, because the House of Commons is now ungovernable. The Government are in a minority—by 20, thanks to their own foolish actions—and they cannot get anything through anymore. We have to have an election.
A lot of my friends are among the 20 suspended. Do not just concentrate on them. I am, for my sins, the president of my local party in Cambridgeshire. I would say that roughly 20% of our members are actively on strike or, as we put it, withdrawing enthusiasm. We will be lucky if we get a window bill up. Last night, I spoke to one of them who said, “Well, I’m going to keep it quiet, Richard, but I’m going to vote Lib Dem at the election”. You can see the situation into which this politics of confrontation has pushed our party. It is a tragedy because these are people who, at heart, are Conservatives—often with a small c, rather than a larger C—but they basically believe in the principles of the Conservative Party. They feel they are being forced out of it. Only an election can settle this.
I ask the parties opposite—and the SNP—to come to some sort of agreement as to how this is to be resolved. My personal conclusion is that it probably has to be through another referendum, because the people have spoken once and it would be bitterly resented if the politicians took the decision without consulting them again. On the other hand, if the people were to return a coalition Government, it would have to be part of the coalition programme—and then you could get a referendum Bill through, though it might take a month or two.
I mentioned that I have these jobs in Brussels which give me an office in the European Parliament. I have a staff there, only one of whom is British, so I have a fair amount of international exposure. If the British Government were to ask for an extension to hold another referendum, it would be given. It would not need a Bill in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The EU would be pleased to grant an extension for the purpose of having a referendum. But it would not be very happy to give an extension so that we could carry on arguing. As they say—and this point has been made on several occasions—nothing is being put on the table. When I go to Brussels, which is generally twice a month, I hear the gossip around: “What on earth are they up to?” “Who is this new Prime Minister of yours who is hell-bent on destruction?” This is the image that is coming across. Colleagues opposite, you have to get your act together, and you have to bring to the election something which resembles a party deal and a way forward for the future.
To conclude, I have said that we could leave the EU. It would be difficult but not disastrous. We are also members of the Council of Europe, where the British Government have played a uniquely destructive role in opposing its budget. The Court of Human Rights has had to be cut back because the British, and Mr Salvini from Italy—now, mercifully, consigned to history—were obstructing even an increase in line with inflation. We must deal better with the multilateral bodies. We should be saying more about the WTO, where the United States is threatening to bring the whole appeals procedure to a halt by refusing to appoint judges. There are so many other multinational organisations to which we belong.
I remember when my noble friend Lord Judd was a Navy Minister. He has probably forgotten, but many years ago we were discussing NATO. I am not sure whether he said to me or I said to him that we could never have a referendum on NATO because it is too central to Britain’s interests to have it tossed around in the political field. I feel that the EU referendum was a fundamental mistake. We have made the mistake, but it is our duty to undo it. You would not go to a hospital and say to the doctor, “I am sorry, let me tell you how to take the appendix out or how to do the heart transplant”. We have to accept that there are some things that the political class may know how to do. On occasions, democracy has to be qualified. This is an unpopular thing to say, but it happens to be absolutely right. You sometimes have to say to people, “I am terribly sorry; I hear what you say, but you’re wrong”.
Baroness Bull
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. We have before us a Bill concerned with avoiding a no-deal Brexit and, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who is not in his place, I have been taking note of a timely and helpful report from the academics at the UK in a Changing Europe research unit about the issues, implications and impacts of leaving the EU without a deal. At this point I declare my interest in King’s College London, as set out in the register.
I support this Bill and will confine my remarks to explaining why I believe that it is so important to avoid no deal. The report I mentioned usefully reminds us that while the Prime Minister’s “no ifs, not buts, no maybes” approach is presented as offering a clean break and allowing us all to just get on with it, it is, in reality, nothing of the sort. As the report says, no deal:
“Is not a neat way of resolving a complex problem”,
but,
“a way of rendering a complex problem infinitely more so”.
No one should delude themselves that no deal will in itself be the end of the story. There is no realistic possibility—and indeed no suggestion from anyone on any side of the debate—that we will not have a future relationship with the block of countries that represents our largest trading partner and our nearest neighbours. No deal will not be the end of the negotiations but the beginning of a new, more complex and likely even more prolonged set of negotiations. And without them taking place under the framework of a deal, do we really think that those negotiations are going to be any easier? In this scenario, any future deal will almost certainly require unanimous agreement from all member states and ratification by their parliaments. These negotiations will all be set against a backdrop of bruised and damaged relationships, both within the UK itself—as we are already seeing—and between the UK and the EU.
Leaving with a deal would mean a transition period, during which trade would continue as now while the two sides negotiated a future relationship. No deal means a cliff edge, with the UK treated by the Union as a third country. The impact on trading goods would be immediate, with new regulatory and customs arrangements coming immediately into force. This would mean disruption to supply chains, impacting crucial sectors such as food, medicines and just-in-time manufacturing. Larger businesses might be able to withstand the storm; smaller companies are unlikely to have the reserves to do so. Trade in services, always the Cinderella of the Brexit story, would be hit particularly badly. If the UK exits without a formal deal, it will no longer be covered by the services agreement of the European Economic Area but will have its trade with the EU governed by the General Agreement on Trade in Services, a treaty under the WTO. GATS provides far less access than the current EEA arrangements and therefore fewer opportunities for the UK services sector.
This disadvantage will be compounded by another challenge: professional qualifications will no longer be automatically recognised in other European countries. Under the EEA, UK qualifications are subject to mutual recognition agreements, so if you are a UK-qualified accountant or architect you can provide services in other EU countries. Under no deal this would immediately cease to be the case. Professional services suppliers would have to apply not just to have their qualifications recognised but for working visas. This sector is the second largest services exporter in the world, with 2018 services exports valued at £283 billion, or 45% of total UK exports; of this, £117 billion-worth were exported to the EU. This is a sector, let us not forget, that provides four in five jobs, up and down the UK.
There is also no clarity on what no deal will mean for freedom of movement from 1 November. I am afraid that recent government pronouncements have not made things any clearer. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, already referred to the concerns of the 3 million EU 27 citizens currently resident here. Without a deal, what new rules will apply and how are employers, landlords or providers of public services supposed to apply them? The profound sense of insecurity that EU citizens currently feel in this country is no doubt shared by those Britons resident in other European countries, for whom the position is perhaps even more complex and unclear.
A further, little discussed consequence of no deal is the immediate loss of access to EU databases and other forms of co-operation, including the European arrest warrant, the Schengen information system and Europol. In a world where data is key, this will present very real challenges to policing and security operations. I fear that it will provide a welcome window of opportunity to criminals intent on illegal access to and use of data.
Then, of course, there is the island of Ireland. This is almost certainly the greatest and most serious unknown at this point, already discussed in real and compelling detail by other noble Lords today. Many of the worst consequences of no deal—such as severe disruption to road and air transport links—will be averted in the short term because of temporary workarounds that the EU has put in place, but some of these expire as soon as the end of December, just two months into no deal. It is interesting to speculate what will happen to those temporary workarounds at that point, when we could well be engaged in an unedifying dispute over moneys due under a so-called divorce bill.
Whatever happens, we will eventually come through, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds suggested, but we cannot pretend that there will not be significant costs to no deal, socially, culturally, and economically. Research from the academic research unit I mentioned has found that trading with the EU on WTO terms would, after 10 years, reduce the UK’s per capita income by between 3.5% and 8.7%, and it is not the only credible source coming to a similar conclusion.
As we consider the Bill today, I ask that we be under no illusions that no deal will provide closure on this sorry period in our nation’s history. It will be just the beginning of a process that will not be easy but will be time-consuming, politically fraught and damaging to our economy. Let us not forget that the inevitable reductions in public spending that will be the consequence of economic downturn will hit hardest those people who are least able to stand it: the poorest, the most vulnerable and the marginalised in our society. For all these reasons, I support the Bill.
Lord Hayward
My Lords, it is somewhat difficult speaking after some four hours of debates, because I want to pick up on comments made and I do not want to duplicate comments made earlier. This is actually the first time I have ever participated in a debate on the referendum, on withdrawal or the like: I do not face the problem my noble friend Lord Patten referred to of repeating myself from other speeches, because it is the first time I have made these comments.
I voted remain, but I am absolutely committed to finding a way to leave. That is where I disagree very strongly with some of the earlier speeches from, for example, my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who referred to the disadvantages associated with leaving. I recognise those but, as far as I am concerned, the referendum delivered a decision and I very strongly disagree with those who argue for a second referendum: just by dragging something out, one does not necessarily negate the original decision. I disagree with the position of the Liberal Democrats and of some other noble Lords who have spoken today.
I have found myself in strong disagreement on a number of occasions with the EU negotiators. I found them to be at times arrogant and dismissive, and I still hope that we will find a solution to the backstop, because that is the nub of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has identified some solutions. They may not work but I believe that we should try to find one, even at this late hour.
I have made comments about the EU and the Liberal Democrats. My observation about the Labour Party’s negotiations is that I have been unclear throughout as to where it actually stood. I am referring not to those in this House but to the general Labour Party position. It has lacked clarity and assistance, and therefore has not helped in moving towards a leave solution.
I speak today as a Conservative Peer, so it behoves me to look at the position in relation to the Conservative Party. We are essentially discussing a Bill that says, “We do not trust the Government in their current position”. That is the essence of what this Bill is saying. Unfortunately—it hurts me to say it as a member of the Conservative Party— I am moving to that same position in relation to the current Government. Why have I come to that conclusion? I understand all the disagreements with this Bill from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and others, but we are in a position in which the Prime Minister tells us he wants a deal but at the same time announces that we are going to prorogue Parliament.
On Monday the Prime Minister is due to be in Dublin meeting the Taoiseach. What is the point of saying to the Taoiseach, “By the way, I don’t have a plan or anything on the table”—as I indicated earlier in my intervention on the noble Lord, Lord Hain—“but I am coming over to negotiate and, at the same time, I am going to call a general election that will take up six weeks of the negotiating period through to 31 October”? If I were the Taoiseach, I would pick up the phone to No. 10 and say, “Don’t bother to turn up”, but of course the phone call is likely to go through to the gentleman referred to on a number of occasions during this debate. If it does, we can imagine the courtesy with which that call will be received—the same courtesy that Mr Clark received when he made a phone call only a few days ago.
I find it utterly unacceptable that the chief of staff at No. 10 Downing Street, who advises on these matters, whether negotiations or the timing of the general election, was found in contempt of the Commons. It is one of the reasons we lack trust, not only in this Chamber but in the other Chamber and, growingly, in the nation at large. Is it really acceptable? I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Bridges; I would say to the Labour Party, “Don’t have the general election until after 31 October”, because I do not actually believe what is going on in the negotiations. I have here the report of the Committee for Privileges, which received the documentation from a Select Committee chaired by a Conservative Member of Parliament. The Committee for Privileges is chaired by a member of the Labour Party, and its conclusions are absolutely clear and damning. That report was then put to the Commons some five days after it was received, and on 2 April Dominic Cummings was found in contempt of the House and the committee without a vote—in other words, it was accepted by the whole House of Commons. I find it unacceptable that somebody who so recently was found to be in contempt of our practices and of Members of Parliament should be advising the Prime Minister on how to handle parliamentary procedure.
I have difficulty with this Bill and the problems associated with it, but I understand what it is saying. I say to No. 10: understand what is being said by the formation of this Bill and change your behaviour immediately, because that trust must be restored in both Houses.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I would like to build on what many of the previous speakers have said, particularly my former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who covered many of the areas that I want to speak on, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I completely support what she said on the economic costs of no deal; other institutions have also looked at that, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Trade Knowledge Exchange—but I must refer to the register of interests, because I am all over both of those.
I should also warn the House to be careful of listening to me. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the No. 10 spokesman role, and the fact that the No. 10 spokesman occasionally has to prevaricate and possibly not answer questions as fully as one might like to, as I had to for four or five years. However, the number one rule is “never lie”. I really worry about the implications of the 15 August thing concerning Prorogation. Was that civil servant knowingly not telling the truth, for which the implications are fairly clear—the person should be sacked—or were they being told untruths? That is important. It builds on the question of trust and on the “good chaps” theory of government, which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned.
Alas, we do not have with us to talk about his own theory my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, but it is worth remembering that, when talking about the decline of the “good chaps” theory, he said that it fell into fragments on 28 August at Balmoral. To my mind, there are wider implications. I was here throughout the events of last night, listening—I would not say “happily”. I was listening to my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, who, when we were in No. 10 together, would speak passionately on policy and the importance of the rules under which this House operates. In the past, he was a bit more concise. I am not a fan of filibusters or guillotines. These are symptoms of the decline in trust.
It is crucial that we trust our Prime Ministers, and I worry that we are in a really dangerous world now. Let me give some evidence. When people are asked about trust, as has happened most recently, there is one profession whose trust rating has had the biggest rise of any over the last 35 years. I am very proud to say that it is the Civil Service. However, the latest survey reveals the biggest ever gap in the public’s mind between the extent to which they trust civil servants and trust Ministers. That is not a good place for our democracy to be. This whole process is causing great problems of that kind.
The other constitutional point that is really important to remember about this Bill is that we have the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition to thank for our being able even to consider this question. If it were not for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the Prime Minister could have just stopped it all, allowed us to leave with no deal and had an election after that date. I am the first person to admit that that Act could be a lot better, and I look forward to being part of amending it at some point to correct the things that are not quite right. It was too rushed—let me put it that way—but it is interesting to look back on it.
On the implications of this Bill, the Prime Minister has said that if we take out no deal, it makes it harder for him to get a deal. I believe the opposite is true and would be interested in noble Lords’ reactions to this, because I have said this publicly already. David Davis was absolutely clear that getting rid of the backstop was not enough for him to support any deal that came to the Commons. He implied that we also have to do something on the money and the jurisdiction of the European courts, and that there were lots of other MPs who took this view.
If this is true, I do not think it possible for such a deal to be negotiated with the EU. We have already heard that it is impossible to get all of the backstop done, so to get this and everything else, they are saying, “Prime Minister, go and negotiate a deal. By the way, when you come back, we are going to vote against it”. What does that do for the EU incentive to offer any concessions? Absolutely nothing. What does that do for our process of trying to come up with a deal? It makes it incredibly hard for that to go through. I do not really understand what we are doing here, because if you are an MP in the House of Commons whose preference is no deal, the obvious thing to do, whatever deal the Prime Minister comes back with, is to vote against it. If this Bill did not exist, the default in law is quite clear—that we would then leave without a deal. The incentive is to vote against it, irrespective of what it is.
I am completely puzzled by this but let us try to be constructive. What is the way forward? A number of people have said that Parliament has had plenty of time to come up with not just what it does not want but what it wants, and it has failed miserably. That is true. My solution to this is a new Parliament. We need a general election of some kind. My one plea is that all the manifestos be absolutely clear about what the parties are going to do. That is crucial, because if we are trying to get the people to make an informed choice and we give them fudge, we could end up in exactly the same place as we are now.
I have two final points. First, some people are saying that the EU is a terrible club, but it seems to have a lot of members keen to join it. Secondly, I have spent a lot of time dealing with special advisers, and my general principle is that good special advisers are extremely good for the smooth working of the Civil Service and its relationship with Ministers. Bad special advisers are toxic and, in the end, bring their Ministers down. That is a lesson the Prime Minister might want to consider.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on so eloquently introducing the Bill, which, as we know, achieved a sizeable majority in the other place. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and a number of other noble Lords, I was a Member of the European Parliament. I also had the honour of advising Conservative Members of the European Parliament for five years. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I were stagiaires together in the same year in the European Commission—not something I would care to mention in polite Conservative company in the present climate. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Hayward, I have no intention of calling No. 10 any time soon.
I will make a few personal remarks on why my policy on Europe has remained so strong. I have always considered myself to be a Scot by birth, British by nationality, and European, and the only comfort I take from this and other debates is that we have been assured that we will not be leaving Europe. Yet many of my friends, particularly parliamentary friends in the other place, are quite keen to prevent us remaining and reapplying to bodies such as the EEA—the European Economic Area—and the European Free Trade Area because of connotations to do with the customs union and the single market.
I also regret that many of the opportunities I had to be a stagiaire and practise European law in Brussels, albeit briefly, and to be a member of the European Parliament, will not be open to present and future generations in this country. I am proud to speak a number of other European languages—some more fluently than others—and it has always been a source of concern to me that we do not applaud or encourage that; speaking a foreign language is considered almost a bit of a crime, and one’s loyalty is questioned for that reason.
I will argue strongly that the Bill is needed and, if I remember, I will end with a question to the Minister who is summing up the debate today. We have a short and very focused Bill, followed up by a letter to the President of the European Council from our current Prime Minister. It puts a deadline of 31 January 2020 that is obviously a focus of some contention in the debate today, or earlier if agreement is reached on a deal.
I would argue that prorogation is premature. It was my distinct understanding that we faced a two-year parliamentary Session that was longer than usual, but with the distinct purpose of fulfilling our legislative duty in both Houses of Parliament of passing the Bills that were required not just to prepare us but businesses, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—whom I consider a noble friend—referred to, such as hill farmers, who are particularly concerned. I know that the Uplands Alliance has had a series of meetings with at least 100 hill farmers up and down the country in England. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I feel that it is a privilege to have a seat in this place and to participate in debates such as this, because, as it is said when we are introduced here, we have a voice, and, even though we do not have a constituency, we can raise the concerns of others.
We learned this week that the Agriculture Bill will fall; we have not even seen the environment protection Bill and the immigration Bill; the trade rollover Bill is blocked in the other place; and we have yet to see the second trade Bill. All these have implications for the farming community—and we have not yet seen the Fisheries Bill. Why on earth, then, are we concluding this parliamentary Session prematurely before we have had the chance to thrash out what the detail will be?
In the spending review yesterday, some £400 million was allocated to Defra to prepare. Obviously, we have passed all the statutory instruments, and some we had to correct because we had done so rather quickly, but timeously. There was a reference to £30 million of support, both this year and, more particularly, next year. That raises the question of what the legal basis is for that sum of money. However, my greater concern about why we need the Agriculture Bill in particular is: how can farmers, who have concluded one harvest and are about to sow a winter crop with a view to sowing summer wheat early next year, possibly make a commercial decision until they know what the level of support will be? Arable farmers are probably the least likely to need or benefit from future support. The contrary is the case with the hill farmers: they need to know, if they produce lambs and put the ewes to tup this autumn, whether there will be a market for them. I believe that both Houses of Parliament owe it to them to give certainty about whether there will be a market. Many will be preparing for the sales of spring lamb in France next year.
I want to respond to something that I thought was quite provocative that my noble friend Lord Howard said. I greatly admire him and was a shadow Minister under his leadership in the other place for a number of years. I am not dissimilar to my noble friend Lady Meyer, although my heritage is not quite as exotic. I have a Scottish father and a Danish mother, who met on a blind date—so I am obviously very keen on blind dates. They met in Hamburg, where they found themselves allocated after the war. I formed a distinct understanding when I studied history, especially as a student of JDB Mitchell at the University of Edinburgh. I was the first intake to do a six-month obligatory course on European Community law, and I am absolutely bewildered that the Edinburgh Law School and the Law Society are deciding whether we need to continue to have such an obligatory course—of course we do, particularly in this period of transition as we come out of the European Union.
The reason that the original six member states pooled the resources of coal and steel was precisely that those were the two commodities that led to an act of aggression leading to two major world wars in the space of some 40 years. That is not coincidental. Further, I would argue that, when the Soviet bloc and COMECON, the economic bloc, collapsed, we in the European Economic Community, as we were at the time—now the single market going forward—were the natural economic partners of the now comparatively new member states of the European Union.
Feeling as I do for personal reasons, I deeply regret the way that my 21 heroic colleagues in the other place have been treated. I hope that they will have the Whip restored and that those who wish to will be allowed to fight the next election. I do not believe in a second referendum. I believe that the first referendum on this issue was a complete disaster. It led to the death of Jo Cox, and I believe that any future referendum would be equally divisive. We just need to go outside the entrance to this building to see why that would be the case.
I support this Bill. I would vehemently argue that we need the six Bills that were meant to be set out in this parliamentary session before we prorogue. I would sign up to a general election, but after 5 November, when I hope that we can agree a deal. The Bill before us today is instrumental in that regard.
I am sorry that the Minister is not in its place, but I hope that the Government will abide by the terms of this Bill if it is carried by both Houses, and the letter in the schedule as well. Can we have confirmation today not just that the Government will apply for an extension in the terms of this Bill but will vote for such an extension in the European Council?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Bill is all about preventing no deal. I remind the House that Parliament made it very clear earlier on this year that it does not want that, yet the Government are still adamant about keeping it on the table. We must not forget that it is Brexit Party policy to have no deal.
In June, I was appointed vice-president of the Confederation of British Industry. While Parliament has been turning itself inside out, something has been lost. Businesses are still struggling with crippling uncertainty, hampering investment and productivity—the uncertainty that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about. Let us be clear: no deal would be far worse.
Over the past couple of weeks, the CBI has travelled up and down the country gauging firms’ preparations. Three things have come out of that. First, no deal would not see an end to the Brexit impasse; instead, we would be starting negotiations from a worse position. Secondly, larger firms have already spent billions preparing for no deal but they cannot be protected: they can prepare, but they cannot be protected. Thirdly, we know that smaller firms have neither the time nor the resources to plan properly. I can give the House example after example: a small IT consultancy firm in the north-east is worried that its largest customers in manufacturing, distribution and transport are putting off decisions because of uncertainty. An East Midlands SME with 110 employees is worried about whether or not the current rules will work after 31 October. A manufacturer making specialist materials in the north-west, which currently exports 91% of its products and imports all its raw materials, has made it clear that its profits will suffer greatly and it will be challenged to make investment and grow in the future.
That is why it is important that on both sides, if possible, a compromise and a deal should be brought about. Businesses want certainty. They want the Government to get on and deal with the domestic priorities—some of which were mentioned by the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, in his recent statement, which is all good—but Brexit is still overshadowing everything.
Time and again over the three years I have said it is not only what we think about what is happening with Brexit but what other people around the world think about us. I do not know how many noble Lords saw it but an open letter was published this week. I am going to read part of the letter because it is so important. It says:
“We, the undersigned national business federations from eight countries and representing over four million businesses, are gravely concerned about the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement in place.
Companies from our countries have invested”—
trillions of pounds—
“in the UK … supporting jobs, growth, and prosperity across the country. We deeply value our economic relationship with the UK given its favorable business climate, characterized by transparency, regulatory stability, respect for the rule of law, and a long-standing commitment to international collaboration.
A decision to leave the EU without a deal would create substantial uncertainty and disruption for businesses, workers, farmers and regulators alike. The prospect of lengthy waits at the border, restrictions on intra-company transfers of workers, the fragmentation of regulations and standards, and doubts about free flow of data and e-commerce represent significant risks … Significant potential changes to the UK’s immigration policy”,
also raise concerns. It continues:
“Firms would be forced to make decisions about supply chains and investments in the UK without knowing what the future terms of trade will be. They will also need to evaluate the legal, contractual and geographic changes needed to ensure their continued ability to serve customers in the UK and across Europe.
Such disruptions are bound to affect jobs, consumer choices, and the cost of goods and services. The UK walking away from its largest trading partner in an abrupt manner also sends concerning signals to trade partners considering bilateral agreements in the future.
We therefore urge the UK and the EU to reach an agreement that includes a meaningful transition period and to swiftly conclude an ambitious agreement regarding their future commercial relationship that supports jobs, growth and prosperity in the UK and across Europe”.
Who are the signatories? They come from across the globe: the Australian Industry Group, the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Egyptian Industries, the Japan Business Federation, the Federation of Korean Industries, Business New Zealand and the United States Chamber of Commerce. This is what the whole world thinks we should do. It is beyond what experts think, let alone what the CBI has been saying.
I remember clearly that two days before the election in June 2017 I was sitting next to my old sparring partner Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy—he led the Oxford Union debating team for two years running and I led the Cambridge Union debating team for two years running; we were opponents in the annual varsity debate. I said to him, “Michael, we are in this mess thanks to you”. He said, “Karan, you cannot say that”. I said, “I am saying it, Michael”. He said, “Well, Karan, you will be thanking me in 10 years’ time”.
This was brought to light in an excellent article by Jeremy Warner in the Daily Telegraph. His argument was that no deal would prolong the economic uncertainty, not end it. He started by saying that he has been told repeatedly by his Brexiteer friends, “Don’t worry. If there is any damage, it will all be fine in the long run”. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said in her very good speech that it is not just a question of getting Brexit over with. I call a hard, no-deal Brexit the Nike Brexit. Like the sportswear firm, it is saying, “Just Do It”. It is the just-do-it Brexit. Well, we will just do it and then what? Jeremy Warner has said that the idea that getting Brexit over and done with would provide,
“the finality and certainty that everyone so much craves, automatically ushering in a period of economic rebirth, is sadly misguided”.
Jeremy Warner also cited the example of the currency markets. On Tuesday sterling hit its lowest level against the dollar since the 1980s. The main problem is that people around the world are concerned about Britain’s political situation, which they see as toxic. A country that has always been respected for its stability is now seen as being exactly the opposite. Confidence is draining out of our economy. According to Jeremy Warner, economic indicators for the UK are flashing red. The manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index reveals economic data which shows that factory output is at its lowest level in seven years. People who are very pro Brexit say, “Europe is going nowhere. Germany is going down the tubes and it is going to have a recession”. That is bad because a declining pound in Germany makes it less competitive for the Germans to export to us, one of their biggest markets. For the UK, while the low pound is great for exports, within the whole concept of the economics of import substitution, you cannot make economic substitutions overnight. You have to build up your capacity, which takes many years. The weakness of the pound as a help to exports is not an instant fillip to the economy or to businesses.
The main point is that as a country we are net importers. If the currency weakens, products on the supermarket shelves become more expensive and consumers suffer. Just as real wages have been showing signs of breaking free after the financial crisis, there is a threat that incomes will sink again. This is not Project Fear. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the Yellowhammer report. We still do not have the full version of that report. I do not know whether a Minister will respond to this debate, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us—
Lord Balfe
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an interesting point because I notice that the ministerial Bench has been thinly populated. I wonder whether the person currently occupying it can tell us whether there will indeed be a ministerial response to this debate, and where the Minister is.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, there will indeed be a ministerial response and I think that my noble friend the Minister will appear very shortly.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for that intervention and for the reassurance given by the noble Baroness. Could we know whether the Yellowhammer report will be released to us in full?
I conclude by saying that there is no running away from this. In our upcoming trading relationship with the EU, we cannot run away from the fact that over 40% of our exports go to Europe, while over 50% of our imports come from there. There is no point in saying that the United States economy is bigger than that of the whole of the European Union. It is, but it makes up only 18% of our trade. We need a reality check. Moving to WTO terms will not be a panacea at all. The uncertainty will continue and the irony is that during any negotiation period, if we leave with no deal, where would the negotiations start? They would start with money, citizens’ rights and the Irish backstop. The EU would refuse to engage in any other matters until those three issues had been settled. That is the reality. This deal is not a deal. We have not even started on the real deals for negotiating our trade, our security and the movement of people. All the things that are important to our future are yet to be negotiated. It is essential to prevent no deal. It is wrong to call this a surrender Bill. You surrender to the enemy. The European Union is not our enemy but our best friend. You stand a much better chance of negotiating in a friendly and open manner, trusting and being trusted by each other. I have gone through many negotiations in my business life. The more amicable they are, the better the results for both parties concerned.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned “great” Britain, which has always been global Britain. Let us resolve this deadlock and continue to be the Great Britain that countries around the world have always respected.
Lord Green of Deddington (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the debate has been very interesting and wide-ranging. I was especially interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Kerr. However, there has not been much mention so far of what I will call “real people”—people outside this Chamber. I should like to focus briefly on one of the major factors that underlay the outcome of the referendum. I refer, of course, to immigration.
The immigration issue has not gone away and it will not. There is a lot of talk about the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU and the 16 million who voted the other way. I am speaking for the 30 million people who want to see a reduction in immigration to this country.
It is true that the salience of that issue has declined considerably in the recent months—and indeed years—since the referendum. There are three reasons for that: many assume that Brexit will sort it; the migration crisis in Europe, which was exaggerated at the time, has somewhat faded; and Brexit demolishes the salience of every other issue you can imagine.
The public are right to be concerned. I will mention just two examples, and I will be brief. If immigration continues at current levels, we will add 1 million people to our population every three years—that is the population of Birmingham, along with all the infrastructure and so on that we will need. The second issue is housing. Again, at current rates, we will have to build a new home every six minutes, night and day, for the new families joining us.
If we look ahead, there is a serious risk that, as far as immigration is concerned, our last case will be worse than our first. The present Government are now proposing an Australian-style points-based system, without apparently realising that we have had such a system for 10 years, and apparently without being aware that the situation in Australia could hardly be more different. It seems that the expression is popular with focus groups, and that is the reason that it is now the basis of policy on a matter of real importance to, as I said, 30 million people. I find that disgraceful. We need a serious attempt to tackle the issues underlying this.
It gets worse. The Government are also contemplating a significant lowering of the skill and salary levels that will qualify people from around the world to come to this country. We have calculated that approximately 9 million jobs in the UK will become more open to international competition than they are now.
Finally, if the outcome of this whole saga is that we merely substitute non-EU for EU workers, with no significant reduction in the numbers, I believe that confidence in our political system will suffer a very severe blow.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Bill should be unnecessary. If we had a Government we could trust and a Cabinet that took an interest in the real and devasting impact that no deal will have on people, it would be. The Government have no mandate for no deal, which is expressly opposed by the elected House, yet they appear determined to impose it on this country by hook or by crook—mainly by crook.
I will not detain the House for long. Some excellent speeches covering many areas have been made and have brought to light the full impact of no deal, whether on Northern Ireland and the peace process or on our farmers and businesses. I want to raise one issue: the British citizens currently living in the European Union. Leaving without a deal means that they are left with no framework under which to operate. It is causing huge fear and anxiety among British citizens across the European Union. The one thing that I find most astounding about the proponents of no deal is that they talk in such broad terms. They say, “We’ve got to get this done. We’ve got to get it finished”. It will not be finished. The misery will have only just started for millions of people.
I was particularly impressed by the speeches that addressed the detail of our leaving without a deal. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, outlined for us the impact on farmers. The noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Mandelson and Lord Patten, and others outlined its real impact on people in Northern Ireland. I want us not to forget the impact on British citizens in the European Union, many of whom are in absolute fear.
Recently, I received an email from a British citizen in France. He said:
“On 31 October, I will become a third country national with a lack of clarity about my rights. Worse, my ongoing healthcare provision looks decidedly dodgy. Basically, my life quite literally depends on the medication that I have to take every day, night and morning. If anything disrupts my ability to obtain the level of healthcare I currently enjoy, my life could be threatened”.
He went on:
“The Boris Johnson Government fills me with dread, as I witness a boost to the pull-up-the-drawbridge brigade in the Conservative Party”.
He finishes:
“I don’t know if you remember, but I worked for the Conservative Party for 30 years. I have considered myself a Conservative for 63 years—but no longer, as I now feel that my party has left me”.
If we leave on 31 October with no deal, we will plunge EU citizens like him, and many hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—more, into a situation of fear and concern where they do not know whether they will be able to access health services, where the health services in EU countries will not know how they will be properly remunerated and where there will be a lot of confusion. I ask noble Lords, when considering no deal, always to consider the people. This is not an abstract concept; this is about the real impact on people’s lives. We should not allow no deal to go ahead in this underhand way. I therefore support the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bull outlined some of the problems very clearly. I want to build on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. On reciprocal healthcare, we must remember that 27 million people hold a UK-issued European health insurance card. If the 190,000 UK pensioners who live elsewhere in the EU were to return to the UK, the cost of their healthcare alone would be between £500 million and £1 billion per year. Yet nowhere have we seen provision for this kind of movement happening.
The BMA has just published a document—I declare my interest as a past president—entitled A Health Service on the Brink: The Dangers of a “No Deal” Brexit. It is littered with questions that should have been answered during the years since the referendum. We have nearly 22,000 European graduate doctors in the UK, a third of whom have said they are considering leaving. We need reciprocal arrangements for their qualifications. We have 10,000 medical vacancies already. If a third of those doctors go, we will have even more. When people turn up with their sick child or another family member, and have an even longer trolley wait than they have now, or when their relative dies because they cannot get the healthcare they need, the headlines will change dramatically. Sadly, I worry that some implications for individuals in our society have not hit home, in part because we have not told them, openly and honestly, what the implications are.
I have been privileged enough to be a member of the European Advisory Group to the Welsh Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—I would say “my noble friend”—knows only too well, the concern over farmers is enormous. The concern over fair distribution of food in the event of shortages, because of our rural areas, is huge. We have many SMEs that create component parts, which will almost certainly become non-viable in the event of no deal. Our ports have been trying hard to make provision for the future, but the sudden catastrophe of no deal will jeopardise our economy in Wales. As is known, Wales already has socio- economic problems that go back a long way through our history.
Finally, when considering the implications of no deal, remember all those groups that we will suddenly drop out of. The European Reference Networks look at rare diseases. They are the eyes and ears looking at where disastrous epidemics, pandemics and new diseases are emerging. Without that intelligence, strange conditions will just turn up in emergency departments around the country, with no information ahead of time. For those and many other reasons—the debate has been long and interesting—I strongly endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lady Bull and support this legislation.
The Earl of Listowel
May I ask my noble friend about implications for the structural funds from the European Union? I understand they have been helpful to Wales in the past. Is she confident that they will be replaced?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question because, no, I am not confident that they will be replaced. I know that the Welsh Government have asked the Westminster Government for evidence that the funding will come through. A Statement was made by the Minister about CAP funding for farmers, but many other areas are of concern. People in Wales may not have been as aware of some of the implications as they might have been, nor of how important that infrastructure funding has been in previous years.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, just over a week ago, Ministers started to backtrack on an important announcement made by the Prime Minister two weeks previously that he would respond to Angela Merkel on his alternative way of dealing with matters raised by the necessity of the backstop. That necessity is that there needs to be some way of continuing the internal market and customs union in the context of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. A week today, when we will not be here, will be the red-letter day for the reply that the Prime Minister has promised to give Angela Merkel. Does the Minister still expect such a reply to be given, or is this another of those commitments that disappears into thin air after a few days of media?
What could the Prime Minister have said, or could still say? It is logical, and in line with the provisions of the Bill, which I think will undoubtedly be enacted, that another way of looking at the backstop question should be seriously considered. It is as follows: that in order that we have no border on the island of Ireland, therefore, on both sides of that border, there is common membership of the single market and the customs union. Some people in Northern Ireland then say, “But there could be a dotted-line boundary in the Irish Sea”, to which the answer is that the whole of the British Isles needs to stay in the internal market and the customs union. By the way, that was very near to being adopted by the House of Commons, but at the time there was competition between two or three similar alternatives. People say with a degree of vehemence, “Of course, there is no consensus in the House of Commons for anything remotely like that”, but that has not actually been tested in the House of Commons recently.
That would also deal with the key question posed on many doorsteps in this country along the lines of, “What have the Romans ever done for us?”. We in the trade union movement—I was heavily involved in this in the TUC—know that with an internal market, it is essential that you have a way to deal with undercutting by anyone competing with us who is a member of the internal market. The answer to that, given by Jacques Delors in 1988, was collective bargaining at a higher level, so there is an understanding, an undertaking, by qualified majority voting if necessary, on the baker’s dozen of important rights for part-time workers, and so on—I will not enumerate them now. None of that will be possible without the guarantees which can alone be given by staying in the internal market.
That is one of the things that the Romans have done for us, and I ask the Minister to confirm what he has said previously in a slightly different context: “Yes, we will give those guarantees”, but how can we believe government guarantees? Therefore, we need the whole of the British Isles to stay in the customs union and the internal market.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to, I think, nine hours of debate, yesterday and today. I was not going to speak but I somehow think I have to. There are so many things I could say, but I want to make just three points. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and those in the other place who have put together this Bill. It may be a very important example of cross-party working. It is 50 years since I sat in the official Box in this House, and I have been observing its proceedings regularly for that period. I have a sense at the moment that we are in a watershed. Things will never be the same after these Brexit years, not least because Brexit will be with us for 10, 15 or 20 years. It will divide the country, whether we leave or stay, and we have a huge problem dealing with it. Part of that problem is that our political institutions are not keeping up with the world, which is changing around us. At some point we will have to look at ourselves quite radically to ensure that we can keep up with what is expected of us. We are not helping ourselves in the way we are carrying on business at the moment.
Within that, the position of political parties is becoming a problem. I should never talk about political parties; I lack the gene that gives people passion for them. I have for a long time been very privileged to observe politicians closely and I have never, ever understood them. I just accept that I am not “one of you”. Equally, I know the importance of parties. At the moment, both in government and in political and party affairs, there are too many moving parts and too many fixed structures in my life are no longer stable or reliable. That is an unnerving feeling. If I am honest, the dismissal of 21 members of the Conservative Party appals me—I am not a politician but it appals me. It is over 50 years since I observed a number of leading Conservative politicians—the now noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Gummer and Lord Lamont, and Mr Kenneth Clarke—in the Cambridge Union. I remember Kenneth Clarke as a blonde, tall, slim chap with a northern accent, and I am utterly dismayed to find his contribution treated so cavalierly.
Listening to the debate and watching what is going on, I feel that I am living in a world that is going mad. Too many things are happening. I cannot be alone in feeling that—it is not just my age; it is true. We need sanity. There is sanity in this House and within the parties, and we will be rescued only if sane people can overcome their differences, act in the national interest and work together. This Bill is an example of that. Maybe it will lead to a referendum because I cannot see how a general election will get us out of our difficulty; what will happen if we again have a hung Parliament? So perhaps there will be a referendum. That is my first point: be true to your parties but also look at the national interest before your party interest when needed.
My second concern is that there is a need for a view about the future of this country in the world. The world around us is changing fast. We are in the middle of a technological revolution that I think is greater than the Industrial Revolution. Just 15 years ago we did not have smart phones and apps but now they are an indispensable part of everybody’s lives. Social media is changing the whole political context not just in this country but in other countries. I have recently chaired conferences and have learned that I can chair meetings without understanding a word of what is said. I chaired a meeting in Cambridge on quantum computing and another on blockchain, which is even worse. I also chaired one on DNA—on CRISPR-Cas 9 for those who are interested.
The things that are being brought to fruition in the world of research at the moment will alter the world more in the next 10, 15 or 20 years than has been the case in the last 10 or 15 years, and that has been fast enough. We in the political world and in political institutions have to keep up with and understand those things. Brexit is important but it is not the only change that is happening, and we need to have a view of the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said earlier. We need to have a view of our place in the world and of how we will cope with it and be equipped to deal with it. It is not my field but the tectonic plates of world politics are changing. America and China will dominate the scene. Europe will not be the centre of the world, as we have thought of ourselves. The need to have a position in which we can choose between America and China, when each of them puts pressure on us, will be important. We will lack company if we isolate ourselves from the rest of Europe by behaving badly towards it and having no deal. The context of all this will be fundamental for the future of this country in a way that goes deeper than just politics and economics; it will be cultural too.
I am hugely bothered by the way in which the word “trust” has been used. I am used to people trusting government institutions. Part of my career has involved trying to uphold trust and ensure that people know where the boundaries are in a pragmatic way. One of those boundaries, as my noble friend and successor said just now, concerns special advisers. A lot of my time was taken up with special advisers and I have a detailed question for the Minister when he replies. There were, and I think there still are, rules governing special advisers, one of which was that they are temporary civil servants and do not have Executive powers. Can the Minister assure us that present special advisers are not exercising Executive powers? For instance, sacking another special adviser is the exercise of an Executive power. Special advisers do not have such powers. If someone purports to sack someone and they do not have the power to do it, is that sacking valid? I assume that this has been looked into and that the Government know what is going on, but I raise it because it is a small example of a more general principle. We need to ensure that the codes of conduct—not just gentlemen or good chaps behaving well but the basic rules of government—are being observed. I feel that, at the moment, when people feel able to be careless and cavalier with conventions, we ought to ask whether basic principles are being observed and challenging when they are not.
I think that is enough for now. I could go on at length about the principles at stake today, but so much has been said that I agree with and I will not repeat it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate, but I think the House may agree that it is perhaps now time to wind up. Today’s has been a much more constructive debate than last night’s—oh, I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I did not realise that we were coming near to winding up. I was asking what the proper time to end was: I wanted to speak near the end so that I would hear the wisdom of others rather than my own.
I want to talk a bit about the history of this matter in the House of Commons and then say a word or two about the Bill. Obviously, the question arose immediately after the referendum of whether the result should be implemented. The referendum itself did not contain, as the Supreme Court pointed out, any mechanism for implementing the result; therefore, it was for Parliament to find a way of implementing the result. The Prime Minister of the day, who took over from David Cameron, undertook to implement the result of the referendum and set about doing so, indicating principles by which she would be guided, sometimes called red lines. I want to mention one aspect of that. The customs union and the single market were particularly important, but as I understand the present rules of the single market and the customs union, they forbid a member state making contracts for trade with others. Therefore, part of the desire in the referendum was to open up trade for the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions. Therefore some modification, but only some, to the customs union and the single market was necessary.
I want to particularly mention Northern Ireland, because I believe that to be fundamental: as far as I am concerned it is the most important problem. As far as I can see, and I have tried to think about it as much as I could, it can be solved properly only by having the same basic rules on both sides of the border. If not, there is bound to be a hard border and I think I am right in saying that the European Union rules require that the boundaries of the European Union are set by hard borders. It therefore seems that if we are to leave without a deal there is bound to be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That would be a disaster, because the arrangements there are extremely tender, very important and vital to securing the peace of Northern Ireland. So far as I am concerned, that is a vital point; it has been from the beginning and remains so.
Eventually Mrs May managed to get an agreement with the European Union, and she put that before Parliament on more than one occasion. I venture to suggest that one way of dealing with that problem was that if somebody wanted to change any detail, any part or indeed the whole of that, they should put forward an amendment to the Motion to approve it. That would seem to be the reasonable way in which such a thing could be done, but so far as I know that has never happened and the only amendment to the arrangement suggested that an alternative should be found to the Irish backstop. Of itself, that does not change the arrangement. You have to answer that and find the alternative; my noble friend indicated the possibilities, and these are quite difficult to completely understand. I do not think that so far they have been completely accepted by the Government for negotiation. I sincerely hope that these matters will be brought forward if the Government are to proceed with the negotiations.
The result has been a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about various matters. The important thing to remember is that the withdrawal agreement is a legal document and has legal effect. Added to that is the political declaration. That is a document of intention, not legally binding in the same way as the withdrawal agreement, and I understood that the European Union had said it wanted the withdrawal agreement to be fixed before it had substantive discussions on future arrangements. One of the aspects of the present arrangement that Mrs May negotiated was a period of two years’ transition. That is an important safeguard against the sort of cliff edges we have been hearing described in the course of this interesting and in some ways extremely saddening debate.
The result is that nothing has really happened to change that proposal. It has been turned down, but without any explanation of how it could be improved. I honestly think that the House of Commons has lost an opportunity in that respect. Noble Lords will remember that it had some debates and indicative votes about what it wanted. Most of these indicative votes, so far as I remember, were concerned with the political declaration. Indeed, the discussions that took place after the then Prime Minister opened them up with Mr Corbyn were of that kind—that is to say, they dealt mainly with the political declaration. Agreement on that is not essential to the withdrawal. I believe it is important to try to distinguish between the two.
That brings me to this Bill. It asks that the Prime Minister should write to the President of the European Council asking for an extension. I remember pointing out—I hope humbly—when this appeared in the earlier Bill that no reason was given for the extension. Well, this Bill has a reason given for the extension, and a very interesting reason it is. It says the extension is made,
“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks”,
in relation to the political projection.
That suggests to me that the proponents of this Bill believe that the agreement that presently exists, and is the only one as far as I know, is to be implemented after it has been further discussed with a supplementary point about the political declaration. If that is correct, this Bill goes a very great distance towards securing what is required in the way of a withdrawal agreement, which is not no deal without an agreement, but an agreement that has already been passed by the European Union and which the House of Commons has dissented from so far. It looks as though this promises that it will be passed. In that sense, if I am right about that, it is quite a considerable Bill. It suggests the possibility of very substantial progress towards a deal for taking us out of the European Union. On that interpretation, I believe that a good deal of the talk that we have had about no deal is set aside by this in a direct and constructive manner.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, is not in his place right now but, before I begin my remarks, I wanted to mention the problem of spads, because it is not only here that they have caused problems. I personally believe that a lot of the problems in Northern Ireland are the result of spads out of control and their Ministers creating a culture where they can function, interrupting the normal flow of business in the department. That is something that, as a country, we need to examine, because it has a serious impact on our structure of government.
During the debate, a number of Members, some of whom have considerable experience, have been kind enough to refer to the problems in Northern Ireland. We know that that has been at the core of the blockage to progress for quite some time—though it is not confined to that, because there are quite a number of Members in the other place who see a range of other problems with the withdrawal agreement and would wish to replace that and have an entirely new negotiation.
I think it is true to say that the negotiation has been wrong from the very beginning. Someone said that we should have tried to get more of a cross-party consensus before we started the negotiations and, I have to say to noble Lords opposite, their leader was first out of the trap to call for triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, which seems to have been forgotten in discussions. He was out there wanting that done before we had even agreed a negotiating position.
The danger with the Bill—it is most unfortunate—is that it puts us into a further period of purgatory where we do not get an agreement. My sense is that what we should concentrate on in Parliament is finding alternatives. We need solutions. We do not need to rehearse the arguments of the referendum debate again and again. I just point out that, in 2015, when the referendum Bill became law, 554 Members of the House of Commons voted for it, and we were no better. Having let Pandora out of the box, we are now confronted because, for political and party reasons, we let a particular process emerge that was different to our normal parliamentary process—and then we complain about the problems created by it. It has been done by our own hand. We all, on all sides of this House, live in glass houses and that is something we need to reflect on as we move forward.
I believe there are alternatives, and I have been trying with colleagues for some months now to influence government and to speak to other people to look at what they might be. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the alternative arrangements working group. I understand that its work—I have seen some of it, but I have not read every detail—is terribly technically focused. Many of the problems we have in all parts of Ireland are not technical. They go to the heart of what people feel is their identity. Some feel that they have been short-changed. They supported the 1998 agreement and feel that this process upsets that. Others are exploiting the situation for cynical reasons. Sinn Féin is the most anti-European party in Ireland. It has opposed every treaty. It has opposed everything from the 1970s, and its support for it now is purely from the teeth out.
Leaving that aside, let us focus on what possible alternatives there could be. Instead of being a problem for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, why do we not use the agreement and some of its institutions and precedents as part of the solution? I have mentioned this to noble Lords before. With some modest devolution from here to Stormont, perhaps based on trade issues and others, I believe that we could address the democratic deficit created by the backstop where Northern Ireland would be receiving regulations from Brussels but would have no representation there. It would be a rule taker and effectively a European colony, and over time a gradual difference would emerge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of rules and regulations.
It seems to me that it would be appropriate for a number of measures to be taken. We need to send a signal to our European colleagues that we take their single market seriously. We need to make it clear that, if anybody uses United Kingdom territory to export goods to the European single market that are not compliant, that is an offence. We should create a new north/south body under the 1999-2000 treaty specifically to deal with cross-border trade issues.
I was Trade Minister for some years in Northern Ireland and set up two of the six cross-border bodies—InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland. They have worked for 20 years. The six bodies have staff working on both sides of the border. There is no problem. There are no complaints. They get on with their business and it is totally acceptable. I see no reason why that body should not have at least two functions. We both start with the same rulebook and the same regulations on education. Any new regulations coming from either side could be notified to that body. It could then ensure that the totality of the people who export into the Republic are advised of the regulations and the same would apply the other way round.
You could further ask them to ensure that, if they see any sign of inappropriate movement of goods or processes when visiting depots and companies, it is reported to the relevant authorities. Do you realise that if the backstop were implemented as it stands to date, goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have to be treated as coming from a third country? There was mention of that in other speeches but not in that context. It creates a huge problem for us because it is the beginning of a separation process. I think that that is unnecessary and extremely difficult.
The cry from Dublin and Brussels is that we need an insurance policy. I get that. I think this insurance policy should be that the United Kingdom should indemnify the European Union by treaty. If our territory were used to export goods not covered by European rules to the Republic, we would have to indemnify them. If we found that goods slipped through, it would be our responsibility to them. People can always smuggle, whatever agreement you have, but it would mean that the insurance policy would come from us, by treaty. With the cross-border treaty, you could join the EU to that treaty, so that the body which would operate and be democratically answerable both to Stormont and Dublin could have EU observers, or they could be linked into the treaty. There would be no secrets; it would all be above board. The North/South Ministerial Council to which that body would report is an existing, widely accepted institution. We also have the east-west dimension, with the British-Irish Council, which could also have a role. Instead of the agreement sitting there as a threat, it should be used as part of the solution.
There are these technical schemes, such as trusted trader status. I get all that. The big problem we have in Ireland is not simply technical. It is people feeling that they have been short changed and that they are in a situation not of their own making and which is out of their control. We could give them this control back.
My party does not have the technical back-up and support necessary to work out the detail. At least the Taoiseach said, when we released it the other day, that he was prepared to look at it. It is easy to say that; it does not mean anything. Instead of having the referendum argument all over again, we need to spend our time concentrating on solutions. Only solutions are going to avoid the difficulties of leaving the European Union in a disorderly manner which does not suit anybody in Ireland—north, south, east or west. I certainly do not want to see it.
There is another thing that people forget. There is a land border of 300-odd miles—we know all about that. The vast majority of material moving between Ireland and Great Britain does not come across the border. It goes from Dublin to Holyhead and Fishguard to Rosslare. Some 80%-90% of Irish goods travel on the British land bridge. They either go to the UK market or to the European or world markets. The north-south trade flows represent one-10th of 1% of EU trade flows. Of total imports to the Irish Republic from the whole of the world, only 1.6% comes from Northern Ireland. The vast majority of this is agri-food and animals. It may be 1.6% of imports to the Irish Republic, but it is a bigger percentage of our exports, so a lot of our small businesses depend heavily on it. It is a bigger deal for us in many respects than it is for them. Their problem is the exports to Great Britain, where for instance 55% of their beef comes to the UK. This is a huge quantity which is not going to be replaced by other markets in five minutes, particularly if you get 45% tariffs applied.
Let us redouble our efforts and stiffen every sinew to find solutions. There is no point in arguing over who said what in 2016 at the referendum. Everybody is to blame either through sins of omission or through sins of commission. We all put our hands up for the legislation. Let us look for solutions. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. Those technical issues are part of it, but we need—
Lord Lea of Crondall
Is the noble Lord not effectively saying that the whole of the British Isles should be part of one internal market and customs union?
Lord Empey
If that is the case, why would we leave the European Union? If the noble Lord is arguing that the referendum results in us staying in the customs union and the single market, I do not see what the point of leaving is because the whole rationale is different. It is all right saying that here, but we must not forget that the coalition Government brought this legislation into Parliament in the first place. We must remember that everybody has had their hands on this issue, and not always with distinction. Let us focus on solutions that can work.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I have not spoken on a European issue for two years—
Lord Empey
I am sorry. I thought the noble Lord was intervening and was giving way. Perhaps the noble Lord is giving me a hint. I have not quite broken the record of some distinguished noble colleagues in making the 20-minute mark, but I urge colleagues that we need to be prepared to open our minds. We do not want a disorderly departure or to have the can continuously kicked down the road or to retain the uncertainties that not having a solution brings. I think that, despite what people say about their negotiating tactics, with what has been said by Chancellor Merkel and President Macron, the time has come for Her Majesty’s Government to put some solid things on the table, and then we can get to grips and have a proper negotiation. Once things are on the table, people will have to say why they reject them and if they cavalierly dismiss them, they will be weakening their case in public opinion.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak. I have not spoken for two years on European issues, and I certainly will not speak for 15 minutes. I accept my responsibility. I have been a pro-European all my life. I have been very active in the House of Lords in European Union committees and am very much in favour of staying in Europe. But I was responsible in part for us coming out of Europe, like many other people, because I did not make the case for Europe with the public in the way we should have done over the years, and certainly I did not play my part in the referendum campaign to the extent that in retrospect I believe I should have done. So I accept my responsibility.
I have been a remainer from the beginning, but I have watched the way changes have been taking place and the way that the country has become ever more divided—not many people have spoken about that today—and I recognise that, in accepting my responsibility, I have to shift my position as a very clear-cut remainer who wanted in principle to stick with remain all the way. I have now shifted my view; I am moving towards the deal that Mrs May reached.
I welcome the Bill, because it gives us time for a little more reflection and may start bringing together more people who are prepared to make little compromises to try to find a solution that will produce two results. First, it will take us out of Europe. I do not want that, but I am prepared to live with it because I suspect that the divisions happening with us, in Europe, in America and all around the world are part of a shift that is taking place and cannot be stopped. So I am prepared to go some way with it. Secondly, I want to have terms and conditions that are acceptable and will benefit the people of this country, and that will not be immediately harmful, even in the short term for a few years, but will broadly represent where people stand at the moment. If it is a soft settlement, it will go some way towards ending the divisions within families, communities and groupings by bringing us closer together. That will be on the basis of coming out, but with a soft landing.
This Bill provides us with that opportunity, if we have people of goodwill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put his finger on the solution, which has been on offer since Mrs May came to the end of her negotiations and which is now in the political declaration. I do not remember precisely which clause it is, but in either Clause 17 or Clause 19 there is an offer from the Commission for further negotiations on the backstop. This has not been pursued by anybody, but it is there, it is on offer and it is time that people of goodwill came together and picked it up. They would then get a deal that could come back to the Commons and command its support. Then, at the end of the day, it should be put to the people to have their view on it.
So I have shifted, and I hope that, if we are really serious about trying to find a way forward, and having listened yesterday to the coarseness to which we almost descended in some of our exchanges, we will put that to one side and come together as we truly should to represent the best interests of the people.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a remain voter, but one who is convinced that the referendum result must be respected. I want to focus today on the central issue of trust. There have been some really good points made on trust between this place and the Government—particularly those made by the noble Lords, Lord Hayward, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Kerr. I entirely concur with those points, but there is another angle to trust: the trust between Parliament and the people. That is the point I want to focus on today.
It was Confucius, I believe, who said that,
“three things are needed for government: weapons, food and trust. If a ruler can’t hold on to all three, he should give up the weapons first and the food next. Trust should be guarded to the end: ‘without trust we cannot stand’”.
I think that is absolutely right. During the referendum campaign, the people were repeatedly told by the Government that if we voted for leave, that is exactly what would happen. If, for whatever reason, we do not leave, or even continue for many years with the current paralysis—following what was, we must remember, the biggest democratic exercise in British history—it would be fatal for trust in politics, which has already been much damaged by the events of the past three years. Many already feel the gulf between the so-called Westminster elites and the people, which will only be widened by that continuing. The extremist politics we have seen on the rise in the UK in recent years could pale into insignificance against what could be unleashed if the vote is not respected.
So what has that to do with this Bill? It is a Bill that rules out the United Kingdom leaving the EU without a deal. I understand the reasons of those noble Lords who do not wish to leave without a deal. Many excellent points have been raised today about the difficulties of no deal. There would be much hardship, at least in the short term. But I work in business, as do many noble Lords, and, to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I believe that it is essential to hold no deal on the table—to keep it as an option—to ensure that we can get and maintain that leverage with the EU in our negotiations that will result in a better deal for the UK.
In the end, this issue will be resolved via an election, but I believe that no deal must be maintained as an option to get the best deal for the UK and ensure that we do indeed leave and get the democratic will of the people seen through that vote.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have had a very constructive debate today. It has been much more interesting and wide-ranging than the long hours we had yesterday attempting to prevent today’s debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his return. I had understood that he was on a sleeper train to Scotland last night—perhaps he was not—but it is very courteous of him.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord is referring to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, told me off for intervening because I did not get here in time. I had to go and speak at a social care conference and came back at the first opportunity—which I would have thought was perfectly admissible. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. What we were doing was preventing this House from having a guillotine Motion—it had nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is all the more courteous of the noble Lord to return if he had a speaking engagement in Scotland. I regret that the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have not had the respect for the House to be here today, having detained us for so long in those circumstances last night. I hope that the Conservative Whips will make it clear to them that respect for the House in these circumstances would have suggested that attendance was more appropriate in their circumstances, as far as those of us who cut short our sleep and returned on time are concerned.
We are discussing some fundamental constitutional issues in this Bill: the relationship between Parliament and the Government. It is highly relevant to that that the leave campaign promised us that Brexit would restore not just British but parliamentary sovereignty.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, reminded me of some of my undergraduate studies in history—the 17th-century conflicts and the emergence of the Tories and the Whigs, the Tories being those who defended the Crown against Parliament, with the Whigs favouring a stronger Parliament. However, the noble Lord referred not to the divine right of kings but to the will of the people. In some ways, this is an equally difficult concept to pin down and define.
These are very wide-ranging issues. The future of the union has been mentioned. My son now lives and works in Edinburgh and I have therefore visited it much more frequently in the last three years. I understand that the future of the union is at stake in this debate for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Then there are the questions suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, my noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and others. What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of values do we think we are about? Do we think that we do not share European values, that we share more with the American right and that that is where we would like to be instead? We have also discussed the conventions of what we used to regard as our wonderful unwritten constitution.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I apologise for my discourtesy —in his view—in not being able to be here for today’s debate in its entirety? I have attended the debate and have listened to his wise words on the monitor. Sadly, there are other duties which people must attend to. I would be very appreciative if he would apologise for his discourtesy in getting his facts wrong and personalising something that should be about politics, not personalities.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The question is about the role of this House, the way we all conduct ourselves in this House and the way we conducted our business yesterday evening. I am very happy to discuss this further with him off the Floor of the House.
Lord Dobbs
Could the noble Lord give a little moment? This is important. I have been referred to on the Floor of the House. Will the noble Lord simply accept that these matters should be about policy and politics, not personalities? I hope that he will reflect on the fact that referring to personalities actually demeans his case and does not strengthen it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am sorry. I have not read many of the noble Lord’s novels. I am sure that they do not stress that personality is important in politics. It seems to me that it is rather difficult to disentangle personality from politics. Let us discuss this further off the Floor. I even promise to buy the noble Lord a drink.
I was talking about conventions of the British constitution. I have been recalling the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave last year when the question was raised about the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments’ sharp letter to the Foreign Secretary when he resigned about the way in which Boris Johnson broke the Ministerial Code in three places within three days of resigning. The noble Lord extremely carefully stressed that the Ministerial Code is an honour code and depends upon the honour of the men who sign it, leaving the question of whether Boris Johnson is a man of honour hanging in the air.
That is part of the issue of trust which the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hayward, and many others across the House have raised today. The matter of whether the Government would consider ignoring a law passed through Parliament if they did not like it, quoted in the Times today, increases the degree of mistrust. When the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said that he cannot believe that the Prime Minister is negotiating in good faith, he speaks for a large number of people, which is worrying. He also says that we have to remember that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff is in contempt of Parliament and has written a blog showing many examples of his contempt, not only for Parliament but for most politicians in all parties. The problem, therefore, is that we cannot trust this Government, so Parliament is justified in tying their hands, which is the purpose of this Bill.
There is then the question of the role of evidence in policy-making, and of Civil Service advice and impartiality. The relationship between the Civil Service and the Government is based on the principle that civil servants advise on the basis of the best evidence they can find, and Ministers decide. What we have seen throughout this long argument about our membership of the European Community is Ministers and politicians disregarding advice and putting aside the evidence. I recall during my time in government, long before we reached the referendum, when, with David Lidington and Greg Clark, I chaired a Committee which at Conservative insistence looked at the balance of competences between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The Conservatives had insisted on it in the 2010 agreement because they were convinced that the evidence would demonstrate that business and other stakeholders would want to claw substantial powers back from the European Union to the UK. One of the most conscientious suppliers of evidence to the 32 reports that were provided was the director of the Scotch Whisky Association, Mr David Frost. He had been engaged in this for some time and he clearly knew what he was talking about and where the evidence lay. When those reports concluded that the balance of competences as currently established suited British business and other stakeholders well, the Prime Minister’s office did its best to supress further debate.
I hope that I misheard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, when he suggested that David Frost was perhaps not pressing the Prime Minister’s case on the Irish backstop as hard as he might in Brussels—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am glad to hear that. We have seen a worrying number of occasions when Ministers have blamed civil servants for decisions that they should have taken responsibility for. Poor Ministers blame officials in the way that poor workmen blame their tools. Michael Gove on experts, David Davis on officials, and others have lowered the quality of political debate in this country. We desperately need to rebuild it. It is not only the Government; the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, reminds us of the migration issue. I have read many of the Migration Watch UK reports over the years, with good evidence presented to suggest that the migration problem in Britain is largely a European one, rather than a global one. That helped the leave campaign very considerably, and I regret that misrepresentation of evidence. Operation Yellowhammer is the most recent example of good evidence being presented by civil servants, so far as we understand it, and suppressed by the Government because it did not fit what they wanted. Again, I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on Tuesday. I thought he said that the report was based on “reasonable assumptions” about the outcome of a no-deal Brexit, and that it was a “worst-case analysis”. The think tank I worked for dealt in scenario planning, and would have central analyses, and best-case and worst-case analyses. I understand that Operation Yellowhammer was a central-scenario analysis of the risks. The Government should therefore be prepared to share what they think are the potential risks of a no-deal Brexit.
It is three years since the referendum. The focus of negotiations has been within the Conservative Party and not between the UK Government and the European Union. Theresa May, as Prime Minister, was pulled to the right by the European Research Group and imposed tight red lines. There could have been a compromise. Had the Government said that we would have a soft Brexit and stay within the single market and customs union, everything would have been over and dealt with long before now. The red lines were tightened and tightened, in late 2016 and early 2017, which led us to where we are today. After three years, the Conservative Party is even more deeply divided and we now see it crumbling at the edges, with the Cummings purge and even more so with the resignation of Jo Johnson this morning, when he said he is,
“torn between family loyalty and the national interest”.
We need politicians to think about the national interest, although I see Twitter remarked that this is the first occasion that a Minister has resigned to spend less time with his family.
The time remaining is short. The clock is ticking and deadlines are approaching. After three years of drift, without a clear government policy on what sort of exit to take, the idea that a deal could be reached on 17 and 18 October and implemented by 31 October is as absurd as some of the other things we have heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, remarked, the legislative basis for an ordinary Brexit will simply not be there. We will be going out without the legal framework that we need; that is not an orderly Brexit. We need more time. We need more honesty about the choices, more respect for evidence, what is possible and what is not. We need a Government and an Opposition who put the national interest ahead of party factionalism. Since we do not sufficiently have these qualities in our national debate at present, we need this Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who said that it is a privilege to be a Member of your Lordships’ House and to participate in debates such as this. I would make the point that I have said that before, but I am worried about being accused of dementia by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, for repeating my previous speeches. To listen to this debate today and the contributions from such distinguished former civil servants—we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Wilson, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Butler of Brockwell—has been extraordinary. The quality of contributions has been inordinately high, as has the thoughtfulness of the debate. We have been debating this now for six hours. Over 40 speakers, without any form of compulsion or even a speakers’ list, have been able to make contributions. That is a very adequate way to allow this House to consider the Second Reading of the Bill. In light of what was said yesterday, that is important to note.
The Bill is simple but necessary. It essentially stops no deal, but not altogether. I want to make that clear. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, shaking his head enthusiastically at this prospect, because it allows no deal if the House of Commons can be persuaded to pass a Motion in support of that. Let me come back to that. The Minister will obviously add what he wants to on it. It is necessary, because there is a real concern, referred to by a number of your Lordships, over a lack of trust in the Government and that, unless they are constrained, the Government will allow us to crash out never having approved a final deal or it not having the approval of the House of Commons.
A number of your Lordships referred to the dangers of crashing out without a deal, and we have talked about this on a number of previous occasions in this House. On the whole, this House has clearly indicated its view that leaving without a deal would be detrimental. Today we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on the risk to the economy. On security and the union, we heard powerful and compelling speeches on Northern Ireland from my noble friends Lord Mandelson and Lord Hain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and on important aspects from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others. On Wales, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others. As to the risk to young people and disadvantaged persons, we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
These are the risks that we want to see avoided. The criticisms of the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, in particular, are that it distorts our normal process of the separation of powers. I think he has a rosier view of the separation than I do, but let us be clear; this does not prevent the House of Commons, which is the legislature, giving its approval or non-approval to an event, but says that that is necessary before we could leave without a deal—or that an agreement has been reached.
It is also to be noted, given what has been said about hampering the Prime Minister in his negotiations, that the Bill is clear that not until after the European Council meeting on 17 October does the moment come when, if he has not reached a deal or obtained the consent of the House of Commons, he has to ask for an extension. Clause 1(3) does not trigger the need to ask for an extension until 19 October. In those circumstances, that particular element of concern is met.
I return to a point made by a number of noble Lords: the lack of trust in the Government, which has resulted in a Bill which is more constraining than one might have hoped to see. I must say, as many other noble Lords have, that what has happened on Prorogation is deeply concerning. It was deeply concerning when it was said that Prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit when it was plain to all of us that it had everything to with it. We did not need to see the documents that have been revealed in the Scottish case to know that. Now that we have seen them, however, we know that completely.
What is more, we know that the decision was made in the middle of August, at a time when it was not revealed to the House of Commons, this House or the public—or, apparently, to the Cabinet. Maybe I am wrong to see a sinister approach in that, but that sort of concern means that this House is entirely justified. The other place, whose Bill we are following, wants in the light of that lack of trust to make sure that this does not happen without either an agreement or the other House giving its approval.
It has been said that this will not solve the problem a number of noble Lords have raised. That may well be right, but it solves an immediate problem: the risk that we will find ourselves with a clock tick-tocking down to 31 October, not actually having a deal or even seeing any negotiations for a deal going on. That worries a lot of us as well. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who first raised the point in an intervention that the Prime Minister had said that he needed, or was happy to have, 30 days to come up with alternative arrangements. The clock tick-tocked, and we did not see what those arrangements were. We still have not seen what they are. In those circumstances, to say that Parliament is right to insist on a clear set of rules for what will take place seems absolutely what we should do.
One of my few regrets about the debate concerns what happened yesterday, partly because we spent a lot of time with bitterness and rancour, which we do not want to see in this House. However, particularly due to the efforts of my noble friend Lady Smith and the Government Chief Whip, we came to an agreement that we can all be happy with. That is important.
I was a little saddened because, at the beginning of that debate, there was confusion between me and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Normally, it is extremely flattering to be confused with him—I make that clear—but statements were made in the context of complaining that I had previously said things that I now appear to be disagreeing with by having made strong statements against the kind of Motion that was being put forward. I was cut by that—but not quite as cut as I was by a young French waitress recently when I was on holiday with my family, my children and their friends. They wanted to know, because there was a casino attached, what the age limit for the casino was and the young woman said to me, “There’s no maximum age limit”. Your Lordships may be relieved to know that that reassured me and I can provide the address of this excellent establishment, if noble Lords would like, afterwards.
The fundamental point is that we support the Bill. We are grateful to the other House for having sent it to us and to my noble friend Lord Rooker for putting it forward. We will have Committee, Report and the remaining stages of the Bill tomorrow. It would be good if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, when he winds up for the Government, could repeat the assurances he gave during the debate that the Government will accept the Bill and make sure that it is in a position to get Royal Assent. As I suggested in an intervention, I hope they will advise Her Majesty to give Royal Assent. I accept that they cannot promise what Her Majesty will do, but they can give advice. We all know that the convention is that if advice is given, the monarch will follow it. I also hope that, as one noble Lord suggested, they will follow the spirit. We do not want to see any tricks, any shifting, any dodging about—whether that comes from Mr Dominic Cummings or anyone else—to get around this. If this House and the other House have said, “This is what should happen; this should be the Bill”, I hope that will be enforced and respected in the letter and in the spirit.
Given the length of the debate—I apologise that I have not referred to the excellent contributions of a number of other noble Lords—I urge my noble friend Lord Rooker to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and we will support that.
Lord Callanan
I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. I follow the statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others and place on record the Government’s appreciation and thanks to all the House staff, officials and noble Lords for their efforts last night, and for their cordiality and good humour late into the evening. It is appreciated by all of us.
The public need Brexit to be delivered on 31 October and we cannot keep deferring it through successive and potentially indefinite extensions. Let us be clear—let us cut to the chase—this Bill is about crippling about our negotiations; it is about stopping Brexit. It will tie the Prime Minister’s hands, undermine the UK’s position and make any further negotiations impossible.
Let me respond directly to the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He is a distinguished lawyer and he will know as well as I do that this Bill does not prevent a no-deal Brexit because, in one of the great ironies of this process, it is in fact now determined under European law under the Article 50 process. The final decision on whether or not we leave the European Union is now determined by the European Council. Let me also add to the assurance I gave him earlier that this Government will of course abide by the law. I repeat the assurances that the Chief Whip in this House gave last evening that we have received a commitment from the Chief Whip in the House of Commons that the Commons consideration of Lords amendments will take place on Monday, and that it is the Government’s intention that the Bill will be ready to be presented for Royal Assent then.
I shall say a few words about the negotiations. As the Prime Minister reiterated in the other place on Tuesday, and as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said again on Wednesday, this Government are committed to getting a deal. However, it is a fact that the House of Commons has rejected the current withdrawal agreement three times, and it must now be clear to our friends and colleagues in Europe that it therefore simply cannot be the basis for a deal. That is why the Prime Minister wrote to President Tusk on 19 August to set out why a renegotiated deal must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop. We are confident that we can negotiate a deal removing the backstop that is acceptable to both sides. The European Council’s own negotiating guidelines commit to looking for,
“creative and flexible solutions on the border in Northern Ireland”.
The Prime Minister’s EU Sherpa held his first round of talks with the Commission last week. He met the Commission’s Article 50 task force yesterday for five hours to discuss a range of issues, particularly the removal of the backstop from the withdrawal agreement. In addition, both sides discussed the political declaration and the Government’s objective for an economic relationship based on free trade arrangements. The talks were constructive and both sides have agreed to meet again tomorrow, in line with our commitment to intensify talks. The House will of course also be aware that the Prime Minister is meeting the Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, next week.
Our European partners understand that we are serious in wanting a deal, and they are starting to reflect that reality in their responses. However, if you want to leave with a deal, you have to take no deal seriously. This Government have been completely clear in our commitment to leaving on 31 October. As the Prime Minister has said many times, he hopes and expects that that will be delivered through a deal. There is no reason why an agreement cannot be found.
Lord Hain
Will the Minister agree with his government colleague the Cabinet Minister Nicky Morgan, who indicated on BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” at lunchtime that if the Prime Minister gets his way, there is a mid-October election and he wins it, he will repeal the Bill or activate the clause within it to ensure that no deal occurs?
Lord Callanan
It is difficult for me to comment on an interview that I have not heard. I am sure the noble Lord is quoting her words accurately but, if he will forgive me, I will not comment on that precisely until I have seen the details of what Nicky Morgan actually said. We are commenting on a Bill that has not been passed through this House or completed its final stages in the other House. I repeat that the Government will of course abide by the law. I certainly cannot predict what might happen in a future general election, nor can I comment on what a future Government might do with the Bill in response to that.
Lord Hayward
In light of the indication given earlier today that the proposal for an election will be repeated in the Commons on Monday, has someone in the Government checked with the Taoiseach whether he is willing for that meeting to go ahead?
Lord Callanan
As far as I know, the latest information is that that meeting is still going ahead. Even if an election is happening, the Government and the Prime Minister remain in office and there are still live issues to be discussed. I am sure that there will still be intense value in having a meeting.
Lord Patten of Barnes
May I be, as usual, of assistance to the Minister, help him to develop the strength of his argument and encourage him to be a very brave Minister? Would he like to tell us that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Mr Cummings, who has featured quite regularly in this debate, did not say that the negotiations were a “sham”?
Lord Callanan
I am always wary when the noble Lord wants to be helpful, particularly when he quotes things taken straight from “Yes Minister” about being brave. All I can say is that he has not said it in any of the meetings that I have been at with him. Obviously, I am not at every meeting with him and I cannot comment on whether he said it. He says that he did not and nobody else in government has said to me that he did. I know Dominic well and I take his word when he says that he did not say that.
We know that member states want to avoid a no-deal exit. As set out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the other place on Tuesday, we have accelerated our preparations for no deal. For example, as I informed the House in repeating the Statement on Tuesday, there is additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, and an additional £20 million to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and that trucks arriving in Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU. In addition, the Chancellor has made all necessary funds available to support other preparations.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the Bill itself. Although today’s debate has been of the usual high standard, it was remarkable that very few noble Lords addressed the legislation that we are talking about. However, it is true that continued EU membership would cost the UK roughly £1 billion net a month. The Bill, as it currently stands, would require the Prime Minister immediately to accept any offer made by the EU of an extension to 31 January 2020.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The figure of £1 billion net that the Minister refers to is frequently contested because it appears to be gross and not to take account of the expenditure that the European Union would make in this country if we were still a member. Can he perhaps clarify that?
Lord Callanan
Given the previous controversy about the sums of money involved in our exit, I am loath to get into this but I think that that is roughly the net figure. Our net figure is about £10 billion to £12 billion a year. I think that our gross contribution was about £20 billion and—very roughly, off the top of my head and without looking at the numbers—we receive about £10 billion back in receipts for agriculture payments, structural funds, et cetera. If those figures are incorrect, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bilimoria
Can the Minister clarify something? We pay that £1 billion per month anyway as part of our membership. As the Minister said, it is just under £10 billion net and we get the benefits of being in the European Union while we are paying it. So how can he say that we are paying an extra £1 billion when we are still a member of the European Union?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is a distinguished businessman. I did not use the word “extra”; I said merely that remaining a member of the European Union will cost us roughly £1 billion net a month. That is the current membership fee. We pay in a lot more than we get out from the European Union in purely financial terms.
I said that the Bill would require the Prime Minister immediately to accept any offer made by the EU of an extension to 31 January 2020. If the EU offered—or, rather, instructed—a longer extension, whatever its date and regardless of its conditions, the PM would automatically have to accept it unless the House of Commons said no within two calendar days. The fact that the Bill mandates updates on the negotiations and Motions on those updates after 31 January 2020 and on a rolling 28-day basis, with no end date, means that it clearly envisages either a lengthy extension or possibly a string of extensions. This is a very poor piece of legislation.
If we pass the Bill, in our view there is no chance at all of renegotiating the deal before 31 October. It will completely undermine the Government’s negotiating position and the future talks that the Government and the EU have committed to. Parliament would then be left with three unpalatable options: first, to revoke Article 50 and overturn the results of the referendum; secondly, extension after extension, therefore failing to deliver on the will of the people over three and a half years after the referendum took place; or, thirdly, accepting the existing withdrawal agreement, which has of course been rejected three times in the other place.
Therefore, I say to noble Lords across this House that, if they wish to accept the democratic decision that the UK should leave the EU—I accept that some parties do not wish to accept that decision—and if they want to leave with a deal, then do not support this Bill. The Government remain committed—
Lord Cormack
Is my noble friend saying to the House that if the Bill passes into law, which I think Parliament believes it should, negotiations will automatically end at that point? Is he saying that these negotiations, which are apparently continuing and doing very well at the moment, will suddenly be withdrawn from in a fit of pique? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Callanan
I am saying that it seems blindingly obvious to me that the EU has no possible incentive to negotiate anything because the two options that would then remain on the table would be either revoking or the existing withdrawal agreement, both of which the EU is perfectly happy with. Why would it negotiate anything else once we have removed the option of no deal from the equation?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Does the Minister agree that Europe offers further negotiations on the backstop in the political agreement? If so, why are we not picking that up?
Lord Callanan
Lots of negotiations are predicated in the political agreement. There are also arrangements within the existing withdrawal agreements for exploration of alternative arrangements, but the problem is that, in the meantime, we would have to legislate for the backstop, which then gives us no option unilaterally to withdraw from it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
The noble Lord said that there is no incentive for Europe. All the incentives are there for Europe to negotiate a deal with us and it has made an offer to which we have not responded, unless the Minister tells us that we have.
Lord Callanan
I am struggling to see the point that the noble Lord is making. Europe’s offer is effectively the withdrawal agreement, which personally I thought was an acceptable compromise, but it is a fact that the House of Commons rejected it. His party and the Liberal Democrats voted against it. Presumably there is something wrong with the withdrawal agreement, then.
Lord Cormack
Since my noble friend has vigorously supported the agreement, as did I, and since the Prime Minister voted for it on the third occasion—he therefore clearly agreed with it or he would not have done so—why do we not just bring it on?
Lord Callanan
I am sure it has not escaped my noble friend’s attention that Parliament as a whole voted against it on three occasions. Whatever view I or the current Prime Minister took that it was an acceptable compromise, it has been rejected.
Lord Goldsmith
I am just thinking through the implications of what the noble Lord has been saying. I have been hearing and reading that the Prime Minister has said he is negotiating and that the negotiations are going very well. I took that to mean that something was being discussed that he thought might be acceptable, not just the existing withdrawal agreement, and he jumped at the idea put to him by Angela Merkel of coming up with alternatives in 30 days. Is he now telling us that if the Bill passes, the Prime Minister will decline to negotiate any further? Is that the Government’s position?
Lord Callanan
No, that is not what I said at all. I am saying that it makes the Government’s position very difficult to persuade the EU to do any kind of alternative deal because all the other options remaining on the table are perfectly acceptable to it. In our view, as I said, the Bill would wreck any prospect for a renegotiated deal ahead of 31 October. It clearly would not honour the referendum result. It would be another pointless and harmful delay and would continue to contribute to the rancour we are experiencing in this House and in the public debate generally. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords whatever that the Government cannot support the Bill. I urge all noble Lords across the House who are committed to leaving the EU and to respecting the referendum to therefore vote against it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Just before my noble friend sits down, could he say what he understands is meant by,
“the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union”,
referred to in Clause 1(4) of the Bill?
Lord Callanan
I do not have a copy of the Bill in front of me. Obviously we are not the sponsors of the legislation. My noble and learned friend is a distinguished lawyer, and I will decline the opportunity to clarify exactly what I think the proposers of the clause mean. It is not our Bill. I would be happy to write to him with an opinion on it.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend will know that a very distinguished Member of the Opposition in another place moved an amendment to this Bill which makes it all the easier for the agreement that he so warmly supports, and which the Prime Minister voted for, to be voted on again. The circumstances have changed. We have a new Prime Minister, so even the Speaker could not refuse a vote on it.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend is referring to the so-called Kinnock amendment. We have looked at it quite closely and, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, believe that it is fatally flawed, contradicts other parts of the Bill and is legally inoperable.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has contributed. I am merely the messenger for the elected House because we are dealing with unique legislation from the elected Commons to try to deal with the uncertainties. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, are probably the only two Members who have spelled out that while the purpose of the Bill is to stop us crashing out without a deal, it contains a mechanism for any Prime Minister who can pack the Commons to take us out without a deal. That is in the conditions in Clause 1. I have no doubt that that will be raised in Committee.
I have two brief points. I have picked up from the debate that it would be a very high level of political immaturity for leaders in the other place to buy an election before 1 November. It is quite clear that trust has broken down. It would be absolutely barmy.
My final point—and I am sorry that it is a bit of a domestic policy issue—is that this is a Private Member’s Bill. It is bit like the Cooper-Letwin Bill in April. At that time, because the Bill was a Private Member’s Bill, the Government Front Bench, who basically regulate the Chamber when things break down, went on strike. They removed themselves and it caused a degree of chaos in our administration. Today, we have had a Second Reading without a speaker’s list, and it has gone great because everyone could see that there was enough time to get in to speak. We have a day on this tomorrow. After the events of April, as the Member in charge of the Bill, I complained to the Procedure Committee that when a Private Member’s Bill that the Government do not agree with is in the House and the Front Bench go on strike, the power to regulate should be given to the chair so that the chair could say “That is wrong” or “This is wrong”. I have had no acknowledgement or reply from the Procedure Committee. My complaint has just been dismissed.
We are going into Committee and Report tomorrow and I have no idea about any amendments being tabled. I do not want any chaos deliberately caused by the Front Bench abdicating their responsibilities if help with regulation is needed. It is quite clear. Earlier today there were three hours when there was hardly anybody on the Front Bench. Nobody took any notice of any breaches of procedure, and there were quite a few—only one was picked up, by my noble friend. I hope that, tomorrow, the Government will live up to their responsibilities. Irrespective of whether they agree with the policy or the legislation, the Government Front Bench have the power to regulate the House. If they are not prepared to exercise it, they should give it to the chair for the day. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think the noble Lord said that there would not be time in the Commons to deal with amendments and that therefore, on the whole, he would prefer not to have any. Did I pick that up correctly, or is that wrong? I would like to see the purpose referred to in Clause 1(4) in the letter.
Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill
Thursday 5th September 2019
(4 years, 7 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)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal, Lady Barran and Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for their work to ensure the passage of this landmark Bill. The Bill, in the form in which we now see it, is the product of excellent co-operation across all parties in both Houses. I thank noble Lords for their engagement and co-operation in helping to create the robust measure we have before us, in particular the noble Lords who served on the Joint Committee that carried out the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill and those who now serve on the shadow sponsor body.
I express my gratitude also to noble Lords who contributed to debates and tabled amendments, especially the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, all of whom embraced the spirit of collaboration and joint working that ensured that the Bill made swift progress without sacrificing the quality of the scrutiny it received. My thanks go too to all other noble Lords who tabled amendments and spoke on Report yesterday, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. Lastly, I extend my thanks to the excellent Bill team, as well as the restoration and renewal programme team, the shadow sponsor body, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the Whips on both sides and, of course, the clerks, for their support.
Noble Lords across the House have recognised the need for this Bill, which addresses the pressing issue of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and which has been improved thanks to their efforts. The degree of consensus on the Bill across both Houses is reflected in its swift passage. I believe that we all have been keenly aware of how vital a step this is towards ensuring that the historic and iconic building in which we are privileged to serve is safe for staff and the public, that the works are delivered on time and on budget—ensuring value for taxpayers’ money—and, above all, that we have the right framework to secure the Palace of Westminster as the home of the UK Parliament for future generations. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I speak on behalf of these Benches and of my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord McNicol, who helped me take the reins of the Bill from our side when my noble friend Lady Smith became somewhat otherwise engaged with developments elsewhere. I too place on record our thanks to the Government for their co-operation on this Bill and to parliamentarians in both Houses who helped ensure that the Bill is in the good place that the Minister referred to at the end of Report. In particular, I thank my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord McNicol, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Leader of the House for their work and commitment throughout the various stages of the Joint Committee deliberations and the passage of the Bill.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who played such a key role in ensuring that public engagement, consultation, the involvement of parliamentarians and staff in the project and the key issue of disability and public access were at the heart of the Bill. The Bill team has—I agree—worked in a particularly exemplary and collaborative way with your Lordships and deserves special thanks, as do Beth Miller, who provides the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with support, and the excellent team from our Opposition office, Ben Wood and Dan Harris.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may lighten the atmosphere a little. I remember a Lonnie Donegan song which was a reflection of the war for American independence and the red coats fighting a losing battle. It went:
“There wasn’t nigh as many as there was a while ago”.
There are fewer of us in here than there were a few moments ago, for fairly obvious reasons, but this Bill is critical not just to the fabric and well-being of the heart of our democracy—the Palace of Westminster itself—but to a futuristic look at how might restore trust in and engagement with democracy. I am particularly grateful to all those who have played their part in making this a substantive measure which we can be proud of and which gives the sponsor body of the future and delivery authority clear direction in implementing it. I shall not repeat the names of everyone who has been involved, but I endorse entirely the thanks offered to those who have been part of it. I give my personal thanks not just to my own Front Bench but to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has reflected the best of the way in which we can conduct business in the House of Lords.
In implementing this Bill and taking forward the kind of advice that we had from all quarters on all matters in the joint scrutiny committee, it will be critical to draw down on the best possible expertise across the UK. If we do that, we will have something to be proud of in the years to come.
Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]
Thursday 5th September 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 178-I Marshalled list for Special Public Bill Committee (PDF) - (19 Jul 2019)
The Earl of Courtown
To resolve that it is expedient that if the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]—
(a) has not completed all of its stages by the end of this session of Parliament, and
(b) is reintroduced in the next session of Parliament,
the bill as reintroduced shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day), be taken pro forma through all of the stages completed in this session.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie on the Order Paper.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we support the carryover of this Bill. We regard the handling of the Bill in accordance with the Law Commission’s fast-track procedure a model of its kind. It has had a good opportunity for an airing. Nevertheless, there has been no substantial opposition to it, and it is plainly a necessary, though fairly technical, Bill.