House of Commons
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
My Department and I are 100% committed to supporting the Welsh Government’s ambition of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, as well as to increasing Welsh language services across Whitehall and supporting the growth of the Welsh language in Wales. I am proud that my constituency is home to S4C, and welcome ideas from all Members on ways we can promote the Welsh language.
Virginia Crosbie
I am a keen supporter of the language and a Welsh learner myself. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Diolch yn fawr; thank you. Does the Minister agree that the best way to support the language is through economic prosperity, which means supporting jobs, skilled employment and projects such as Wylfa Newydd on Ynys Môn?
Simon Hart
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on her fantastic election result? She has already brought an energy and a fizz to her part of the world, which will be appreciated across the House. I know that her father is watching these proceedings from his hospital bed, and he will be as proud as we are that she is among us.
On the Welsh language, I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s recognition that a vibrant economy and a vibrant language go hand in hand. The language of Wales is one of the oldest in the world and we are rightly proud of it—even those of us who are perhaps not as fluent as others. On the question of Wylfa, I cannot think of anybody better in the House to take forward that project. I am happy to commit to helping her to do that and I know the Welsh Government will be doing the same, so fingers crossed; we will definitely work together on our shared ambitions in that regard.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have already had productive discussions with the First Minister and his colleagues. Only last week I met Jeremy Miles to discuss the UK shared prosperity fund, and I am excited about the opportunities that the fund will create to bind together the whole United Kingdom, tackling inequality and deprivation across each of our four nations.
Peter Grant
Diolch yn fawr. The EU funding that comes to an end in 2020 has delivered more than £2 billion of investment in Wales since 2014. This money has been used according to priorities set in Wales, for Wales, by the Government of Wales. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that Wales will receive not a single penny less under the Government’s funding scheme, and that the priorities for Wales will continue to be set in Wales, by the people and the Parliament of Wales?
Simon Hart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for strengthening the Union by coming here to support Welsh questions, which is very much appreciated. I hope that I can reassure him by describing the shared prosperity fund as a good news story, because for the first time in 45 years, a substantial sum of money is going to be distributed in Wales by Welsh politicians who are directly accountable to Welsh voters. That has not been the case for some time. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the collaborative approach I take with the Welsh Government over the distribution of the fund should ensure that it goes to the places where it is most needed, and is not—as some might argue has been the case in the past—blown on vanity projects. The relevant Minister in the Welsh Government is with me on this; we have a shared ambition to ensure that outcome, and to do so collaboratively and efficiently.
Chris Elmore
I am all for strengthening the Union, as most Welsh politicians are. I am completely against nationalism and all it stands for, but the reality is that I am also in favour of supporting the devolution settlement. This funding has always been controlled by the Assembly, so can the Secretary of State confirm that he will rule out subverting the Welsh Government by funding local government directly in Wales? Bypassing the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales will do nothing to strengthen the Union.
Simon Hart
The reassurance I can give is that nothing contained in the proposals for the shared prosperity fund will in any way drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement.
Anna McMorrin
The Secretary of State answered the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) by saying that there would be a “substantial” amount of money. Will he, though, confirm that there will not be a penny less nor a power lost, as the First Minister of Wales put it, to Wales, and that spending decisions will in fact be taken where they should be—by the Welsh Government?
Simon Hart
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, our manifesto commitment was clear on that. As for the second part, my discussions with Jeremy Miles so far have been very clear about taking a collaborative approach so that the UK and Welsh Governments, working together, ensure that this money gets to the right place in a timely fashion.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new post? I also congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), on his long-anticipated and—may I say?—long-awaited promotion to the Front Bench.
As Wales leaves the European Union, the Secretary of State will be aware, because we have heard it in the questions so far, that there are deep concerns about the continuation of structural and investment funding. I have to say that his answers to my hon. Friends have not been that reassuring so far. Can he clear up the uncertainty now with two unequivocal guarantees—not a penny lost, and the Welsh Government having complete control of the funding?
Simon Hart
On the hon. Gentleman’s first question—there are lots of double questions going on—the answer is yes. That was in the manifesto and we made it clear. As for the second question, the Welsh Government do not even have complete control over the situation now, so he is asking about something that is not even the status quo. I think he should refer to his ministerial and party colleague in Cardiff—Jeremy Miles, who I have spoken to—who is perfectly adamant, and perfectly content, that this should be a joint UK Government-Welsh Government initiative. What the hon. Gentleman is hinting at is actually contrary to the policy of his own party in Cardiff.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
May I warmly congratulate my right hon. and good Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State?
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that since 2000 more than £4 billion of European aid has been spent in Wales but communities have not yet felt the benefit of that money, and the prioritisation of that spend by the Welsh Government has been brought into question by many local authorities and businesses alike? Does he agree that this is an opportunity to reset the formula and reset the way in which money is distributed, and to enable Members of this House to have some influence on how it is spent?
Simon Hart
May I, with your patience, Mr Speaker, start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend and predecessor? There is a saying in politics: “There is no such thing as real friends, only sharks circling waiting for a sniff of blood”, but no such situation would describe our relationship. He has done a fantastic job for Wales. He has boundless energy and I know that Wales will benefit from that again.
On my right hon. Friend’s comments about the shared prosperity fund, I hope I can reassure him by saying that this is a reset of the meter of the relationship between the Welsh and the UK Governments. It is absolutely right that he highlights the priority that we should give to this, which is getting the money to the right place in a timely way and in a way that is accountable to Welsh voters as it never has been before.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. Under the Welsh Labour Government, Wrexham has missed out on opportunities for the past 20 years. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that Wrexham will now start to receive benefits from the shared prosperity fund?
Simon Hart
May I congratulate my hon. Friend too? It is going to be a day of congratulating new Members, which is a happy place to be.
I hope—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will confirm this in due course—that, as far is Wrexham is concerned, the answer is yes. As for growth deals, that is an ongoing and positive development for Wales on which further information will be made available as we proceed. It is absolutely right that my hon. Friend highlights the specifics for her particular part of Wales, and yes, we will certainly comply and co-operate with that.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
May I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister to their positions?
The shared prosperity fund represents a unique opportunity for all parts of Wales to benefit from Brexit. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that it is essential that in the design of the architecture of the fund, the priorities of local authorities and the interests of the people they serve should be properly reflected?
Simon Hart
I thank my right hon. Friend for the advice that he has so generously given me over the years. It should be a source of encouragement that the early conversations I have had with the relevant Ministers, including the First Minister in Cardiff, suggest that they are as attuned as we are, or are certainly getting that way, to the need to ensure that the shared prosperity fund money that will be benefiting Wales is targeted at the areas where it is most needed and recognise the arguments being made across all parts of Wales. There is a public perception that this is always just about Cardiff, but this will be about more than just Cardiff, and it is my job and the job of the Welsh Government to ensure that that is the case.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Simon Hart
I thank my right hon. Friend and west Walian neighbour for his question. The answer is yes. One of the reasons we are in this position—one of the reasons the Brexit vote went the way it did in June 2016 and the general election went the way it did in December 2019—is exactly the point he makes: people were beginning to lose faith. They knew that there were substantial sums of money, but somehow it never quite reached the places it should. The new arrangement—the reset to which I referred—will address exactly that point.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government are committed to supporting a productive, modern and vibrant steel industry in Wales. With that in mind, I have already had discussions with the Welsh Government and unions. I plan to visit the steel industry in Wales within the next few days, and I look forward to my meeting later today with the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who has initiated a meeting with other Labour colleagues to discuss the steel sector.
Ruth Jones
We know now that Liberty Steel is cutting 72 jobs in Newport, and although it is based in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), those job losses will affect people across our city—east and west. The losses follow the disastrous decision to mothball the Orb steelworks at Christmas. The UK steel industry is disappearing before our eyes, and it is happening on this Government’s watch. We can see with Flybe that this Government can take steps to save jobs and industries when they want to, so when will the Secretary of State sit down with his ministerial colleagues and agree a plan that will protect jobs, livelihoods and the steel industry across Newport, Wales and the rest of the UK?
Simon Hart
I am pleased to say that that process is already happening. I am sitting down not only with my ministerial colleagues but with the hon. Lady’s ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, as well as unions and management, all in the space of a few days. I am absolutely conscious of the huge impact, uncertainty and worry that the current circumstances are resulting in. I will say it again: it is our shared responsibility with the Welsh Government to steady the situation and rectify the position. There are a number of ways of doing that; energy prices is one, and business rates is another, which we will look at closely to see how we can help.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in 2020, so may I wish all hon. and right hon. Members a happy new year? I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and I wish the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), well. Given the average length of tenure of previous Wales Office Ministers, his first achievement will be to last more than a few months. I understand that he is a junior Whip as well, which may be even more challenging.
The Liberty Steel announcement is yet another blow to the steel industry, following Tata Steel’s announcement about Orb. Our thoughts are with the steelworkers and their families at this very anxious time. I must commend my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for all the work they have done on this. I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard Welsh Government Economy Minister Ken Skates ask the UK Government to intervene more directly to reduce energy prices. Will he use his voice in Cabinet to make that call?
Simon Hart
I thank the hon. Lady. I am sure the whole House will want to extend its congratulations to her on becoming a grandmother this week. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope she will not mind my mentioning that for the public record.
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is, of course, that the UK Government made £53 million available in, I think, 2018, by way of compensation for energy prices. The conversation I want to have is also with her colleagues in Cardiff—perhaps she can lead this herself—about business rates, and where the Welsh Government can help the industry in that regard as well. However, the shared ambition to make sure that there is a future for steel in Wales is absolute, and the hon. Lady can rely on the fact that I and my Cabinet colleagues will work to ensure that.
Christina Rees
My question was about energy. In other countries, large companies pay far less for their energy. All that Welsh steelworkers need is a fair deal. Steel is a foundation industry, and this UK Government and this Secretary of State need to do far more. Will the Secretary of State act now, decisively—or will he be just a bystander in the decline of the vital steel industry in Wales?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady may have misheard me, but I have already commented on the £53 million being made available by way of compensation for energy prices, and I restate what I said just now: one way in which the Welsh Government could step in now, and help significantly with the certainty around steel, is by addressing the issue of business rates. It would be a powerful message if she and I, combined, could make that case to Welsh Government.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Last week I met Ken Skates, the Minister for Economy and Transport, to discuss how we can work together on infrastructure in Wales. I look forward to a productive and collaborative relationship with Welsh Government, and with Members in all parts of this House. In particular, I reaffirm this Government’s commitment to rebuilding the M4 relief road.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The Secretary of State’s predecessor long dodged giving answers to questions about the lack of electrification further west than Cardiff. Will the Secretary of State, and the Minister, do better, and get Swansea and west Wales the investment that they deserve by funding a more integrated system, such as a Swansea Bay metro?
David T. C. Davies
My predecessors felt—and I share their view—that it would have been difficult to justify spending hundreds of millions of pounds on electrifying the line from Swansea to Cardiff, which would not have delivered any decreases in journey times. So we put £5.7 billion into the Great Western main line, £2.8 billion into the Great Western main line modernisation, over £1.5 billion into the Wales and borders route—all investments that have benefited Welsh travellers. We look to continue to do that, and I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to develop plans for further rail improvements in west Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. Dw innau hefyd yn croesawu’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol newydd a’i Weinidog i’w seddi ac yn gobeithio y cawn ni gydweithio efo nhw. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also welcome the new Secretary of State and his Minister to their seats, and look forward to working together.]
Wales currently benefits from EU funding to the tune of £680 million a year, including many infrastructure projects—£4.4 million for Blaenau Ffestiniog, £3.4 million for Tywyn, and £7.5 million for Llanbedr airfield, to mention just a few in my constituency. But as we leave the EU, we sadly leave behind the principles that underpin such funding—principles whose objectives were to tackle deprivation, poverty and inequality. The old political adage says follow the money. Can the Minister and the new Secretary of State allay my fears that, after this Tory Brexit, the money will not mainly find its way into the constituencies presently coloured blue on the political map of Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I ddechrau, a gaf I ddweud diolch yn fawr iawn am y croeso? [Translation: First of all, may I say thank you very much for the welcome?] Can I assure the right hon. Lady that this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that Wales does not lose out by one penny as a result of Brexit. Indeed, as a result of the growth deals that will now be taking place in all parts of Wales, we are going to see hundreds of millions of pounds invested in the economy of Wales, levelling up communities.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s commitment that Wales will not lose a single penny. We should be building the whole of our nation. One idea is a railway from north to south, so that we no longer have to travel to the neighbouring nation to go from one end to the other of our country.
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to look at the iTunes charts, where Dafydd Iwan’s protest song “Yma o Hyd”—“We’re Still Here”—has been going up the charts. It has reached No. 1 this week. It was originally, of course, released in the midst of Thatcher’s relentless attacks on Wales, and it might be time to update the lyrics:
“er gwaetha’r hen Foris a’i griw;
ry’n ni yma o hyd.”
[Translation: Despite Boris and his crew, we are still here.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, answer what you can and we will have to move on.
David T. C. Davies
I thank the right hon. Lady. The north-south link has been talked about for years, and I look forward to seeing some costs on that. East-west links in both north and south Wales have finance available to them, and I very much hope that the Welsh Labour Government will again consider the commitment to the M4 relief road. I congratulate Dafydd Iwan on that fantastic song. As far as the Conservative party and this Conservative Government are concerned, with hundreds of millions of pounds going into growth deals for Wales, his other song, “I’r Gad”, springs to mind.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Has not the whole point about infrastructure and the M4 been missed so far—unless I missed it during the singing—because of the fact that the Severn crossing is now free? Is it not that point that will help Cardiff and Swansea?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My predecessor, who managed to get tolls on the Severn bridge scrapped, has done wonders for the south Wales economy. The Welsh Government must now match the commitment shown by the UK Government, by getting the M4 relief road built and continuing to support the south Wales economy through a good transport link.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Over the past week I have held discussions with the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates, and I look forward to working collaboratively with our partners to discuss the mid and west-Wales growth deal.
Ben Lake
The Minister will be aware that people in Ceredigion and across mid-Wales are keen to see swift progress on the growth deal. With that in mind, will he consider meeting groups and businesses in Ceredigion that are involved in some of those proposals, to see how we can get them implemented as soon as possible?
David T. C. Davies
When I was invited to join the Government, one of the only things that might have dissuaded me was that I was planning to visit Ceredigion with the Welsh Affairs Committee—I believe the hon. Gentleman had arranged for us some whisky tasting and to see some cheese factories. I will therefore take his question as an invitation to visit Ceredigion. I hope it will go on to the Wales Office, and I look forward very much to accepting it—diolch yn fawr.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Together with the Welsh Government and the leaders of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, heads of terms for the north Wales growth deal were signed in November 2019. The opportunities provided by that deal are the latest example of the Government’s commitment to levelling up communities across the United Kingdom.
Robin Millar
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In the past 20 years, the people of north Wales, and the people of Aberconwy, have grown used to being overlooked and underfunded by a Cardiff-based, Labour-led Welsh Government. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that seven of the nine MPs from north Wales are now Conservatives. Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents a new chapter for north Wales?
David T. C. Davies
May I offer the warmest welcome to my hon. Friend? This Government note that the people of north Wales appear to have rejected 20 years of Labour government, and have already begun to build an impressive piece of infrastructure—a political blue wall that now stretches from Ynys Môn to Clwyd South. I look forward to seeing that political infrastructure followed up by physical infrastructure, as we release hundreds of millions of pounds in the growth deals into north Wales.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I hope he lasts longer than his predecessors, and that I can meet him more than once about the north Wales growth deal—more than I did any of his predecessors. May I ask him for more money, because the money on offer is not enough? I also ask for a strategic growth deal, not a series of pet projects across north Wales.
David T. C. Davies
We have absolutely no intention of allowing the sort of pet projects to go ahead that we have seen money wasted on in previous years. All growth deal projects will be rigorously scrutinised to ensure value for money, but at the end of the day, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the Government for putting hundreds of millions of pounds into the north Wales economy, then I plead guilty and I am absolutely delighted to be a part of the Government who are doing it.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gill Furniss
Last Thursday, we received the devastating news that more than 350 steel jobs will be lost in Sheffield, Rotherham and Newport—yet another blow for steelworkers, their families and their communities. When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan for the steel industry that tackles high energy costs and business rates and ensures that steel is at the heart of all infrastructure plans? Action is needed now. Will the Prime Minister stay true to his word and repay the trust of communities that voted for him only last month?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, and I can assure her that the Government are indeed embarking on a plan to do everything we can to make sure steel made in this country has all the competitive advantages we need. She makes some excellent points. In the particular case of Liberty Steel, I understand that whatever happens —it is a commercial decision for that company—all those affected will be offered an opportunity to remain within the GFG Alliance by joining a new company.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, the Cotswolds needs broadband and the Cotswolds is going to get gigabit broadband. That is why we are putting £5 billion into the roll-out of gigabit broadband. My hon. Friend asks for a deadline and he will get it—2025.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I just put on record our pleasure at the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, hopefully, the restoration of the peace process in Northern Ireland? I know there is a statement coming on this after Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Will the Prime Minister let the British people know why, after almost 10 years of Tory Government, patients are waiting longer for essential NHS care, whether it is in A&Es, on waiting lists or for a GP appointment?
The Prime Minister
We are investing record sums into the NHS. Indeed, I think the House should be very proud today that we are passing the NHS Funding Bill, which will guarantee such funding not just this year but into the future.
Jeremy Corbyn
Well, passing legislation that will guarantee underfunding of the NHS, yes. The number of patients waiting more than four hours in A&E is now at its highest on record for the second month in a row. We have had months of promises, but people need action. There probably is not a family in the United Kingdom that has not been affected in some way by cancer, yet last year we saw one in four patients waiting more than two months for the start of their cancer treatment. How many more patients will face life-threatening delays because our NHS is understaffed and underfunded?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is massive demand on the NHS, which, as he also knows, is doing a fantastic job, particularly in oncology, where tremendous progress has been made. He is right to signal the delays that people are facing. They are indeed unacceptable. That is why we are investing in 50,000 more nurses, that is why we are investing in 6,000 more GPs, and that is why this Government are investing record sums in the NHS. We will get those waiting lists down.
Jeremy Corbyn
Twenty thousand of those 50,000 already work for the NHS, actually, Mr Speaker.
Delays in cancer treatment can reduce a patient’s chance of survival. The target of 85% of patients being seen within two months was last met four years ago, in December 2015. Action is needed urgently.
Last week, we heard of the heart-rending case of a 92-year-old RAF veteran in Leicester who had to go through the indignity of waiting almost 12 hours on a hospital trolley because there were no beds available. I want the Government to apologise to him and many others and to explain why, despite the extraordinary efforts of NHS staff all over the country, over 2,000 patients had to wait more than 12 hours before they could get into a hospital bed last month alone.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the case of the RAF veteran, and I think everybody in this House will have every sympathy for people who have a bad and unacceptable experience in the NHS. We all share that. On the other hand, I would say that most people in this country—most patients of the NHS—have a fantastic experience of our healthcare, and we should pay tribute to our nurses and our staff. The hospital he mentions, Leicester, is one of those that, as he knows, we are rebuilding under this programme, with 40 new hospitals and 20 upgrades under this Conservative Government.
Jeremy Corbyn
The A&E has already been rebuilt in Leicester, actually, as I understand it. The problem is that the Prime Minister promised 40 hospitals. In reality, it was 20 and then it became six. The issue of people waiting on trolleys is a very serious one. The number doubled in December and it is now at the highest ever level on record. The Prime Minister promised to put the Conservative party’s inadequate NHS funding pledge into law. Can he explain why it is necessary to cement into law a pledge that the Health Foundation has said is
“below the amount needed to maintain current standards of care”?
The Prime Minister
It is only under this Conservative Government that we have the resources that will enable us to invest in our NHS, and it is because of our stewardship of the economy, after the wreckage that Labour left when it was in office, that we have been able to make those colossal investments. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that not only was it this Conservative Government who rebuilt the A&E, as he correctly points out, but it is this Conservative Government who will be rebuilding the entire hospital in Leicester. We are putting more money into the NHS as a direct result of our careful management of the economy.
Jeremy Corbyn
Well, I understand that another hospital has been closed to pay for it. The question is: why would the Government need to put into law an inadequacy of funding for our national health service? Health professionals have said that the NHS needs more money than the Government are saying in order to keep patients safe.
It has now been almost three years since the Government promised a Green Paper on social care and seven months since the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said he had prepared a clear plan to fix the crisis in social care. Well, what is the hold-up? Where is the plan?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted by the right hon. Gentleman’s constructive attitude, because as he knows, we intend to begin cross-party talks to build a consensus. I think there is a growing consensus in this country on the need to tackle the issue of social care, so that everybody has dignity and security in their old age and nobody has to sell their home to pay for the cost of their care. We can do it, and we will do it. With the help and co-operation of the Labour party and other parties in this House, we will go ahead with a fantastic plan for social care. I look forward to his support, but I point out to him that it is thanks to the Conservatives’ stewardship of the economy, and indeed the mandate of the people that we have, that we are now able to tackle a problem that was shirked not just by the Labour party, but Governments for decades after decades. We are going to do it now.
Jeremy Corbyn
I do not know if the Prime Minister had a chance to read the Labour manifesto in the election, but we made it very clear that we have a plan—a very clear one: free personal care, more funding and support for carers. I am very happy to send him another copy of our manifesto so he can read it.
The Prime Minister said many times that he is going to put the NHS funding issue into law, but all this gimmick means is even longer waiting lists, more delays for cancer patients and more A&E departments bursting at the seams, while patients continue to suffer while he continues to provide excuses. If he is really committed to fixing the crisis that his Government have created over the last decade, he should end the empty rhetoric and back our proposals to give the NHS the funding it needs, rather than putting into law an insufficiency of funding. The NHS is our most precious national institution. Fund it properly so that everyone can rely on it—those that cannot afford private healthcare.
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is still fighting on the manifesto he submitted to the attention of the British people at the last election. It was pretty clear what they thought of it and of the credibility of the promises he made. It was also clear what they thought of what we were going to do. They see that we are the party of the NHS and that it is this Government who invest in hospitals, in schools, in policing and in bringing down crime. That is because the Government’s careful stewardship of the economy has led to record employment and record low unemployment, which is what delivers the tax revenues that enable us to pay for it all. Whenever Labour are in office, they wreck the economy, make unemployment higher and make us less able to pay for great public services. We are taking the country forwards; they would take it backwards.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Apprenticeships play a vital part in the progression of the kids my right hon. Friend is talking about, and it is right that we should follow his advice—he has been on this for a while now—and reform the apprenticeship levy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be updating the House in due course on our proposals.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I congratulate all the parties in Northern Ireland on reforming the Northern Ireland Executive.
The Prime Minister sent a letter to the First Minister of Scotland rejecting the democratic right of the people of Scotland to have a choice over their own future. This was not a surprise: the Prime Minister is a democracy denier. I say to the Prime Minister that, as his colleagues privately admit, this position is undemocratic, unacceptable and completely unsustainable. He has shown utter contempt for Scottish democracy, for Scotland’s Parliament and for Scotland’s people. Does he accept that, by ignoring Scotland, by imposing Brexit and by his pursuance of cruel and punishing policies, he is strengthening the case for Scottish independence?
The Prime Minister
It was not only the right hon. Gentleman, who leads the SNP in this House, but Alex Salmond and his protégée, Nicola Sturgeon, who said at the time of the referendum that it was a once-in-a-generation event. He said it, they said it. They were right then. Why have they changed their minds? He is the denier of democracy.
Ian Blackford
The Conservative party signed up to the Smith commission, which recognised the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own future. That is the reality.
The Prime Minister lives in a fantasy land, but people across Scotland know the reality of his broken Brexit Britain. The truth is, the only union he is truly interested in is his union with Donald Trump—a partnership that threatens to sell off our precious national health service. Only yesterday, the Prime Minister called for the replacement of the Iran nuclear deal with, as he put it, a “Trump agreement”. The public deserve the truth. What backroom deals are being done with Donald Trump? Why is the Prime Minister putting our NHS at risk? Repeatedly during the election campaign, he promised that the NHS was not for sale. Will he now commit to supporting the SNP proposal for an NHS protection Bill? Without that commitment, what price will he make us pay for his toxic Trump deal?
The Prime Minister
Actually, the SNP welcomed our statement on the JCPOA yesterday; but, seriously, this is the problem with the SNP. Scotland under the SNP is the highest-taxed part of the UK. Its deficit is six times the UK average. Maths and science in schools in Scotland, unlike any other part of the United Kingdom, is going down in the PISA rankings. That is no fault of the pupils of Scotland, by the way. It is the fault of the Government of Scotland, under the SNP, who are not giving them the chances that they deserve because they are obsessed with breaking up the United Kingdom. Change the record!
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks well for the interests of his constituents, and he is absolutely right. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), of course we are rolling out superfast broadband—gigabit broadband. We have put in £5 billion, the legislation is on track, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given me every assurance that Arundel and South Downs will be very well catered for.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the new Office for Environmental Protection will have powers to hold the Government to account, but let me draw his attention to the record of this Conservative Government. Under this Government, we have seen carbon dioxide emissions fall by 42% from 1990 levels, despite a 75% increase in GDP. On some days, most of our energy now comes from renewable sources. We will be leading the COP26 summit, where we will introduce enforceable limits not just for this country, but for the whole world.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he does for Nazareth House. I saw the good work that it does when I was Mayor of London, and I am happy to support it. As for the “citification” of Southend, it continues at a pace set by my hon. Friend.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she has done personally to support that campaign. She is absolutely right to stress its vital importance for the whole country. Dementia is one of the biggest challenges that we face, which is why we are doubling funding. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has said, we want to make a moon-shot effort to isolate the causes of dementia, and to cure it if we possibly can.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
A constitution, democracy and rights commission will be established to examine the broader aspects of the constitution and to develop proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. Careful consideration is needed on the composition and focus of the commission, and further announcements will be made in due course.
The Prime Minister
I can tell my right hon. Friend that our independent courts and legal system are admired around the world. We will continue to ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of individuals against an overbearing state while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We will go ahead and, as I said yesterday, I think that a good balance has been struck, in getting Stormont going again, between those who need truth and those who need certainty in the protection of our armed services. I want to reassure the House that nothing in the agreement will stop us going ahead with legislation to ensure that no one who has served in our armed forces suffers vexatious or unfair prosecution for cases that happened many years ago when no new evidence has been provided. We will legislate to ensure that that cannot happen.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything that he is doing to campaign for the George Eliot Hospital in his constituency, and I thank the staff there for everything that they do. The people plan will be coming forward in the spring, but I fancy that he already knows some of the details: 50,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors in general practice and 6,000 more primary care professionals in general practice. Today, as he knows, the House is legislating to ensure that we guarantee record multi-year funding for our NHS.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we have raised our concerns about the operation in northern Syria with the Turkish Government and with President Erdoğan several times. We certainly deplore any abuse of human rights and the suffering that she has identified. May I make a proposal to the hon. Lady? I would be happy to look at the details of the case she has raised myself, because I am deeply concerned about what is happening.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to promote and protect animal welfare. This Government brought in the toughest ivory ban in the world, and we are bringing in new laws on animal sentience and to cut the illegal smuggling of puppies and dogs. As we come out of the EU, we will of course be able to ban the live shipment of animals, which has been a disgrace for so long and against which the British people have campaigned. The Labour party, however, is still trying to work out whether it wants to rejoin the EU or stay in the customs union and the single market, making any such reform of the protection of animal welfare impossible. It is time that Labour made up its mind.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to look at that campaign and will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Given the Prime Minister’s post-Brexit vision for an outward-looking, global Britain and given Africa’s huge potential for trade and investment, will he update the House on the Government’s plans for next week’s UK-African investment summit?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has followed such matters with great interest over many years. The summit on 20 January in this country will be a chance to show people not only in the UK, but around the world, particularly in Africa, our huge commitment to Africa, our massive investments in Africa, and the massive opportunities to strengthen our long-standing ties, bonds and commercial relationships.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is talking through the back of his neck. There is no threat to the Erasmus scheme, and we will continue to participate in it. UK students will continue to be able to enjoy the benefits of exchanges with our European friends and partners, just as they will be able to continue to come to this country.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
At the end of this month, on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the nation will come together once again to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. The theme for this year is “Stand Together”. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Holocaust Educational Trust, which says that, welcome though they are, signatures in books are not as valuable as action? Will he commit to more action to stamp out antisemitism and all intolerance in this country?
The Prime Minister
I will be commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day along with my hon. Friend and others. As he knows, this Government and this House—people across the House—want to do absolutely everything we can to stamp out the resurgence of antisemitism. As someone who is now 55 years old, I find it absolutely incredible that antisemitism is rising again in this country in the 21st century. It is a disgrace, and we must stamp it out.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have doubled the scheme and will ensure that not only the Scottish agriculture sector, but the agriculture sector of the entire country has access to the seasonal workforce it needs. That is why we are introducing a points-based immigration system that will enable this country to get the skills that it requires.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Child sexual abuse is not a thing of the past in this country. Over 4,000 offences of online child abuse were recorded by the police last year. Organisations such as Facebook and Instagram find it easy to analyse our online shopping habits but less easy to keep children safe. Can my right hon. Friend say how the Government will continue to make it their priority to protect children from sexual abuse online?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a subject of massive interest to the House and to the whole country, and we are indeed very concerned about what is happening online. The Cabinet discussed it yesterday, and the online harms White Paper sets out our plans to make companies more responsible. We will be taking further action in the near future to stamp out this vice.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank all those involved in the important progress in Northern Ireland.
When my mother was widowed with three young children, bereaved families received small payments until the youngest child left school. In our case that would have meant payments for 14 years, except my mother died too early. The duration of the payments was reduced in 2017, and a new bereavement support payment was paid for only 18 months. Many of us feel that is far too short. Will the Prime Minister deliver on his Government’s promise to review the new bereavement support payment, and will he meet me and charities helping such families to discuss how we can better care for bereaved parents and their children?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I know this is an issue that is very close to the right hon. Gentleman’s heart, and it is absolutely right that we should provide people with easily accessible support following their bereavement. I will indeed commit to meeting him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Petition
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to present this petition with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. With very little notice, the busy and much used post office in Chineham was closed on 15 August last year. Residents from across Basingstoke have told me how shocked they were by that and how much they relied on the services it offered. The strength of feeling is demonstrated by how many people have signed this petition. These concerns are being listened to, and I present this petition to underline the support from residents to get a new operator for the post office in place as soon as possible.
I would like to thank Chineham’s hard-working team of councillors for supporting the petition—Councillor Laura Edwards, Councillor Paul Miller, Sherfield Park parish council chair Jenny Vaux, and of course Councillor Elaine Still who, as a former postmistress herself, knows the crucial role that this service plays in the community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Basingstoke,
Declares that action must be taken concerning the recent closure of Chineham Post Office Branch and the loss of vital services for local residents as a result of the Old Basing PO operator also withdrawing in recent years.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Post Office Ltd, Tellon Capital LLP and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to ensure that Chineham residents have access to vital Post Office services and priority is given to opening a branch as part of the new development at Chineham Shopping Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002549]
Points of Order
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have noticed that it has become even more difficult to secure a seat on the Government side of the House following the general election, which reinforces the point I tried to raise in the last Parliament through a letter to the then Chair of the Procedure Committee on the need to take part in Prayers in order to secure a seat.
I no longer have a relationship with God in a way that would be recognised by many, but those of us who do not have faith, or who subscribe to a faith other than the established Church, are required to take part in Prayers in order to secure a place. There is the possibility of placing a pink card with “Committee” written on it, but today the Doorkeepers, because no Committees have yet formed, rightly declined to make a pink card available to me.
Mr Speaker, for those of us who do not want to take part in Prayers and who do not want to have to sit through them to secure a place, could you ask the Doorkeepers to make pink cards available in advance of the Committees being formed? Could you also ask the Procedure Committee to look again at the issue in this Parliament so that those of us who find it uncomfortable are not placed in this position?
Mr Speaker
First, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman; I know what it was like in 1997. What I would say is that the pink card system is something the House has chosen to do when Committees are sitting, but Committees are not sitting and I will not instruct the Doorkeepers to do something against the procedure of this House. He is quite right: I think the matter needs to be taken up with the Procedure Committee, and I am sure he will continue to do so.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being able to give you more notice of this.
It has come to light that a newly elected Member of this House has misled the press about his involvement in an exploitative and demeaning website called sugar-daddy.net. The involvement of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) was highlighted following press reports about complaints to Bridgend trading standards. He denied links to the website on the record, but Companies House records clearly contradict that statement. Information that I have received from a former employee of his also contradicts this statement.
At a time when public trust in politicians is already damaged, Mr Speaker, can you provide guidance on whether the House and, more importantly, the people of Bridgend can expect an apology from the hon. Member, to go some way towards making up for this appalling behaviour?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this question and the point she wanted to raise. I hope she mentioned to the hon. Member for Bridgend that it was going to be raised.
Mr Speaker
That’s great. The matter the hon. Lady raises is not a point of order on which the Chair has responsibilities. I am sure she knows that there are other ways in which to pursue this matter, and I am sure she will do so.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Many of my constituents and their families have given money to a charity called St Margaret’s Hospice on the basis that it would spend that money on an in-patient unit in Yeovil, but it has closed that unit. Unfortunately, the Charity Commission investigation that I helped to get under way was not able to prove “bad faith”. What avenues are open to me to engage with Ministers to examine the way in which the Charity Commission legal frameworks operate to make sure that such potential cases of mis-selling do not go unpunished in the future?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. He has certainly got it on the record. I am sure that the concerns will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and somebody will take up the issue.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that Big Ben is in the news at the moment, but may I ask you to make sure that when Big Ben opens up to the public, members of the public and constituents will not be charged for climbing up to the top to see Big Ben?
Mr Speaker
The House will look into that when we get to the appropriate date. I wish I could give the right hon. Gentleman the exact date, but I am sure we will have a discussion before it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will more than likely be aware of the mistake made during Prime Minister questions by the Leader of the Opposition, when he indicated that there would be a statement after PMQs about the Northern Ireland issue. I understand that there will be no such statement. Perhaps you could confirm that, Mr Speaker, and also how Members might get elaboration and clarification on this in this House, particularly on the financial settlement that followed last week’s agreement, so that we can ask questions about that.
Mr Speaker
In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I think he wants to come in on that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently misled the House. I had been led to believe that there was going to be a statement today, which is why I made the reference to it. I must say that I am a bit surprised that there has not been a statement yet on something of such importance as the reopening of Stormont in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that as soon as a statement is to be made the House will know and I will ensure that Members are aware of it.
Bill Presented
NHS Funding Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)
Secretary Matt Hancock, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary Gavin Williamson and Edward Argar, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the funding of the health service in England in respect of each financial year until the financial year that ends with 31 March 2024.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 6) with explanatory notes (Bill 6-EN).
Debate on the Address
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
A Green Industrial Revolution
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrea Leadsom)
May I start by congratulating you on the superb way you have taken over the speakership, Mr Speaker? The atmosphere in the Chamber demonstrates the dignity and respect that we all want to see, and I commend you and your Deputies for the leadership you are showing.
Speaking of leadership, I wish the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) all the best in her party’s leadership contest. It takes courage to put oneself forward, and I commend her for her service.
Also on leadership, there is one woman—the first ever female Conservative leader—who definitely deserves 10 out of 10: Margaret Thatcher. Just over 30 years ago, she became the very first global leader to warn of the dangers of climate change at the United Nations, saying:
“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”
She predicted that
“change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto.”
How right she was.
Mr Speaker, you recently called the Australian wildfires
“a wake-up call for the world.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 235.]
I agree. From wildfires in Australia to flooding in Indonesia and record temperatures across the world, the impacts of climate change are in the here and now. People throughout the UK and around the world are calling for us to act, and we are doing just that. Just as the UK has led the past 30 years of climate action, we will lead the next 30 years, seizing the opportunities of the green industrial revolution.
Since Margaret Thatcher made that speech in November 1989, the UK can be proud of its record of action. Since 1990, we have cut our emissions by 42% while growing our economy by 73%.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Andrea Leadsom
In a moment.
Since 2000, we have decarbonised more quickly than any other G20 country. Since 2010, we have quadrupled our electricity generation from renewables, including through the installation of 99% of the UK’s solar capacity.
Andrea Leadsom
In 2017, low-carbon fuels produced more electricity than fossil fuels for the first time, and in that year we also saw the first coal-free day for a century, followed in 2019 by the first coal-free week and coal-free fortnight. Building on the world’s first climate change Act, last year we became the world’s first major economy to legislate to end our contribution to climate change altogether by 2050.
Alan Brown
We obviously welcome some of the things that the Secretary of State has outlined, but on the net zero target that she just outlined, Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, said in his covering letter to an update report that
“policy ambition and implementation now fall well short of what is required”
to achieve the target of net zero by 2050. Is the Secretary of State going to address that in her speech?
Andrea Leadsom
I will indeed address it, and I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken the advice of the Committee on Climate Change in setting our legally binding commitments to net zero by 2050. Throughout the year, we will set out precisely how we think we can achieve that.
Caroline Lucas
The Secretary of State will know that the Government are off track when it comes to the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, but I wish to take her up on the constant repetition from the Government. She says that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 42% since 1990, but she knows that if we calculated consumption-based emissions and factored that in, our emissions have actually fallen by only 10%. Does she agree that we need a common understanding of what is facing us? If she keeps using numbers in a slightly misleading way, we are not going to get to where we need to be by getting our emissions down.
Andrea Leadsom
On the one hand, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the carbon emissions figures for the United Kingdom do not take into account our consumption emissions or, indeed, our contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions around the world—both are important points. On the other hand, I would take issue with her from a philosophical point of view, because in order to measure progress, we need to have measurements, so it is incredibly important to talk about our UK territorial emissions at the same time. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady constructively, as she and I have done previously on a number of occasions, to make the UK’s ambition to lead the world in tackling climate change a reality in the run-up to COP26.
Andrea Leadsom
I will make some progress and give way again in a moment.
As the cooling towers have come down, wind turbines are going up in their thousands, with offshore wind capacity increasing by more than 500% under Conservative Prime Ministers. We can all be proud that no other country in the world has more offshore wind than the UK, with a third of global capacity off our coastline. This is creating thousands of future-proof, planet-saving, profit-making jobs, as well as skills investment all around the United Kingdom.
Many of my new, true blue hon. Friends have green-collar jobs in their constituencies. The constituency of Sedgefield makes underwater-cable protection systems that are exported all over the world. Great Grimsby leads the world in offshore wind operations and maintenance, while in Blyth Valley, where I was proud to pay a visit to support our excellent new colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) during the general election campaign, our offshore renewable energy catapult recently tested the world’s longest offshore wind turbine blade. At over 100 metres, it would, if we stood it next to Parliament, be taller than Big Ben.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about offshore wind, but does she agree that this Government have effectively banned onshore wind, which is the most tried and tested of all forms of renewable energy technology? Will she commit to bringing that technology back across all parts of the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Lady is that onshore wind produces electricity for 10 million homes in the United Kingdom. We are promoting offshore wind as the most effective way to increase our power generation from renewable technology. It is a huge success story for the United Kingdom and something of which we can be proud. She will be aware that the Conservatives are committed to producing 40 GW from offshore wind by 2030.
Janet Daby
The Government’s policies are not sufficiently ambitious to meet their own climate change targets. Does she agree that according to the Government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, the UK is even off its own climate change target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), we work very closely with the Committee on Climate Change. Our target of net zero by 2050 has been set on the basis of its recommendations so that we can grow our economy, sustain our future and contribute to tackling global climate change in a way that is sustainable for the UK, with the creation of green growth, so I am confident in that regard. We will bring forward more measures throughout the year to help us to meet that target of net zero.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. She mentioned the cooling towers coming down. Was she aware that the four cooling towers of Ironbridge power station came down during the course of the general election, and that one of the companies interested in that industrial brownfield land is one of the leading companies involved in driverless vehicles? If the company is successful, I hope that she will come and open the factory.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend might be setting up a bit of contest, because I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is sitting next to me on the Front Bench, will be fighting me for that honour. None the less, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) makes a really good point about how, particularly in some of our areas of heavy industry, the fossil fuels of yesterday are giving way to the green future that we all want. He gives us a fantastic example of the work that is going on.
We have made great progress, but there is still much more to do. Our challenge now is to ramp up and scale up successes such as offshore wind, providing new sources of pride and prosperity across our United Kingdom.
In the first industrial revolution, our pioneers from Scotland to Cornwall forged their own path, and in so doing they became the envy of the world. James Watt’s Prussian rivals travelled hundreds of miles to sneak a glimpse of his steam engines in Birmingham. Richard Trevithick travelled as far as Peru to personally oversee his engines. Today, like them, we must be the first movers, not the last to act. From creating supply chains for electric vehicles to decarbonising our industrial clusters and designing low-carbon buildings, the opportunities of net zero are immense. In 2020, the first year of a new decade of decarbonisation, we must seize those opportunities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined a number of important stats. Local councils such as mine—Ards and North Down—are specifically involved in achieving climate change standards and environmental targets. Will she consider implementing a reward system for councils that are specifically involved in education and setting targets for them to achieve? If we do that, we may encourage councils to do even more.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion. It is clear that central Government will not be the only actor in spending taxpayers’ money and driving every bit of innovation; they will be hand in glove with local civic leaders and, really importantly, the private sector. Government must set the direction and provide incentives, and then let others take the mission forward.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights Cornwall’s history in new technologies. Is she aware that large deposits of lithium have been identified in Cornwall? That has the potential to put Cornwall at the forefront of technology once again and to revive our precious mineral extraction industry. Will she ensure that her Department gives that fledgling industry all the support it needs to thrive?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency and for Cornwall more widely. In many ways, Cornwall is playing a major role in our moves toward net zero, and we in my Department will always be happy to talk to him about that.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Andrea Leadsom
I will make more progress before giving way again.
Crucial to this debate is the UK’s global leadership. The UK contributes only about 1% of global emissions, and that figure is falling. We cannot solve the challenge of global climate change just by doing the right thing at home, so we are using our strength to help to transform the world, from doubling our international climate finance contribution to nearly £12 billion to using our £1 billion Ayrton fund to support the world’s most vulnerable—for example, by designing clean stoves for the billions who rely on firewood. In 10 months’ time, COP26 in the fantastic UK city of Glasgow will be a seminal moment for climate action, as well as a massive opportunity for British business—a giant global shop window for the UK’s clean tech prowess, with countries across the world heading home with their pockets crammed full of British ideas, technology and expertise.
Mr Dhesi
The Secretary of State mentioned electric vehicles and charging points, and Slough Borough Council, in my constituency, is leading the way in Berkshire. Although we gratefully receive platitudes regarding the good work of local authorities, what measures will the Government put in place to support excellent councils financially, in addition to those mere platitudes?
Andrea Leadsom
There are far too many initiatives for me to talk about now at the Dispatch Box, but one example is the £1 billion that was recently announced for electric charging infrastructure. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall send him a full submission on the subject.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
What the Secretary of State says about electric vehicles is absolutely right and I applaud it. My vast constituency comprises 5,752 sq km and has 18 charging points, so that is a move in the right direction. My point, however, is that electric cars are expensive—more than most people can afford. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a tax break—perhaps through the PAYE system —should be considered as a way to encourage people to buy electric cars?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is sitting right next to me, and he and I work closely on all sorts of incentives for people to move away from fossil fuels and toward decarbonisation. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, transport is a key target area and we will talk more about it later.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrea Leadsom
I will make more progress before I give way again.
From fighting climate change across the world to backing British ideas, we need a thriving economy to pay for it all. That is why I have set out my Department’s clear mission to build a stronger, greener United Kingdom. That mission is underpinned by three priorities: to lead the world in tackling climate change; to solve the grand challenges facing our society; and, quite simply, to make the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business. Today, as well as prioritising the pathway to net zero, we are solving the grand challenges facing our society, backing a new generation of problem solvers in science and business. From space technology to life sciences, the UK is developing satellites that measure climate change and creating ways to help people to enjoy five extra healthy years of life by 2035. From artificial intelligence to robotics, and from advanced manufacturing to green tech, the UK will seize the opportunities offered by this new industrial revolution. That will be underpinned by our commitment to increase our research and development spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Again, we are hearing the right noises from the Government, but the action is not being followed through. The commitment to net zero trips off the tongue, but can we achieve it if we continue to fail to meet our environmental targets?
Andrea Leadsom
I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what I have just said in explaining the achievements, the ambition and what we are actually doing in practice. Perhaps he just needs to listen to what I am saying.
To seize the opportunities that lie ahead, we must make the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business. This Government will back business to the hilt, promoting inward investment and new export markets while also stamping out the poor practices that can sometimes give businesses a bad name. Our plan is to reduce burdens on business by reviewing and reducing business rates, and by resolving the scourge of late payments. As we leave the European Union, we will protect business confidence in supply chains, securing the best possible trading arrangements with our European partners. From diversity to sustainability and beyond, we will hold businesses to the same high standards, putting in place reforms to keep the UK a world leader in audit, corporate governance and transparency.
Dr Huq
I wanted to congratulate the Secretary of State on one thing that caught my eye in both the Queen’s Speech and last year’s Environment Bill: the biodiversity net gain mandated for planning authorities when making their decisions. That has not yet taken effect. Ealing Council has a meeting of its planning committee tonight. Will she encourage me by making a new year’s resolution of ensuring that such committees adopt the measure now so that the bulldozers do not sacrifice our nature? The future of our planet is at stake.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will hear that there is a lot of support for her initiative across the Chamber. She is right that we do not want Government to be telling people what to do; we want people to draw their own conclusions and to seek to protect and preserve our incredibly valuable biodiversity, our green spaces and our precious habitats for future generations.
At the same time as making the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business, we want our employment Bill, to which we committed in the Queen’s Speech, to make sure that work is fairly rewarded. We want to protect workers’ rights and ensure fair pay, to create a world where flexible working is just called “working”, and to do more to support the crucial work that people do as carers and parents, helping people to balance work with the other things that matter in their lives.
Margaret Thatcher ended her UN speech in 1989 by saying:
“We are the trustees of this planet, charged today with preserving life itself—preserving life with all its mystery and all its wonder.”
I hope that that is something on which we can all agree, whatever our party or politics. Thirty years ago, politicians could barely have imagined the technologies that would be available today. Today, we can only dream of the world of 2050. Together—as a House, as a country and as an international community—we must act. Our action can make a global difference. Instead of self-doubt, we need self-belief in our ability to build the low-carbon, high-tech United Kingdom that we all want, a stronger, greener future for people across our shores, and a sustainable future for our planet.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her kind comments. Of course, she will understand what I and the other Labour leadership candidates are going through at the moment. Putting yourself forward and standing up for your principles is a noble pursuit, but it is also certainly an interesting one—I will say that much.
I agree with much of what the Secretary of State said in her speech, but that ambition needs to be matched with sufficient action. I hope she takes the comments that I am about to make in the spirit in which they are intended, so we can work across the House and reach a solution to the climate emergency.
I pay tribute to my colleagues Danielle Rowley, Laura Pidcock and Sue Hayman, who were sadly unable to take their place after the general election. Each one of them has been a champion, fighting against the climate emergency, and their policy work will leave a mark on this House for years to come. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) to his new role on the shadow DEFRA team. I am sure he will also leave his mark in the years to come.
Climate change and environmental breakdown present an existential threat to our society. I doubt that there is a single Member of this House who would disagree with me. Seeing off that threat by investing in new industries and technologies, and the restoration of our natural world, has the potential to bring jobs, new wealth and new pride to all the regions and nations of the UK. Again, I doubt there is a single Member of the House who does not want to see that.
So we start from a position of agreement on the green industrial revolution, which, in a nutshell, is about achieving just that. But to make it happen, rather than just talking about it, three qualities are required that are lacking in the Queen’s Speech: honesty, ambition and fairness. We need to be honest with ourselves and with the electorate about what the science says is necessary to avoid planetary catastrophe; we need to be ambitious, deploying our resources and testing our inventiveness at a pace and scale that is commensurate with the challenge; and we need to be fair, tackling climate change in a way that is socially just, that leaves nobody behind, and that meets and exceeds the expectations that people have for their lives and their communities.
I turn to the first quality—honesty. The Queen’s Speech references the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the world’s leading scientific body on the subject, says that the entire world needs to reach net zero by 2050 to avoid more than 1.5° C of warming. Given the UK’s historical responsibility for climate change, and our wealth and resources to do something about it, we clearly need to be ahead of the curve on this, and we need to be honest that 2050 is not good enough—not if we are serious about keeping our people safe. I urge the Government to revisit this target.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon Friend is making an excellent speech. COP26 is coming to the UK this year. Is that not an additional responsibility for the Government, not just a historical one? Is it not true that we have a responsibility for the entire planet as the president and host of COP26?
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is spot on. We have an opportunity now to show on the world stage that we really mean business when it comes to tackling climate change. We need to lead the world, and not just in terms of the industries we support in the UK. We need to lead by example and encourage other countries across the world to take as robust action as I hope we will do over the coming years.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some good points. Does she agree that another advantage to the early adoption of a zero-carbon target is that we can lead the world in the products we have developed and sell them around the world? When we left government in 2010, we had set a target for passive house standards for all buildings by 2015. One example of Government failure in this area is that this Government removed that law, meaning that new houses are not currently being built to passive house standards. We are falling behind in new builds and environmental standards, and should be calling on the Government to address this. They should be ashamed of what they have done.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is right. It is important to note that markets are incentivised by robust targets, but that targets alone are not enough. They need to sit alongside a robust industrial strategy that supports our industries, all the way through from our steel sector to our automotive sector, so that they are capable of delivering the change at the pace that is required.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, despite the grand statements from the Government, they are missing all the targets that they are putting in place due to their own mediocre measures? Does she also agree that the cuts to renewable energy subsidies need to be reversed, and that we need to ensure that the Government work towards jobs in the green industries—unionised jobs? Rather than just talking a good game, the Government actually need to deliver.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is spot on.
We need to be honest that we are off track when it comes to meeting our targets, inadequate as they are. In fact, according to the Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s official advisers—the UK is even off track with regard to meeting its old target of an 80% reduction by 2050. The UK’s CO2 emissions fell by only 2% between 2017 and 2018. Politics aside, that is nowhere near good enough. Let us be honest about what it means. It is not like failing an exam or a driving test. Failing on climate change means devastating fires sweeping across Australia and the Amazon. It means critical threats to food security, water security and the entire ecosystem, on which we all depend.
Janet Daby
Constituents living in flats and houses have emailed me regarding a lack of charging options for electric cars. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are simply not ambitious enough to support the UK’s electric vehicle charging needs?
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Although the comments in the Queen’s Speech are certainly welcome—I will come to them in more detail shortly—they do not sit alongside a robust strategy to support the creation of a market for electric vehicles. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a point about the affordability of electric vehicles. They are not cheap and most people cannot afford them, so we have a duty to create the market by providing incentives. The Government should use their own procurement to ensure that their fleets are electric by a specified date, and we should ensure that fleet operators are incentivised to make their fleets electric so that the vehicles can transition into the second-hand car market. There is an essential need to ensure that people who want to buy new electric vehicles can afford to do so, with options ranging from scrappage schemes all the way through to incentivisation.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Orb steelworks—the only producer of electrical steels in the country—was mothballed just before Christmas. With investment, the plant could provide an end-to-end supply chain for the electric vehicles industry so that we would not have to import this kind of steel. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that the Government step up and support our steel industry, which could play a key part in this green industrial revolution?
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is quite right. It is devastating to see the impact of what has happened in her constituency. We need to tackle the climate emergency, and we need a robust industrial strategy to sit alongside it. This is the biggest economic opportunity that the country has had in a generation. By tackling a huge societal and environmental need, we can support our industries and create the new green jobs of the future. Unfortunately, although we talk about targets, and about providing help here and there, we are not backing it up with a comprehensive industrial strategy that supports our industries. What was lacking in the general election campaign—although certainly not from the Labour party—was support for the steel sector, with a robust strategy ensuring that the steel industry plays a key role in our infrastructure projects and the technologies of the future. That is what I would like to see from this Government.
Alan Brown
On honesty and ambition, the hon. Lady said that net zero by 2050 is not good enough, so I am sure she will welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have legislated for net zero by 2045. During the general election campaign, Labour started talking about net zero by 2030. Currently, 27 million homes rely on fossil fuels, so getting to net zero by then would mean changing over 52,000 homes a week every week from 1 January 2020 until the end of the decade. What are Labour’s plans for doing that?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. Certainly, there is no point in having a target without having an ambitious plan to deliver it. We know from the work of leading scientists across the world that the majority of the work that needs to be done even to reach net zero by 2050 must be done by 2030. That is an inescapable fact and that is why we have to move so quickly.
The Government have started to work towards insulating social homes. That is welcome, but it is not enough. We need to look at how we can support the UK’s 27 million homes to take part in a home insulation programme that will not only tackle climate change but help to bring down bills. We had an ambitious package for that but unfortunately we did not deliver that message strongly enough in our election campaign.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s rhetoric is far away from the action that we actually see? In Greater Manchester we have a clean air crisis where people are literally dying because of the quality of the air. When the Mayor of Greater Manchester made an approach to Government for grant support to help taxi drivers and the self-employed to transition to new vehicles, the Government were not even willing to meet him halfway.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are expected to encourage our localities and our regional governments to take part in the climate emergency and to do their best to deliver plans on a local scale, but they are not being given sufficient resources to be able to do so. That is not acceptable, because this is a national crisis and a local crisis. That goes right to the heart of the point about public transport. We need to make sure that all the workers involved in transport are given the opportunity to deliver transport that is eco-friendly, but they are not, particularly taxi drivers. Taxi drivers, in many cases, cannot afford to transition to electric vehicles as rapidly as we need them to, and we must provide the support that is necessary for them to be able to achieve that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
A little earlier, the shadow Minister implied that climate change was causing the raging fires in the Amazon and Australia. The fires in the Amazon are caused by mankind trying to create agricultural land, not climate change, as I would expect it is very wet out there. In Australia—this goes back to a question I asked earlier—75% of fires are caused by arson.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s points, but we need to move beyond discussions regarding climate change denial and recognise the scale of the task ahead of ahead of us, because the science is clear. We are facing a climate emergency, and if we do not take robust action and lead the world, we will not have a world left—it is as simple as that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am very disappointed that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has mentioned the 75% figure, which was also mentioned by the Foreign Office Minister who gave the statement on the bushfires last week. It is fake news that is being spread by climate change deniers in Australia. A letter to The Guardian from a number of well-renowned climate academics, including several from Bristol University, was published yesterday. I think the true figure for arson is less than 1%. I would like to make sure that that is absolutely on the record.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her point because she is quite right.
With reference to civil society groups like Extinction Rebellion who have been urging those in power to tell the truth about climate change, I was alarmed by reports that the Government’s response was to defend the recommendation to list them alongside neo-Nazi terrorists. That is an absolute disgrace. I urge the Secretary of State to speak to her colleagues about this. It is absolutely absurd that our school strikers and our climate activists who were trying to fight to be heard here in Westminster are being listed alongside terrorist organisations when they are simply trying to save the planet and deliver a world for their future and that of their children and grandchildren.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have no doubt in my own mind that the landslips, the flooding and the collapse of roads is being caused by climate change: I come from the land of the mountain and the flood. Highland Council and all rural councils, not just in Scotland but all over the UK, are faced with the cost of the restoration works. Adding to the hon. Lady’s suggestion that the money is not there, does she agree that we need a dedicated income stream for the devolved institutions in the UK to pay for these repairs, because otherwise it is just going to get worse?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments because he is quite right. As I said earlier, we cannot keep having discussions about whether climate change is real. It is real, and we cannot detach ourselves from the situation in thinking that it is something that happens to other countries across the world and it is not going to affect us. It is already affecting us, and even if it does affect other countries across the world we will need to help the people in those countries. We also need to recognise that for a country like ours that is so reliant on imported food, any disruption to any part of the world disrupts our quality of life here. That is why it is so important for us to protect the people here in the UK by making sure that we lead across the world on this. I am sure that we have collaborative agreement across the House on that point.
Caroline Lucas
A moment ago the hon. Lady was talking about civil society organisations. I absolutely agree with her about the excellent work done by Extinction Rebellion and others. Will she join me in congratulating the student climate network, People and Planet, which only this week announced that over half of UK universities have now divested from fossil fuels? Does she agree that it is about time that we in this Parliament got our house in order? I have been trying, along with other colleagues, to get our parliamentary pension fund to divest from fossil fuels. That still has not happened. Will she join me in saying that it is long overdue that we take this step?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and associate myself with them wholeheartedly. I thank her for all the work that she has done in this House over the years really to put this issue on the agenda at a time when others did not want to talk about it, quite frankly.
Let me move on to the second quality that is required—ambition. The purpose of the Queen’s Speech should be to look forward—to set out the Government’s future plans—but most of the climate section looks backwards, sadly, to the Government’s record over the past 12 months, and even this is confusing to many. There is reference to £400 million of funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, but this was first announced in the 2017 Budget. The Queen’s Speech also references an industrial energy transformation fund, but this was announced in the 2018 Budget. We were told that 53% of electricity now comes from low-carbon sources, and that sounds good, but is it really ambitious enough? As any energy expert will tell you, electricity is the easy part. Only 11% of the UK’s total end energy consumption, including heat and transport, comes from renewable sources. Only 7% of the UK’s heat demand is met by renewable sources. As Labour set out at the general election, to get on track to a net-zero energy system, we need low-carbon electricity at levels of above 90% within a decade.
The Government reference their doubling of international climate finance, and this sounds good until you realise that this money is not new or additional and that the Government are effectively raiding the aid budget to pay for it. The Government want to ensure that everybody is within 30 miles of an electric charging point, but that does not sound particularly ambitious to me, to be honest. Nor does the commitment to end the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries when 60% of our plastic waste exports are actually shipped to OECD countries. Should not the Government be asking why we are producing all that pointless plastic in the first place and cut it off at source rather than dumping the problem overseas?
There are of course welcome features in the Queen’s Speech, such as the commitment to invest £800 million to develop the UK’s first carbon capture and storage cluster by the mid-2020s. But I remember the time in 2010 when the coalition made a £1 billion commitment to CCS before scrapping it again in 2015. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the UK’s carbon-intensive industries will not suffer the same fate as when the last promise was made? Why is it that as the climate crisis worsens the Government appear to be treading water and going backwards? Tackling the climate and environmental emergency and capturing the massive opportunities of the green economy require ambition. We needed to see an emergency plan for the first 100 days of Government—a plan for every year of this Parliament and a plan for the decade ahead. Sadly, the Queen’s Speech does not come close to this.
I now turn to the third and final quality—fairness. Rapid decarbonisation across our economy requires fundamental changes in the way we work and the way we live. Done badly, this presents big risks to people’s livelihoods. Only by socialising the costs and the benefits of decarbonisation will we be able to take the public with us through this change, but the Queen’s Speech does not set out a plan to do that.
To give an example, fossil fuel workers have powered the country for decades. We need a clear and properly funded plan for what will happen to those workers and their communities as we move to a renewable energy system. We tried to set out proposals at the election for a just transition fund. The absence of a plan for a just transition in the Queen’s Speech is a major omission, and I urge the Government to do better and start listening to and working with trade unions on this as quickly as possible.
It was more than 30 years ago that NASA scientist James Hansen presented his findings on climate change to the US Senate. Nobody could reasonably argue that we have done enough since then, and now we are running out of time. We cannot afford another lost five years. I urge the Government to work with us and Members across the House to correct the obvious shortcomings of the Queen’s Speech and their agenda, and to develop a package of measures that can secure the future all of us deserve. There is still time, but it is running out.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I intend to speak briefly, as I am conscious that there will be a large number of extremely high-quality maiden speeches this afternoon. I wish to raise a very niche subject while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still in her place. I feel privileged to be called so early in the debate, following only the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.
I want to pick up briefly on some of the comments that the Secretary of State made about the generation of clean energy. I urge her to ensure that, when we are generating green energy, it must be properly green. She also spoke of new technologies. I absolutely agree; there are many new technologies coming forward that will enable us to generate power and deal with waste in much greener ways, but we must scrutinise them incredibly carefully, to ensure we do not make mistakes that will be around for many generations to come.
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and the policies included in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I particularly welcome the introduction of a landmark environment Bill, the introduction of an Office for Environmental Protection and the personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to chair a new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change. The environment Bill will cement our position as a world leader on air quality, biodiversity and plastics reduction; I know I am correct on that because I am quoting directly from the Conservative research department brief—something that I would commend to all new Conservative Members.
Those three points are of particular interest to us in Romsey and Southampton North, and now I come to the niche comments that I wish to make. Members may have heard me raise with the Prime Minister last week the fact that US company Wheelabrator is planning to build, under national infrastructure rules, a giant incinerator in my constituency to burn commercial waste, between the beautiful, picturesque Test Valley villages of Longparish and Barton Stacey. Notionally, it will generate energy from waste, but it is in fact many miles from any connection to the national grid, and significantly, it is not close to a demand for that energy. It is within a few miles of an area of outstanding natural beauty and the South Downs national park. It is proposed to be twice the size of Winchester cathedral, but, of course, devoid of any of the architectural merit of that building. It will be in excess of 40 metres high, with chimneys that are 80 metres high. The plan is to locate it adjacent to the River Dever, which is known the world over for its fantastic fly fishing and is a tributary of the River Test. The incinerator will be situated above the aquifer and will be pumping pollution into the atmosphere, putting the biodiversity of this precious area at risk.
My asks of the Secretary of State today are wholly in line with her and my aspirations for a reduction in carbon emissions, enabling us to meet our net zero target and supporting her goal of better air quality, and totally in keeping with the aim to reduce waste, including plastics. We simply cannot keep looking to incineration as a solution to landfill. It is not good enough, and it is not green enough.
I turn to relatively recent history. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the Treasury’s October 2018 Budget, which stated:
“the government wants to maximise the amount of waste sent to recycling instead of incineration and landfill. Should wider policies not deliver the government’s waste ambitions in the future, it will consider the introduction of a tax on the incineration of waste, in conjunction with landfill tax, taking account of the possible impacts on local authorities.”
I know that my friends at Hampshire County Council would wish to emphasise the point that we have to be cognisant of the needs of local authorities, but the proposal in my constituency is not a local authority project; it is a massive commercial venture.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about businesses being held to account for their actions. This commercial venture seeks to make money by putting pollutants into the atmosphere. It pays no heed to the specific qualities of the landscape or local biodiversity. I want to put on record the determination of local residents to oppose the project by whatever means necessary, and would especially mention the brilliant campaigners of Keep Test Valley Beautiful. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that we hold to our commitments to improve air quality, reduce waste and protect our precious environmental diversity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I suggest that Members speak for up to 10 minutes, so that everybody gets a fair share of the time? That does not include the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesman—I call Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The word “revolution” means either an overthrow or a radical and pervasive change in society, especially one made suddenly. Have we really had a green industrial revolution? Have we had a revolution in Government? I would suggest that, if anything, there has been a counter green revolution, given that the Tory Government scrapped the Department for Energy and Climate Change, thus highlighting their priorities in recent years.
I have to acknowledge that we have made fantastic strides forward with renewable energy, but has it been a revolution? I would argue that, owing to the UK Government chopping and changing strategy, the process has been too stop-start to be classed as revolutionary. We have seen a welcome increase in the deployment of renewable energy, and UK Government support has facilitated that, but owing to policy changes, there have been too many peaks, troughs and, in some cases, catastrophic failures because of the actions of the UK Government.
The first example of that is onshore wind, which was deployed to great effect in Scotland, with prices falling rapidly due to the initial Government policies. It was a renewable energy revolution that Scotland embraced—one that saw 75% of gross electricity demand met by renewable generation in Scotland in 2018. However, the Tory shire prejudice against onshore wind means that the Tory Government are now blocking onshore wind across the UK, against Scotland’s wishes.
The Committee on Climate Change states that onshore wind capacity in the UK needs to increase from 13 GW to 35 GW by 2035 as part of the net zero transition, yet there is no route to market at present for onshore wind, despite it being the cheapest form of electricity generation. The former Secretary of State for Scotland should hang his head in shame for blocking the redeployment of onshore wind in Scotland. A report by Vivid Economics estimates that this could cost 2,300 jobs in Scotland and add £50 a year to everybody’s energy bills.
As the debate on Scottish independence re-intensifies, we need to remember the broken pledge and propaganda on onshore wind in 2014. We were told how well Scotland does out of onshore wind subsidies, how that would continue and how the UK as a whole would support onshore wind in Scotland, but instead the subsidies were removed a year or so after. That is another broken promise in 2014 that the public need to be reminded of.
When we consider renewables and wind in particular, it is a reminder that the transmission charging regime is a straitjacket around Scotland. The punitive charges, especially in the north of Scotland, can be a deal breaker for some developments. The charging system needs a complete overhaul to allow deployment of renewable energy for maximum benefit.
Similarly, we need a timescale for the delivery of interconnectors to Scotland’s islands. The change in classification for island onshore wind so that it can bid in pot 2 contract for difference auctions is welcome, but without the interconnectors these opportunities cannot be maximised. Ofgem needs to reconsider its rejection of a 600 MW interconnector to the Western Isles. Why is it holding out for a less ambitious 450 MW interconnector?
We need greater strategic vision from the UK Government on interconnectors. We need interconnectors to the continent and Norway, because of the abundance of hydroelectric energy. Is it not telling that Ireland is getting an interconnector to France, paid for by the EU at a cost of half a billion pounds? What does that signal for the future direction of the single energy market, and where does Brexit and a possible no-deal crash-out leave the UK without those vital interconnectors?
In the past—in another policy change—we had the carbon capture fiasco, when the Treasury pulled £1 billion that was on offer, and which looked set to deliver carbon capture and storage in Peterhead. That was a wasted opportunity—money down the drain with nothing to show for it—and it cost 600 jobs in Peterhead and ruined the chance for the UK and Scotland to be a world leader in that technology. I am asking Westminster to please back Scotland’s CCS potential. With 35% of the available capacity in the whole of Europe, we could still be a world leader. However, it needs a fast start, and better investment in Scotland. The Committee on Climate Change has made it clear that carbon capture is not a wish; it is a necessity in order to hit net zero by 2050.
Solar energy was another possible success story, yet, when it was looking good, the Tory Government pulled the feed-in tariffs and now they have quadrupled the VAT on solar installations, so they have destroyed the industry just as it was heading towards subsidy-free installations. That is another example of a UK Government policy revolution wreaking havoc on an industry. The VAT decision must be reversed as soon as possible.
And yet, when it comes to nuclear and the Government’s nuclear obsession, money is no object. We signed up to Hinkley Point C, which has a 35-year concession at a strike rate of £92.50 per MWh, and yet, as the Secretary of State is aware—she spoke about the benefits of offshore wind—offshore wind now has a strike rate of £40 per MWh for just 15 years, so it is about three to four times cheaper than nuclear energy. Why are the Tory Government continuing to pursue new nuclear projects? It makes no sense. [Interruption.] Can the Secretary of State explain why?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be very aware that there is a difference between the baseload and the variability of renewables.
Alan Brown
And the Secretary of State will know very well that that baseload is becoming a moot argument. It was argued that Hinkley Point C was required by December 2017 for the baseload to stop the lights going out. Now Hinkley will not be delivered till 2025 by the earliest, and the lights have not gone out. That shows how much the market has changed. Half the existing nuclear power stations will be decommissioned by 2024, and they cannot be replaced by new nuclear stations in that time, so the Government really do need to look again at their strategy, and new nuclear power stations is not that.
The Government say that the National Infrastructure Commission have said that there should be only one new nuclear power station, because of the change in renewables technology. Again, it seems that the Government are not actually listening to the body they say they are listening to.
As an alternative to nuclear, we also need to look at sector deals for investments such as marine and tidal energy, and also floating offshore wind. Where are their sector deals and what is happening with those?
Has there even been an industrial revolution? Again, I would suggest not. The UK Government failed to back the technological development of onshore wind and the fantastic opportunities there. That led to the manufacturing sector of that industry being developed elsewhere, particularly Denmark. That was a massive lost opportunity, and it cannot be replicated by other emerging technologies.
Even now, when it comes to offshore wind, the CfD auctions do not include a quality mechanism that would allow bidders to be rewarded for using local supply chains. That would be an ideal way to generate industrial jobs around the coastal communities, and it would provide greater opportunities for companies in Scotland, such as BiFab and CS Wind. Why are the UK Government not willing to incorporate such a procurement quality assessment mechanism in the auction process? It makes sense, and it would also reduce the construction carbon footprint for the delivery of such projects.
If we are to hit net zero in the UK by 2050, we need a proper green industrial revolution. We need the large-scale development of CCS, which, as well as creating jobs, will allow a long-term just transition for the oil and gas sector. We need radical measures to decarbonise our heat. Our domestic heating systems are the elephant in the room when it comes to the net zero target. I said earlier that 27 million houses relied on fossil fuels for heating, so a change in that mechanism for 27 million homes needs to be a proper revolution. It is likely that we shall see gas central heating boilers change to hydrogen boilers, and we know that hydrogen blending is a short-term transitional measure in decarbonising the gas network, but we need the strategies and policies in place, and the necessary changes in regulation to allow that to happen. There, too, we need concrete plans from the UK Government.
If I may switch back to Scotland, Scotland has been attempting to undergo a real green industrial revolution, but again we have been hampered by UK Government policies, the U-turns and the lack of strategic vision. Where is the energy White Paper that we were promised last year? It is ridiculous to have a clean growth strategy, an industrial strategy, but not an overarching or a linking energy policy that brings those together. We need to see that sooner or later.
Where is the Government response to the National Infrastructure Commission? We are still waiting on that. That is another organisation that states that energy efficiency should be treated as a national infrastructure programme. It would create jobs and it reduces carbon emissions, energy demand and fuel poverty. And yet, again, the Tory Government have not addressed that. They previously chose to go down the route of the green deal, which actually forced people to take out loans. Then the green deal led to scandal, with the mis-selling of solar panels by the company HELMS, leaving thousands of people with 25-year loans and faulty installations. The UK Government have still not rectified that. Will the Secretary of State consider that as well?
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government spend four times as much per capita on energy efficiency measures as the UK Government. For that, they have been praised by industry, third sector organisations and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Put simply, Scotland leads the way in energy efficiency, and by 2021 the SNP Government will have invested £1 billion in energy efficiency programmes.
The one energy efficiency measure that the UK Government brought in is the energy company obligation scheme—ECO. But the Committee on Fuel Poverty states that that is not helping the people who require it the most. In effect, that means that those who struggle to pay their bills for energy costs now pay extra on their energy bills for ECO, which is then funding energy efficiency measures for those most likely to be able to afford them. That is completely bonkers. There is also a really serious point, because every year 3,000 people in the UK die as a result of fuel poverty—the second-worst rate in Europe. Urgent, coherent action is needed to address fuel poverty and to address energy efficiency measures.
Scotland leads in energy efficiency, and we also lead in climate change registration targets: the first Government to call a climate change emergency; a net zero target for 2045; and a 75% target reduction by 2030. According to the Committee on Climate Change, Scotland has become the leading UK nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. However, these latest targets are world-leading. Our 2030 target goes beyond what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states is required globally to limit warming to the 1.5°, as per the Paris climate agreement. We have also taken the difficult decision not to reduce air passenger duty when it is devolved. In the past couple of days the UK Government have been flip-flopping on that, and are all over the place when it comes to APD.
Going forward, the Scottish Government’s “Programme for Government” puts the green new deal at the heart of Government policy. Securing transition to net zero will be the primary mission for the Scottish National Investment Bank, supported by £130 million this year. The creation of the SNIB will provide £2 billion of long-term capital to businesses and infrastructure projects, to help transform the Scottish economy, and again reduce carbon emissions. That contrasts directly with the UK Green Investment Bank, set up by the Tory Government and then sold off without assurances of green aims or a UK focus.
We know that transport is a major carbon emitter. If we are looking at the roll-out of electric vehicles, I suggest that we need to look at Norway. It has undertaken a real revolution towards electric and low emission vehicles. In 2019, 58% of new car sales were of plug-in low-emission vehicles and 42% of overall sales were of fully electric cars. Meanwhile, here in the UK, flags are being waved and we are supposed to celebrate the fact that we have reached 3% sales of electric vehicles. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the UK deadline of 2040 for the phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles is way too far ahead, and even then the plans for its delivery are too vague. I suggest that the UK Government look to a small, independent, prosperous country such as Norway for inspiration, and to see how things can be done properly.
The UK has made strides regarding carbon emissions, but, as we have heard, there is a long way to go. While we look for solutions, nature is unfortunately undergoing its own climate change revolution. We have seen that with the bushfires in Australia, the 4 million hectares of Siberian forest that burned a few months ago, and the fires in Greenland, Alaska and Canada. The six hottest years on record have been the last six consecutive years, with warming oceans and melting ice. Things are critical, and Lord Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, said that the UK’s efforts to deal with climate change have fallen short. Indeed, in the interim progress report he states that
“policy ambition and implementation now fall well short of what is required.”
We have a Prime Minister who ducked out of TV debates on climate change, so we are looking for real leadership on this issue. I am glad that Scotland is showing such leadership, but I know it could do so much more if it were a small, independent country that was able to grasp the nettle in the way that Norway has.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the House of the informal time limit of 10 minutes—we will be quite rigid about that—and Members should observe the usual courtesies when a maiden speech is being delivered. I have great pleasure in calling the next Member to make a maiden speech, Simon Fell.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I welcome you back to your position in the Chair? I am grateful to be making my maiden speech in this debate on the green industrial revolution. Although mine is the first maiden speech delivered today, it is daunting to follow the contributions made by colleagues from both Government and Opposition Benches over the past couple of days. I watched those speeches, feeling increasingly green as they went on, and I do not think those Members need my congratulations. Indeed, when they rise up the ministerial ranks, I hope they will look favourably on me.
I will also gladly comply with another tradition of the House and pay tribute to my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Barrow and Furness, John Woodcock. Despite hailing from the wrong side of the Pennines, John was a staunch and passionate defender of that beautiful but often neglected part of the world. He fought to secure the Dreadnought programme in the shipyard, and he brought that same focus to the fight against antisemitism and injustice wherever he saw it, no matter the personal cost. John and I have clashed many times over the years, but his affection for Furness shines through and I wish him the best for the future.
Barrow and Furness is hidden away, but it is a remarkable place. Stretching—almost—from the Old Man of Coniston in the north, all the way to Walney Island in the south, Barrow is beautiful, with an industrial town at its beating heart. We are home to the national endeavour of building our nation’s nuclear deterrent, and we have a proud history of shipbuilding, from ocean liners to Royal Navy flagship vessels and submarines.
It was not always that way. Furness is rich in mineral deposits such as copper, nickel, cobalt and iron ore. Indeed, during the 1830s, prospecting for iron ore led to the creation of the town of Barrow as we know it. A collection of sheep farms rapidly turned into a Victorian town of high standing, an iron exporting giant, a ship- building hub, and then into a world leader in submarine production. That is the work on which many—almost one in five—of my constituents rely, either directly or through our substantial supply chains. I will focus on ensuring not only that my party honours its commitments to sustain that work, but that we seek to grow our capability by renewing the Astute-class boats and seeking wider opportunities.
Barrow and Furness is not just about submarines. Our market towns, from Ulverston to Dalton and Broughton-in-Furness, are bustling and—I urge hon. Members to note this—ideal for weekend visits and Easter holidays. People can watch the grey seals in South Walney, with Piel Island, which used to repel marauding Scots from the harbour, but now welcomes them as tourists, on the horizon. From local craft shops to the best pies in England, Furness’s real natural resource is its people, and there is no place with a stronger sense of community.
Coming off a gruelling election campaign, we often find ourselves thinking about what would have happened had we zigged rather than zagged, or if life had taken us in a different direction. The joy of an election, as all hon. Members will know, is meeting people, and hearing on the doorstep what they want for their families, futures and community. That same joy also comes from the people with whom we spend our election campaigns, and if hon. Members will indulge me, I wish to pay tribute to five people without whom I would not be standing here now. First is my father, Peter, a bounder of hedges and disrespecter of people’s gates—I would not be here without him. I also pay tribute to my wife, Pippa—my rock—to my mother, Meriel, who kept me sane, and to Ben and Brenda, who despite having a candidate who would not listen to them, made my campaign a success. I fear that if I listed everyone I should thank, the orchestra would play me off, but they know who they are.
We also lost people this campaign, and I will take this opportunity to remember Pam Whittam, the kindest and most determined stalwart of my local party, whose cooking I still think about in idle moments, as well as Rory McClure, former mayor of Barrow, former president of Furness Rotary, and a dedicated local councillor and friend. I miss them both terribly.
I campaigned on a slogan of “Securing Furness’s Future”, which is not a pledge I take lightly. Furness’s future is at stake, and it is hard not to argue that we are a left-behind community. The A590, our main road, is dangerous and prone to flooding. The A595 runs through a farmyard. When our rail franchise fails—as it does all too often—our people are left stranded. One point that is especially appropriate to raise in this debate is that our current rail service is so poor that it is pushing people off public transport and back into their cars. That is why I look forward to working with Front-Bench colleagues to strip Northern of its franchise, and deliver a reliable and improved rail service on the Furness line.
We in Furness have a tremendous opportunity to be at the forefront of the green industrial revolution. We vie with Hull to be host to the largest offshore wind farm in the world—a title I very much hope we will soon regain. Up the coast in Copeland is Sellafield, to which a number of my constituents make a daily journey, through the farmyard that I mentioned. We in south-west Cumbria are already pioneers of renewable energy, but there are further opportunities on our doorstep. Our coastline is the ideal place for a tidal barrage, the development of which would cement the Cumbrian coast as a northern powerhouse in renewable energy, skills and capability. The impact of such a concentration of renewables businesses in Morecambe Bay and the Cumbrian coast would be transformative. That remote and beautiful part of England could become the epicentre of the green industrial revolution. We have the people, we have the skills; we just need the chance, and I look forward to working with colleagues on the Front Bench to explore the viability of those bold projects.
On the doorstep, I was told time and again that traditional Labour voters were lending me their votes. I consider every vote to be lent—we have to earn those votes, and to earn them again we must deliver on our promises to level up communities such as Barrow and Furness, to renew our town centres, finally to tackle existing deep-set poverty, and to invest in our NHS and schools. I shall pursue those things with a single-minded focus. It is an incredible honour to be standing up and speaking here, and I will work daily to earn the trust that the people of Barrow and Furness have placed in me. I look forward to fighting for them in the years to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Simon Fell is a former researcher of mine, and I am privileged to have been in the Chair when he gave his maiden speech. Well done, Simon.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—that is clearly where he gets his ease of manner, and he already seems like a veteran of the Chamber. I have never visited his constituency, but perhaps it is about time I did.
I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, Sue Hayman, who represented another Cumbrian seat. I wish she were here today to contribute to this debate, because she did so much, particularly on Labour’s “Plan for Nature” and animal welfare manifesto, and as our Front-Bench speaker shadowing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She will be very much missed.
The planet is facing a climate and ecological crisis, but forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I do not have complete confidence in the Government’s ability to rise to the challenge. Since we returned after the election, two ministerial appearances at the Dispatch Box have raised my concerns. We had a statement on the Australian bushfires, and the Foreign Office Minister managed to get through her entire opening statement without putting the situation in the climate context. When a number of us challenged her and said, “Surely, if you are talking about the Australian bushfires, you should be talking about why they are happening?”, she got quite cross with me and said that we should be treating it like some sort of disaster where we just come in afterwards and patch things up, rather than looking at the root causes. As we have already heard, she repeated the 75% arson claim, which has been thoroughly debunked.
We also had an urgent question on Flybe yesterday. Again, in the Minister’s initial response, with regard to bailing out an airline and possibly cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights, there was no mention at all of the impact on carbon emissions and pollution. Surely, no matter what your views on whether Flybe provides an essential service, you have to mention climate change if you are serious about trying to reach net zero.
Another thing that really worries me is that the COP25 climate change talks took place during the election campaign. A number of us had been hoping to attend, but were obviously unable to because of the election. We have not had a ministerial statement on COP25. We should have had an oral statement, particularly as we are hosting COP26. COP25 is widely regarded as a failure—very little was achieved. I would have expected, at the very least, a written ministerial statement assessing what did not happen in Madrid and putting forward a plan for how we can get things back on track as we host COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
In terms of what is in the Queen’s Speech, I welcome the direction of travel set out in the environment Bill. I particularly welcome the decision to locate the new Office of Environmental Protection in Bristol. I can think of no better place for it, given the level of expertise we have in the city. My concern, however, is particularly that the long-term targets do not need to be set until 2022 and potentially cannot be enforced for almost two decades. Reference has already been made to the fact that the carbon budgets, which give us interim targets, are slipping. We know that we are not going to meet the recycling target for this year. We cannot just have one goal that we aim to reach two decades into the future. We have got to have a way of monitoring it and holding the Government to account in the short term as well.
The OEP will not be truly independent and will lack the power to hold the Government to account. In the previous Parliament, I sat on both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny. Both Committees made that point. There is also no commitment to non-regression. When we should be seeking constant improvement, we can do better than our current standards. We certainly should not be going backwards. National infrastructure projects will not be subject to biodiversity net gain. Increasingly, net gain is looking like net parity. Again, we should be seeking improvements and not trying to just hold things as they are. The National Trust is particularly concerned that the historic environment has been excluded, even though the 25-year environment plan put it on a level playing field with the natural environment. There is no commitment to a national tree strategy, which is a crucial nature-based solution. While I am here, I would also make a plea for us to restore our peat lands. They can be an incredible carbon sink, but if we allow grouse moor owners to set fire to them, the environmental degradation that goes with that releases a huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere. We need action on that.
On a global scale, we heard the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talk about the need to measure consumption, rather than just production. There is absolutely no way that we are looking at the true picture unless we do so. The UK, for example, consumes 3.3 million tonnes of soy per year. Some 77% of that comes from high-risk deforestation areas in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. We know that land use is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
On UK Export Finance, it is a shame that the Secretary of State is no longer in her place. She was boasting about some of the work we do on reducing carbon emissions overseas, but, as the Environmental Audit Committee found, UK Export Finance spent £4.8 billion on fossil fuel projects overseas between 2010 and 2016. In fact, well over 90%—I think 95% or 96%—of the amount it spends on financing energy projects overseas goes on fossil fuel projects, rather than on cleaner renewable projects. That is almost equal to the total spending on international climate finance. There is no point boasting about what we do on the one hand, if we then finance the private sector to do damaging fossil fuel exploration on the other hand.
The agriculture Bill has not been mentioned yet. Last time it was before us, I spoke on Second Reading and served on the Bill Committee, which concluded in December 2018. There is a sense of déjà vu to hear it announced again. I think it was published a couple of hours ago and there have been only a couple of minor tweaks to the previous Bill. That is disappointing. It is disappointing that the Government did not use this opportunity to think again about how farming can tackle the climate, nature and health crises all together. Those three dots simply have not been joined up. From my perspective, it requires a transition to sustainable agroecological farming by 2030, as proposed by the RSA’s Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. I hope, in the new Parliament, to reconstitute the all-party group on agroecology, which I chaired for a number of years, and I will be tabling the same amendments in support of whole-farm systems that I tabled in the previous Parliament.
I would also like the Government to adopt the previously proposed new clause on supporting county farms. We have heard a lot of warm words on this. In a session I chaired at the Oxford Real Farming conference, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), made clear his commitment to county farms, which are a great way for new entrants who cannot afford to buy land at today’s prices to enter the market. They are also a good way to direct the growing of local healthy food and restoring nature. I hope we can pin the Government down on that.
We need a long-term financial commitment, which farmers have been asking for, on delivering public goods to be set out in the Bill. The Government have now ring-fenced the overall farm funding budget for the next five years, but there is still no indication as to how it will be divided up. Based on independent analysis by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trust, at least £2.9 billion is needed for the new environment land management schemes. The Bill is also missing a duty on the Government to routinely assess the scale of financial need and a strong baseline of regulations for land managers to adhere to.
I tabled new clause 1 in the Report stage of the Bill, which then suddenly disappeared in December 2018. I think one of the reasons it disappeared was that the Government were convinced they would lose on new clause 1. New clause 1 was designed to ensure that there would be no lowering of environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards in any future trade deals. The Government talk about that a lot, but when I raised it at Brexit questions last week, mentioning the National Farmers Union’s concerns and its request for a trading standards commission to be established, the Minister was incredibly dismissive. We know that the Government will come under significant pressure from the Department for International Trade to lower standards in any future trade deal once we leave the EU, and that will lead to a race to the bottom. As I said, it is not just environmentalists but the NFU and everyone involved in the food sector in this country who do not want to see that.
Finally, if I can just ask where we are in terms of some of the animal welfare proposals. There is a lot of support for the sentencing Bill, which will increase the sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years. I hope that will be brought back soon. Where has the sentience Bill got to? Again, the Government promised several years ago, I think in 2017, to introduce a sentience Bill. They still have not done so. I urge the Government to bring it forward as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to another maiden speech—Mr Gary Sambrook.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I first say that it is a pleasure to be giving my maiden speech with you in the Chair? Thank you for all your help and guidance to new Members since we arrived here on whatever day it was in December—it feels like a long time ago. Secondly, may I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris)? I do not think I would be here today without his help, guidance and, most importantly, his friendship over the past six years. Finally, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on his excellent maiden speech.
I would like to say a couple of words about my predecessor, Richard Burden, who had a long and distinguished service in this House over 27 years. He definitely built up a reputation over time in Northfield. Richard Burden and Roger King, another former Member in the constituency, struck up a good partnership campaigning together on local issues, especially the development of the North Worcestershire golf club that we have all been campaigning against. They also shared a huge passion for motorsport. Unfortunately, we part in respect of my skills in this area, which can be described in this way: I had to ring up my uncle once to ask him what the flashing gravy boat meant in the car, to which he coolly said, “It’s the oil light—you need to change your oil.” Although my skill base in this area may not be the same as theirs, my enthusiasm for the motoring industry is just as high, and we need to celebrate it and make sure that it is still a distinguishing part of our country.
Birmingham is home, and I have lived there for my entire 30 years. It is rapidly growing and it has been known as the city of a thousand trades. It was an integral part of the industrial revolution in the UK, as was Northfield. Northfield, Kings Norton, Weoley, Allens Cross, Rubery and Rednal, Frankley, West Heath and Longbridge are all very distinctive parts of my constituency. They all started off as villages in north Worcestershire and were later consumed by the ever-expanding Birmingham. Now, 100 years later, they are a key contributing part of our city, especially in industry.
The two things that most people think about when you mention Birmingham, Northfield are, of course, the Cadbury family and Austin Motors—latterly, MG Rover. The Cadbury family left behind a lasting legacy for south Birmingham in many physical forms, including the Manor Farm Park, the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital and, although it is not quite in my constituency—it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—the Lickey Hills. They were a caring family who ably demonstrated the compassionate side of capitalism and the good things that can be done. Jobs, training, community and a decent standard of living were their legacy and their values, and that lives on today in Northfield.
Austin Motors—latterly, MG Rover—has been synonymous with Longbridge and Northfield for many, many decades. Indeed, this week, many former employees will be saddened to see demolition beginning of the two main plant areas on the site, but with our changing economy, we must adapt and embrace our new green industry to ensure that we use it to create more jobs and wealth, provide better homes and increase our connectivity between cities and suburbs, and cross-borough. We must make sure that we use every possible opportunity from our new green industry to make that happen.
All of this creates life chances, because as the Prime Minister says, talent is equally shared across our country, but unfortunately, opportunity often is not. I stand here feeling that it was absolutely unthinkable that I would ever speak in this Chamber. We hear stories—I think the former Member for Rutland and Melton, Sir Alan Duncan, once said that he remembers hiding under the bedsheets as a teenager reading “Erskine May”. I was similar, but it was a dictionary because I hadn’t the foggiest what was going on and did not understand what most people were talking about.
Talking about life chances makes me reflect on my own roots. I was born in a part of Birmingham called Kingstanding, which was the largest council estate in Europe when it was built. I went to a secondary school that in 2004, just before I left, had a pass rate of 11%. My parents are incredibly hard-working: my mother is a dinner lady and my dad is a van driver. My grandparents have worked in industries in Birmingham, too. My grandad has always said to me that anything in life can be achieved as long as you have two things: concentration and dedication. He also says that you can say whatever you like to anybody as long as you smile—I have tried that a couple of times, but it does not always work out for the best.
Since leaving school there have unfortunately been several times when I have picked up the Birmingham Mail and seen pictures of people who I went to school with who have gone to prison, for a variety of crimes. It often makes me think, “How did it ever happen, and why?” My secondary school had some fantastic teachers—I remember two in particular: Mr Hopkins and Mrs Hare, who I hope to bring down here one day to thank them for their support during my teenage years. They gave it their all and they cared about the students at that school, but something was desperately wrong in the system at the time, and too many people left school ill-equipped, without the skills that they needed to succeed in life.
I stand here with an enormous amount of responsibility on my shoulders and a passion for what I want to try to deliver while I am in this place. I obviously want to do well by my constituents in Birmingham, Northfield, and to do well by Parliament and this country as we try to restore faith in this place and re-establish our national pride. I also want to do well by and champion the working-class kids up and down this country who wake up every day with ambition and zeal and want to realise their opportunities. I think it is through the new green industry that we will create those opportunities and realise those dreams.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on their excellent and most entertaining maiden speeches. I am sure that we will hear a lot more from them during this Parliament.
I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I was following very closely the Secretary of State’s words. One of the key issues that we need to resolve, whichever side of the Chamber we sit on, is the growing economic divide between the north and the south. I will refer quite extensively to a new report published by Sheffield Hallam University, “The State of the Coalfields 2019”, which details the situation, identifying not just problems, but solutions.
In the UK, power and finance is concentrated in the centre, in the near exclusive control of Whitehall and Westminster. This has led to decades of under-investment in the north-east and former industrial communities such as mine. I believe that our economy and country as a whole will not succeed post Brexit if we remain exclusively reliant on the success of London and the south-east. Today, I will focus on the green industrial revolution and the economic benefits that it could bring to constituencies such as mine— Easington, in County Durham.
I am very proud of Labour’s manifesto and I thought that our Front Bencher, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), made a terrific contribution at the start of the debate in outlining the advantages of Labour’s green industrial revolution. In my lifetime, the north-east was one of the engines of economic success. It powered the industrial revolution and has a long and proud history in shipbuilding, coalmining and engineering. In Murton, where I live, the colliery was the mainstay of the village, providing employment and coal for the nation’s furnaces from 1834 until it stopped production in November 1991. It employed my father, uncles, cousins and grandfather.
Labour had planned to make the north-east a centre for the next industrial revolution—the green industrial revolution. Indeed, Labour’s manifesto set out not just slogans, but specific pledges: £13 billion of new investment in the green transformation fund, including plans for Crossrail for the north, expanding our ports, particularly on the Tyne and the Tees, a steel recycling plant in Redcar, and manufacturing facilities to support the Dogger Bank wind farms. We would have had 80,000 well-paid new green jobs. We heard about investment in manufacturing electric vehicles and the benefits of expanding the electric vehicle charging network. That would protect the 18,000 workers directly employed in the automotive sector in the north-east while reducing emissions and improving air quality. Also important is the upgrading of housing—the national figure was quoted earlier—from which 1.2 million households across the north-east could benefit. It would reduce bills, eliminate the vast majority of fuel poverty and make our homes healthier and more comfortable.
It is important that we consider the record of the last Government. It is not just a feeling or an impression, but certainly true that former coalfield constituencies such as mine have been at the sharp end of austerity and suffered disproportionately. If we grouped together all the coalfield areas, some of which are now represented by Conservative MPs, into one distinct region, it would have a population of 5.7 million and would be the poorest region in the United Kingdom, so the shared prosperity fund that Ministers talk about needs to be targeted at regions and former coalfield areas such as mine in the north-east.
The IPPR North research department found that between 2009-10 and 2017-18 the north-east saw a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, while the south-east and south- west together actually saw a real-terms £4.7 billion rise. Indeed, my local authority, Durham County Council, had a 40% budget cut—almost £250 million—at a time of increasing demands on services. We also have to hold the Government to account for their industrial policy, or lack of it: the abolition of One North East, our regional development agency; the scrapping of our Minister for the North—someone who could be an advocate for a joined-up government—and of specific measures to help with employment in my region; and their failure to support the industrial base, as several Members have mentioned, particularly the steel industry on Teesside.
I ask that the Minister consider the report by Sheffield Hallam University’s centre for regional, economic and social research. It contains some specific actions that I think he will find are very well thought through and evidence based. It documents the consequences of a legacy of failure that stretches back several decades and which manifests itself in many ways. For example, health problems are more widespread in former coalfield areas; more than one third of residents aged over 16 report health problems lasting for more than 12 months; and although the number of jobs is increasing, it is doing so at only half the rate we see in the main regional centres and a third of the rate we see in London, which widens the economic inequalities in coalfield areas such as mine.
The current focus on the City and financial sectors of the economy disadvantages coalfield communities, which have a higher proportion of manufacturing jobs. Such is the scale of the intervention needed—the Secretary of State mentioned some figures—that to raise employment to the national average would require 80,000 additional residents in work in the north-east and to raise it to the level of the south-east our region would require an additional 170,000. Part-time work accounts for a third of all our employment, there is a skills shortage, which is not helped by education cuts, and we have fewer degree-level qualifications. The young and better qualified have little option but to move out of coalfield communities to meet their employment aspirations. Welfare reform has hit us particularly hard, with £2.4 billion having been taken out of our communities—money that would otherwise have been spent in the local economy.
I want to conclude with some specifics. I have obviously got a vested interest in promoting the green industrial revolution. The north-east is the home of UK manufacturing. We have the most productive car plant in the world producing electric vehicles the world wants to buy. I know of constituents driving polluting diesel vehicles who would love to switch to electric if they could afford it. In my constituency, we have the commercial space—office and factory units—to accommodate the green businesses of the future, and at the end of this month Biffa will be opening a new £27.5 million plastic recycling plant in my constituency. Also in my constituency is Drilcorp, specialists in renewable technologies, heat pumps and geothermal systems, while our East Durham College has established a technical academy that delivers courses and training in engineering and manufacturing, including renewable technologies of the future. The Minister has an opportunity—I am asking for his help—to unleash the immense potential of our former coalfield communities and of constituencies such as mine.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I join other colleagues who have congratulated you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I declare at the outset that I have never been one of your researchers.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who ably demonstrated the geographic importance of the green industrial revolution. There are policies in the Queen’s Speech that present tremendous opportunities for rejuvenation in parts of the country that one does not naturally think of as being at the heart of the green revolution; the north of England is one of them and my constituency, which I will touch on later, is another.
It was a particular pleasure to be here for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), with whose predecessor I worked closely when I was in the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend and I share an interest that I am sure we will continue to share in this Parliament. It was also a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), whose constituency is one of the few in the west midlands that I did not visit during the recent campaign. He made a very impressive speech.
I welcome the cross-party consensus on the environment evident from both Front-Bench speeches today. We may have differences between us over the speed and scale of the action required, but there is no doubt that everybody in this Chamber and community groups outside recognise that the environment is a key national and international challenge and that we as a Government have to lead the way and do what we can. The science is clear. If we continue to pump out greenhouse gases at the rate we are, the climate will get worse and temperatures will rise, with devastating consequences that we are starting to see increasingly regularly around the world. We need to bring that consensus to bear to put pressure on the UK Government to lead the way in trying to mitigate climate change and on other Governments to do more collectively.
There are disagreements over targets, however, as we have heard already today. I was interested to note that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), called for more ambitious targets. I urge her to reflect on the target in the Labour manifesto of seeking net zero by 2030 and to compare that with the target set by the Mayor for Greater Manchester, the former Labour Front Bencher, who on advice from the Tyndall Centre has set a framework to achieve net zero for Greater Manchester, where her constituency is situated, by 2038. It is quite possible to have a sincere endeavour to reach net zero carbon without necessarily agreeing on exactly what targets to set.
Ministers have recognised that fact in setting separate targets for their own sectors, Departments and activities. I applaud my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, whom I am delighted to see back in his place, for announcing at the party conference that he is actively considering bringing forward the date for the removal of diesel and petrol vehicles from the streets of the United Kingdom from 2040 to 2035. That is an excellent example of how different sectors in our economy may have to move at different paces to achieve net zero, mainly because of the state of the technological alternatives that exist thus far. We do not want to go down the route that a 2030 target, or even more ambitious targets, would require, namely the inflicting of unprecedented austerity on all our constituents. We must look with a degree of realism at how we will achieve these targets.
Many local authorities, in addition to Manchester, are setting targets. Last month my own authority in Shropshire set a climate change strategy framework which has been copied up and down the country. I hope that, over the next period, the Government will try to find ways of helping authorities to fulfil their plans. Many people feel that the current frameworks are fine words, but lack action. I think that we should use the COP26 conference, which we will host at the end of this year, as an opportunity to develop action plans across our economy and across local authorities, so that, with the leadership of our Government, a clear plan is set out during the year for how to achieve the net zero targets that are being set throughout the country.
The House has a big opportunity to lead the debate. We do so on occasions such as this, but also through structures that are available to us here. I pay tribute to Mary Creagh, the former Member of Parliament for Wakefield, who so ably chaired the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sat for the last two years. It is good to see other members of the Committee in the Chamber, and I hope that they will seek to serve again in the current Parliament.
One of Mary’s passions was highlighting inconsistencies and injustice. One of the inquiries that she led, very ably, focused on “fast fashion”, drawing the attention of the world to the extraordinary consumerism that currently exists worldwide. Consumers are being encouraged to buy clothing that is essentially disposable—single-use—and can be produced only in sweatshops. The fact that that happens not just in far-flung places around the world but, I regret to say, in this country was exposed by the work undertaken by the Committee and led so ably by Mary.
Parliament does a great deal of work in scrutinising the measures in the Queen’s Speech, and we did significant work on the draft clauses relating to the principles underlying the Environment Bill. I am pleased that the Government’s ambition is to create a world-class regulator, which they are able to do only as a result of Brexit. They will, I hope, publish the Bill very swiftly after we leave on 31 January, and we will then be able to see exactly how they responded to the measures that we proposed in the Committee to beef up the regulator and ensure that we have world-class standards. I hope that we will also, in the Bill, be able to respond to the view expressed at the Dispatch Box by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), that “no regression” would be an important component of it.
Another Bill that we have been scrutinising is the Agriculture Bill, which will also be introduced as a result of Brexit. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the need to encourage better productivity in agriculture so that we can use less land to produce more food, as well as seeking alternative uses for land in order to improve carbon capture and all the other elements that are so important to meeting our climate change commitments. Land use is a critical issue. Members have mentioned peat bogs, and the Government have ambitious plans for the planting of trees. It is yet to be seen how achievable those plans are, and we look forward to holding the Government to account in respect of their targets.
I think that this country has every opportunity to lead the world in the green industrial revolution, just as we did in previous industrial revolutions. We need to take advantage of the exceptional skills that we have in our universities, and in sectors such as the automobile industry that can lead the world. We have touched on electric vehicles, but not on alternative technologies such as hydrogen vehicles. A company called Riversimple, which started in my constituency, has produced the first hydrogen fuel cell-powered car. We need to find ways, in the Budget and in the comprehensive spending review, to support alternative technologies and the ingenuity of people in our universities and in the City of London, where we are leading on green finance, so that the UK can lead the world in developing the right solutions to climate change, and we can achieve “net zero Britain” as soon as possible.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. Let me start by giving my heartfelt thanks to the people of Coventry South for putting their faith in me: I am truly honoured and humbled to be their representative.
Let me also thank my predecessor, Jim Cunningham, for his service to the constituency. He served Coventry for 27 years, which means that he was an MP before I was even born. He has been a champion for the city, fighting for Coventry to get its fair share of regional investment, defending our industries, and speaking up for causes from the WASPI women to Rowan’s law. I know that Jim was renowned in the House for the frequency of his interventions. As the new Member for Coventry South, I aim to continue that tradition, and I wish him well in his retirement.
As for Coventry, Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that on several occasions the city has been the capital of England? As far back as 1404, Henry IV summoned a Parliament in Coventry. Given that we will have to move out of this place for renovations, may I suggest that we take Parliament back to Coventry to put power back in the midlands? It is a city fit for the prestige. From the beautiful cathedral to the 49 hectares of the beautiful War Memorial Park, Coventry South is a constituency of scenic beauty.
Coventry is a city of rich culture too, and I look forward to its hosting UK City of Culture 2021. It is a city with a history of challenging convention, of struggle, and of solidarity. From being home to two universities, as well as two-tone music—bands such as The Selecter and The Specials—to the founding of one of the first Indian Workers Association branches, it has been at the forefront of the arts, anti-racist organising and industrial militancy. From welcoming the Irish migrants in the 1950s and 1960s who built the city’s booming car industry to housing the largest population of Syrian refugees in recent years, Coventry proudly continues to be a sanctuary for people in need of a place to call home.
I was just 14 when the global financial crisis struck and reckless bankers sent the economy into free fall. I was still a teenager when David Cameron and George Osborne began to implement their austerity agenda. Now, I know that the convention for maiden speeches is to avoid saying anything that Members opposite will find very disagreeable, but I cannot do that, because my generation has only ever faced a future of rising rents, frozen wages and diminishing opportunities. For my whole adult life, I have only known Tory Governments who wage war on working-class communities like mine, cutting our services, underfunding our schools and hospitals, and saddling me and my generation with tens of thousands of pounds of student debt.
The manufacturing jobs which were the backbone of Coventry, and which brought my family from Kashmir to the region, are now few and far between. The public libraries that allowed me to study and go to university are closed. The council houses that gave working- class families like mine access to safe, affordable homes have been sold off. While the vast majority have seen services cut and wages stagnate over the past decade, the super-rich have had their taxes cut and seen their incomes soar. The gap between the ruling class and the working class has widened and is widening still, and the response from Members opposite is, as it always has been, to divide and rule. That is what is happening when they compare Muslim women to bank robbers, when they call gay men “tank-topped bum boys”, and when they blame events such as the Hillsborough disaster on drunken fans. They are pitting our communities against each other. They are diverting attention away from the billionaires who fund their party, dodge their taxes and rig the economy.
I am a working class Muslim woman, and I know that the Bullingdon boys will never be on my side or on the side of the shop stewards in Coventry, the cleaners in Carlisle, the migrant workers in Manchester or the teachers in Tottenham. I know that my Muslim brothers and sisters, my Jewish comrades, my friends in the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, and people of all faiths and none, are safer when we unite to defeat the far right, even as this Government have given it new-found confidence. And I know that a Government who abandon refugee children abroad will just as quickly abandon working class children in Britain, where one in three of them already live in poverty. This is a Government of the few; they will never be for the many.
The prospect of five more years of this Government is almost enough to make me despair, but my generation and I cannot afford to despair. If we do, by the time I reach middle age it will be too late, and the climate emergency will have become the climate catastrophe. I come here with a message from my generation and my constituents: we have no intention of letting that happen. We have seen Australia burn and Indonesia drown. We have seen our Earth teeter on the brink of ruin. We have heard the warnings of scientists. We know where the blame lies: it is with the 100 companies that are responsible for 70% of global pollution. It is with the billionaires who got rich polluting our rivers and pumping out carbon. It is with an economic system that puts the profits of the rich above the needs of the people.
Make no mistake: the climate crisis is a capitalist crisis, and the climate struggle is a class struggle across borders. Whether you are in Coventry or Canberra, Doncaster or Delhi, if you are working class you will suffer the worst effects of floods, fires, droughts and devastation while the rich build ever-higher walls to protect themselves. That is what is coming unless we take bold action. That is what will happen unless we unite working people across borders to say that our lives are more important than anyone’s profits. It is what will happen unless we put the power in the hands of the working class to put people and planet first.
This is the urgent call of our times: an international green new deal to transition from disaster capitalism to a new society created on the principles of equality, freedom and justice, building green industries providing good unionised jobs, democratising our economy and eradicating poverty. That new society has an old name. It is a name that inspired past generations in the fight against mass unemployment, war and fascism. It is the name that people gave to a decent, liveable, healthy future on this planet. That name is socialism.
Ten years ago, I was sitting my GCSEs at school. I was a teenager, and I never dreamed that I would be here today. In 10 years’ time, at the start of the next decade, I want to look teenagers in the eye and say with pride, “My generation faced 40 years of Thatcherism and we ended it. We faced rising racism and we defeated it. We faced a planet in peril and we saved it.” We have our work cut out, but together we can do it.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your re-election to the Chair? It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). Well done! There is something else about Coventry South—it was also the home to my great-grandmother, or Granny in Coventry, as we used to call her. I welcome another working-class voice to this Chamber, alongside myself—I grew up in Knowsley and Merseyside—and my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who made excellent maiden speeches. It is clear that they will be strong champions for improving the lives of people in their areas, proving that power is in the hands of the working class—just that it is on this side of the Chamber.
The UK started the industrial revolution that changed the face of the world, and since then, all major economies have been powered by coal, oil and gas. But today we stand on the precipice of change, and I believe that the UK is once again in a position to lead by example and ignite a global green industrial revolution. We are already on this path, having decarbonised faster than any other developed economy, with renewables up from just 6.1% when we took office to nearly 40% today. To put that into perspective, 75% of our electricity came from coal in 2010, but last year it was just 2%. That is a remarkable feat, and I want to pay tribute to colleagues across the House who have championed this change.
Last year, we committed to continue this journey with our landmark commitment to a net zero carbon economy by 2050—or sooner; we are allowed to beat our targets, and as we are Conservatives, we often do. Wind power has played a significant role in our success thus far, and we are now the world’s biggest producer of power from offshore wind. Last year it contributed a fifth of our electricity generation, overtaking nuclear for the first time in our history. This is progress. I fully support the Government’s commitment to increase our output to 40 GW by 2030, and I fully anticipate that this will become a reality, given that the cost of wind energy has fallen year on year through contracts for difference.
However, we need a diverse energy mix to ensure our long-term energy security. I am concerned by reports of the wake effect, a process whereby turbines block one another, and of blockage, where the physical wind farm slows the wind down as it approaches. This, combined with the irregularity of the wind, means that the UK needs diversity in its energy output.
Solar has a huge part to play, and I am proud that 99% of all existing solar panels have been installed since 2010. Locally, West Sussex County Council is leading the way with a range of projects such as the development of two solar farms in my constituency at Tangmere and Westhampnett. The latter has been built on a former landfill site and was the first such public farm to be built without any central subsidy. I hope that Government colleagues will look to sites such as these that are inappropriate for alternative development and consider replicating these examples. The council also runs a solar schools programme, and 80 schools across the county now collectively produce the same energy as the Westhampnett solar farm, saving an average of £2,000 per school on bills. Altogether, the council’s renewable programme brings in a revenue stream that exceeds £1 million a year.
Government and business have driven these changes that have transformed our energy market. I believe that we need to do more to develop and invest in emerging technologies, particularly at sea, and as an island nation we are well placed to lead the way. I was particularly interested in my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness’s suggestions about investment in tidal technologies that could transform his constituency. Creating a renewable and diverse energy grid is crucial as we move into the next decade, when most of our nuclear power stations are set to be retired. Beyond this, the Government are rightly tackling emissions from cars and looking to phase out the internal combustion engine from our lives by 2040. To that end, electric vehicles are set to replace them, which will increase demand on the grid.
Chichester District Council recently installed eight new charging sites across the district, thanks to a £58,000 grant from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles. Our council is not alone: we have made progress nationally, and there are now more charging locations than petrol stations in the UK. Despite this, there are still more than 100 local authorities with fewer than 10 public charging devices per 100,000 people. I therefore welcome the £400 million charging infrastructure investment fund, and the consultation on requiring charge points to be built into all new homes with a parking space. Getting this right is not only a necessary piece of our net zero puzzle; it will also improve air quality. Of course, we could go faster, and the Transport Secretary has announced that he will look to move the petrol and diesel phase-out date forward from 2040 to 2035. Where we can, we will improve our targets.
Infrastructure is only part of the problem. More needs to be done to incentivise people to get an electric vehicle in the first place. As the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned, electric vehicles are expensive, so I ask the Government to help reduce the up-front costs associated with these cars by extending the plug-in car grant. Furthermore, I ask them to consider implementing a levy on new petrol and diesel cars that could be used to fund incentives for people going electric, so that we can make the shift happen faster.
Chichester District Council is doing its part. It already operates two electric vehicles for its daily enforcement patrols, and I will have further cause to speak about its work as it implements a climate emergency action plan that aims to make a 10% carbon reduction in the district year on year from now until 2025. Again, we can go faster if many more councils follow this example. I am sure that the council will also consider the steps that we can and need to take to make existing and new homes more energy efficient as we move towards zero carbon housing, which will be vital.
This Government have proved that we can grow our economy and tackle climate change. The real winners in the industrial revolution will be those who take the lead early on, as we are doing. We have already created 400,000 green jobs, and more will follow. The new climate economy project has forecast that bold action on climate change globally could deliver £20 trillion in economic benefits over this decade, so there is even a business case at this point. Later this year, we will welcome the world to Glasgow to talk about climate action at COP26, and I want our message to be simple: “We in the UK are taking a lead and so can you.”
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I will start with a few words about the maiden speeches that we have had the privilege of hearing this afternoon, and I single out that by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). I completely agreed with her powerful and uncompromising statement about climate change and austerity, and I completely agree that Parliament should be moved out of Westminster. I am perfectly happy to check out Coventry South as a possible new venue, but we should be decentralising far more of the institutions of government and Parliament.
There is new evidence every day of the increasing scale of the climate emergency. Just yesterday, scientific analysis showed that ocean temperatures have hit a record high as the rate at which our planet is heating increases. Yet, despite the weight of the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, the UK continues to do far too little, far too late to cut greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of our economy. In a year when the COP26 climate talks will be hosted in Glasgow, it is time to demonstrate real climate leadership, not just talk about it. While I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in a green industrial revolution, I will set out how their approach is not up to the task in three fundamental ways.
We need Ministers to start speaking the truth. The Prime Minister claimed that the UK is leading the world on tackling climate change, and we have heard the same thing from other Members on the Front Bench, yet they have already been pulled up on that claim on several occasions, with people pointing out that, for example, the figures look an awful lot less impressive when we factor in consumption emissions. When we do that, we see that emissions have fallen by just 10% over the past 20 years, which is nowhere near enough. What is more, historical reductions are no indicator of future progress. Coal is now all but gone from the power sector, meaning that the biggest source of reductions so far has now been exhausted, and there is little sign of the policy required to ensure that the necessary reductions continue. The truth is that if the Government’s green revolution includes spending on new roads, bailing out failing airlines, and promoting more airport expansion, they will remain part of the problem, not the solution.
A target of 2050 is not leadership. When someone’s house is on fire, they do not dial 999 and ask for a fire engine in 30 years’ time; they want the fire engine right now because the crisis is happening right now. Targets on their own do not bring down emissions; action does. However, the Committee on Climate Change warns that
“actions to date have fallen short of what is needed for the previous targets and well short of those required for the net-zero target”.
While we are at it, let us examine what the “net” in net zero means. It means positively heroic—I would rather say criminally reckless—assumptions about the potential for negative emission technologies to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Such technologies are almost entirely unproven, and even unknown in some cases, so let me be clear about what we are doing when we rely on those net negative emission technologies: we are simply passing the buck to our children and leaving it to them to sort out. That is not a moral position.
Our targets also rely on our taking far more than our fair share of the global carbon pie than we are entitled to. We are on course to emit around 2% of the remaining safe carbon budget, even though our population accounts for only 4.9% of the global total. Not only that, but we have taken far more than our fair share for decades. We have emitted around 4.5% of the world’s historical fossil fuels and industry emissions. Again, that is around five times our fair share of the historic carbon budget given our percentage of world population. That legacy of colonialism has to stop. Let me be clear that intergenerational and international justice are at the heart of the climate issue, and the UK is failing on both counts.
We must also be clear that the primacy of GDP growth as the overarching priority for our economy is the elephant in the room. Our house is on fire and that elephant is blocking the door to the emergency exit and devouring our efforts to decarbonise. Take the IPCC report that tells us that we have to reach net zero by 2050 globally: during that period—the next 30 years—the global economy is set to triple in size. That means three times more production and consumption each year. It will be hard enough to decarbonise the existing economy in such a short timescale, so the idea that we will be able to do it three times over is fantasy. If we carry on with growth as usual, halving emissions by 2030, as the IPCC has made clear we need to do, would require decarbonisation of the economy at its current size at 11% a year. That is five times faster than historical rates of decarbonisation and about three times faster than even the most optimistic scientists project is possible.
Let me explode the myths surrounding the possibilities of endlessly extending the concept of green growth, which relies upon the assumption that we can achieve the full and adequate decoupling of economic growth from environmental harm. Although decoupling is undoubtedly useful and necessary and has occurred at certain times and in certain places, green growth cannot reduce resource use on anywhere near the scale required to deal with global environmental breakdown and to keep global warming below the target of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels.
The IPCC has set out one lifeline scenario that does not rely on speculative and harmful negative emission technologies, and it is our emergency exit from climate breakdown. So what does it look like? Fundamentally, it is about scaling down material consumption in the richer countries by 20% globally, and with the richest among those richer countries leading the way. This cannot be about preventing poorer countries from developing; it has to be about the richer countries, and the richer people in them, doing their fair share. Transitioning away from the growth dogma is not about hurting people’s welfare—quite the opposite. It is about placing wellbeing centre stage, reducing inequalities, cutting waste and inefficiency, and prioritising quality of life over quantity of things. Instead of measuring progress in terms of GDP growth alone, we need to shift to indicators that tell us an awful lot more about whether people have high levels of wellbeing, whether there is clean air and clean water, whether we have a safe atmosphere, and whether we are reducing the gaping inequalities that diminish us all.
That is where the proposals for a green new deal come in. My colleague the hon. Member for Norwich North and I—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—I will flagellate myself when I get back to my office—and I have worked on a cross-party basis on a private Member’s Bill, which we intend to reintroduce in this parliamentary Session, that will set out what the green new deal needs to do. In the process of transforming the infrastructure of our society at the speed and scale that the science demands, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix an economic model that is failing the vast majority of people in this country. At the heart of the green new deal is the recognition that the current climate, nature, and inequality crises are all driven by how our economy and financial system is managed and that that has benefited a small number of people and a few giant corporations, with the price being paid by the rest of us and by the Earth that we share.
That situation will not be fixed by an acceleration of business as usual, because business as usual is what got us into this situation. Unless the Government’s so-called decade of renewal is targeted on the transformation needed to move us to a world beyond carbon, all that investment will be washed away long before the decade is out. What is required is a redistribution not only of resources but, crucially, of real power, starting with those communities that have been most excluded from prosperity.
The transition we need is not just to net zero but to a new kind of economy. The green new deal is a transformational programme to transform everything from the way we produce and consume energy to the way we heat and cool our homes, the way we travel, the way we connect our communities, the way we grow our food and the way we work. It will create jobs and generate income, including tax revenues for the Government. It will be a real revolution that enables us to transform our society so that it is fairer, more democratic and works better for all of us, here and around the world, while safeguarding and restoring the ecological systems on which we all depend.
With the window for making a difference rapidly closing, what we do in the next 18 months will be literally life changing. Quite honestly, standing here and thinking about what that really means for the next parliamentary Session, we cannot afford any more pretence about the scale of the challenge we face or the idea that just tinkering with business as usual will get us to where we need to be, because it simply will not.
The world’s addiction to fossil fuels started here in the UK as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. We have caused the fifth highest emissions of any country in the world. We have built our economy, our prosperity and our society on the overconsumption of finite resources, which has trashed the planet and taken away the life chances of people in other parts of this world.
Our share of causing this emergency is vast, and we must now do our fair share in addressing it.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for their maiden speeches today.
I am proud to be here representing the beautiful constituency of East Surrey. I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sam Gyimah. We have more in common than representing East Surrey: we are both the children of immigrant doctors, and I, too, am 5 feet 4½ inches. Although we may have slightly different views on Brexit, I know he is passionate about the prosperity of this country, which both our families now call home. I am sure the House will agree that he made many important contributions in this place as Childcare Minister, as Prisons Minister and as Universities Minister.
Sam was right when he said, “In East Surrey we stand on the shoulders of giants.” From Geoffrey Howe to Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston, the list is long and distinguished. I would like, however, to make special mention of Peter Ainsworth. From his work as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his expert chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee and his work on the board of the Environment Agency, I can safely say that I stand on the shoulders of a very green giant indeed.
East Surrey is known for its local beauty. There are four local nature reserves, eight sites of special scientific interest and over a third of the constituency is in an area of outstanding natural beauty or of great landscape value. Those who walk through the North Downs or the High Weald are met with chalk downs, rolling hillsides, lowland meadows and woodlands.
Our vibrant village spirit is evident in the communities of Tatsfield, Warlingham, Woldingham, Lingfield, Felbridge and many more besides. I hope to be a champion in this House for preserving and protecting this treasured way of life.
In Outwood, near Godstone, work began in 1665 on one of the oldest working British windmills. The owner is said to have watched the great fire of London rage 25 miles away from its roof, and I am proud that what East Surrey helped to pioneer in the renewable energy sector in the 17th century has now become one of the most remarkable success stories in the UK today. Not only are we the world’s leader in offshore wind, but seven of the 10 biggest wind farms in Europe are right here in the UK. I commend the ambitious environment Bill proposed in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech to forward this work, and I look forward to seeing the green measures in the upcoming Budget that will undoubtedly build on it.
For East Surrey to continue fulfilling its role as the lungs of London, I hope to secure much-needed investment in local infrastructure for vital improvements to roads—tackling potholes is crucial to local productivity—and to public transport, particularly rail. More than half of the area’s working population commutes to places like London, Crawley and Gatwick, yet we have some of the most congested rail lines and roads in the UK. Making sure that people can successfully get to work and to public services is not only good for the environment and the wellbeing of residents but ensures that our local towns—Horley, Caterham and Oxted—can continue to thrive.
I had the considerable pleasure of working with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), on the 2019 spending review, which saw record investment in schools, in the police and in the NHS. Now I am on the other side of the table, I wholeheartedly and unreservedly welcome the increased funding, particularly where those funds might land in East Surrey. I will be working hard to make sure that the initial groundwork of that national announcement makes a meaningful difference to classrooms, GP surgeries and police officers on the ground.
I would like to mention my grandmother, who may be the single greatest emblem of Conservative values I know. She was a teacher in India who, in my memory, took her fashion lead firmly from the Queen. She raised seven children with little in terms of resources, but with a strong sense that you can achieve the impossible with hard work and determination. Her children were doctors, teachers and grade 8 musicians who are now scattered all across the globe. If she could see me here today, in “the noblest government in the world,” I am sure she would tell me to work hard, to be determined and to achieve the impossible.
Politicians today have a near impossible task. We live in a world of changing technology, behaviour, demographics and, as has been the subject of many excellent speeches today, environment. In this place I hope to contribute in a small way to preparing this great country for the future to come.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and all the other fantastic maiden speeches. I think back to four years ago, when I was in the same position, as it is a huge responsibility to make a maiden speech. I encourage hon. Members to get their printed copy from Hansard, as it is quite a treat to take back home.
This debate, which is both timely and long overdue, is about how our country can address the climate emergency while realising the economic benefits of developing a new settlement for communities that feel frustrated with the current offer. I do not claim to be any kind of climate expert—I have read the briefings, as other hon. Members have—but I can see the difference. There is a spectrum of views on the climate emergency in this House. I do not claim to have had the ability of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to foresee it, but I can see what is in front of my eyes. I worry that some hon. Members are blind to what is staring us right in the face.
We all need to learn, to be educated and to form solutions together to address the climate emergency and to build a shared future. None of us can escape the extreme weather conditions or the impact of flooding and coastal change. Parts of the planet are burning today. There is a financial cost, but the human and wildlife cost is significant and the suffering is evident. We are seeing water shortages, we are seeing the effect on natural ecosystems, biodiversity and coral reefs, and we are seeing the impact on crop production. And we all know it is always the poorest in society who pay the price when crops fail or when water runs short.
It is our collective responsibility to try to find a solution. The movement has been significant, whether in the large-scale protests by Extinction Rebellion or in the localised protests by schoolchildren on Fridays. Young people in Manchester have actively participated, and they want their voices to be heard because they have a bigger stake in the future.
I really worry about the Government’s approach, as they have not invited Extinction Rebellion for a conversation to seek common ground. Instead of building bridges, the Government are building walls. We need a common shared vision on how best to address this emergency. That is a missed opportunity.
I believe a different way is possible, so I did not turn a blind eye to the protestors in Parliament Square. I wanted a conversation with them about their views in order to seek common ground on the solutions, so we had a meeting in 1 Parliament Street. I said, “This is your Parliament. Instead of protesting outside, come inside and have a conversation to see where we can make progress together.” One of the people I met during those conversations was a man called Paul, who is commonly known as the “tree lawyer” because of his real passion for protecting our ancient trees and woodlands.
The aim of that meeting was not only to connect, but to protect. The first challenge is: how do we connect everyday people with the environment? We talked about the challenges and how people are sometimes very disconnected from the environment, and about the interventions, sometimes small ones, that we can make to connect people with the natural environment around them. We might dismiss some of those suggestions as being simple, but I was inspired by some of the ideas. For example, when someone is born or given their citizenship, why not, on that document, have a tree or woodland that is planted for them, and, thus really put roots in the ground? Why not fight to say that every child will have the ability to look up to a clear night sky or to walk to school without breathing in toxic air that could eventually kill them? We see that happen in this country, where people are literally dying as a result of the quality of the air. Why not make urban environments more attractive and much more connected? We talk about connecting the natural environment and about protecting what we have got, but in towns such as Oldham, where terraced streets and industrial land have been built up to make the town we see today, many communities are denied access to good-quality green, environmental space. We need to reinvest in that to connect people with the natural environment.
I am proud to say that in Oldham the council is doing that; this week, it announced plans for a project called “Northern Roots”, whereby we would have an eco-park of 160 acres right in Oldham town centre and beyond, into the countryside. Another suggestion was for worldwide twinning. After the second world war, we made a massive effort to ensure that towns and cities in this country were connected to our counterparts in Europe. Why not do the same today for climate, so that children in Oldham can be connected with children in Bangladesh, and see the human impact of climate change and what it means for children of their age going to school?
We also need to protect what we have got. Paul’s ambition was to give ancient trees the protection they need, but perhaps people just want protection for the green belt, to make sure that those who live in an urban environment have access to good-quality green space. The Government need to do far more, first, to update the population data to make sure that local planning authorities are planning on the basis of the most accurate and up-to-date data, and, secondly, to ensure that we have a proper fund in place to build on brownfield sites. A town such as Oldham has acres and acres of dirty brownfield sites that are contaminated. They are so expensive to build on that it is far easier for a developer to build on green space. We need a new deal for towns such as Oldham so that they can build on brownfield sites, where the community are crying out for new investment, instead of having that impact on the green belt.
Importantly, we also need to connect people with opportunities. When we talk about the type of interventions and behavioural change needed for our environment, we are asking people to make a sacrifice—we are asking the Government to introduce a new tax. What we really need to do is connect people with the opportunities that exist if we take concerted action. So the green revolution, the industrial revolution for our economy, is really important. People recognise that this is an opportunity to have decent, well-paid, secure and skilled jobs. Unfortunately, when people talk about a town such as Oldham, they often talk about the north as though it is some kind of distant land. They talk about a town that once was and not as one that has a stake in the future, but those people could not be further from the truth. When I look at a town such as Oldham, I see that we are still innovating, creating and making things that change the world. Behind those dirty roller shutters people are changing the world in towns such as Oldham, and that provides a foundation for this revolution.
People in Oldham want to know that they have a stake in the future. They are sick of demanding that the Government listen to them and of asking for a fairer share. If we just continue that conversation, we are not capitalising on the skills that still exist in these towns. My town was the home of Ferranti, which made the components for the world’s first computer, of British Aerospace, which made the Lancaster bomber, and of Platt Brothers, which had one of the largest engineering plants in the world. Although those have closed, the skills and values of manufacturing and engineering jobs are still very much in our local economy, and that should be the foundation for the future. And we feel this—we are the gateway to the Pennines, so although Oldham is an urban town on the doorstep of Manchester, we are a stone’s throw from the countryside and we recognise the value that that has.
When planning for the future, we are all very short-term in this place. We are all focused on the next election and the next cycle, and it is hugely damaging for the country and the planet when we behave in that way. The challenge I lay down today is not that we prepare for the next election or Queen’s Speech, but that we think about a child being born today in this country. We need to think that that child will live to see the next century. We need to think about the kind of life they will have, from the moment they are born in their community, to when they go to school, when they start out on their adult life and when they enter old age, and about the type of care they will need and the type of society they will live in. If we think about a child being born today, we will collectively make very different decisions from those we often end up voting for in the Lobby. Let me make it clear that I believe strongly that the foundations are in place in this country to thrive and rebuild on the back of a green revolution. The test for me as to whether Britain thrives—Members would expect me to say this, because I represent Oldham, Chadderton and Royton—is whether towns such as mine can be part of that journey. That is the challenge for the Government, and they need to come forward with concrete examples of how we can connect people, so that they really feel they have a stake in the future.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I fully accept that mankind is changing the earth’s climate. I have always worried about how we are altering the air we breathe, but I feel our actions are now turning the weather. I realise that climate is cyclical; there was a little ice age from late medieval times until the 1850s or thereabouts, and the Thames froze over and ice fairs were held. I also believe that when I was a little boy, not very long ago, it was much colder in the winter—that might just be in my mind, but I felt it was more icy. There is too much evidence of ferocious world weather nowadays for us to ignore what is happening.
Health is definitely being affected too. For instance, according to Bromley Council health people, in one recent year there were 60 deaths across the six wards in my constituency because of long-term exposure to polluted air. I agree that we have started to tackle the problem, and we have had some success: carbon emissions have, apparently, been reduced by 25% in the past 10 years, and that is great; and all coal-fired generating stations will be gone in the United Kingdom by 2025. It is also really good news that we are the world leader in offshore power generation. We have increased renewable energy generation sixfold in the past 10 years. In 2018, renewable sources of electricity generation supplied 33% of our electricity needs, which is up from 6.9% in 2010. This is all good news. More and more people are buying and using cars powered by electricity, but they are damn expensive. By 2040, diesel and petrol cars should be almost off our roads, so it seems the future for our vehicles will be electricity, but let us not forget hydrogen, which is another source that can be harnessed to run vehicles. A heck of a lot of investigation as to how that can happen is being undertaken by the car companies.
Of course, our Government have a major part to play in reducing carbon emissions, and we have too; on 27 June last year, Parliament amended the Climate Change Act 2008 to include the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. That is excellent news. Some say—I accept this—that we could get there earlier, and let us hope that that is the case, but at least we have a target. It would be superb if could get there as soon as possible. If we want to get to zero carbon emissions very fast, we have to accept the penalties: giving up our cars, diesel and petrol; travelling only by public transport; stopping flying off to exotic locations in aeroplanes; and changing our central heating systems.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and he alights on the issue of changing our heating systems. Does he agree that we need to incentivise, within the tax structure, the building of ground-source heat pumps and air-source heat pumps to ensure that they can replace traditional fossil fuel systems and get our carbon emissions down?
Bob Stewart
I certainly do, and I want it to happen in my house as soon as possible.
We are decarbonising our economy faster, apparently, than any other G20 country, and we have reduced our emissions by 29% in the past decade, but here is the point: every breath we take is full of something called particulates, which, to be honest, I did not know much about until recently. These particulates—particularly something called particulate matter 2.5—are about 200 times smaller than a grain of sand, so they just float through the air and go into our lungs. They pass into our bloodstream and end up somewhere in our brain, or any of our other organs. I am told—of course, I am no expert, and I suspect that very few of us in the House are experts—that this causes illness and death. Having looked at the January 2019 report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I understand that only 12% of particulate matter comes from vehicles.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning particulate matter, which is an issue of air pollution, but we should differentiate air pollution and climate change. They are two separate matters and we need to tackle them differently.
Bob Stewart
I accept that, and that I am no expert, so I accept the hon. Lady’s point of view, but particulate matter does have an impact on us all. Around 13% comes from industrial processes and 38% comes from wood burning and coal fires. That is quite a lot—more than comes from vehicles. I am looking up at the clock because I promised the Deputy Speaker that I would be finished in under 10 minutes—and I will.
I like the clean air strategy that was published in January last year: it is a good, bold new goal. We have to think carefully about using wood-burning stoves—I do not use the fireplace in my house anymore—and having open fires, and farms will have to change the way they do business. The move on the reduction of particulate matter has been welcomed by the World Health Organisation as an example for the rest of the world to follow.
As a good boy, I am now skipping through my pages, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make a final point. We produce about 1% to 2% of the world’s greenhouse gases. If we became carbon neutral right now, it might not make much difference, but that should not stop us doing it —we can become an example to the rest of the world—and the rest of the world is starting to follow and to deal with climate change. Bring it on: let us change the way we live so that the future is bright for those who follow us.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is always a massive joy to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is also great to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker; congratulations on your re-elevation.
It has been a genuine privilege to sit through the maiden speeches by the hon. Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), to whom I pay tribute. I wish to single out my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who made an excellent maiden speech and referred in particular to the need—I say this in hearing range of the Secretary of State for Transport—to strip Arriva Northern of its franchise, to make sure that we have a local train service that actually runs some trains.
I remember giving my maiden speech; the terrifying fact is that I have a copy of it on a VCR tape in the garage. That is a reminder that I am indeed an old git, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The green industrial revolution is nothing if not an ambitious title, and so it needs to be if we are to head off the existential threat of catastrophic climate change. Ambition is indeed what we need, but although we can give something an impressive and ambitious title, it is unlikely to earn a lasting legacy unless it actually delivers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s new deal is not still invoked today because of its catchy title, but because of the good it achieved. We marvel at the Victorian expansion of the railways not because the Victorians did good spin, but because the network was actually built. Nations are never built on public relations stunts.
Members can call me a glass-half-empty person if they like, but my fear for the Government is that they will make two significant mistakes as they decide how they are going to use their new majority. First, in order to mask the damage that the UK’s leaving the world’s biggest market will inevitably do to our economy and public sector, it is likely that the Government will max-out the credit card on revenue spending in a way that makes the recent Labour manifesto look fiscally conservative by comparison. Secondly, they will talk about big infrastructure investment, both the green and the not-so-green varieties, but in reality their fear of big government means they will not deliver anything that will make a true difference. In other words, the Government will show largesse when they should observe restraint, and restraint when they need to be ambitious. I hope I am wrong, because what we need is to be wise on revenue spending and ambitious on capital, particularly when it comes to green infrastructure. We must make the big strategic decisions needed to fight climate change.
In South Lakeland, we see nature changing before our very eyes, as climate change takes place with horrific consequences. Our communities are still reeling, four years on, from the devastating floods of Storm Desmond. Indeed, in the past decade or so we have been hit by three floods, each one of them classified as a one-in-200-year event. Storm Desmond flooded 7,500 homes and more than 1,000 businesses. We have to mitigate the impact of climate change on families and businesses while building the infrastructure to prevent a climate catastrophe. That is why Kendal’s flood prevention scheme must be delivered. All three phases of the flood scheme are now fully funded and I am glad that, after much pressure, the biggest concerns about the scheme have now been answered. In the place of every tree that must be removed as part of the scheme, six new ones will be planted in the town, and many of them will be semi-mature at the point of planting.
I was there the morning after Storm Desmond, and in the weeks after. I saw people’s lives ruined; families left destitute; and businesses wiped out. Even today, there are children who are still unable to sleep any time it begins to rain. I could not look people in the eye on Appleby Road, Shap Road, Sandylands, Ann Street or Mintsfeet Road if I did not do everything in my power to deliver them some kind of protection and some kind of peace of mind. After four years of promises—four years of fear whenever it pours; four years of incalculable strain on mental health for the old and young alike—how dare I claim to represent them if I do not see the flood defences delivered? The reality is that we are too late to prevent climate change, but we have perhaps a dozen years to avoid a major climate catastrophe with even more appalling human consequences.
The main issue that I wish to focus on in the next few moments is the revolution that we need in public transport. Over the past 30 years, Governments of all colours have allowed funding for bus provision to evaporate. Our communities in South Lakeland have done a spectacular job in putting together community bus services to plug some of the gaps caused by this attrition of Government funding, most notably the Dales bus service in Sedbergh and Dent, which does a wonderful job connecting those Dales communities with Kendal and the surrounding communities. We have fought recently to keep the 552 and the 530 bus services. These are great victories. I am immensely proud of them, but they are short-term solutions at best. They are sticking plasters, when what is needed is ambitious change.
It is utterly ludicrous that bus services in London receive a £722 million annual subsidy, when in Cumbria we receive nothing at all—not a single penny. The lack of subsidy has a catastrophic impact on fares, and the extortionate prices make commuting by bus a massive challenge, especially for lower-paid workers. How is it right, Mr Speaker, that the 5 mile journey from Ambleside to the neighbouring community of Grasmere costs £4.90, while a journey of equivalent length in London costs £1.50? If we are to entertain any hope of revolutionising public transport, the Government need to look beyond the M25—well beyond the M25. Indeed, it may come as a surprise to some in Government that the north does not stop at junction 32 of the M6.
There is much to recommend the northern powerhouse, with two slight caveats: first, it is not much of a powerhouse; and secondly, it is not very northern. The transport spend in the north-west per head of population is still barely half that in London, despite the promises that were made when the northern powerhouse was first established. I will continue—I will have to continue—to fight the cuts to individual bus services. I will continue to stand with, and work with, the community to find alternative solutions, just as we are currently doing for Arnside, Levens, Cartmel, Hincaster and Kendal where we have replaced the 552 and the 530 services, but let us be honest, all that will do is lessen the decline.
Bus services are essential to life for rural communities such as ours. They are also key to Cumbria’s vibrant tourism industry. No one could or would deny that the Lake District and the surrounding communities are utterly awesome. It is a national treasure and a source of joy to many more than just those of us who are privileged enough to live among those lakes, mountains and dales.
Cumbria’s Lake District is Britain’s biggest visitor destination outside London. Some 16 million people visited us last year alone, but 83% of tourists travel to us by car. However, we know that, with the right interventions and conditions, our visitors will travel sustainably. Public bus transport is a key component of that, alongside rail, boats, bikes and, of course, walking in the hills. Improved bus services could alleviate pressure on the roads that become clogged with the cars of those visiting.
The Government keep ignoring the plight of rural communities. A so-called green industrial revolution in London or Manchester simply will not do. We would love it if they stopped ignoring us, and instead commission a truly ambitious and comprehensive rural bus service to exceed anything that we have seen before, even 35 years ago before the deregulation which started to decline. It will be an investment not only that revives rural communities and sees a huge reduction in the use of cars locally, but that boosts our economy and increases access to jobs.
My proposal today is that the Minister should ensure the direct commissioning through Transport for the North of a comprehensive, affordable, reliable rural bus network in Cumbria—a network that will be a substantial step towards ensuring that the northern powerhouse actually serves the rural north.
Finally, if our efforts to tackle climate change are going to come anywhere near something that could be classified as a revolution, we need to transform public transport interconnection and that connection between buses and trains. The main public transport route to the Lake District is the Lakes line. Back in 2017, the Government cancelled the planned electrification of the Lakes line on the basis of a massive and flawed overestimation of the project costs. This was and remains a huge let-down for communities around the lakes, and yet electrification of the Lakes line is the easiest electrification project in the country. The 12-mile route carries hundreds of thousands of passengers each year, but it could carry four times as many if we introduced a passing loop at Burneside so that we could run a half-hourly service, and if it were electrified, it would significantly reduce its carbon emissions.
If the Government are serious about tackling climate change, they need to undo their foolish cuts to the electrification project, and the Lakes line is the perfect place for the Government to begin a green U-turn to reverse their mistakes of recent years. The Lakes line is short, but it is iconic. It carries significant numbers and could carry so many more. I plead with the Government to make their actions match their words. They should not just plug the gaps in public transport, but instead revolutionise the system. They should speak not of subsidies, but of investment that multiplies its value in the economy of the rural north. Targets are dangerous if they are simply a fig leaf to cover up a failure to act in the present. The Government must act now, and we will wait to see whether they do.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to be in the Chamber this afternoon listening to the excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). Birmingham, Northfield is a place that I still hold very close to my political heart.
It is fitting that Members are making maiden speeches on the Queen’s Speech. As a one-nation Conservative, I warmly welcome this Queen’s Speech and the opportunity it unlocks for people all across our country. In particular, I welcome the investment in public services—in our NHS, in our police and in our schools. It is only because of our strong economy and the legacy of the past decade of Conservative-led Government that we can invest in our public services.
The world is changing at a remarkable rate. We are in the fourth industrial revolution. To maintain that strong economy, we need to continue to invest in science and technology and innovation. As a bit of a science geek, I welcome the Queen’s Speech commitment to keeping us as a world leader in science, to boosting our R and D funding and to unlocking innovation.
Innovation is not new in my constituency of Chelmsford. Exactly 100 years ago Marconi chose to locate its radar factory in Chelmsford, and 100 years ago the great Australian singer Dame Nellie made the first ever radio broadcast from Chelmsford—she sang to the world. We led the world that day in a communications revolution that we are still living through today. Marconi chose Chelmsford because of the skills of the people there and because of the infrastructure. Infrastructure matters, and, as the person who has been honoured to chair the all-party group on infrastructure in this Parliament, I believe that it is vital that we continue to invest in our infrastructure, as this Government propose.
Failing infrastructure is a big issue in my constituency. Our flyover, on which we have relied for many decades, suffered terminal damage in last summer’s heatwave. In Chelmsford, we have already seen how our infrastructure has to be climate change resilient. That is just one of the reasons why I have chosen to speak today on the green economy. Climate change is the biggest threat to our future. We have only one planet. The science is clear: we have to stop emissions, and we must achieve net zero.
I am proud that we are the first major economy to commit to net zero. We need to turn net zero into reality, and that means we need to have net zero embedded in all the decisions made at national and local government levels. We need a clear pathway.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The hon. Lady speaks of the importance of achieving net zero. How compatible is achieving net zero with the Government’s recent announcement that they will cut air passenger duty?
Vicky Ford
I will come on to exactly that topic a little later.
This year is a unique opportunity, with the UK hosting the world global climate change conference. I will come to the issue of transport emissions in a minute.
It is really important that we are ambitious in the targets we set, but it is also vital that we bring people with us. I look forward to being an observer at the citizens’ assembly on the climate emergency, which is happening in Birmingham over the next few weeks. There is no point in setting an ambitious target if it is not achievable, and the Opposition’s suggestion that we could achieve net zero by 2030 is disingenuous; it is neither honest nor true.
This country has already done a huge amount to decarbonise electricity. We lead the world in offshore wind and in ending the use of coal, but we can do more. It is great news that by 2025 we will be able to have completely carbon-free inputs to our electricity grid, but we know that it needs to be more resilient. It needs investment, which cannot all come from public funds; it needs private investment too, which is why we need a strong economy.
Vicky Ford
I will keep going, because I have only a short time. I will not take any more interventions.
We need to make sure that we can use smart demand management, using AI and technology. I have seen at first hand how this works on the national grid. We also need to unlock the potential of electric vehicles, because of the benefits that they bring to battery storage. I welcome the Government’s commitment to more EV charging points, although I believe we need more urgency on this subject.
Bob Stewart
One of the problems with electric vehicles is that they have batteries that cause real problems. We have a problem in making them without actually using resources.
Vicky Ford
The Science and Technology Committee looked into electric vehicles’ batteries and resources in great detail last year, particularly the demand for lithium and cobalt—precious materials that are a globally constrained resource. The fight for global minerals will be an increasingly important part of foreign policy, and I would like to see that part of the net zero challenge addressed in the Foreign Office as well. I have driven a hydrogen-fuelled car and returned it safely, giving the keys back at the end. Using hydrogen in cars and potentially feeding hydrogen into our domestic gas network could bring huge benefits.
I am pleased that the Government are to introduce a super-bus strategy. We need better buses in my city of Chelmsford. We need to have medium and long-term strategies on that. We also need to relook at how we run our railways. The service offered to my rail commuters in Chelmsford at the moment is simply not good enough.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) asked about air transport. As a one-nation Conservative I acknowledge the need to improve connectivity between all parts of our country, and regional airlines have a role to play in that, but as an eco-Tory I recognise the urgent need to tackle air transport emissions. It is good that the UK is leading the world in developing cleaner, greener aircraft—Cranfield University is a leader in this—but we should do more about carbon offsetting. Easyjet is now carbon offsetting all its flights, but Flybe does not offer that service to anyone. Consumers have a role to play, and they should be given the ability to carbon offset.
Alan Brown
After my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) intervened, the hon. Lady said that net zero should be embedded in every Government decision. If the Government on a whim say, “We are going to review and reduce APD,” how is net zero embedded in that decision?
Vicky Ford
I am calling on the Government to look at how we can embed net zero in every single decision. I believe that getting cleaner, greener aircraft is one way to deliver connectivity, but more needs to be done on carbon offsetting. In the medium and longer term, we need to look urgently at the issue of aircraft emissions.
I turn to consumer choice. The biggest part of many consumers’ carbon footprint is how they heat their homes. More needs to be done on the decarbonisation of heat, so I warmly welcome the Government’s announcements to invest £9.2 billion in energy efficiency in our homes, schools and hospitals. However, I would also call for more green mortgages. We have one of the most innovative financial services sectors in the world, and should be able to do more in relation to how people finance their mortgages.
My final point is on plastic. As the House knows, I am allergic to the use of unnecessary single-use plastic. It is great that the Government have committed another £500 million to the Blue Planet fund, and are helping developing countries across the world to protect our oceans.
I also warmly welcome the producer tax, but we need to get a deposit return scheme going too. Actually, I believe Scotland would be better off if it worked within the whole UK to introduce a scheme that worked for the whole UK. That would be better for industry and consumers. Consumers want to see a step change in how we deal with single-use plastics, and this needs to happen across all areas, not just food. We need to work with producers and consumers, and it would be better if the people of Scotland worked with the whole UK to deliver it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is with great pleasure that I call Kenny MacAskill to make his maiden speech.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
As is customary—and, I believe, correct—I will start with a tribute to my predecessor. Martin Whitfield and I disagreed fundamentally on Scotland’s constitutional situation, but in many other aspects we were at one. I am conscious of the fact that he was tenacious in opposing Brexit, and equally assiduous in representing his constituency, so I know the standards that he has set. He will continue to reside in the constituency, where I will no doubt bump into him.
It was the same for those who went before him. My own colleague George Kerevan was equally assiduous. Prior to that, the constituency was represented by Fiona O’Donnell, who continues to serve the county as a Labour councillor in East Lothian. It goes all the way back to the late, great John P. Mackintosh, who set the standards and template that everybody who has represented East Lothian since has sought to aspire to.
As my colleague George Kerevan pointed out, I have a link to John P. Mackintosh because an assiduous campaigner for him—indeed, someone who has sought to keep his memory alive—is Arthur Greenan, who was also a tenacious campaigner for George Kerevan and an equally vibrant one for me, despite his age. Arthur is one of those to have made the political journey from being a Labour activist and voter to becoming an SNP activist and supporter. It is a journey made by many, and one that I tracked myself when I was privileged to write a biography of arguably Scotland’s greatest ever MP who never was, the late, great Jimmy Reid.
My constituency has endured changes, but it has stayed the same in many ways. It continues to roll from the Lammermuir hills to the banks of the Forth. It contains fertile land, bonny beaches and, indeed, fine folk. Some industries, such as mining, have gone. Other industries, such as renewables, have come—which is why it is important and appropriate that I am making this speech at this juncture in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. We build around those new industries, but they are still based around the vibrant towns and villages of both the historic county and the wider modern constituency. East Lothian’s people remain undiminished in their grit, determination and decency, and indeed—as a new arrival, I know this—in their warm and welcoming nature, as thousands seek to move to the expanding county of East Lothian.
There are historic links to my constituency in this institution, and not just through those who have been elected Members. When I first arrived here last month, I came across a statue of Oliver Cromwell, who is well known in my constituency, in the town of Dunbar. He is not viewed as the Lord Protector; far from it. He may not have been as brutal there as he was at Drogheda, but people still suffered at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, when his English army killed thousands of Scottish soldiers and captured thousands more. Those who were captured were marched south, with many dying en route. They were taken to Durham cathedral, where thankfully a memorial now recognises what they suffered. Many died in incarceration there. Of those who were released thereafter, some were given by the Lord Protector to the army of France. Others were sent to do drainage work in the area of the Wash in southern England. Others still were transported to Barbados and to the Americas.
But some good did come from this, because in 1657, seven years after serving their penal servitude, some of those Scottish soldiers banded together to form the Scots Charitable Society of what is now Boston, which is argued to be the one of the oldest such charitable organisations not just in the United States but in the western hemisphere. They keep contacts with the community in Dunbar, as indeed did the Scottish Prisoners of War Society—because such an organisation does exist, with many American members, and they had a re-enactment of the battle last year.
You can move along the A1 as well as you can move along the corridors here. Moving along the A1, after some 50 miles I come to the small town of Tranent, and equally moving along the corridors here, I came upon a recognition of the Earl of Liverpool—there is, I think, both a bust and a painting of him. The Earl of Liverpool is the third-longest-serving Prime Minister, but in the town of Tranent he is better recalled as a British military commander when the massacre of Tranent took place in 1797. Twelve men, women and children were slain because they opposed the imposition of conscription. He was then the military commander for east central Scotland. He was not responsible for the order to fire, but he was culpable, and indeed took the blame, according to the Lord Advocate—but he obviously went on to greater things and became Prime Minister in 1820.
The Earl of Liverpool’s links with Scotland do not end there, because this year is not just the 700th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, when my country’s nationhood was enshrined by those who cherish it and have it at its heart, but the year in which we will be celebrating the bicentenary—the 200th anniversary—of the 1820 uprising, or insurrection, when working people in Scotland campaigned for and demanded the universal franchise. Indeed, having seen what had happened just the year before at Peterloo, they pledged that they would not just take it lying down. We will remember them.
The Earl of Liverpool is remembered because he signed the death warrant for John Baird, Andrew Hardie and James Wilson. He had them hanged and then beheaded—the last time such punishment was used in the United Kingdom. We will remember them in April because they fought for the universal franchise—for the right of working people, as hon. Members mentioned earlier, to have that vote. Nineteen others, including a child, were transported to Botany Bay, and only two made it home to their native land.
Centuries on, of course, we have the universal franchise: not just working men but working women have the right to vote. It is for that reason that I and my colleagues are in this Chamber today. I have no doubt that if the situation was the same as it had been in 1820, it would have been a representative of the rich landlords because they were an oligarchy back then.
But we do face challenges, because we have a Tory Government who are no more reflective of the people of Scotland now than, arguably, under Henry Dundas. That is why I will continue to emulate the good constituency work of those of my own party and, indeed, of others to represent the fine people of East Lothian. Equally, I will remember the memories of those who went before who struggled for our native land to retain its identity and to advance the interests of working people. Indeed, as I come to the conclusion of my speech, I remember that one of the banners under which those who went to their doom in 1820 marched was “Scotland Free or a Desert”.
As we sit in a debate on a Queen’s Speech that talks about a transformative agenda, many in my constituency, especially the most vulnerable, fear what will happen to the welfare state and the NHS, and the gains made by our parents and our grandparents. We will, as with our forebears, defend the rights of working people and the gains that we are entitled to expect, and we will defend our nationhood. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) on an excellent, lucid speech. I thoroughly enjoy history—I think we all do—and we heard a lot of history in his speech, as well as a lot of passion. I think he mentioned that he had a journey from Labour to the SNP; may I suggest a further journey to the Conservatives? Perhaps he could think about that later. I congratulate the other Members who have made maiden speeches. It has been a pleasure to listen to them all. I remember giving my own nine years ago—how time flies!
I want to talk briefly about nine different subjects in the Queen’s Speech that affect my constituency. On the subject of today’s debate, I congratulate the Government on the ambitious and aspirational path they are taking. I urge a level of common sense in the direction of travel. We do not want to end up with thousands of people in our country unemployed because of ambitious and aspirational targets that are simply not achievable, but that does not mean we should not try.
The first subject is the national health service. The recent decision to move A&E and maternity services from Poole Hospital to Royal Bournemouth Hospital has understandably caused a lot of anger and disappointment among my constituents, not least those in Swanage. I urge the Government to look at that again.
The second is social care. Dorset Council is one of two new unitary councils formed recently at the behest of the Government and, of course, the people of Dorset. Huge cuts and sacrifices have been made, and savings too. One of our major problems is paying for social care. The Prime Minister has said that that is high on his agenda. I urge the Government to sort this out as soon as possible, because I do not want our new unitary authority left high and dry, unable to afford social care at this crucial time.
The third is education. I have fought with the f40 campaign group of lower-funded councils for a levelling up of our schools’ funding. That has been achieved. They have a conference in March near here, which I shall be attending. I spoke to them yesterday, and their view—and mine—is that more fairness is needed in the funding formula, particularly when it comes to special educational needs and disability, which are underfunded in Dorset. We need Government help and for this to be made a priority. Weymouth College in my constituency is the only place where young people have a hope of getting into further education and on to better careers. That, too, needs more funding. Sitting on the Education Secretary’s desk is the tick-box exercise for a new special school on Portland. I urge the Secretary of State to sign it off, so that we can open this much needed facility on Portland as fast as we can.
The fourth is home ownership. More affordable homes to buy and let are desperately needed—and when I say affordable, I mean truly affordable, not 80% of market rent. We need more one, two and three-bedroom social homes to buy and let. In Dorset we rely on housing providers, as many do now, because council homes have been sold off. The Government have put £2 billion aside for more affordable homes. Perhaps the Minister who sums up the debate will tell us how that money can be reached and how much money is available for Dorset for these desperately needed homes.
The fifth is the justice system and the police. Sir James Spicer, the renowned former MP for West Dorset who sadly has now passed away, started a thing called the airborne initiative at Portland young offenders institution, which gets young men out on to the moors with trained instructors from the Army and the Prison Service. It has now gone to Feltham and Brinsford young offenders institutions, and it is hugely successful. I urge the Government to roll that out right across the justice system, because it is working, and reoffending is being cut.
On the police under the current funding formula, Dorset will have 120 more officers, and I urge the Government to stick to that. Dorset needs more police officers.
The sixth is infrastructure. The dualling of the Salisbury line will help not only me but all passengers on it down to north Devon. If we can put track back on the former bed at Yeovil Junction, it would hugely help access to Weymouth and the island of Portland.
The seventh is business rates, which have been mentioned. The Government have this on their radar. Business rates need to be looked at, because they are highly punitive, particularly to small businesses.
Eighth is the transport network—specifically, buses. I cannot understand why the routes given to commercial companies cannot be made compulsory. Yes, perhaps the profit margin will not be excellently wide, but they will still make a profit. Leave it to the entrepreneurs to make money out of these least affordable routes. I am not saying that there should be a regular service to these remote villages, but perhaps, in co-ordination with those who live there, there could be a bus service in the morning and another at lunchtime, so that the elderly can get to the shops and be back in time for lunch. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of a good entrepreneur and a good company to sort that out.
My final point concerns the armed services. In my day, spending on the armed forces was 5% of GDP; today it is just 2%. It simply is not enough. We have two aircraft carriers—the most expensive form of defence that we could possibly have. They need planes above, submarines beneath and ships beside, and of course men and women on board. We have to be able to afford them. If we are to play our role outside the EU and stand up for freedom, truth and democracy, as this country has a proud record of doing, we need strong armed forces and they need more money.
On the subject of historical legacies, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister reaffirm at Prime Minister’s questions today that people who served 30 or 40 years ago in Northern Ireland—and of course in past wars, and those who will serve in future—will not be followed to the grave or persecuted when there is no new evidence to prosecute them. With that final point, I conclude my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great delight to call Alex Davies-Jones to make her maiden speech.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Rising to give my maiden speech, I am reminded of the quip that there is never a more dangerous moment to speak than before the audience has had their dinner; but whoever first wrote that line clearly never had my teenage experience—of singing in a local workman’s club for an audience who were waiting for the bingo to start. I thank my nan for giving me that particular opportunity, again and again, but at least it means I have absolutely nothing to fear from those on the Benches opposite. They may deplore and decry my socialism, but they are armed with neither heavy-duty black marker pens nor the impatience of a valleys grandmother.
There can be no greater honour in life than to represent the place closest to your heart. I am Ponty born and bred. I went to my local comprehensive school in Tonyrefail. My dad and both granddads were miners. Pontypridd runs through my veins as strongly and truly as the Rivers Taff and Rhondda run through our valley.
Pontypridd, my home, is also the home of local legends—not just my mam, but the legends of Tom Jones and Wales’s most feared and capped prop-forward, Gethin Jenkins. Whilst I was tempted to construct this speech around the lyrics of Sir Tom, I did not have the same temptation when it came to Geth’s on-field banter. That would generally consist of a look so menacing that it could make the very scoreboard twitch.
To add to that list of local legends is my predecessor, Owen Smith. Owen is a tough act to follow in every sense. I know that his wit and wisdom, his rhetoric and his radicalism will be missed in this place, just as they will be welcomed back at home. His work here, particularly campaigning on surgical mesh implants, will change the lives of women not just in this country, but around the world, as the full scale of that scandal is still being uncovered. That tenacious, groundbreaking campaign work gave a glimpse of what Owen could and should have achieved in government. Owen blazed a trail—as he always does. In his nine years in Parliament he lived a political life worthy of three decades. No wonder his first career ambition was to be zipping around the green pitch at Ponty’s Sardis Road, not warming these green Benches. I know that colleagues here will wish him luck with his return to the green, green grass of home.
As with Owen and his predecessor, Kim Howells, music, rugby and politics represented the fundamentals of life growing up in Pontypridd. It is difficult to imagine it any other way in a constituency that gave the world the Welsh national anthem and “Cwm Rhondda”. The Pontypridd front row were not just three rugby players; they were, for us, the eighth wonder of the world.
With iron and coal and industry comes the politics—politics rooted in people, fairness and radicalism. And whilst the iron and the coal may have gone, the people have not, and nor have the radicalism and the ambition for fairness and equality. I have no doubts whatsoever that it is my duty to hold the red banner high in this place, on behalf of my constituents; to tell their stories, and to tell the difficult truths to those on my own Front Bench as well as the one opposite. A town built on iron and steel does not elect shrinking violets, and I will use my voice to elevate the lived experiences of my constituents so that they can never, ever be ignored.
I also have no doubt that my task, and that of all my Labour colleagues, has become more difficult following the election result in December. One of the jewels in the Ponty crown is the Royal Mint in Llantrisant, which is a fantastic employer of nearly 1,000 people. But it is an irony not lost on me, or my constituents, that despite the fact that we physically make all the country’s money, we see precious little of it in return in the shape of Government investment. The High Speed 2 maps proudly produced by this Government show billions of pounds worth of red and blue streaks across the map of England, but not so much as a slither in Wales. There is no investment in rail electrification, or in the transformational tidal lagoon technology being developed in south Wales. Wales can, and will, lead the way on ingenuity, the economy and the environment, but the Government must stop holding us back.
One very small word has a huge world of meaning in south Wales, and that is the sort of economy and environment we want and deserve: tidy—a tidy economy, and a tidy environment. To achieve that means a commitment to the kind of green industrial revolution being promoted by the Labour party, not the wishy-washy promises of the UK Government. It means investment in future technologies, and it means working with the Welsh Labour Government on their groundbreaking environmental legislation, and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. From Pontypridd to Perth the climate crisis that we are facing impacts on us all, and I will use my voice in this place to keep the climate emergency at the forefront. I come from a seat that helped power the last industrial revolution, and for the sake of my generation, and the one to follow, I want Pontypridd to be at the forefront of the next one.
I will close by saying that the bridge that symbolises the town of Pontypridd will be my inspiration for my work in Parliament. It was the longest single span bridge in Britain when it was opened in 1756, and it is not just the architectural ingenuity that inspires me, but the fact that it represented William Edwards’s fourth attempt at a bridge to cross the Taff. He did not let the floods, collapses and miscalculations deter him; he kept thinking, he kept on trying, and he kept building. That is how I intend to carry forward this job of representing the people of Pontypridd, which is the greatest honour of my life. I will make mistakes, I will learn from them, and I will keep going. With the support of my family and my constituents, I will be the bridge from Pontypridd to Westminster.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on a passionate, robust, honest, and forthright speech. It is clear that she will be no shrinking violet in this place, which is quite right.
A green industrial revolution is currently taking place in Suffolk and Norfolk. Off our coast, parts of one of the largest clusters of offshore wind farms in the world are either in operation, being built, or being planned. There are also exciting plans for revitalising the fishing industry in East Anglia post Brexit, in an environmentally responsible way that can help to revitalise coastal communities along the 200-mile coastline in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The foundations have been laid and jobs are being created, but more work is required if we are to realise the most from those exciting opportunities for local people, communities and businesses.
Successive Governments have done well in creating the policy framework in which the green industrial revolution is taking place—a framework that encourages technological advance, innovation, and inward investment. The cornerstone is the Climate Change Act 2008 and the creation of the Committee on Climate Change. That was followed by the industrial strategy, the clean growth strategy, and sector deals, including that for offshore wind, which was launched by former Minister Claire Perry in Lowestoft last March. Subsequently, last summer we enshrined in law the legally binding target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050—the first major economy to do that. That target is robust and realistic, and in line with scientific expert advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which stated that there is no evidence that a target date earlier than 2050 is feasible.
We now need to get on with the policies that are required to reach net zero. Provided that we do not dither and delay, we may be able to achieve this target earlier. Such policies include those set out in the Conservative manifesto of increasing the UK’s ambition on offshore wind to up to 40 GW by 2030, enabling floating wind farms and committing £800 million to building the first fully deployed carbon capture and storage cluster by the mid-2020s.
In East Anglia, much has been achieved: 4 GW of offshore wind power is already operational off the East Anglian coast, accounting for over 50% of the UK’s installed capacity. With the potential developments in the pipeline, we can provide much of the Government’s new revised higher target. Investment to facilitate that further development is taking place: in autumn, the £10 million Energy Skills Centre was opened on East Coast College’s Lowestoft campus, and ScottishPower completed the new £25 million operations and maintenance base in the Hamilton dock. Later this year, CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—will open its new offices and laboratory in Pakefield. It provides, and will continue to provide, the best fisheries scientific advice, but it is also now giving advice on offshore renewable energy to Governments across the world. It is a trusted bridge linking the public sector to academia and private industry.
I commend the Government for facilitating that investment, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels. We need to go the extra mile. The national policy framework must quickly move forward to its next stage, with the Government setting out a cost-effective pathway to achieving our net zero target. Net zero must be embedded across Government. All future departmental decisions, particularly those on spending, must pass a net zero test, to ensure that we achieve, and hopefully deliver beyond, the target.
As I have mentioned, in an East Anglian context much has been achieved, but there is a concern that, notwithstanding the massive scale of investment off our coast—£1 billion to £2 billion per project—the region is very much unrepresented when it comes to the supply and installation of main components. There are a number of main contractors in the region with the expertise to do this work, including Sembmarine SLP, James Fisher Marine Services, Seajacks, 3sun and Global Marine Group-C Wind.
The offshore wind sector deal has the potential to stimulate the required inward investment in components manufacturing, which will create longer and more resilient supply chains and more local jobs. We need to work with those businesses to ensure that they can realise their full potential. That will also require investment in infrastructure, particularly in ports such as Lowestoft. If we do that, then ultimately opportunities will open up for more UK businesses to develop and export low-carbon goods and services, thereby facilitating the global transition to net zero.
The oil and gas industry has been an integral part of the East Anglian economy for over 50 years. It still has an important role to play as we transition to net zero. Collaborative work is taking place with the offshore wind sector, with both learning from one another, and with further opportunities to pioneer inter-sector training and currency certification. Gas to wire technology and gas platform electrification, powered by offshore wind, are emerging as new advances that provide added resilience in supply while assisting in decarbonising traditional methods of generation.
As I have already mentioned, there are exciting opportunities in carbon capture and storage, and we must not forget the enormous amount of work that needs to be carried out in decommissioning oil and gas assets on the UK continental shelf. In the southern North sea, late-life and decommissioning expenditure is forecast at around £4.4 billion for the period up to 2027. That amounts to an average annual spend of around £445 million. It is important that we have a policy framework and an investment strategy that ensures that we secure as much of that work as possible for UK and East Anglian businesses. The Government recognise the need for an oil and gas sector deal, and I urge them to start work as soon as possible on its preparation, collaborating closely with the industry.
I turn to the opportunity that Brexit provides to revitalise the East Anglian fishing industry. The right policy framework is emerging following the 2018 fisheries White Paper, and it is important that the forthcoming fisheries Bill promotes sustainable and environmentally aware fishing practices and management. Having sat on the Fisheries Bill Committee in the last Parliament, I believe that we are moving in the right direction, but more work is required. In East Anglia, we have produced the REAF—“Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries”—report, which sets out recommendations for revitalising the industry that could generate an additional £28 million to £34 million per annum in the region’s ports.
The report’s recommendations very much recognise the importance of sustainable fishing, including the development of a modern fleet, delivering top-quality fish, high-quality jobs and a reduced environmental impact. It is recommended that consideration is given to restricting offshore vessels to 500 hp and prohibiting the abhorrent and unacceptable use of beam trawls. Those restrictions would encourage and facilitate the entry of modern vessels, each with a crew of up to approximately five and each able to use a variety of gear, such as twin-rig trawls and fly-shooting nets. These vessels would carry the most modern fish-handling and storage technology. The proposed new fleet is modelled on the modern French fleet of the same size and gear types. It offers higher fish quality, greater employment opportunities, less impact on marine ecology and a lighter carbon footprint.
This vision is in contrast with the current fleet. At present, no offshore vessels operate out of East Anglian ports. Instead, a number of UK-registered but Dutch-owned vessels operate out of the Netherlands. They use beam trawls, which drag heavy metal beams across the seabed, which is ecologically damaging and fuel-intensive. We now have the opportunity to move to a newer and greener way of fishing that will benefit our coastal communities. It is important that we grasp the opportunity.
In conclusion, the future is bright, but it is not orange —it is green. There is enormous potential to revitalise coastal communities not only in East Anglia, but all around the coast, to provide opportunities for many people who feel that they have been overlooked and forgotten for too long. It is important that we do not let them down.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Members for the fantastic maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon, including—especially—my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).
A huge area of the west Antarctic ice sheet is likely to break off into the sea—that was on the news today. Vast cracks have been spotted that could lead to a large part of the glacier breaking away. When my father was there over 50 years ago, he saw a very, very different Antarctica. Such a lot has changed since then, and not for the better. The warming of the oceans is posing a considerable risk. People may ask, “Antarctica is a long way away; what difference does that make to the lives of people living up and down the UK?” Altogether, the west Antarctic ice sheet contains 2.2 million cubic kilometres of ice. If it collapses and melts, it will raise sea levels by more than three metres, completely submerging huge parts of our coastline, including London and Cardiff. Moreover, it could happen more quickly than scientists once thought, if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise as they have been. The ice melt is being driven by ocean temperatures rising far quicker and at greater depths than previously thought.
Despite that, the Government are on track to miss all their climate targets and will not meet our fourth or fifth carbon budgets. The Government’s plans for reducing emissions are just not good enough if we are to meet our targets by the early 2030s, let alone the net zero target of 2050, which, incidentally, will be far too late to prevent the most catastrophic climate change. The world is not coming together to address these issues. The United States, one of the world’s top polluters, has begun its withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and the UK Government are still spending billions subsidising fossil fuel projects across the world through UK Export Finance. I pay tribute to Mary Creagh, the former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, who led the inquiry that showed how billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was being spent in that way through UK Export Finance. When will this stop? When will the Government take climate change seriously?
We have experienced raging wildfires—we are seeing them right now—devastating droughts, record-breaking heatwaves and shattering floods at home. We are even seeing fires in the Arctic. This should be the alarm that awakens a deep sense of urgency. Time for real action is running out. World scientists and experts tell us we have less than 10 years to get on the right path and take that action. We must act faster than our current rate of change and we must be drastically more radical. This is a moral, humanitarian and economic issue that we simply cannot afford not to act on with haste. Our children and grandchildren will judge us on how far we rise to meet this challenge and provide a planet for them that is fit for them.
Last year, official statistics showed that the UK, rather than closing the gap, was moving backwards, and when we look at the recent record, it is not hard to see why. The number of new solar installations has collapsed—the figure for the first quarter of last year was 98% lower than the average for 2015; the number of home installations in England has fallen 95% since 2012; and the Government have effectively banned new onshore wind power, which is the cheapest and most tried and tested form of renewable technology. We have not gone far enough to bring about economic, industrial or societal change here at home or indeed overseas.
A bold and transformative green industrial revolution across the UK could change lives, but it must match the scale of change and also undo the environmental change brought about by the first industrial revolution. Let us also ensure that it creates clean and secure jobs in areas impoverished by deindustrialisation, such as the south Wales valleys, which lost thousands of jobs. We can invest there with renewable energies and provide those opportunities, but we need more than just words; we need a green industrial programme that delivers climate and economic justice—because we can do both.
What would a green industrial revolution mean for people and families? What would it mean for families struggling to live on one income on the minimum wage, or for parents struggling to make ends meet and worrying every day about putting food on the table or keeping their children warm at night? Well, for them it is about building affordable, energy-efficient, zero carbon homes or retrofitting the homes that have already been built, allowing them to save on their bills. It is about providing cheaper, more inclusive public transport in towns and cities, so that that family know that it is cheaper to go to work on the bus or train, that they will be able to afford it, and that they will get there on time. It is about subsidising electric vehicles and providing adequate charging points. I am proud that today Cardiff City Council published its groundbreaking and very ambitious transport strategy, which sets out how it will invest in clean, green transport.
The green industrial revolution will also create much-needed jobs and provide new skills for young people. It is an opportunity to build apprenticeships and stable, secure jobs and income. It is about making sure that the 16-year-old school leaver who may be worried about his or her long-term future has a future, whether it is helping to build green homes or manufacturing, fitting or maintaining renewable energies and technologies. Green apprenticeships and opportunities for new companies must be given the right support, commitment and opportunities by the Government, and must lead to a societal change for the families who really need it: the families who depend on those jobs and on a stable, firm economy—a green economy.
The green industrial revolution will mean cleaner air to breathe, cleaner towns and city centres, and more green spaces. The food security crisis that would come with a climate crisis, leading to higher food prices, would be mitigated, and food could be locally sourced and cheaper and easier to source. This new life, this clean and green new life for our family, would lead to a massive improvement in wellbeing and mental health and perhaps a reduction in chronic diseases such as obesity, thereby—critically—reducing dependence on the national health service. The groundbreaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which I was proud to help to develop during my time in the Welsh Government, leads the way in offering opportunities for that to happen, but we need to see it happen throughout the United Kingdom.
Only by investing in our clean, green economy, setting hard, ambitious targets and taking urgent, radical action will we be able to create a country and a world fit for the future and for our children, so let us start to do that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and it has been a pleasure to hear some excellent maiden speeches this afternoon. I believe that there is at least one more to come, and we look forward to it very much.
It is also a pleasure to participate in this important debate on the Government’s vision and ambition for a green industrial revolution. As I pointed out in an intervention at the start of the debate, Cornwall is ready to play a very active part in that revolution. It has a proud history of innovation and being at the forefront of technological advances, and it is already playing its part in the area of renewable energy. We already have very advanced wind and solar generation power, and we are about to start producing geothermal energy: we are the only place in the UK that will be able to do that. Cornwall will also be at the forefront in the extraction of lithium and other precious minerals that are necessary for battery technology.
However, what I want to touch on this afternoon is not so much the green revolution that we need, but the blue revolution that we need. We now have a much greater understanding of just how important the seas and oceans are to our environment, and of the part that they play in regulating our climate.
I was born and grew up in Cornwall around the sea and I now have the huge privilege of representing one of only three constituencies in the country that has two separate coastlines. I grew up being very much aware of what an amazing thing our sea is—a place that we can love and enjoy, a place of adventure—but I also grew up to respect the ocean and to understand what a complex place it is. The sea in Cornwall has shaped not just our landscape but our culture and identity, and we are always closely attached to it. For far too long, though, we seemed to have the impression that the sea could cope with anything we threw at it—that it was vast enough to cope, whatever we pumped or threw into it. Thankfully, in recent years we have come to appreciate that that is not the case and that we need to protect our oceans and take care of what we put into them.
I will touch on three areas where I welcome the Government taking action, but on which I want to press them to do a bit more. Others have already mentioned the fact that we have to stop producing so much plastic and be more responsible in the way we deal with and dispose of the plastic that we use. I will never forget the moment, a few years ago, when the realisation hit me just how much plastic was being pumped into our seas and oceans. It was when I read a report that highlighted that if we do not take drastic action by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in our seas.
I am grateful for the action that the Government have already taken to reduce the amount of plastic waste we produce, including the plastic bag charge, the ban on microbeads and the plan to ban plastic straws, but I want to press them on this, because we urgently need to come forward with a deposit return scheme for single-use plastic bottles. We have been talking about that for over two years, and that is far too long. We now really need to press ahead and bring in a scheme that will help us to increase the level of plastic recycling in our country and ensure that far less is thrown away only to end up in our seas and oceans. I am pleased with the progress we have made as a Government, but let us really press this home and ensure that we take urgent action.
Another thing that I want to talk about is sewage discharge into our seas. We have made huge progress in cleaning up our seas in relation to the amount of sewage that we pump into them. One of the things I have been proud of in my time in this place is that I have worked closely with the Cornish-based charity Surfers Against Sewage, whose main focus over many decades has been to ensure that we clean up our seas, but the sad fact is that we are still pumping too much untreated sewage into our oceans through combined sewer outflows. We still have too many of these sewage systems that combine household foul waste water—sewage—with rainwater and surface water from run-off drains. When we have heavy rainfall, all of that gets into the sewerage system and it just cannot cope. Untreated raw sewage is therefore pumped into the seas.
We have been monitoring this situation and we found that, just in the recreational summer season last year, there were more than 1,700 discharges of untreated sewage into our seas across the UK, 10% of which were in Cornwall. It cannot be acceptable that we continue to do that in this day and age. Yes, we are making progress, but I believe we now need to press the water companies to really up their game. They must take drastic action to get rid of these combined sewers and ensure that we stop discharging untreated sewage into our seas. Surfers Against Sewage has a target that we will have stopped pumping raw sewage into recreational sea areas by 2030, as well as a long-term plan to ensure that we rid our seas of untreated sewage in any circumstances. Again, I welcome the measures in the Environment Bill that the previous Parliament began to consider; I urge the Government to bring back that Bill in the near future and to include real teeth in the new policy to ensure that we can hold water companies to account and stop the pumping of untreated sewage into our seas.
Finally, coastal areas bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, and we see that time and again in Cornwall. The extreme weather events that we used to think happened every 50 years now occur on an almost annual basis. We need to prepare our coastal communities for the impact of climate change. A big area of concern in Cornwall is coastal erosion, which is accelerating before our very eyes. Many of the communities that I represent face the impact and costs of erosion, so I urge the Government to do more to protect those communities from the impact of extreme weather and storms. If we spend a few million pounds now, we will save tens or hundreds of millions of pounds in the years to come.
Many of the communities that I represent, such as Newquay, are worried about the amount of development still being allowed on clifftops that are eroding before our eyes. We need to look again at our planning policy when it comes to clifftop development to ensure that we are not just saving up problems for the years to come by building properties that will be right on the edge of those cliffs in a short space of time. We must take action to ensure that funding is available to protect our coastal communities and that we are not continuing to build in areas facing coastal erosion.
As a proud island nation, the UK has always had a positive relationship with the sea. I am pleased that we are now starting to treat our oceans much more responsibly, but we need to do more. I welcome the measures that the Government are already bringing forward, but I urge them to continue to review the situation and to ensure that we treasure and protect our oceans and do not continue to contribute to the pollution of the seas around us.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One of the obvious advantages and pleasures of being called late in the debate is that I have been able to listen to several wonderful maiden speeches. In the two most recent speeches, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) gave a full history of Scotland, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) offered a wonderful portrait of her town and its people. It has been a pleasurable afternoon, and I am looking forward to the next maiden speech of the day.
It is just weeks since the general election, during which all Opposition parties proposed detailed plans for tackling the climate emergency and getting us to net zero emissions as soon as possible, and I have been encouraged by how the scientific consensus and the political consensus have matched. We have known for over a year that we need to keep global temperature rises to below 1.5° C and that our old target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions must change to net zero by 2050 at the latest.
The Opposition parties offer similar commitments to climate action, and we share similar thinking on the science and technology. We share similar aspirations for a just transition and for ambitious targets, but where is the Government’s plan? Climate action is notable by its absence from the Government’s plan for this new Parliament, and I have a term for that: climate action delay. The climate emergency is real, and we need urgent action now. Climate action delay is no better than climate change denial, because if we delay now, we will fail to keep temperatures below the threshold of 1.5° C necessary to avoid global climate chaos.
What does climate action mean in practice for transport, for energy and for our homes? In transport, net zero means that cars, lorries and buses need to be powered without using fossil fuels. For us that means no sales of new petrol or diesel cars from 2030; for the Government the target is 2040, which is too late. Is there a scientific reason for a 10-year difference? No. It is climate action delayed.
The next sector is electricity. In net-zero Britain, electricity must come from renewables and green hydrogen. For us that means massive new investment in renewable energy such as offshore and onshore wind, solar and marine power, starting now. No one should be in any doubt that this is a big challenge. Electricity usage will go up enormously as we transition from natural gas for heating and petrol and diesel for vehicles.
Our target is to generate 80% of our electricity from renewables by 2030. Net zero means completely transitioning out of fossil fuels in this sector. What would the Government do if they were serious about a net-zero Britain? They would support a fast and extensive roll-out of renewable installations, including onshore wind and marine power. They would demonstrate that there will be no fossil fuel extraction in the UK, and they would put a clear stop to fracking now. They would reduce and remove all fossil fuel subsidies.
What are this Government doing? The signs are not good. The indications are business as usual. Business as usual means going at a sufficiently slow pace so as to ensure the continued need for fossil fuels. That is climate action delayed.
The third sector is the energy efficiency of our homes. To get to net zero, we need to stop heating our homes with natural gas and oil. We will succeed in that transition only if we have an ambitious programme of insulating our homes to the highest energy efficiency standard feasible.
We know what needs to be done, and the technology is there. We can build new homes to high sustainability standards. What is this Government’s plan? Little or nothing. They are consulting on or suggesting making some changes five years from now. Once again, that is climate action delayed. We cannot afford delay any longer. We need a clear and decisive plan for how to adjust and change almost every sector to deliver net zero, starting now.
This Government talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. We need climate action now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Mark Fletcher to make his maiden speech.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is an incredible honour to speak in this Chamber for the first time as the Member of Parliament for Bolsover. It is a particular honour to do so with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I went to school in your constituency.
I start by thanking all the House staff and authorities who have been so welcoming to us newbies as we continually get lost.
The guidance produced by the Library suggests that we should start our maiden speech with a tribute to our predecessor. I feel there was a missing paragraph telling us what to do when our predecessor is a giant of British politics.
Dennis Skinner became a Member of Parliament in 1970, and he served the great people of Bolsover for 49 years. He fought tirelessly for his constituents locally, and it was incredibly heartening to hear during the campaign, on street after street and doorstep after doorstep, of the work he had done to help people.
Dennis became known nationally for his uncompromising contributions in this Chamber and for his heckling before the Queen’s Speech. Feared, admired and respected, Dennis Skinner is synonymous both with this House and with the constituency I now represent. It would only be fair and a great tribute if we could arrange for a statue of Dennis to be built in the constituency to honour his service and to inspire the next generation in Bolsover that they, too, can help to shape the world.
I would very much welcome support for this proposal from both the Opposition Front Bench and the Government. I even suggest that Scottish National party Members may wish to support it, given they finally have the Bench space that they so long desired.
The Leader of the Opposition has already paid tribute to his fallen comrade, my predecessor, in the House, and I suspect he is better placed to do so than I am, other than to say that Dennis is, was and always will be the Beast of Bolsover.
The wonderful people of Bolsover have very discerning tastes—or at least they did until 12 December—and I am only the third Member of Parliament to serve the constituency since its creation in 1950. Both my predecessors made their maiden contributions in this House on the topic of the coal industry, and I wanted to continue in that vein with today’s speech on the green industrial revolution.
Bolsover is proud of its mining past—its geography, communities and landscape were moulded by that once great industry—but we know that mining is not our future, and Bolsover is one of those post-mining communities where potential is plentiful but not entirely unleashed. The challenge of becoming the first major economy to become carbon neutral by 2050 is one we should relish, where we look to our science and research sectors to find new solutions and innovations. We should be optimistic about our future, as a leading economy and as a country that is well placed to develop and build green technologies, and about our ability to meet the climate challenge head on. But we must also ensure that, in that challenge, no community is left behind.
I can see what you are thinking, Madam Deputy Speaker. The weather outside is not so great, there are still dozens of maiden speeches to go, recess is only a few weeks away and mentally you are flicking through the travel brochures. The beaches of the Bahamas, Bali and Barbados are calling, but may I make a suggestion that is equally, if not more, splendid—Bolsover? Its tremendous tourism trade is beginning to thrive, and you will meet the friendliest constituents in the country. You can visit our 17th century castle or make your way to Hardwick Hall, an Elizabethan masterpiece. You can start your journey by rail, in the picturesque village of Whitwell, travel through Creswell and see the Creswell crags, and move on to the powerhouse that is Shirebrook, a town of many achievements and from where the mighty Jason Statham originates.
If you insist on driving through the most magnificent constituency in the country, you will be pleased to find that the M1 snakes its way through Bolsover, although I should warn you that we are the beneficiaries of a so-called “smart” motorway on that stretch. You can start in the village of Barlborough, pop into Dobbies for a cup of tea and perhaps visit the council offices in nearby Clowne, and then head to junction 29A, where you will find Markham Vale, the very best place in the country to set up a business if you require good transport links. If you make your way a little further south, you can head to Pinxton, which is famous for its porcelain, and do a spot of shopping at the McArthur Glen outlet. I should say that nearby are the headquarters of a famous business, Slimming World, but it seems not to have written to its new MP—perhaps it knows a lost cause when it sees one!
The largest part of my constituency is just next to Pinxton: the mighty South Normanton. My first engagement in my new role as the Member of Parliament was at the South Normanton Community Church, where they debuted a new production, based on the pop lyrics of a P!nk song, called “What About Us?”. It spoke of the challenge we face in this House: ensuring that communities in the midlands and the north that have felt overlooked and undervalued for too long feel as though politics is as much about them as it is about the City of London and big business; as though we are as interested in delivering jobs, opportunities, transport upgrades and broadband connectivity in post-mining communities as we are elsewhere; and as though we care about tackling antisocial behaviour and ensuring that our national health service remains a cherished institution. It is a challenge that I believe the new Members on these Benches will relish.
I omitted one part of my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—or, in political language, I saved the best for last. If you make your way through Blackwell or Tibshelf, you will find four wards on loan from North East Derbyshire District Council that are also in my constituency: Holmewood and Heath, Pilsley and Morton, Shirland, and Sutton are certainly where you should finish your visit. I recommend a visit to the beautiful village of Woolley Moor, or if you are feeling particularly active you can make your way along the Five Pits trail.
If I may finish on a personal note, today and 12 December were both bittersweet days for me: I am indescribably honoured that the people of Bolsover thought that an openly gay, Cambridge-educated lad from Donny was the obvious successor to Dennis Skinner, but I am also drawn to thinking about my mum, who passed away in a tragic accident when I was 17. At that time, I lived on my own and felt like my world was falling apart. I miss her tremendously and wish she was here today.
As I sat on these Benches yesterday, listening to a number of maiden speeches by my colleagues that were considerably better than my own—[Hon. Members: “No!”]—I was struck by how many of the new intake have overcome tragedy, adverse circumstances, disabilities or a difficult upbringing. So many of us have found ourselves, at one stage or another, the underdog in life. Equally, I was struck by how that motivated us to want to make a difference—to help other people when they need it most—and, perhaps most importantly, how we all remembered those who helped us in our moment of need.
I listened yesterday to hon. Members pay tribute to the teachers who helped them and inspired them to reach these Benches. In my own case, I would like to thank the amazing teachers at Danum School Technology College, like Dave Irons and Val Cusworth, and so many others who treated me like I was their family and made me feel a little less lost.
This is an intake that I am incredibly proud to be a part of, because so many of us overcame difficulties and know how lucky we are, and how things might have been so different for us. Our mission, in the privileged positions that we now hold, is to make our world a little less reliant on lucky interventions and ensure that this Conservative Government give working-class kids the best possible start in life.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). I think everyone on the Labour Benches would thank him for his kind words about Dennis Skinner, who was more than just an MP to us; he was a link to a period when people had dignity at work and felt respected in what they did, and when we had real communities that were strengthened by the work and the ethos that people had as part of their community. For Labour Members, Dennis is a link to so much more than just the Labour party, and to hear the hon. Gentleman’s warm words meant so much.
On the idea of a statue, I cannot speak for Dennis, although I can think of one word, or perhaps two words that he might say as one word: something like “Give over!” The thought is appreciated, though, and who knows what will happen on this side of the House and how far that will go? Even though it came from the Conservative Benches, I think Dennis would have appreciated that and the hon. Gentleman’s warm words, for which we thank him.
Bob Stewart
I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. I speak as a friend of Dennis Skinner. The lesson for everyone new coming into this place is to realise that there is a difference between politics and friendship. Friendship stretches across the House; politics may differ, but friendship is firm. Dennis is one of those sorts of people who would be very welcoming when one sat down and had a chat with him.
Clive Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes an important point. I hope that in the coming weeks, months and years we all remember each other’s common humanity. It is important that we hold on to that.
Let us understand the backcloth to this debate: Australia is currently on fire; 2,000 homes have been destroyed; 27 people have lost their lives; and half a billion animals have been incinerated. An area larger than either Hungary or Portugal has been razed to the ground. Meanwhile, to its north, the rains that never reached Australia are flooding Indonesia. This pattern is being repeated across the globe.
We are already in an era of wild weather: seasons appear at the wrong times; food harvests are diminished; pollinating and insect-mating seasons are being disrupted; and, without our noticing, the seas have been warming and storms increasing at an alarming rate. This is the beginning of climate disruption. We have talked about it for a long time. It is now here. We are at a stage that cannot easily be reversed, but that can be stopped from heading into runaway breakdown. The key is what we do within the current decade, which is what makes the Queen’s Speech so important.
If the Prime Minister understood the emergency, the Queen’s Speech would have included measures such as: introducing UK carbon budgets to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% a year; removing planning permission for new buildings connected to the gas grid; reinstating Britain’s zero-carbon homes standard; putting in place a national fuel poverty, home energy efficiency programme; raising the UK tree planting targets to 3 billion within a decade; transferring the roads budget into new public transport networks; and, because building resilience into every part of our economy from infrastructure to food security is now critical, making a huge investment in flood prevention programmes and everything else that goes with that.
Later this year, the UK will host the COP26 gathering of nations still struggling to set up a robust framework to avoid climate breakdown. It is an opportunity for Britain to lead rather than just to host. Are there any measures in this Queen’s Speech to show how we will do this? No, of course there are not. Has anyone actually told the PM that one cannot just turn up to COP and go, “Bing, bang, boom, bong, phwoar, climate crisis!”? We have to stand on our record, and this Government do not have one. Members do not have to take my word for it. In its latest assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said that the UK is not
“on track to meet the fourth carbon budget. To meet future carbon budgets and the 100% target for 2050 it will require the government to apply more challenging measures.”
To you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that means pull your finger out because: the world is burning; biodiversity is collapsing; the oceans are warming; the ice caps are melting; and the world is watching us here in the UK this year.
Ultimately, I fear that nothing we say in this place will change the mind of this Government. The entirety of this Government’s mandate has been founded on one thing, which is to get Brexit done—it pains me to say that. When we understand that this is a hard right political project, we will understand that this Government have no intention of facing up to the climate crisis. Brexit has always been about trade deals that do not give a damn about climate, inequality or the global south. It is about deregulation that lets corporations raping our planet do so with ever more impunity. That is what Brexit is actually about, and that is why the Queen’s Speech has failed even the most basic of tests.
Ultimately, little we say in here will make a difference with this Government. The only way that millions of people in this country will see any real change is to build a climate mass movement, the likes of which the world has not yet seen, to force them to act. Greta Thunberg, the youth climate strikers and the global climate movement have shown us all the way. It is now time for us in this place to join them, to build a movement and show that our democracy is capable of changing course and building a better and more sustainable future.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a great honour speak in this debate and to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), but I do have to take issue with what he said about where to visit. There is no dispute in this place about the fact that Cornwall, including the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, is the most attractive and the most beautiful place to visit, but I am very happy to spend the next four or five years in this Parliament in that contest. None the less, his speech was fantastic. It is great to have colleagues in the House who share so many of the same values.
I have risen to speak in support of the green industrial revolution. I looked up the word “revolution”, and it might not be what the Government intend, as the definition in the dictionary is “to overthrow the Government”, which would not help us to achieve the green industrial revolution. We certainly need a definite and fundamental change, and I believe there is an appetite for that in Government. I have been an MP for four and a half years, and a number of times I have discussed with colleagues and members of the Cabinet how we achieve a more decarbonised and greener economy. I have no doubt that there is the will, appetite and determination, as well as the talent and expertise, to deliver that.
I welcome the intention behind the green industrial revolution and the £22 billion that will be spent each year on green technologies for efficient homes, renewable energy, clean heating and electric vehicles. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has heard me speak on this subject before that I will discuss two areas: transport and housing.
First, I will talk about Flybe. I am a Cornish MP, and Flybe serves the Newquay to London route. Many people appreciate and value that, and it is good for our local economy, but I stress that for every pound we use to support this business and the connectivity that we absolutely should support and sustain between the regions and across the UK, I want an equivalent sum—maybe more—to be spent on our rail infrastructure, on the electrification of the rail line, and on reducing ticket prices. It is ludicrous that, as we look to support and save an operator such as Flybe, it is so much cheaper to fly than to get the train. I really hope that this Government, over this Parliament, will do something to give real choice to consumers, commuters and passengers, so that they can afford to choose a cleaner way to travel. People want choice, and I believe that is one way for us to show a real commitment to the subject. I am delighted that the Transport Secretary, who is a friend of mine, is here; I am sure he is keen to speak and to shed some light on the intention.
The green industrial revolution needs to be about accelerating and embracing the use of new technology and working practices. The two areas where we can achieve quite dramatic reductions in our carbon footprint are the built environment and transport. Both contribute a significant amount of carbon emissions to our environment, and if we get this right, we can reduce carbon footprints quite quickly. House building, however, has not really changed much since I did my apprenticeship, which I started in 1987. We still dig huge holes in the ground, pour in tonnes of concrete, and build on top of it with materials that have a massive carbon footprint. Cement is said to account for 7% of the world’s carbon emissions—an enormous figure. Unless we change the way we build, we will not be able to reduce it quickly.
The Government have a really good ambition to build homes, which is absolutely the right thing to do: we must build the homes that families need. New building practices are available, enabling us to cut the amount of carbon generated by building, as well as by the homes themselves once they are lived in. In a surgery on Friday, I met a gentleman who is building part of his house on ground screws. A ground screw is not a particularly modern invention, but it really should be used much more. There is no need for deep foundations or to dig up the ground and disperse the carbon once again; the ground screws go into the ground and the whole structure is built on the ground screws. There is no reason why, where it can be done, that should not be the default method of house building.
In Cornwall and many parts of the country, the ground is exceptionally hard. This builder is also insulating his floor with recycled glass, and the floor itself is made of limecrete, which does not have cement in it, so it addresses the carbon footprint issue. It is possible to cut the carbon footprint of building the homes that we must build—and we must build many more. It is really important that the Government find ways of ensuring that the industry embraces every possible tool available to avoid that carbon footprint.
A lot has been said in this debate that I could mention, but I just want to touch on electric vehicles. There is an appetite in my constituency and around the country to get hold of an electric vehicle. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, we are seeing a real growth in the number of charging points, and in the ways in which cars can be charged conveniently. But I suggest that the Government look carefully at the idea of a scrappage scheme for diesel-guzzling cars for low-income families. Such a scheme would immediately provide a real boost to UK car manufacturing and the development of electric vehicles, and would obviously improve air quality. It would also mean quieter roads, and people all around the country would love to live near quieter roads. It would reduce running costs for low-income families, and it is the right thing to do. I worked on the idea with Cornwall Council last year, and would love to see a real appetite in Government for a scrappage scheme that allowed electric vehicles to be within the reach of low-income families in my constituency and around the country. Cutting emissions is good business sense. This is not about making life much more difficult for people or even putting up their bills. If we get housing right and really ensure that electric vehicles are available, we can cut the cost of living for so many hard-working families.
In summary, the most effective way to achieve a greener, cleaner environment is to encourage innovation, create a can-do culture when it comes to reducing carbon, use taxpayers’ money only to support solutions and technologies that reduce our carbon emissions, and much more quickly embrace proven methods that we know can make our environment happier, healthier and greener for everybody.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Charlotte Nichols to make her maiden speech.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House for the first time. Before I begin my speech, I would just like to say that all of us in Warrington North wish Mr Speaker—the son of Warrington North’s first MP, Doug Hoyle—every success in his new role; and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in yours.
Let me turn to my own new role. Every Member of this House has a solemn duty to their constituents, and it is a duty that has rarely been so important, as we stand on the precipice of environmental catastrophe. I am proud that Labour-led Warrington Borough Council has declared a climate emergency, and I will be working with it to deliver a green industrial revolution that puts power, in its most literal sense, into the hands of our community. We have a long-standing science and engineering base in the town. Indeed, it is not uncommon to run into nuclear physicists at the pub. Warrington is strategically located to benefit from developments in the wider region in hydrogen gas and tidal power, among other sources of zero and low-carbon energy, so a real, green northern powerhouse is right at the top of my agenda, building on my work on a just transition with the trade union GMB prior to entering Parliament.
Of course, it is tradition in one’s maiden speech to make reference to those of our predecessors. Both Helen Jones and Doug Hoyle served the town with distinction over long careers, but I was struck by just how contemporary both speeches feel today. Indeed, it tickled me to read the maiden speech of the now Lord Hoyle from 1974, on the subject of the then European Economic Community, proving that some issues are perennial. Although there is a certain comfort to be taken from this as a new Member, I hope only that when the time comes for my successor to make their maiden speech in this place, we might have moved on from arguing about the EU. Out of respect for the convention that a maiden speech should not be overly controversial, I will not labour that point. But I do want to turn to another maiden speech convention, and that is to tell the House about the people and the place I stand here to represent.
Having been rather forgotten about for some time, northern towns seem to be the flavour of the month at the moment, whether it is memes about the Labour leadership contest or new Conservative proposals to pit us against each other for the chance to win investment that does not even begin to plug the gap in what has been taken away over the past decade.
I would suggest to anyone looking for a town of the year that they need look no further than Warrington. Warrington is a town whose local economy outperforms many cities. We are a prosperous town with a buoyant local economy, but there remain pockets of real deprivation and too many people struggling month to month. Our challenge, and my driving purpose, is to ensure that everyone shares in that prosperity. With my local food bank doubling in size last month to cope with increasing demand, the urgency here cannot be overstated. As the town has grown, and with further growth expected, it is also about ensuring that our infrastructure is fit for purpose, from housing to the roads, to public transport, to our hospital provision and social care for our communities’ most vulnerable residents.
There is a tired adage that we do not make anything in this country any more, but while Warrington has a proud industrial heritage that earned it its nickname “The Wire”, it is not about being nostalgic about some halcyon days past. Warrington has a proud industrial future too. We manufacture a fifth of the world’s gin in Warrington North at the G&J distillery, which has been going since 1761, and there is a really thriving local craft gin scene with local businesses like the 3 Pugs distillery started in Orford. But if gin is not your thing, don’t worry—we also have fantastic breweries like Burtonwood Brewery and the Coach House Brewing Company, and many fantastic pubs to enjoy their beers in. But it is not just about booze. According to Make UK, there are 255 manufacturers in Warrington North. The future of manufacturing in Britain depends on the cost and security of energy as we decarbonise, making today’s debate very important.
The constituency boundaries in Warrington remain a funny one, not least for the parts of Warrington South that are further north than parts of Warrington North, and vice versa. Warrington Wolves’ Halliwell Jones stadium is on the wrong side of Lythgoes Lane to fall within the Warrington North boundary—something that I am hoping the Boundary Commission will address to right this historic wrong. Warrington North can rightly claim, though, the world champions, Warrington Wolves physical disability rugby league team, as they train in Padgate—and we are very proud that they do. Gulliver’s World theme park also falls within both constituencies, although as it is predominantly the car park that is in Warrington South, I would say the real fun happens in Warrington North—true of most things. Among the many, many things that Warrington South can never take away from us in the north is our claim to Old Billy, the oldest horse who ever lived, who died at the age of 62—definitively Warrington North, and now in Hansard for the record.
I will finish on this note. I am proud to represent a town whose people have shown such resilience, good humour and kindness both to me and to each other. I am truly inspired by the people that I have met doing incredible things in our community in Warrington North, and I will work as hard as I can to earn the trust that you have put in me.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has been my friend since she was an activist in North West Young Labour. It gives me real pleasure to see her arrive here—like me, a new Jewish Member of the House of Commons. Her speech was incredible, and I am sure she will give many incredible speeches in the many, many years that she will be sat with us in this House. I also welcome you back to your role, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Politics, as we know, is a conversation about who we are and what is important. I am glad that so many colleagues across the House have come together today to highlight the importance of passing a liveable planet to our children. The UK can stand by its record of passing the first ever Climate Change Act under the last Labour Government and, more recently, the net zero commitment under this Government. I am thankful that, in this country, there is a broad consensus on the principle of the climate emergency. For some time, the climate emergency will be the greatest threat multiplier that we face. For our country, for our way of life and for generations to follow, we can and must do all we can to tackle that threat and build a smarter, greener and more equitable world as we do so.
What concerns me is that the Government are knowingly under-delivering on their own climate action. We have a climate gap between our rhetoric in this House and our action in this country, and this Queen’s Speech does little, if anything, to fill that gap. The point has been repeatedly made by Conservative Members in the short time since the new year, in the build-up to the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, that this is a priority for them. That is all well and good, but as Greta Thunberg likes to say: action, not words. It is actions that the planet needs.
The climate gap is a serious matter. Right now, this beautiful country of ours is producing far too many emissions—millions of tonnes too many. We will soon overshoot our carbon budget target unless the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy instruct their civil servants to up their game and address the climate gap. In this speech, I will helpfully outline some suggestions for them and for the Secretary of State for Transport, who is on the Government Front Bench.
First, there is no mention in the Queen’s Speech of lifting the ban on onshore wind in England, but there should be. Polling proves that many communities are keen to invest in wind technology, so that they can benefit financially, bringing the community together and increasing local opportunities. Onshore wind is also one of the cheapest renewable technologies. By effectively banning it, this Government are making decarbonisation more expensive by approximately £50 per household.
The Government can and must move forward the date for the ban on combustion engine vehicles. I am confident that in a few short years, every developed country in the world will only be using non fossil fuel vehicles, whether they are electric, hydrogen or use other low carbon fuels. Huge market opportunities exist for the countries that get there first, not the ones that get there last, and the UK should be there first. Countries across Europe are investing hard in this; where are we? Brexit causes further, well understood barriers for our automotive industry. We face an uphill battle, and we are not winning it.
Thankfully, there was a commitment to moving forward the ban on combustion engine vehicles in the Conservative manifesto, which also contained this line:
“Leeds is the largest city in Western Europe without a light rail or metro system. And European cities are often more productive than our own in large part because they have better infrastructure.”
I understand that Leeds is the only city outside London with a specific commitment. Conservative Members will have read their manifesto more carefully than me, so if I am wrong, I am sure that they will correct me, although there are not many here at the moment to do so. They may also be interested to know that I agree with that line in the Conservative manifesto—they can take that to the bank. When can the good people of Leeds whom I represent expect the necessary funding to be released to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to undertake a project of this scale, which will take many years to deliver? The Conservative manifesto also stated:
“We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s”.
That is excellent—when can we start work on it, Secretary of State?
Finally, I would like to touch on the big climate change event of this year, COP26. A huge diplomatic effort will be required, especially with the United States, to bring everyone constructively to the table. The UK must have addressed its climate gap by then and have its own house in order if we want to command any kind of presence, authority or respect at that conference and have a hope of delivering the kind of breakthrough moment that we had in Paris in 2015, when I was present as the lead councillor for climate change on Leeds City Council. Make no mistake: the Paris agreement is a high bar, and I have yet to see evidence that this Government will achieve a comparable breakthrough.
The Secretary of State and the previous Member for Devizes, Claire Perry—now COP president—are aware of the good work of the Powering Past Coal Alliance. I urge him to extend an invitation to all countries, especially those that are still considering investment in new coal-fired power stations, particularly using UK Export Finance credit, that they might join this alliance, and that we might provide them with whatever assistance they require for the transition from coal to renewables. I also urge him and his counterparts to consider a “net zero club” of countries that have committed to join the UK in increasing their ambition, with legislation, not just to reduce their emissions but to bring them down to zero, and to consider getting that number to include every nation at COP. Having that global net zero commitment will achieve an agreement of the type that we saw in Paris, and will create a net zero goal for the entire planet—but only if the UK can deliver our own end and fill that gap between now and November, when COP takes place in Glasgow.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I plan to focus my relatively short remarks on transport as it pertains to the green industrial revolution that is so obviously required. I look forward to taking up my transport brief and working closely with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and the Opposition Front-Bench team, and with the relatively new Secretary of State for Transport, who must have the best job in the Cabinet, given that his predecessor set the bar so low that he cannot possibly fail to clear it. [Interruption.] In the repatriation of the Thomas Cook passengers, he managed to book airlines that actually had planes, so already he is one up on his predecessor.
I formally congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). He may be new to this place but he has been in this game a wee while now, and it showed in an excellent and passionate maiden speech. I also congratulate all other new Members who have made maiden speeches today. It is a tough assignment, but they have all done it with great aplomb. I well remember my maiden speech, with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you allowed me some leeway at the end of my speech as I had gone over my time; I am forever grateful to you for not cutting me off before the end of my speech.
I want to comment on an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) raised in his Front-Bench speech at the start of the debate—the UK Government’s failed green deal scheme. That scheme had laudable aims, but it was badly designed and allowed cowboy companies with criminal intent to drive a coach and horses through the various loopholes in the legislation. As a result, hundreds of my constituents have been defrauded, often for thousands of pounds, by Robert Skillen and his company, HELMS. Unsurprisingly, Skillen liquidated HELMS and emigrated.
The Government must take responsibility for their failed scheme and ensure that our constituents are fully compensated. The members of the green deal all-party parliamentary group and myself, as co-chair, will be renewing our campaign for justice for those affected by HELMS in the coming Session.
David Linden
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in the all-party parliamentary group. May I say to the Government, through him, that it would be helpful if the Department for Energy, Business and Industrial Strategy had a more adequate number of staff to work through the backlog of people who are trying to contact BEIS to deal with issues to do with the green deal?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more. I am seeking a meeting with the new Minister—the previous Minister involved was the then Member for Devizes—to see how the assistance of BEIS has actually helped with the Green Deal Finance Company, because from our viewpoint it does not seem to have helped a whole lot.
For a decade now, the Scottish Government have been pursuing a long-term vision of what Scotland’s economy and society should look like in the decades to come. It is a vision that sees all our electricity needs coming from renewable sources, and the transport system becoming carbon neutral. It is a vision that sees the potential of the natural resources that we have all around us, waiting to be harnessed and used to benefit us all. It is a vision that puts the reindustrialisation of our country at the heart of the strategy, arm in arm with the investment and renewal that has come to the fore over the decade.
My constituency is seeing the fruits of that long-term vision right now. For more than 50 years Renfrew—the largest town in my constituency and my home town—has been without a fixed rail link, and it is the biggest settlement in Scotland that is entirely reliant on buses for public transport. That calamitous mistake from the 1960s is about to be rectified with the beginnings of the Glasgow city region metro, which will start in my constituency at Paisley Gilmour Street, and finally provide the airport with a connection to the rail network.
That project is part of a green industrial revolution, and just as the original industrial revolution had the most expansive rail network in the world at its heart, so must the 21st-century version have transport and connectivity running through it like letters through a stick of rock. Hundreds of people will be employed directly in building the project, and hundreds more will be involved in the supply chains—an economic impact that will go way beyond my constituency and those of my neighbours. Using clean, green, renewable electricity, the new metro will be part of a public transport network that is rapidly being modernised.
Since devolution we have seen the reopening of the Borders railway, and routes from Hamilton to Larkhall, Stirling to Alloa and Airdrie to Bathgate, with only the former line not electrified. Virtually the whole central belt network now runs on electric lines, which contrasts with years of stagnation and neglect. That programme continues, with preparatory work beginning for the entire west of Scotland network to run under the wires, and longer-term goals of electrification north of Perth and the complete decarbonisation of Scotland’s railways within the next 15 years.
Along the A9, the spine of Scotland, work on the first electric highway is under way. Charging points are being installed at a rate of knots, providing the security of energy supply that is vital for the transition from fossil fuel vehicles to electric ones. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun alluded to, in Norway, which has a strong Government plan and the will to make transformational changes, sales of electric vehicles have grown exponentially. Petrol and diesel cars are on their way out—some going for an oil-rich country—and a confident, independent, self-governing country is taking big decisions on the big issues facing our planet. I hope that Scotland will soon join our Nordic friends as part of that club, whatever obstacles the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State think they are putting in our way.
In contrast, the UK Government cannot decide whether they want to make existing fuels cleaner and less polluting, with a decision on E10 petrol still lying in the long grass where it was kicked. Over recent years, those on the Treasury Benches and their Departments have been in a state of complete paralysis. Electrification projects are cancelled on a rolling basis, including in Windermere, on the Nottingham to Sheffield line and in Hull, south-west Wales and Coventry. Towns and cities have yet again been left behind, and jobs and economic growth directly connected to decarbonisation have been lost. Meanwhile, Crossrail spirals out of control and over budget and Crossrail 2 is in the pipeline as if its predecessor never happened. Billions are spent on extension after extension to London’s underground and overground. Why concentrate yet more spending, infrastructure, economic output, resources, and ultimately people in a single city, when we know that a fairer allocation of economic power will result in a better environmental outcome and a less unequal society?
If the UK Government were serious about boosting the economies of the north and south-west England, they would look to Scotland for ideas. Instead, they are presiding over delay and decay. In Tyne and Wear, 40-year-old metro carriages have had their lifespan extended to 2025, while the system awaits new trains, more than a decade after the current ones exceeded their life expectancy. Even when the UK Government finally coughed up for trains that brought to mind modernity and not Methuselah, the then Chancellor handed over only 60% of the costs requested.
In conclusion, if the UK Government want to be serious about a green industrial revolution, the short termism and insular—
Gavin Newlands
What the shadow Secretary of State said—Hansard can ask him later what he said. If the Government want to be serious about the revolution, that short-termism has to stop. Spending seven times more per person on transport investment in London than in north-east England is not the answer to anything. Learn the lessons from Scotland, make decarbonisation a priority, and the economic rewards of the transition can be spread across the UK.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is a great pleasure to call, to make her maiden speech, Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today.
It is traditional for newly elected MPs to thank their predecessors upon entering the Commons. Jared O’Mara, the previous MP for Sheffield Hallam, highlighted important issues relating to the accessibility of this House. For that, he should be commended. While he had his faults, many of which he himself admits, I note that Members have recalled that his intervention in Westminster Hall on his own experience of autism was moving and brought the issue up the agenda. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I would like to begin by thanking the people of our beautiful, vibrant and diverse community of Sheffield Hallam for putting their faith in me. It is an honour to represent this seat in Parliament. Hallam has a reputation for being prosperous. It is not considered a typical Labour seat, but the area has a very long history of social justice. To the north of the constituency is the village of Loxley, whose most famous son, Robin of Loxley, is also known as Robin Hood. So I am not the first person in Sheffield Hallam to stand on a platform of redistributing wealth to the many, from the few.
My constituency stretches right from the heart of Sheffield city centre, deep into the Peak district. It showcases some of the most magnificent countryside in the UK, including the many reservoirs surrounding Bradfield and Redmires, and the ancient Ecclesall Woods. The area also has a proud industrial heritage. Walking through Forge Dam or Rivelin Valley, you can see the overgrown cranks and grindstones that once drove our economy. Fulwood ward was home to Thomas Boulsover, the inventor of the famous Sheffield plate steel. It is a privilege to represent somewhere that played such an historic role as one of the engines of British industry.
Today, the seat also hosts thousands of students and researchers from all over the world; students who travelled to Sheffield to study at both our world-class universities. I am delighted to represent this young, diverse and multicultural community. Sheffield is such a great place to live and work that so many of our students stay on in the city after they have finished their studies, meaning that we have one of the highest graduate retention rates in the country. However, we also have our problems. I know that by convention maiden speeches are less political than the other things that are usually said in this House, but I hope Members will forgive me for bringing up austerity, the climate emergency and Donald Trump.
Despite the history of Robin Hood, many areas still suffer from massive inequality. Some of the most deprived areas in the city sit alongside some of the least. In fact, on polling day this was stark. We not only spoke to people on the so-called millionaires’ row, but to families who had been hit by the bedroom tax. Our students are saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt, and mental health issues are on the rise for our young people. Our schools have suffered almost a 10% decline in funding per pupil and inadequate budgets for the needs of our children, with the previous Government acknowledging that they did not give us enough funding for our children with special educational needs and disabilities. As a councillor, I saw first hand our local government budgets cut, cut and cut again. Government grants have been reduced by 50% over the past decade, making it impossible to deliver services—never mind tackle the climate crisis.
Local campaigners battle to preserve our community heritage, with their struggle to reopen The Plough Inn, home to the second oldest football club in the world, Hallam FC, and where the rules of football were first written down.
The countryside in my constituency is beautiful, but it is under threat. The moorlands are on fire, burnt for grouse shooting. Those acts of vandalism have made flooding more likely and are also putting important species in the area, such as the bilberry bumblebee, at risk. Across the country, peat fires have thrown millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Protecting biodiversity is a key part of tackling the climate crisis, which is why the national park, in its 70th year, is so important to constituents and visitors alike. As we see biodiversity decrease locally, we also see the global consequences of the climate crisis. As the world heats to perilous levels, wildfires have swept across California, dangerous heatwaves and floods have ravaged India, and now fires consume Australia. Across the globe, vast movements of people have left their homes because the coastlines that they once occupied have disappeared or the land that they cultivated has dried up. They join refugees fleeing war and persecution. Those numbers will only increase with President Trump’s actions in the middle east and his climate denial. I am proud that Sheffield calls itself a “City of Sanctuary”—a city that welcomes and defends migrants.
The climate chaos that we all face is unprecedented. Now is not the time for propriety; it is the old way of doing things that brought us to this crisis. Some of the industrial relics of that old way still stand in my constituency, but now we need radical change, and the only way we will get that is by taking radical action now. It is not just urgent; it is well overdue. The science is clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the absolute hard limit for transforming to a zero carbon economy is 2050, but the world is burning now. That is why I support my party’s pledge to work towards a path to net zero carbon emissions by 2030.
To meet that challenge, we need to channel the spirit of industry and innovation that lingers along the rivers and valleys of my constituency in order to restructure our economy fundamentally. Rather than cuts, it is time to invest, not in the CO2 emitting factories of the first industrial revolution, but in the sustainable green energy infrastructure and high-skilled jobs of the green new deal.
Arnold Freeman, Labour’s 1923 candidate in Hallam, founded the Sheffield Education Settlement. It aimed to institute
“streets along which it is a pleasure to walk; homes worthy of those who live in them; workplaces in which people enjoy working; public-houses that are centres of social and educational life”
and
“an environment in which people ‘may have life and have it abundantly’”.
Freeman was right then and he is right now: the only way we
“have life and have it abundantly”
is if we look after our environment. There is no social justice on a dying planet. There is also no way to tackle climate catastrophe without changing the inequalities at the heart of our economy, and without redistributing power from those at the top to the rest of us.
It is that belief in people that energised our campaign in Sheffield Hallam. It is not a seat that people expected Labour to win at this election. The past two years have undoubtedly been difficult for my constituents, but we ran a positive campaign, rooted in our transformative manifesto, with our pledges to enact a green new deal and rebuild our public services taking pride of place. My constituents told me that they wanted me to transform our economy and save our environment. It is this agenda that I will fight for in the House—an agenda that stands up for our planet and redistributes power and wealth into the hands of our people; and that stands in the best traditions of Sheffield Hallam, from the folk heroes of Loxley to those who fight to save our community spaces and who are fighting to protect our precious moorlands.
I look forward to taking these arguments forward in the coming months and years, and I am pleased that I am sitting between my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). Hillsborough, Heeley and now Hallam: three proud women representing Sheffield. Thank you for allowing me to make my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome you back and congratulate you on your re-election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) not only on an extraordinary election result, but on a terrific maiden speech and on what she said specifically about the moorlands and the threat to them from man’s actions.
Almost 15 years ago, we were told by Lord Stern and others that we had to act urgently to address climate change. Former Vice President Gore called it right when he said that we faced an inconvenient truth. Now, not a week goes by when there is not a catastrophe caused by climate change somewhere across the world, including floods in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, Jakarta and Indonesia, or caused by Storm Idai in Mozambique. Most recently, we have seen the devastation of communities and the ecological destruction caused by the fires in Australia, Alaska and many other parts of the world.
The underlying climate trends are even more alarming. Perhaps most concerning of all was the report published this week in the periodical, “Advances in Atmospheric Sciences”, by a team from Penn State University. It concluded that the heat in the world’s oceans had reached a new record level in 2019, which suggests the “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet. The world’s oceans are the truest barometer of the climate emergency, as they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouses gases produced by human activity. According to the analysis reports of the past five years, those five years have been the warmest recorded for the oceans. The past 10 years are also the hottest on record.
It is not just academics who are making the argument for urgent action. Back in September, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, put it simply:
“Firms that align their business models to the transition to a net zero world will be rewarded handsomely. Those that fail to adapt will cease to exist.”
Clearly, it is no longer business as usual. Larry Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock, which manages £7 trillion-worth of assets, said in his letter to investors yesterday that the climate risk must be placed at the heart of all investment decisions. That is encouraging and I hope he can be trusted. I simply ask that he and other fund managers look at the leadership shown by the Rockefeller Foundation over five years ago when it stated it would divest immediately from fossil fuel companies.
Parliament needs to do the same. It needs to act and show leadership with its own pension fund. What is incontrovertible and irrefutable is still being challenged by the deniers. That is why policy is so vital and why the world’s first climate change Act, passed of course by the Labour Government in 2008, was so important. It provided a true vision of what could be. It showed that we could address the risk of climate change while recognising the huge economic opportunity it presented. That is why the report from the independent Committee on Climate Change is so concerning. It states that the UK is off track to meet both its fourth carbon budget and the fifth carbon budget for 2028-32. Given the more recent statistics showing it is off track by an ever- widening margin, the alarm should be even greater.
When we reflect on the past 15 years—the period since the Stern report—we realise just how great the challenge is and how little time we have. As Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, has warned, the aim of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is
“too slow to address catastrophic climate change”.
I accept and commend much of what the Government are proposing, but I am worried that it lacks true ambition. Their points about air quality and setting targets are to be commended, but we need to invest in measuring and enforcing them to ensure they are actually adhered to.
Overall, the Queen’s Speech showed a lack of true ambition on the part of the Government. On energy generation and infrastructure, the Swansea tidal lagoon could be an opportunity for Britain to lead the world in this technology, if only the Government could get behind it. As we have heard from across the House, there is the opportunity presented by onshore wind farms, in which so many countries, such as France and Germany, have invested heavily, but on which we have a virtual ban. The Government instead prefer fracking . We have seen huge investment in offshore wind farms, which is to be commended, but where the Labour party proposed to build 37 new offshore wind farms, with 51% public ownership, there was a deafening silence from the Conservative party. In solar, the number of installations has fallen by 90% since 2015.
As well as generation, we must look at how we tackle consumption. On house building, we had a wonderful opportunity to build much better homes, with the introduction of standards such as the passive house. That would have happened had the Labour Government been returned in 2010. We would have built high-density homes with low-energy consumption and ensured the provision of local transport—good public transport provided through hydrogen or electrification—to meet the needs of those high-density communities Labour was planning.
I want to turn to the automotive industry, an area I am passionate about. I respect and recognise the work the Government have done with the Faraday challenge. The introduction of the UK battery industrialisation centre just outside Coventry is to be welcomed and the work of Warwick Manufacturing Group, which I have seen for myself, is world leading, but the industry needs leadership from the Government and the frameworks to encourage business investment and ensure a true transition as quickly as possible from the internal combustion engine to alternative fuel products. That is so important for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin in my constituency. Here again the CCC has criticised the Government, saying that they have not gone far enough or fast enough to address the opportunity.
We talk about how we can make those products more affordable, and their price will fall in due course, but the market needs to be driven by Government leadership, and part of that leadership is about providing the necessary infrastructure and addressing, for instance, the paucity of supply and investment in electric vehicle charging points. Let me put that it in context. In France 24,000 public charging points have been introduced in the past year, while the UK figure is just 6,500. That is why we are lagging behind, and why consumers are not switching to alternative fuel products.
We need more electric buses, and hydrogen fuel cell technology needs to be encouraged. The number of hydrogen-powered buses in Berlin is well above the norm. There is also a huge opportunity to encourage consumers to switch to electric bicycles. Great products are being introduced across the market, but let us compare the market uptake here with that in Germany. Last year 63,500 electric bikes were bought in the UK, whereas nearly a million were bought in Germany. How will we ever encourage consumers to switch unless we give them incentives to buy those bikes? They also need infrastructure—such as the Kenilworth to Leamington cycle route, for which I campaigned and which, I am pleased to say, the local authority is finally supporting.
There is much to be done. It is all about our ambition, and what the Government choose to do. However, addressing the climate emergency is not an option but an urgent necessity. We should be thankful for the students, the young people, who have been campaigning widely outside our schools and in our town centres. How on earth can a group such as Extinction Rebellion, which is so peaceful in its actions, be considered to be a terrorist organisation? All that those people are trying to do is raise this issue and make sure that the Government act with the urgency that is demanded by society.
May I suggest that we adopt the lexicon that we use when speaking of the financial crisis, when we speak of debt and of the deficit? We should be talking about environmental debt and environmental deficit. At the same time as recognising how much we are costing the earth, we should be setting legally enforceable targets, and ensuring that all Government policies are subjected to full scrutiny and environmental audit here in Parliament.
Let me end by saying that it is crucial for us to lead by example. Whether through the fleet of vehicles run by the Government or through our pension fund, we must show that we are serious about addressing the climate emergency. I believe that we must divest from fossil fuels in the parliamentary pension fund.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker—Madam Senior Deputy Speaker! It is lovely to see you in your rightful place.
Being at the back end of the shift, it has been marvellous to listen to a host of maiden speeches, all of which have been fantastic. They took me back to the occasion on which I made my own maiden speech. I particularly recall Dennis Skinner—who was mentioned very favourably in the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—being a good mentor and guide to all the new starters when I first entered the House. I thank Conservative Members for their kind words about the so-called Beast of Bolsover. He would probably fall over at the thought of people building a statue of him, but it is a nice thought.
I am thankful to my constituents in Hartlepool for returning me here, and for having faith in me to represent their interests in this place. I am also thankful for the presence of the Secretary of State for Transport, who visited our area recently. He was visiting the site of Hordern station in Peterlee, which has not yet been built, although the £10 million-plus investment in our area is incredible and great. However, I would ask the Secretary of State, with respect, to listen to the people who use that line. I appreciate the fact that Northern Rail has been taken to task, but the people who use the line know that by the time the train got to that station it would be packed to the rafters, just as it is when the train gets to Seaham. The colloquialism round there would be: why bother getting a train when it gets so packed? So, if he could look at our train issues, that would be great, and if he could work with our combined authority on regulating our buses and bringing them back into public ownership, that would be even better. As he knows, the Tees valley is an area that the Tories love to come to, so let us hope they listen to our constituents and bring in the necessary improvements.
One more thing on my wish list is for the Secretary of State for Health to come to Hartlepool and talk to local people about why we lost our A&E. A number of Members today have spoken about threats to their own A&Es and hospitals. Sadly, we lost our A&E 10 years ago, and we would like it back, please.
I could have spoken on any number of subjects in the Queen’s Speech debate—the NHS, local government, social care, the police—but I chose to speak in this debate not only because we need urgently to address climate change and global warming, which could see large parts of my constituency under water in the not too distant future, but because the need to tackle the climate crisis provides unique opportunities for former manufacturing-based coastal communities such as mine.
Hartlepool was once a proud shipbuilding and steel manufacturing town. The shipyards and the steelworks were its beating heart, but they are now long gone. We cling on to our heritage with specialist steel manufacturing, offshore oil and gas plant production, and a major offshore plant decommissioning base, Able Seaton Port, but jobs are either going or transient, and the decimation of our once-strong manufacturing heritage has left a legacy of unemployment in the town that has affected generations.
With the green new deal, or the green industrial revolution, which I know the Government are keen to grasp, we need to look to areas such as Hartlepool and the wider Tees valley to build on their existing infrastructure, knowledge and skills. Their experience in offshore oil and gas technologies and their steel and chemical manufacturing heritage speak volumes. We have the skills and capabilities, the ready-made workforce and the desire and technology to expand ports such as Hartlepool and develop new technologies such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen power. We are well positioned to convert our traditional oil and gas and chemical industries into leading providers and manufacturers of green technologies.
In the Tees valley and Hartlepool, we stand at the cutting edge of the green industrial revolution. We have the potential and the desire to reshape our industrial landscape, revitalise jobs and embrace the future, but we also need to protect the low- carbon industries already in the mix. For me, that means taking a serious approach and strategy to our nuclear energy provision. It is as essential to refocus our traditional offshore industries on to the creation of green technologies such as wind farm production as it is to replace our low-carbon nuclear power stations with new nuclear being brought to Hartlepool. One of the most important Labour party pledges in its 2019 manifesto was to continue the nuclear programme as an essential aid to a low-carbon energy future, and I am determined to work night and day to deliver on that. I therefore ask the Minister to meet me to discuss the future of the industry and the future of Hartlepool nuclear power station.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who made impressive maiden speeches today. I wish them all well in their futures as representatives of their constituencies, and I hope that they all do well by their communities.
I suppose that particular mention must be made of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), whose reminders of Scotland’s past certainly stirred passion in the hearts of those on the SNP Benches and, had you been in the Chamber, it would certainly have stirred passion in your heart as a fellow Scot, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Turning to the subject of this debate, I was delighted to hear that the UK Government will finally be taking steps to address greenhouse gas emissions. Equally, I was disappointed, but not even slightly surprised, to find that the target date for doing so is sadly 30 years in the future. It is not so much too little too late as turning up with the fire safety manual long after the building has burned to the ground. We had a statement just last week about the devastation caused by the worst Australian bushfire season ever, and I pointed out then, as I will point out again now, that Australia is not the only place on fire. We have seen the Arctic burning, too, with huge swathes of Siberian forest on fire in Greenland, Alaska and Canada. Fires in the Amazon are also beginning to threaten the ecosystems of the rainforests.
We know that this is an emergency. We know that the planet will change as a result of human activity, and the only question is, “By how much?” We know that biodiversity is being threatened and that the crops we rely on are under threat. We know all that, but the UK Government think that deferral and procrastination are okay and that nothing much will change between now and three decades hence, so let us have some sense and perspective of what 30 years means.
The first report of the IPCC calling for urgent action and strong measures to prevent serious global warming was published 30 years ago. Some Members of this Parliament had not even been born then, and we have wasted their lifetimes so far without real action. Something else that is interesting about the House of Commons of 30 years ago is that the then Prime Minister was calling for fast action to get emissions under control. Margaret Thatcher might have been horrified were she to realise that her party would still be footering aboot on the edges of the issue three decades later.
This is not just some sort of policy issue that can be revised at some future point. It is not just a passing fad that can safely be ignored. This is disaster politics coming at us with a vengeance that we cannot easily comprehend. Failing to act now does not leave options open to act later; it closes them down. A failure to act a heck of a lot more speedily three decades on will simply condemn future generations to ongoing and escalating effects that they will have to spend more and more time contending with. It will also condemn us—the generation that has had it so easy by comparison—to living a far less comfortable retirement, because much of our time and much of the effort of future Governments will be devoted to addressing the ill effects of Government failure now.
The UK Government claim to want to lead the way in addressing climate change, but they do not seem to be doing much to address climate change, so let us take a donder with the IPCC. The latest report tells us that three quarters of transport emissions are from road transport, so if the Government were serious about addressing climate change there would be massive investment in electric vehicle technology—charging points and other infrastructure, to be sure, but also research into better, less expensive technologies. Where is the commitment to do that? Where is the commitment to build more capacity for rail freight and take some of the wagons off the road?
The biggest emissions culprit is heating and power. Will there be a zero rating of VAT on renewable energy from construction to use? The Government will say they have no power to do that until they are free of the EU, so when can we expect to see that Brexit benefit?
While we are it, what about exempting building works and refurbishments that improve insulation? What about investing in better houses to begin with? What about offering incentives for insulation solutions like aerogel for passive houses and for district heating schemes?
There is no evidence that this Government intend to do anything actually to lead on climate change, and there is a similar lack of evidence that they have any idea of what to do about air quality. The 25-year plan has an ambition, if that is the right word, to reduce five air pollutants by half in 11 years—that is only five of the pollutants being pumped into children’s lungs, and maybe only reducing them by half, eventually. It is like having an ambition to paint every third plank of the garden shed, but only halfway up and only at some point in the future. In the meantime, the garden shed is rotting away and will collapse long before the painting is finished.
Way back in September 2016, I asked the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she planned to maintain the air pollution targets set out in the ambient air quality directive following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. In response, as often happens, I got a lot of words and no real answer.
The response claimed that the Clean Air Act 1956 is an example of the UK acting to improve the environment, rather than responding to thousands of Londoners being killed by smog in 1952. It touted the Act as evidence of a long-standing UK commitment to environmental action. It also said:
“Air quality has improved significantly in recent decades; we are working at local, national and international levels and will continue to do more.”
The response never answered the question about a commitment to match the EU’s air pollution targets.
This Government, in my view and in the view of many others, waffle a lot and deliver little, if anything. The time for action was quite some time ago, and the response was and still is lacking. We have gone from a need to take action 30 years ago to a promise that action will be taken 30 years hence. There are no answers to the questions being asked, and no idea of what they mean.
Alan Brown
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about air pollution, and she is highlighting the real concerns. Does she agree that those concerns are backed up by the Government’s action? They have lost to ClientEarth in the High Court at least twice because they are not taking proper action on air pollution. There are 40,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution, and that the Government will not even commit to matching the EU’s standards is a real concern.
Deidre Brock
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and I can only agree with him. It is clear evidence of this Government’s continued failure to act, and I appreciate his contribution.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Congratulations on your election and on your return to your rightful place, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a shame that you have not been here for the whole day, because we have been treated to a range of first-class maiden speeches. They have been of the highest order, and everybody who has spoken should be congratulated.
We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) about the A595, among other things, and he spoke with great aplomb. He also highlighted the failure of Northern Rail, and I know the Secretary of State for Transport will have taken full cognisance of what he had to say.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). He paid a warm tribute to Richard Burden, for which Labour Members are very grateful. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made a stirring speech. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) suggested a statue of Dennis Skinner, and my colleagues and I were speculating on the response that might have been forthcoming from his old corner at such a suggestion.
We have also been treated to a history lesson from the young hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). He may have done it before, but it was very entertaining. We also had terrific speeches from my new hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana)—her speech was powerful and inspirational—and from my new hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who said that she is no shrinking violet, which is very clear. We heard a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and we concluded with a stirring maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—I rather think it is in the blood. So we have been well served.
On the green industrial revolution, the issue at hand, the absence of commitments in the Queen’s Speech means it would appear that the Government think that because they won a general election with a campaign that ignored the climate change crisis, they can continue to ignore that crisis. I know that Government Members will protest at that characterisation, but it is accurate. The Prime Minister refused to attend a debate on the climate crisis during the general election campaign precisely because he knows it is true that the Conservatives have not addressed and do not plan to seriously address the climate crisis. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] Conservative Members shout “Rubbish”, but this was a Prime Minister who during that campaign took a plane from Teesside to Doncaster. Let us just think about that. He was getting on a jet that could hardly have become airborne before it had to land again—it is ridiculous. Of course the Government’s own advisory body on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change, stated that
“the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s”.
The Committee’s chair, Lord Deben, compared Ministers to the hapless characters in “Dad’s Army”.
This inaction not only condemns us to a more dangerous and insecure world, but exacerbates existing social and economic problems in the UK by failing to take advantage of the opportunities presented by decarbonising the economy to create well-paid, secure jobs and reduce social and regional inequalities. Transport is the problem sector for the UK. It is the UK’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the worst-performing sector on reducing carbon emissions. Indeed, transport emissions have risen since 2010. This is both a crisis and an opportunity. There is an opportunity to invest in our transport networks. We could upgrade our railways, have a long-term vision of their electrification and invest in them going forward. We could invest in bus services throughout the entire country, and in e-bikes and electric vehicles. This would not only achieve the sort of carbon emission reductions needed to meet our climate targets, but close the huge regional inequalities in transport spending and create thousands upon thousands of skilled, well-paid, unionised jobs as part of a green industrial revolution.
Unfortunately, the Government do not plan to take that opportunity. Indeed, within the past 24 hours they have responded to the troubles at Flybe by reportedly allowing the company to avoid paying more than £100 million in aviation tax—air passenger duty. Plotting to slash aviation tax in a climate crisis makes a mockery of the Government’s supposed commitment to cutting carbon emissions, and also demonstrates that they have little plan to support industry and create jobs beyond handing out tax breaks. Instead of handing out taxpayer-funded tax breaks for a small number of wealthy passengers, the Government should be electrifying the core rail network, boosting investment in the railway and slashing fares to encourage people to take the train. [Interruption.] I see the Transport Secretary chuntering about fares, but he has presided over a further 2.7% increase in rail fares, taking the rise to more than 40% since 2010. We can compare and contrast that with the Labour offer of a 33% reduction in rail fares.
The Secretary of State can snigger all he likes, but in the past several weeks Germany followed our lead and introduced a 10% reduction. Germany is going in the right direction: it wants people out of their cars and on trains. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is so keen to get on with this, perhaps he could get the Oakervee report out from under lock and key in the cupboard and publish it. We have a ludicrous situation in which a minority report has been published and the report’s authors know what is in it and are champing at the bit to speak to it, yet it remains under lock and key. What is the Secretary of State hiding? Let us have a look at it and have a discussion about it.
While we are at it, the Secretary of State can ignore the siren voices from Andrew Gilligan about cutting HS2. It would be absolutely ludicrous to cut off HS2’s legs and abandon phase 1. I have heard nothing more ludicrous in a long time. If we want to get the capacity gains, that would be a foolish thing to do, so I hope the Secretary of State talks to the Prime Minister and totally scuppers that notion.
The Government’s response to the problems faced by the automotive sector has been similarly lacklustre. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and more might be lost in the coming months and years unless the Government set out a clear strategy for the transition to electric vehicles, including a more ambitious phase-out date; a scrappage scheme for the oldest vehicles; investment in public charging infrastructure; and additional support for the purchase of expensive electric vehicles—all accompanied by a plan to give the industry the support it requires.
Other speakers, most lately the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), have mentioned the imperative in respect of air quality. He is exactly right that we are enduring premature deaths directly connected to air quality, running to some 40,000 a year in this country. That is an absolute and utter abomination and we have to take major strides in that direction.
The difficulties of the bus manufacturer Wrightbus are another example of the Government’s laissez-faire attitude to the economy and the climate. The UK has a number of excellent bus manufacturers and has the potential to be a world leader in electric bus technology, but the UK is not ambitious enough on electric buses, meaning we are not taking advantage of the industrial opportunities that a bold commitment to electrify the nation’s bus fleet would present.
Alex Sobel
The world’s first electric double-decker bus was created and delivered by Optare in Leeds, but it is not being bought by bus companies in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the Government supported Optare and ensured that we get electric buses out of the factory and on the streets?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the election campaign, I made the commitment to electrify the entire fleet in this country. That would be a major contribution to improving air quality and reducing emissions. I encourage the Government to consider that proposition again. If we can take that sort of bold step to electrify the entire fleet, we can start to deliver some real differences.
A strategy to support cycling and walking—including subsidies for e-bikes and a more interventionist approach—could similarly help to slash emissions and create jobs. Instead, the Government’s priority is to pursue a colossal road building programme that is environmentally unsustainable and will drive traffic growth and create congestion. Almost £30 billion will be spent on road building on the strategic road network.
Without a genuine green industrial revolution, the Government are condemning the country to economic stagnation and a climate crisis. The Labour party did not win the recent general election, so sadly we cannot implement our programme, but the need to address the climate crisis and revitalise our economy remains every bit as urgent.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me congratulate you on being re-elected to your post, and say how fantastic it is to be closing the debate on Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech this evening with you in the Chair.
There have been many eloquent and good contributions to this debate. They clearly set out the huge challenges that we face in decarbonising our economy. One point I would make straight off the bat is that, although there has been quite a bit of heat and light in this debate, there is actually an awful lot on which we entirely agree. This House has, after all, voted under this Government to get to zero carbon by 2050. There is almost an auction of ambition about how we get there in the fastest way. It is right and proper that we challenge each other with different ideas, many of which have come through the contributions this afternoon, in order to come up with new ideas. Some of them are, I think, ideas that could be taken further, particularly in the field of transport. Other ideas, I know, have problems. None the less, all were presented and suggested in the best possible light and, because of that, I think that all parts of the House will agree that this has been a very good and useful debate this afternoon.
It is the first time that I have been at this Dispatch Box since yesterday’s Flybe announcement. I just want to touch on that matter for a moment. Flybe is an airline that flies 9 million people a year. It connects some of the most remote parts of our country—in fact, some of the most remote parts of our nation. I was pleased to see that the union, the British Airline Pilots Association, welcomed the rescue, and I was somewhat surprised to hear the Opposition spokesman say that he is not keen on this rescue, because it would have quite literally left quite a large number of communities completely stranded.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Transport Secretary for giving way. Had he been in the Chamber yesterday when I spoke on the issue, he would have heard me say that I welcomed the Government taking action in respect of Flybe and recognised the importance of Flybe services to our communities right across the country. How we go about it is the important thing. The International Airlines Group is particularly interested in the package, and it will be asking why one corporate entity has been preferred over another. It is a question for him to address, but I hope that he accepts that it is necessary for intervention to take place.
Grant Shapps
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and thank him for putting the record straight. I was not in the Chamber yesterday because I was dealing with the issue itself, but it sounded to me, from his comments earlier, that he regretted the rescue of Flybe, which I was surprised about because there are 2,400 jobs at stake and communities that would have had no other way of being connected. Just as an example of this, there are 46 Flybe routes that no other airline covers. There are 11 destinations that have no rail links whatever, and a further 12 that it would take more than six hours to get to. It was absolutely the right thing to do because it helps to connect our communities and level up our country. That is the right approach for a responsible Government when there is a strategic national interest, which is what makes this different from previous airline failures.
None the less, because the issue has been raised in this afternoon’s debate, I will say that we want to see aviation become much greener. This is an enormous challenge and, indeed, as many Members have said, an enormous opportunity for this country. If we can get to the front of that technological research and development, we can offer electric planes to the world. Right now, it is good to see that the University of Cranfield, among other places, is working on an aircraft—a Britten Norman aircraft—which is the only British-manufactured general aviation aircraft, a commercial passenger plane, being converted to an electric aircraft, which will fly in the Scottish highlands and do the island hops. It will be the world’s first commercial electric aircraft, and that is happening in Britain. Across the House, we should all be doing everything we possibly can to get to the forefront of electric aviation and, probably in between then and now, hybrid aviation. It is a big part of my work. Members may think I am absolutely obsessed with aviation, but that is where ideas and new technology will come from, so it is right to focus on it.
Vicky Ford
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning Cranfield University, because I recall being asked to dig the first turf in the building of that facility about a decade ago. It just shows what can happen in 10 years. Does he agree that we need to harness the power of consumers? Some low-cost airlines give consumers the opportunity to carbon offset, but Flybe does not. Will he join me in encouraging airlines to give consumers at least the option to offset?
Grant Shapps
I agree that it is a great idea for airlines to offer carbon offsetting, but although that is a good first step, I want to go further. We have the opportunity, the brains and the capacity in this country to invent the future of flight, just as we helped in so many ways to invent flight initially. I want us to focus on that, and a lot of money and research is going into it now. At Cranfield, there is the E-Fan X plane—a BAe 146 aircraft built by de Havilland in my constituency back in the day, which is being converted into an all-electric aircraft in a project sponsored by, I think, Airbus and Boeing. This is a fantastic opportunity and we must take it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
If hon. Members do not mind, I will make a little progress. I am right at the beginning of my speech and there will be plenty of opportunities to intervene.
Caroline Lucas
If we can get some electric planes, I will be happy, but does the Secretary of State accept that, right now, the increasing number of individual flights is outweighing the efficiency gains in each individual flight? In other words, improvements in energy and fuel are undermined by growing demand. Does he accept that until we get to the sunny uplands of electric planes, demand needs to be constrained, and that the blanket approach of APD will not constrain demand?
Grant Shapps
Let the Member who has never flown argue on that subject. I mean no disrespect, but the reality is that we have to reach an in-between place involving hybrid fuels. We probably have to go through a hybrid stage, as we have with road vehicles, where we use biofuels and other things. The Department is doing a huge amount of work in that respect.
Grant Shapps
With hon. Members’ permission, I will make a little progress first. I have not even touched on anyone else’s speech yet, so let me talk about this afternoon’s debate. We know that global warming is one of the biggest threats to humanity. That is why tackling climate change is so important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out some of the measures we are taking.
The contributions to the debate have been particularly impressive, and I pay tribute to the nine Members I noted making their maiden speech today. Each was brilliant in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) spoke about the poor rail service in his constituency—I am sorry about that. Other Members mentioned rail services in relation to Northern. The House will be aware that I have been speaking about that recently, and will again very soon. He made a beautifully pitched and calmly delivered speech, showing how much he cares about the community he now represents. Our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) spoke in great terms about his constituency and everything going on in the community, and did a wonderful job.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) described her constituency with great care, leaving us in no doubt about her passion for it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made a fantastic speech, showing great knowledge of subjects including offshore wind. She pointed out that seven of the 10 largest offshore wind farms are here in the UK —a great statistic. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) also made their maiden speeches in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) proposed a statue of the “Beast of Bolsover”, although we do not know how that would be taken. His was a fine speech.
The new hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) talked about her constituency—the constituency in which I got married, it so happens—with great passion.
Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) also spoke about her constituency very passionately indeed. There were fantastic speeches all around, and all concentrated on today’s subject of green growth.
Reducing carbon in the atmosphere is incredibly important. I know we have had a bit of a debate about it this afternoon because we will say, quite rightly, that our economy has expanded by over two thirds since 1990, but we have managed to cut carbon emissions by more than 40%. I want to point out—because this was questioned during the debate—that these are figures not that we have somehow come to but which have been calculated under the internationally recognised system for assessing the amount of carbon that has been cut. The figures do show a 40% cut since 1990, which is faster than any other G20 country.
We continue to lead the world in this process. We have legislated for zero carbon by 2050, becoming the first major economy to do so. Of course, what happens internationally is important, but I do not accept the argument that just because we cannot control what everybody else in the rest of the world does we should not be making the effort ourselves. It is the right thing to do, and we should be proud of our performance in this area.
We also know that measures have to be viable and practical. It is easy to say that we should just follow Norway, where a number of electric cars are sold. Does the House know why that is so? It is because it does not have a domestic car production facility to protect before the change to electric; it does not produce its own cars. So to all those Members who say, “Look, why don’t we just do it tomorrow? Why don’t we just demand that every car is electric from now on?”, the answer is: because every single factory in every single one of the constituencies affected would be closing tomorrow. We have to work with the industry and help it to make the transition, and that is what this Government are doing every single day of the week.
Let us not forget what this country has achieved so far. We ratified the Paris agreement. More than half our electricity—53%—now comes from low-carbon sources. We fostered green industry, which is now worth £45 billion; and that goes to my previous point that we need to have a period of transition for industry. The new green sector now employs 430,000 people, so it is growing all the time. We are setting a net zero target, and have committed around £2 billion to green growth initiatives. An awful lot is happening.
To manage these great efforts, we know that there has to be a framework—an industrial strategy. The clean growth strategy, which details our carbon-cutting plans through to 2032, is exactly that document. In July we published our green finance strategy to trigger investment in green infrastructure technologies and services, from offshore wind to energy-efficient housing. Of course, the Prime Minister will chair the new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change to help co-ordinate the effort of the whole country to get to zero carbon. Later this year the UK will have the honour of hosting the climate change summit in Glasgow.
Alan Brown
I want to go back to the argument of, “It’s great for Norway because they don’t have a domestic car production industry to protect, so they can do what they want.” What are the UK Government doing to change the domestic car production industry in the UK to allow it to capitalise on this market? The Government were very good at making behind-the-doors, closed deals when it came to advance talks about Brexit, so what are they doing to ensure that these companies can adapt to electric car manufacturing?
Grant Shapps
I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. There is £500 million to help a gigafactory come to this country. That was not done behind closed doors; we announced it publicly. I am sorry he had not spotted the announcement. This is a very positive way of ensuring that more car production comes here. I should also let him know that one in five electric cars sold in Europe last year were made in the United Kingdom—made right here.
Our support for the electrification of vehicles is second to none. Let me give some examples. We now have more charging locations in petrol stations, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned. We have over 200,000 plug-in chargers in home locations. We have much more to do, though, and that is why both through the money already announced—£400,000—and another £1 billion in our manifesto we are pledging to put a lot more resource into having more charging locations so that people do not have as much range anxiety when they drive one of these vehicles. The need for that was one of the key points made by Members across the House.
I know exactly why people are concerned. I drive an electric car, as I have mentioned before. I know the anxiety of wondering about whether one will get to one’s next location, but the good news is that in reality, rather than just the concern about it, I have never found it to be a problem. Every single service station on the motorway network in this country—now bar one, I think—has electric charging. However, I want that charging to be faster. I want it to be rapid rather than just a so-called fast charge. This Government absolutely share the ambition of this House to get that job done and get it done quicker.
At the UN climate action summit, as Members know, the Prime Minister announced that we would double our contribution to £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2025. That will do a huge amount to assist. I heard someone say during the debate, “That’s not right because it’s coming from international development.” If we do not think it is right to use international development money to save this planet, then I do not know what the money is there for. It is absolutely the right thing to be doing.
I am delighted that the Queen’s Speech includes significant measures to move forward our green programme even further. In particular, the environment Bill will put accountability and practical delivery at the heart of our agenda while providing much-needed certainty for business. The Bill includes measures to improve air quality, restore habitats, increase biodiversity, build a less wasteful economy—hon. Members have mentioned things such as plastic waste, which it will deal with—and better manage our water resources.
Crucially, the Bill will introduce a system for new, legally binding long-term targets in all these critical areas so that central and local government—there has been some talk about how local government fits into this picture—are clear on their legal responsibilities to protect our precious environment. I have been working very actively with local authorities—for example, in the provision of electric car charging points—to ensure that they have everything they need to be able to accelerate this programme as quickly as possible.
Those targets all have a minimum duration of 15 years, because given the scale of the challenge we face, which has been so well articulated by Members across the House, we believe that we have to be extremely ambitious. We have to consider the implications for business, for industry and for the public. We must take people with us as we adapt to this enormous change, use new technology, and make sure that we hit the necessary emission goals, as we will have to do because they will be there in law.
Although air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010 and emissions of nitrogen oxides are at their lowest level since records began, I want to acknowledge a couple of areas where I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). Since energy is no longer the most polluting part of our economy because we produced 53% through renewable sources last year, transport is now the most polluting part of our economy. I think he gave the figure: 27% of all pollution comes from transport, and 90% of that from vehicles. There is a huge prize in solving this problem, and the technology is already here. I heard Members talk about the use of alternative and different types of energy for cars—hydrogen, for example. These technologies are coming along. We have a £28 million programme to further the production of hydrogen vehicles. In transport, it is horses for courses, so heavy items such as trains will work well in future through hydrogen, and lighter items such as cars will work better through electricity. It is a question of developing in all those different ways, and that is what we are determined to do.
There was a very interesting exchange about the amount of NO2 in our atmosphere. A huge amount of these particles come from transport, and although that discussion was about whether pollutants and CO2 are the same thing—they are clearly not—the reality is that if we take a lot of the same steps it will solve the same problems. It is good and right that the Bill we are introducing tackles both those things: fine particulate matter and CO2.
We know that there is a huge amount to be done, and I know that the whole House wants us to get there. One of the most controversial areas is when we end the sale of petrol and diesel cars. I heard a number of calls in the debate to do that earlier than the already pledged 2040. I want to do that. I have spoken about that and we will consult on it, but we need to do it in a way that ensures that people do not end up coming back to the House saying, “What happened to that industry and those car producers in my constituency?” We have to do it in a way that works and takes the whole of the economy with us in the best possible way.
From some of the discussion this afternoon, it may not be obvious that the number of electric cars has grown from just 1,500 a decade ago to 200,000 today. The growth in the last year alone has been enormous. Electric car sales are taking off. I think I am right in saying that we have the second largest market in the European Union for ultra low emission cars.
We are doing an awful lot of things behind the scenes to encourage take-up. For example, if someone goes to pay their road tax on the DVLA site right now, they will see a page that suggests that they might be able to pay less road tax if they transfer to an electric car. I know that there are concerns about the overall costs of buying a new electric car, but I want to make this point. When someone buys an electric car, they will find that their petrol bill disappears—it is replaced by an electric bill, but that will probably be a 10th of the cost. They will find that there is no oil for the car and no servicing for the car, and the car tax may well be much lower. Given that 85% of car buyers buy on a finance package—a personal contract purchase—the overall lifetime experience of owning the car may not be all that different. But I agree that we need to work hard to ensure that, as with solar, where we have seen a 50% cut in the cost, we see the same with electric cars.
This has been an excellent debate. The Queen’s Speech has laid out an exciting programme to prepare Britain for the future, making us a more prosperous yet greener nation. We have a unique opportunity today, after three and a half years in which Brexit has—let’s face it—dominated everything about politics and absorbed so much time and energy. We now have a strong mandate to deliver our vision for a modern, green, growing economy, and that is why I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Chineham Post Office
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to present this petition with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. With very little notice, the busy and much used post office in Chineham was closed on 15 August last year. Residents from across Basingstoke have told me how shocked they were by that and how much they relied on the services it offered. The strength of feeling is demonstrated by how many people have signed this petition. These concerns are being listened to, and I present this petition to underline the support from residents to get a new operator for the post office in place as soon as possible.
I would like to thank Chineham’s hard-working team of councillors for supporting the petition—Councillor Laura Edwards, Councillor Paul Miller, Sherfield Park parish council chair Jenny Vaux, and of course Councillor Elaine Still who, as a former postmistress herself, knows the crucial role that this service plays in the community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Basingstoke,
Declares that action must be taken concerning the recent closure of Chineham Post Office Branch and the loss of vital services for local residents as a result of the Old Basing PO operator also withdrawing in recent years.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urge Post Office Ltd, Tellon Capital LLP and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to ensure that Chineham residents have access to vital Post Office services and priority is given to opening a branch as part of the new development at Chineham Shopping Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002549]
Ockenden Review of Maternity Care: Shrewsbury and Telford
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I am delighted to have been granted this Adjournment debate on this very important issue. I want to raise it because the issue deserves the platform that Parliament affords. It concerns the safety of women and babies receiving maternity care at hospitals in Shropshire. I raise that in the context of the Morecambe Bay trust inquiry into maternity deaths in 2015, which at the time was considered to be a one-off. What has come to light at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust suggests that there may be systemic problems within the NHS and maternity care, and there are without doubt significant concerns about the lack of transparency and openness around what went wrong.
The Ockenden review was set up two and half years ago to look at 23 possible cases of maternity malpractice at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust. So far there have been no formal published findings. However, in November 2019 interim findings were leaked to the media. Those findings show not only that had some very serious failings indeed been uncovered by the review, but that the scale of the malpractice, and the number of women and babies affected by it, exceeded anything that had been expected when the review was initiated.
The interim findings stated that there had been in excess of 40 avoidable maternity deaths and 50 brain-injured babies. NHS Improvement was given that information almost a year ago and appears to have kept quiet about the findings. The findings also make reference to “widespread failings, a toxic culture and a failure to learn lessons.” Since those findings were made public, many, many more women have come forward—women who knew nothing about a review being held. The review is now looking at over 600 cases of possible maternity care malpractice.
Those interim findings directly contradict what senior management were saying publicly at the time when the review was commissioned. Senior management claimed that this was all overblown by the media, that it was all historical, and that good practice was in place now. The chief executive claimed that concerns raised about the possible scale of malpractice were “scaremongering”—his word. Senior hospital management adopted the stance that “it simply couldn’t happen here.” The CEO said that the media, particularly the BBC, had it in for them; that is what they actually said to me, the MP. How, in that kind of environment, can lessons be learned if there is no acceptance that anything has gone wrong?
We had the same response from the authorities in Telford when the scale of child sexual exploitation in the town was revealed. That denial, or perhaps being in denial, seems to be the standard response from those in positions of authority—minimising the problem, blaming the media and depicting those affected as being in some way troublesome.
Let us compare the review from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust with that from Morecambe Bay, where there were 11 avoidable baby deaths and one maternal death. The Morecambe Bay inquiry reported promptly, and the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), came immediately to the House, made a statement, and apologised to the families. He pledged that lessons would be learned, and that the legacy of those tragic deaths would mean that such things could not happen again. My right hon. Friend is in the Chamber today, and I am grateful that he did not just accept the position taken by senior management, NHS bureaucrats, and officials from Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospital Trust at face value. I commend him for initiating the Ockenden review, and for his commitment to encouraging a culture of transparency and openness across the NHS. We must continue with that approach.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I wish to repay the compliment and thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this issue. It is not easy publicly to criticise a local hospital trust, and for an hon. Member to do that, as in this case, shows enormous courage. Does she agree that the biggest mistake the Government could make when they publish and respond to the Ockenden review would be to say that this is a one-off incident? The most important thing is to consider what went wrong at Shrewsbury and Telford, and to learn those lessons for the whole NHS. The big thing that we learned from Morecambe Bay and Mid Staffs was that such lessons apply across the system.
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend makes an important point—I was going to come to it in my speech, so I will bring it in now. The Morecambe Bay inquiry was led by Dr Bill Kirkup, who said of the recent findings at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust that
“two clinical organisational failures are not two one offs”,
and that that points to an “underlying systemic problem” that may exist in other hospitals. My right hon. Friend is right to make that point, and I thank him for his kind comments.
The interim findings in the Ockenden review were not published, and I understand that the hospital trust has not been told about them. The families were certainly not told about them, and neither were MPs. There has been no statement to the House, and we do not know what action is being taken to ensure the safety of women and babies at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am an avid watcher of that Sunday night programme, “Call the Midwife”—I am not sure whether you watch it, Mr Speaker—where everything seems to work out at the end of the day. The hon. Lady is outlining something that does not work out at the end of the day. She mentioned families. Does she agree that the care of mother and baby must be a priority, and that more support for mothers who have had several children must be considered, to ensure that they are coping and not expected simply to carry on because they already know what to expect? Every life is precious and adds more pressures to families, particularly mothers.
Lucy Allan
I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As always, he makes an excellent point, and I am grateful to him for his many interventions in many debates I have secured.
I am concerned that the NHS can choose to sit on this information, and that Ministers can say, “Well, we don’t comment on leaks”. This is about the safety of women and babies, and the adequacy of the maternity care they receive in our hospitals today. Women were repeatedly told that their case was a one-off tragedy, that there will always be risks to childbirth, and that such risks cannot be completely mitigated. Failings seem somehow to have been normalised, and at the time many women accepted that, rather than question or challenge the care they received. People trust the medical profession, which is why openness and transparency are so crucial.
When people raised concerns they were dismissed as being difficult—no one listened. There was a “we know best” attitude, and complaints about poor practice were treated as women making a fuss about a perfectly natural event that occasionally would have a negative outcome. As Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend spoke about “never events”, and I suggest that those must include an avoidable death. A baby dying in childbirth should therefore be a “never event”, yet it seems that that is not the way the deaths in this case were treated—they were treated as something that could be a result of childbirth. The trust even boasted of having the lowest number of caesarean deliveries in the country, so there seems to have been an unwillingness to intervene when there were complications in a delivery. In my view, an intervention during a difficult birth must be a good thing: that is what the clinicians and medical professionals are there to do. I am concerned about the way this trust appears to have treated women and about its attitude towards women, which seems to have been dismissive. And that is something we have seen from the top.
What adds insult to injury in this particular case is that the trust commissioned a report in 2013 that appeared to find that all was well. We now know, because of the leaked report, that that was in fact a whitewash. The trust was exonerated by what was a perfunctory bare minimum desk-top review. This allowed poor practice to continue unchecked. If it had been identified at the time, the more recent cases of malpractice, which are still coming forward and include death and injury, could have been avoided. We still do not know how many women and babies have been affected, but we do know that £50 million in compensation has been paid out already. However, with hundreds more women coming forward, the cases in which a financial settlement has already been reached are clearly the tip of the iceberg.
The question we have to ask, and must go on asking, is whether that poor care, and the normalisation and denial of it, is a systemic problem within the complex bureaucracy that is the NHS.
Lucy Allan
I shall be delighted to give way to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.
Mr Paterson
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very, very difficult subject forward. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for launching the Ockenden review. It is very easy to talk about numbers, but every one of these cases is unutterably terrible and ghastly for the family concerned, and obviously a total tragedy. We all know dreadful stories from the past. The latest figures show that the infant mortality rate at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust is 3.7 per 1,000, against a national average of 3.9 and a national target, which I would like the Minister to comment on, of 2.6 by 2025. My hon. Friend has rightly raised the absolute horrors and the dreadful culture—we all know terrible stories—but does she derive any satisfaction from the fact that we are marginally better than the national average at the moment and possibly heading towards the national target by 2025?
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Clearly, the majority of women using these services have an excellent and safe experience. It is good news that there is progress and improvement, but we should not gloss over any of these cases. Regrettably, there have been new, recent cases in my constituency where women have come forward, having been made aware of the review, saying, “This happened to me a couple of years ago.” It is good that the numbers are improving, but we must make sure that every one of those deaths is treated as another event.
Philip Dunne
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I completely agree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), that she is making a powerful case. It is quite right that she has brought this issue forward. On the subject of current practice versus some of the cases that are being considered in the Ockenden review, which stretches back 40 years, she will remember that it was initiated by the case of a couple who were constituents of mine. They lost their baby in 2009, over 10 years ago. Their concern was that, as my hon. Friend rightly identifies, the case had been inadequately handled and effectively covered up by the hospital.
One of my concerns, in addition to getting to the bottom of what has happened over a long period of time, is that we need to be reassured, as local Members of Parliament serving our constituents today, that the maternity services available to people in Shropshire are safe and of high quality. It would be helpful if in some way, given the scale of the inquiry that Ockenden is undertaking, there could be some interim finding on the current state of practice in Shropshire and Telford, so that at least expectant mums who are going to use those services can feel reassured. That would not prevent a more detailed inquiry going back into past practice. Does she agree with me on that point?
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That might be something that the Minister can address, because we want users of maternity services to have absolute confidence in the care that they receive. However, we do not create confidence by hiding facts. If we can get some of the facts out that have been leaked to the media, let us do that and deal with those. He is absolutely right that that will help to reassure parents and give them confidence in the services that are being delivered—the vast majority receive a very good standard of care, and safe care.
The trust, and possibly other trusts, must work towards a culture of openness and transparency and perhaps show more of a willingness to accept that, “This can happen here.” I kept hearing, “Well, this can’t happen here. It hasn’t happened here,” and I cannot feel comfortable if people cannot acknowledge where things have gone wrong.
I recognise that the Minister may not have all the answers today, and I do not expect all the points to be addressed, but we need to know why NHS Improvement sat on the review’s findings for almost a year. Given how serious they are, why has it not come forward to say, “This is what the Ockenden review has found at an interim stage”?
I want to ask who knew what and when. Were Ministers informed, or were they too kept in the dark? If this had not been leaked, when would we have been told? When will the review be completed? It has now been almost three years. When will the Secretary of State make a statement on this very, very serious issue? I also want to know whether the management still think that this has been cooked up by the media, or whether they genuinely now realise that there is a serious problem to be addressed. It is very important that the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS bodies understand and acknowledge the seriousness, and that all parties are encouraged to be open about it.
As a constituency MP who has had women contact me recently to share their birth experiences at the trust, it seems to me that red lights are flashing. We need to know what is being done to ensure the safety of women and their babies using this service. I very much thank the Minister for her forthcoming comments and any reassurances that she can give my constituents on this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is an absolute honour and a delight to be responding to this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Speaker—it is the first time I have done so—and congratulations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing the debate. Before I respond to her specific comments, I turn to the wider points that she raised that addressed the UK as a whole.
To reassure people—mothers, particularly—I would like to make one or two points about the wider context of the debate: the safety of giving birth in the UK. The NHS in this country remains one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. The Government’s maternity ambition is to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth, by 2025. That ambition also includes reducing the rates of pre-term births from 8% to 6%. I reassure her that we have already achieved our ambition for a 20% decrease in stillbirths by 2020, so we are very much on track with those ambitions.
First and foremost, I express my heartfelt sympathies to every family who has been affected by previous failings in the trust’s maternity services. There can be no greater pain for a parent than to lose a child.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the former Secretary of State, who asked NHS Improvement to commission the independent review of maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford in 2017, which is two years ago now—my hon. Friend was quite right about that. I take mild issue with one of her points, however, which was that NHS Improvement kept quiet about the failings. I find that slightly disappointing, because the raison d’être of NHS Improvement, which was also established by my right hon. Friend, is to investigate, expose and learn from failings, so I think she would agree it is not something that NHS Improvement would do. It is not in the culture of the organisation; the exact opposite is true.
The review being chaired by Donna Ockenden, a clinical expert in maternity and a registered midwife, was tasked with assessing the quality of previous investigations and the implementation of recommendations at the trust relating to new-born, infant and maternal harm. The original terms of reference covered the handling of 23 cases. The terms of reference have since been updated and were published in November to reflect the expanded scope of the review, and the review team will be in touch in the following weeks with the affected families to ensure that they are appropriately supported throughout the process. I am afraid I have to inform my hon. Friend and the House that the additional cases have now been identified and the total number relevant to the review now stands at 900, a small number of which go back 40 years.
The extra cases have been found by a number of means—from looking at previous incidents reported at the hospital to parents brave enough to come forward and talk about their own experiences. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that, unlike with Morecambe Bay, which involved a small number of cases, it will take the review considerably longer to investigate 900 cases[Official Report, 20 January 2020, Vol. 670, c. 1MC.]. That is why there has been no report so far. The interim finding was not 600; the number is greater. It is appropriate that, while this important work is being done, we do not influence or comment on it and that we let Donna Ockenden get on with her vital work. It is our responsibility to let her do that and to provide the additional support needed given the additional cases identified. It is a huge increase on the original number of cases.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank the Minister for her personal commitment to patient safety, which I have seen on many occasions, but she will be aware that what she has just told the House is deeply shocking. She is saying that the scale of potential avoidable death at Shrewsbury and Telford may be no different from that at Mid Staffs. Could she reassure the House, given the huge resources devoted to the public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs, that the Department will make sure that Donna Ockenden has all the resources and support she needs, because getting to the bottom of this will be a huge job? Does the Minister also recognise that, while it will take more time, the families would also like it resolved as quickly as possible?
Ms Dorries
Absolutely, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Yes, the Department is liaising closely with Donna Ockenden about what support she needs to conclude her work as soon as possible, for the sake of the families. As he will understand, the review cannot be rushed; it has to be done properly and thoroughly. We have to get to the bottom of this matter, which is why Donna Ockenden is being supported in the way she is. Anything she needs in order to conclude this review successfully she will have. I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal comments. As he will know, and as he has said, I am utterly committed to patient safety, to eradicating avoidable harms and to making the NHS the safest place—not one of the safest—in the world to give birth. The review is important in the light of that.
As well as the families who came forward when the review was launched, media coverage has raised awareness of it, prompting further contacts with the trust and the review team. More recently, Donna Ockenden herself made a final appeal for any more families who believe that they have been affected to come forward. I am grateful to all the families who have voluntarily agreed to assist the review, although that may mean their having to revisit painful and distressing experiences. We expect it to conclude by the end of the year, at which point the Government will work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement to consider the next steps.
As I have said, it is important for the review to be allowed to proceed unhindered, and without speculation about its conclusions or findings. However, I am very aware that current maternity patients at the trust may want reassurance that they will be safe and looked after. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford referred to “red lights”. I can reassure her that steps are being taken at the trust. It is completely understandable that people are asking questions, but I have asked for a meeting with the interim chief executive, because I want to see for myself that those steps are working. She has already made a public statement to reassure all families using the trust’s maternity services that much work has already been done to address issues raised by previous cases and to improve services, while acknowledging that the trust—obviously—had further to go.
During the November inspection of the trust’s maternity services, the Care Quality Commission found that the trust had taken action following the last inspection in April, so it was clearly listening and implementing the recommendations. As a result, there had been a number of improvements. Although more work was still needed, staffing had increased, and morale and governance had improved. However, I expect the CQC to keep a close eye on what is going on.
Let me end by restating the strength of our commitment to improving the quality and safety of maternity care. As I have said, the Government’s maternity ambition is to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirth, and we are on track to do that, which is incredibly important. Let me also say to my hon. Friend that, although I cannot reveal to her what is happening in the review—I cannot find out what is happening myself, because Donna Ockenden needs that autonomy—my door is always open. If my hon. Friend wants to discuss with me at any time what I have said tonight about the improvements that are being made at the trust, she need only pick up the phone. I am there to answer any questions that she may have on behalf of her constituents, and I ask her please not to hesitate to contact me if she needs further reassurances.
As I have said, the NHS remains one of the safest places, although we want to make it the safest place. What is most important is to ensure that the tragic cases that the Ockenden review is examining are not repeated anywhere else. That must be the objective. Women deserve a better maternity experience, and that is what we are determined to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Space Agency: SatelLife Competition 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The UK Space Agency is offering young people expert advice and the chance to connect with space industry representatives, potential investors and commercial partners, as well as a share of £50,000 for their ideas of how satellites could improve life on Earth.
Satellite services such as navigation, communications and earth observation support industrial sectors worth £300 billion to the UK economy. This competition gives young people the chance to test new ideas with space experts and perhaps one day become part of the UK space sector, which already supports 42,000 jobs and could create thousands more this decade.
By supporting the UK’s next generation of scientists and engineers, the competition will help turn young people’s ideas into real-world proposals that could eventually transform our lives—from saving our planet from climate change, to improving healthcare services.
Anyone aged between 11 and 22 years old has until 3 March 2020 to enter the competition through the UK Space Agency’s website. The winners will go on to pitch their ideas to a panel of industry experts, with the opportunity to gain further advice and support.
The Government are committed to establishing a National Space Council and developing a UK space strategy, while establishing commercial spaceflight from UK spaceports for the first time, to help the UK lead the way in this fast-growing, high-technology sector. It is my own personal ambition to ensure the sector has a bright future, and I would encourage all young people who are fascinated by space to enter the SatelLife competition and to play a key part in the second space age.
[HCWS39]
Foreign Affairs Council: 10 January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
On 10 January, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Josep Borrell, convened an extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Brussels to address recent developments in Iraq and Libya. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison) attended the meeting.
Libya
Ministers exchanged views on recent developments in Libya, including the military escalation around Tripoli and the EU’s engagement. HRVP Borrell briefed on his recent diplomatic engagement, including with the E4 (France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom) and with Libyan Prime Minister Serraj. HRVP Borrell updated Ministers on his plans to engage with all players involved, with the objective of moving towards a political solution within the framework of the Berlin process and UN-led mediated efforts.
The United Nations (UN) Special Representative and Head of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), Ghassan Salame, briefed Ministers on his work to prepare for the planned Berlin summit, which will focus on practical initiatives towards long-term stability in Libya.
Dr Murrison expressed full support for German efforts to boost regional co-operation, and underscored the need for international unity, particularly in support of the UN process and of the strict enforcement of the UN arms embargo.
Recent developments in Iran and Iraq
The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Jens Stoltenberg, briefed Ministers on the latest developments in Iraq.
Ministers emphasised the need for the de-escalation of tensions in the region and maximum restraint as well as condemning attacks on coalition forces engaged in the fight against Da’esh. They stressed their continued support for Iraq’s stability and reconstruction and urged Iran to return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) without delay.
Dr Murrison supported calls for de-escalation and shared our deep concern at Iran’s latest announcement of non-compliance with the JCPoA. Dr Murrison also offered the United Kingdom’s condolences to those affected by the Ukraine Airlines crash, and called for EU support for a full investigation.
[HCWS37]
Outcomes of the Foreign Affairs Councils: 11 November and 9 December 2019
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)
The 11 November and 9 December Foreign Affairs Councils (FACs) took place in Brussels while Parliament was dissolved. Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), chaired the November FAC with her replacement Josep Borrell chairing the December FAC. The United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the Political and Security Committee, Paul Johnston, represented the United Kingdom at both the November and December FAC.
November FAC
At the November FAC, HRVP Mogherini briefed Ministers on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Lebanon and touched on Turkey’s actions in North-East Syria. Ministers also adopted a framework for sanctions in response to Turkey’s hydrocarbons explorations activity in the eastern Mediterranean.
On Hong Kong, the United Kingdom stressed the need for support for the right to peaceful protest; condemnation of the violence; the need for a proportionate response; the importance of China upholding the Joint Declaration; and the need for investigations into the treatment of protestors.
Ministers discussed the EU’s approach to Iran and Gulf Regional Security, following Tehran’s announcement of further non-compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA).
The United Kingdom highlighted our commitment to the JCPoA while noting that Iranian actions were putting the deal under pressure. We stressed the importance of all parties engaging in comprehensive negotiations and of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchange (INSTEX) to avoid the collapse of the deal and to support regional security.
Ministers discussed the political situation in Afghanistan and reviewed the prospects for peace, following the presidential election. HRVP Mogherini underlined the EU’s willingness to contribute both politically and financially to peace talks, and its readiness to support an inclusive Afghan political process. The United Kingdom stressed the importance of reductions in Taliban violence and renewed US-Taliban talks as an important step towards the relaunch of intra-Afghan negotiations.
Ministers had an exchange of views with the Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. They reaffirmed the EU’s strong political commitment to support the civilian transitional government, as well as the EU’s readiness to provide financial aid for the transition, including in support of economic and state structure reform. They highlighted the importance of ensuring that the civilian transition remains an inclusive process, including an appropriate role for youth and women.
December FAC
In December, Ministers expressed their concerns about the Turkey-Libya memorandum of understanding on delimitation of maritime jurisdiction and on security and military co-operation. They also reflected on the political situation in Libya and the Berlin process, which aims to find a sustainable solution to the situation in the country.
Ministers exchanged views on Ukraine, in the context of the Normandy Format leaders’ summit, which took place in Paris the following week, and the situation in Iran, following the recent meeting of the Joint Commission of the JCPoA, as well as recent protests. HRVP Borrell briefed on the situation in Bolivia, Moldova and Hong Kong. On the latter, the United Kingdom underlined the importance of meaningful government efforts around dialogue to prevent a return to violence.
Ministers discussed EU-Africa relations in preparation for 2020’s Ministerial and summit-level meetings between the EU and the African Union (AU). They addressed the political, economic, security and demographic aspects of the relationship as well as important cross-cutting issues such as climate change and digitalisation. Ministers emphasised that the next summit would be an important milestone in modernising and scaling up the EU’s partnership with Africa.
Ahead of human rights Day on 10 December, Ministers discussed the promotion and protection of human rights in the world. They assessed the EU’s work on human rights, the instruments at its disposal and its priorities for the coming months, reaffirming the EU’s leadership in the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. HRVP Borrell announced the launch of preparatory work on a possible sanctions regime to address serious human rights violations.
During the working lunch, Ministers informally discussed the FAC’s working methods. The new HRVP set out his priorities, including the Western Balkans, Europe’s Neighbourhood and the Middle-East, as well as on how the EU could work together more effectively to deliver operational outcomes.
Conclusions
At the November FAC, the Council extended sanctions on Venezuela for a year due to persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It also adopted a framework for restrictive measures in response to Turkey’s hydrocarbons explorations activity in the eastern Mediterranean.
At the December FAC, the Council agreed a number of measures:
The Council decided to maintain individual restrictive measures against several personalities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) regarding the obstruction of the electoral process and human rights violations, and to lift these measures for two other persons.
The Council also adopted conclusions on the DRC that support the most recent elections as the first peaceful transfer of power in the country’s history and state the EU’s readiness for a gradual engagement in support to the DRC Government’s reform agenda, based on reciprocal commitments.
The Council adopted conclusions on Sudan, recognising the opportunity for democracy, peace and prosperity following the political transition. They highlight Sudan’s importance in the region’s stability and reaffirm the EU’s commitment to accompanying Sudan on its reform path towards democracy. While welcoming the transition Government’s recent steps, they reiterate the EU’s concern for the deteriorating humanitarian situation and call upon the Sudanese authorities to remove remaining bureaucratic obstacles to humanitarian and development actors’ work.
The Council adopted conclusions on the civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Compact, reaffirming its commitment to make civilian CSDP more capable, effective, flexible and responsive. They highlight CSDP missions’ significant contribution to international peace and stability as an essential part of the EU’s integrated approach to external conflicts and crises. They also emphasise the need to strengthen the EU’s role and capacity to act as a security provider through CSDP.
The Council adopted conclusions on the EU Arctic policy, and noted that the EU should continue to make a significant contribution in both regional and multilateral fora.
The Council adopted a decision in support of strengthening biological safety and security in Latin America in line with the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The Council extended the implementation period of the decision in support of the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons to a total of 48 months. This extension of the implementation period will allow the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is responsible for the technical implementation of the project, to reach its planned objectives.
The Council adopted a decision in support of SEESAC disarmament and arms control activities in south east Europe reducing the threat of illicit small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition.
The Council adopted the EU position within the Ghana-EU Economic Partnership Agreement Committee regarding the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation.
The Council adopted a decision setting out the EU’s position within the administrative committee for the international convention on the harmonisation of frontier controls of goods, which aims to reduce barriers to international trade and facilitate the movement of goods at the international level, to reduce administrative burdens on member states.
[HCWS36]
Regional Connectivity
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Department for Transport, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy have been in discussions with Europe’s largest regional airline, Flybe, which plays an important role in the UK’s connectivity by flying regional routes.
In a sign of the Prime Minister’s commitment to levelling up all regions of the UK, the Government have announced additional measures to support regional connectivity across the UK, to ensure all corners of the country drive the economy, and fully benefit from prosperity in years to come.
A review of regional connectivity will ensure all nations and regions of the UK have the domestic transport connections local communities rely on—including regional services from local airports. This review, led by DfT, will consider all options to ensure we continue to have good regional connectivity. The DfT will work closely with the aviation industry, local regions and devolved nations to identify how we can support connectivity.
As part of this work and ahead of the March Budget, the Treasury will also be reviewing air passenger duty (APD) to ensure regional connectivity is supported while meeting the UK’s climate change commitments to meet net zero by 2050.
The outcomes of these reviews will benefit the entire industry, passengers, communities, regions and nations across the UK.
These measures featured in discussions between the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HM Treasury and Europe’s largest regional airline, Flybe, which plays an important role in the UK’s connectivity.
HMG was notified about the difficulties of Flybe on 11 January, and since then we have worked intensively with the company to understand their financial position and explore options. In the light of these discussions, the management and shareholders on 14 January took action to set Flybe on a recovery path.
[HCWS38]
House of Lords
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deaths of Former Members
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, on 8 January, and of Lord Chalfont, on 10 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Jan 2020)
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“( ) But regulations under this Part may not amend or repeal the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that regulations made under this Part may not make provision to amend the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in line with restrictions under new paragraph 11G, Schedule 2 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Clause 19).
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, yesterday, I explained the purpose of the amendments that we sought to make at that stage, and the first, second and fourth amendments in this group all underlie the same purpose; namely, to ensure that if changes are necessary to the devolution settlements, they are dealt with in a proper constitutional manner, and that when we are outside the EU, the spirit, as well as the letter, of the devolution settlements is followed and the Government at Westminster pay the greatest regard to those.
I should make it clear, as I did yesterday, that I approach this from the standpoint of Wales, in part because that is where, by and large, my experience comes from, and because the union and its continuation is so important to Wales. It is essential that this House, and, I hope, Her Majesty’s Government, give every encouragement to those in Wales who wish to see the union strengthened, and by close co-operation. It may seem that these devolution issues are not that important at this time, but they are. It is inevitable that the devolution schemes will have to be looked at in the light of our departure from the European Union.
I will deal with each of the three proposed amendments, the first of which seeks to amend Clause 22. I intend to say very little about this. It follows on from last night’s debate on the amendments to Clause 21 and the extent to which powers conferred in that clause are not subject to limitations. The same arguments apply to Clause 22. In light of the position that was left last night, I see no point in advancing the arguments to the same effect all over again.
On Clause 26 and Amendment 23, in a way, this amendment comes out of order, because it presupposes that the amendments suggested that would delete proposed new subsections 5A and 5B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords, will not proceed. I will make some observations in due course in support of the objectives of the clause, but not on the manner in which those objectives are sought to be carried out. I will make those observations when we come to that amendment. This amendment addresses a much simpler issue: the importance of giving due regard to the views of the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and—now that it is again in place—Northern Ireland, in formulating any draft regulations of the kind envisaged in the clause, both as to the courts that are to be entitled to depart from previous decisions and the tests that are to be applied.
The clause rightly provides for prior consultation with the judiciary if Ministers decide to proceed in this way. Although Wales’s judiciary is linked with that of England at present, I ought to declare that I presided over a commission appointed by the Welsh Government that examined the future of the legal system in Wales, and in particular, the possible establishment in due course—long outside the scope of the time of this Bill, of course—of a separate judiciary in Wales. The clause also provides for other persons to be consulted but does not list them. Neither Welsh, nor Scottish nor Northern Ireland Ministers are included in the list of consultees. However, bearing in mind that retained EU case law is comprehensive in its definition, and that both the devolved legislatures and the devolved Governments have made legislation and acted on the basis of current law within the devolved fields, it seems obvious that they should be consulted if there is to be a change in the scope of the courts and a new test is to be laid down. They are vitally affected by it, and they should not be left out. The amendment is simple, asking that the role of the devolved Assemblies and Administrations be recognised. I understand that when this clause first appeared in the Bill, there had been no prior discussion with Welsh Ministers about this issue. I hope that the Government will look at it and give the closest possible attention to this amendment.
On Clause 38 and Amendment 45, as the report of the Constitution Committee states in welcoming this clause’s recognising the sovereignty of Parliament, the clause has no legal effect. It may therefore be surprising that I wish to take up time on a clause that has no legal effect. However, the Explanatory Memorandum also makes it clear that there is no material difference to the position of Parliament. Yet I agree that there are circumstances in which it is useful to remind people of the basics of our constitution, and this is no exception.
However, this amendment has been tabled because if there is to be such a reminder—the clause can have no purpose other than that—it should be recognised that since 1998, there has been a significant change to the constitution and in particular to the devolved schemes of administration. In failing to refer to the Sewel convention, which provides that Parliament will not normally legislate without the agreement of the National Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Government of Northern Ireland in relation to devolved matters, the clause does not put in place the correct balance of our constitution as it now moves forward. The amendment has been tabled to provide such a reference. It would ensure that for the future—as I hope would be the case in any event—the importance of the devolution settlement is critical to how the union is preserved as we go forward to our life outside the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made an obviously reasonable and appropriate case for the propriety of the Government consulting with Ministers in the devolved Assemblies. That is not only good politics, it is good manners, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord who will be replying on behalf of the Government will readily accept that that is appropriate. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept Amendment 23.
Amendment 45 is an amendment to a clause that is in any case otiose, so I do not think it is necessary for the Government to accept it, but again I hope that the Minister will affirm that of course the Government will want to follow the usual conventions and established procedures for legislative consent.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to three of the amendments in this group. Yesterday I spoke in support of Amendment 15, and those remarks are relevant to Amendment 18 so I will not repeat them. It is important to ensure that our concerns about the Bill are recognised. One is that, as currently written, the Bill can be interpreted as not respecting the union, which becomes extremely important constitutionally.
Amendment 23 relates to Clause 26 and the potential role of the courts, other than the Supreme Court, in the future. The difficulty arises in having due regard to the devolved Administrations, as my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has outlined. Legislation that has already been passed by the Senedd, the Welsh Assembly Government, reflects European rulings. If those rulings are changed in the future, the Assembly will have to address the changes. The difficulty, of course, is that if it has not been consulted on all the changes to the way appeals can be made, it could find itself in an extremely difficult position.
This amendment, like the others that we have tabled, is therefore designed to prevent avoidable problems emerging in the future. I cannot see that anything in our amendments would undermine the Government’s ability to move forward with their withdrawal Bill, but they would make sure that the legislative powers already held by the Senedd and the Welsh Government are respected.
Our amendment to Clause 38 is necessary because, as written, it fails to refer to the Sewel convention and therefore risks undermining the devolution settlements. If the Government do not wish to accept the amendment, one could suggest another way forward by deleting the entire clause, although I suspect that they are less minded to do that than to insert something short to respect the devolved settlements.
I also signal my support for Amendment 29 in the group, because again it aims to safeguard the devolution settlements from unilateral amendment by Ministers of the Crown. Although the conduct of international negotiations is a reserved matter, which everyone respects, the amendment would ensure that the impact on the devolution settlements are recognised and would give the devolved institutions the responsibility to make arrangements to implement international agreements as they go forward.
Essentially, we are asking to be consulted and to be kept in the loop. We are not asking for a veto, but our amendments ask for the devolution settlement to be respected, as it works at the moment with an intact union.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 18, 23 and 45. I am very pleased to support the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
The issues at question are issues of trust between the devolved Governments and the Government of the United Kingdom. Nobody is arguing that the devolved Governments have power over international treaties—of course they do not; they are reserved powers. None the less, what will be undertaken in those treaties will almost certainly have a very direct effect on matters that are devolved, some of them fully, to the National Assembly for Wales, and likewise to Scotland and Northern Ireland in slightly different ways.
To that extent, there have been occasions when the UK Government has been well represented in negotiations in Brussels by Ministers from the Government of Wales. It is perfectly right that they should be there on matters such as the sheepmeat regime or when questions of smaller languages are debated. When such matters arise, as is likely, in the context of any ongoing treaties or new treaties that will emerge, it is vital that the confidence of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, and likewise that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is taken fully into account.
The real danger is that things happen by default. The UK Government, with all the good will in the world, might think that issues do not arise without having talked about them. There needs to be some system to avoid unnecessary tension and rows between the various Governments within the United Kingdom.
I did not participate in the debate last night, but I read with considerable interest the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. He said:
“This debate has taken a turn that I had not anticipated—the notion that a power is now being granted to the Government to undo that which has been set before: if you like, the magisterium of the law which sets up the elements of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That is not the purpose of this rule.”
He goes on to say that he would be happy to make a note available
“to all noble Lords who are interested in this, so they can see where we believe this power will be required”.—[Official Report, 14/1/20; col. 639.]
The point is that if the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has recognised that there is a need for greater clarification than is provided in the Bill, surely with the Bill still going to Parliament there is an opportunity to table amendments, such as the ones proposed in this group, to safeguard the position. It is not enough to have a sentence in Hansard. That obviously helps to clarify the position, but there needs to be something more cast-iron than that.
This is not a party-political issue, it is a matter of getting means of sensible co-operation into the Bill. If the Government cannot accept the amendments now, I very much hope that between now and Report they will consider these issues and try to bring in some form of wording that gives an assurance in the Bill along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, suggested last night.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, these amendments are designed to cement the established position of the devolved Administrations in the new situation in which we will find ourselves.
Amendment 18 to Clause 22 relates to any amendment to the statutes establishing devolution. They can be amended by a Section 109 Order in Council as long as the devolved Administrations agree but, as the clause stands, it leads to a suspicion that the Government could take the power to change devolution settlements without the agreement of, for instance, the National Assembly of Wales. We need the Government to make it clear one way or the other that they do not intend to do this.
Amendment 23 to Clause 26 simply adds devolved Ministers to the list of those to be consulted before the Government bring forward regulations referred to in that clause. Amendment 45 to Clause 38 relates to the Sewel convention. It simply inserts the well-established principle that Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without legislative consent from the National Assembly for Wales.
I want to spend a little longer on Amendment 29, which puts the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations on a statutory footing and requires representatives of devolved Administrations to be briefed regularly on future relationship negotiations. The history of the JMC as a whole has been chequered, to say the least. I have been privileged to see it from both sides: from the Welsh perspective as a Minister between 2000 and 2003 in a coalition in the National Assembly, and from 2011 to 2015 when I was a Minister in the Wales Office here.
In the early years, 2000 to 2003, I would describe the JMC as having been part of an old boys’ network. Labour was in power, in government, both here and in Cardiff, where it led the coalition. There was a dangerous lack of formality about the business we did. It was very good humoured but it did not have structure and was slightly erratic. It at least met regularly, if not frequently, but its behaviour was erratic. From 2010, I would characterise relationships as at the other end of the spectrum, with the coalition Government— the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—here, the SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales, as well as the complexity of Northern Ireland. I would say it was more of an armed standoff in those years. It provided an opportunity to have a well-scripted, very formal row with each other, with people coming out on to the steps of Downing Street to tell the world what they had said on their side of the argument. As a result, not surprisingly, it did not meet that frequently. Having observed the JMC in recent times, it does not seem to have got much better.
The devolved Administrations have drawn a lot of their strength and confidence from their vital EU links, which affect so much of the devolved work that is taken in those countries. Those links are now to be severed. As a Welsh Minister in the early years of this century, for instance, I represented the combined Governments of the UK at a European Council of Ministers; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to that kind of situation in his speech. I presented the agreed joint position of those Governments. It has given the devolved Administrations status and strength and is a very important part of their overall situation.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships are being spared a long speech from me simply because the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has made it for me.
I want to focus on Amendment 29. When we were debating the first European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the irregularity and lack of efficiency of the JMC was referred to again and again. We identified exempted items from the provisions that would need to be set within a framework in order to try to establish an internal market for our country. We identified that, subsequent to the passing of that piece of legislation, the JMC would need to perform better to guarantee that what we were asking for would come to pass. That has not happened.
Amendment 29 seeks to tighten up on a resolution we made then and which we have had the chance to monitor since. If the proposals before us go through, a statutory basis, a serious performance and an impact assessement will be needed if we are to have the trusting relationship between the Administrations in these islands which will guarantee that the desires of the Government are implemented in an appropriate way. This is the shortened version of my speech. I know that your Lordships are rather sad at not getting it in full.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on Amendment 29. Your Lordships will recall that it is nearly 23 years since the people of Wales and Scotland voted for devolution. It is almost 22 years since the people of Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement and the establishment of devolution there. Happily, last week we saw the restoration of the institutions of government and democracy in Northern Ireland.
The political landscape of our country has changed tremendously during the past two decades. Having been the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Wales, I am not convinced that Governments of either persuasion—nor the coalition— understood, in the course of those 20 years, what devolution was all about. Certainly, the relationships between the United Kingdom Government and those in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh could have been better. I am one of those old boys to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred. Back in 2003, we had Labour Governments in Scotland, Wales and England. It was a bit cosy, inevitably. Things changed after that. We never had a Labour Government, of course, in Northern Ireland.
The Joint Ministerial Committee, for which I held Cabinet responsibility from 2007 onwards, never really worked. It was a great idea, bringing together Ministers from all the different Administrations but it did not work as it should have done. It did not meet as frequently as it should have done. I am not convinced that even under the new designation of Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations it has been all that successful, but it has been a bit better than previous incarnations. Now is the chance because our constitution has changed dramatically, not just because of devolution but because of what we are debating today.
Our departure from the European Union and all that involves in constitutional matters has to be looked at in the context of devolution as well. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at Clause 29 in particular and put when and how JMCs meet on a proper statutory footing. If JMCs do not work then the trust and the confidence between the three devolved Administrations—one now very new—and the United Kingdom Government will evaporate. A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have made the point that unless we get the devolution settlement post Brexit right, it will threaten the union. The Government talk about the precious union all the time but it can be threatened if we do not take the devolved Administrations seriously in their role within the United Kingdom. If this does not work then the movement for independence in Scotland will get even stronger and movement towards a united Ireland might actually happen in Northern Ireland. I do not want any of those things to happen. I am a unionist with a small “u”. The best way to prevent that and to restore strength in the union is to ensure that we respect the devolution settlement, and these amendments do precisely that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I bring a Scottish voice in support of the arguments that have been advanced in the amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and by other noble Lords who have spoken. These are important points, not only as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has just said, for maintenance of the union but also for many practical reasons. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, no one disputes that the negotiation of an international treaty is a matter devolved to the United Kingdom Government. However, we have to recognise that much of the subject matter of many of these agreements will fall to the devolved Administrations to implement; it will be in areas of devolved competence. Therefore, it is important that there be proper engagement with the devolved Administrations in reaching these agreements, not only to ensure a community of interest within these islands but to give those with whom we are negotiating some reassurance that what they are negotiating will be implemented properly by the various devolved Administrations. If the people from the devolved Administrations are not present, something may be missing in the reassurances they are seeking.
In paragraph 114 of the report published yesterday by the Constitution Committee—of which I am a member—the committee reiterated what it said in its report last year on the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties:
“As part of its treaty-making after the UK leaves the European Union, the UK Government must engage effectively with the devolved institutions on treaties that involve areas of devolved competence … The UK Government will need to consult the devolved governments about their interests when opening negotiations, not just to respect the competences of those governments but also in acknowledgement of the important role devolved administrations may play in the implementation of new international obligations”.
In paragraph 115, the Constitution Committee recommends that
“the Government set out before the Bill’s report stage what its process for consultation and engagement with Parliament and with the devolved authorities will be in respect of the future relationship negotiations with the European Union”.
Amendment 29 goes further than that and wants to put it in the Bill; that is probably worth while.
Some noble Lords will recall that, when the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations was established—I think, in the autumn of 2016—great commitments were made about the intention of the United Kingdom Government to engage at every step of the way in the negotiations to get a withdrawal agreement. Yet we know that, for many months, that Joint Ministerial Committee never even met. This is not the place to go into why it did not meet, but good intentions were not delivered on. We know that there were good intentions. In replying to the debate on the gracious Speech last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said the following in response to a similar point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, made then:
“the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, asked about the representation of the devolved Administrations in negotiations on our future relationship. We recognise the need for their close involvement in negotiations on our future relationship with the EU in order to deliver a satisfactory outcome”.—[Official Report, 8/1/20; col. 289.]
That was a statement of intent with which I could have no dispute, but we want more: we want how it will work in practice to be fleshed out. Given that the Joint Committee on EU Negotiations has not had a happy track record—it improved as time went on—many of us would feel more reassured if it was on the face of the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Is it not difficult to legislate for a committee to meet more often when it does not meet often enough?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the amendment would establish that it should meet, and some timescales are set down. My concern relates to good intentions. No one disputes the good intentions for the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations when established, but they were not carried through in practice. When the Minister comes to reply—I am not sure which Minister it will be—I am sure that we will be told of good intentions. We want to ensure that good intentions are delivered on.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 18. It would be very much in the Government’s interest to buy the amendment; it is quite hard to see what arguments could be made in public against their doing so.
I want to speak briefly to Amendment 29, to which I have put my name. I have little to add to what was said on the subject by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—she knows much more about it than me. I disagree only with one thing that I think she said, which was that the JMC had tended to meet regularly but not frequently. It might have been better to say that it met rather irregularly and very infrequently.
I am pleased to be able to say that my text for this debate comes from a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, when he stressed the need for courtesy and respect in the handling of the devolved Administrations. I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness: things are getting very tense. I agree with the point made earlier in discussion on this group of amendments that the devolution settlement is in clear and present danger. As we approach the minutiae of this Bill, we need to have the broader picture in mind. Fine words have been said and undertakings given by successive Front-Bench spokesmen, but they are not perceived in Cardiff or in Edinburgh to have been delivered on. That is why it is a good idea to write into statute the role of the JMC.
That for me is the second-best option. The best option would be to include representatives of the devolved Administrations in the negotiating teams that go to Brussels when the subject for discussion is going to touch on the competence of the devolved Administrations. The battle over common frameworks will be very much easier if the devolved Administrations believe they have been involved in the substance of the negotiations.
I recall that when we first joined the European Union, long before I was born, the first representatives to discuss, for example, fisheries in Brussels were John Silkin accompanied by Bruce Millen and Willie Ross. It was frequently the Scots who spoke on fisheries in the Council, although the legal establishment from London was sitting alongside them. I see no difficulty of principle, and I hope the Government do not, in including the representative devolved Administrations in the negotiating team.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
Many distinguished Lords have spoken on the amendments, and I agree with them all, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is just leaving. It illustrates the lack of comprehension that there has been about how the British union state has changed, and how its pluralism has changed and become a more central feature.
I have had the great privilege of being on the Constitution Committee for the past four years, and this issue kept recurring. It is not a dispute or debate that has suddenly emerged; it came in Bill after Bill connected with constitutional relationships and with trade, yet somehow it was not resolved, mainly because the devolved Assemblies were being bypassed, often in a very hurtful way, leading to accusations of power grab and such statements.
The issues that have been mentioned include: reserved powers for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments, an issue that has come several times and has not yet been dealt with properly; and the outcome of European legislation when it is transferred to this country, which has not been adequately dealt with either. We discussed this frequently on the Constitution Committee and wrote what I thought was a very important survey of intergovernmental relations. It seemed to have very little effect on ministerial thinking, or indeed on thinking about the nature and importance of devolution throughout our country.
In particular, there is the inadequacy of the Joint Ministerial Council, which is mentioned in Amendment 29. The JMC is an almost hopeless body that has staggered on for two decades with no clear membership, no clear times for convening, and very little effect in real intergovernmental consultation, so I very much hope, as everybody does, that the Government will feel able to accept these proposals. Otherwise, the effect could be disastrous. Our union is in grave danger. People refer primarily to Scotland, but in my experience discontent in Wales is certainly much stronger than it was. It would be tragic if inattention and carelessness led to our leaving not one important union, but two.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, following not just yesterday’s speeches, but those today from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, my noble friends Lord Howarth, Lord Griffiths, Lord Murphy and Lord Morgan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, from Wales, as well as welcome additions to our West Country debate from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the Government should have heard by now that the devolved authorities and people close to them feel somewhat squeezed out of the Government’s handling of our withdrawal from the EU and our future relationship with it, and of how the Government plan to discuss, or not, with those representatives as we go forward. That was probably not helped by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, last night.
We particularly welcome Amendments 18, 23 and 45, accepting in particular that, if we really must have an albeit non-legally enforceable statement about the sovereignty of Parliament in the Bill, it surely has to be accompanied by at least an equivalent nod to the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention to safeguard the union, as my noble friend Lord Murphy emphasised.
Looking towards the future, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said earlier this week that devolved Governments have an interest in all the negotiations. It is not simply the bits that can be identified as within their competence, because how agriculture pans out will absolutely affect the future of those countries. So will other parts of trade.
Our Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Kerr, seeks to achieve the input of the devolved authorities in the negotiations. As we have heard, it would place the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations on a statutory footing—something that we have urged on the Government since its formation in 2016. As my noble friend Lord Morgan reminded us, it has been pretty constantly discussed in the Constitution Committee. The amendment would ensure regular and frequent meetings of the JMC on EU Negotiations, which as we have heard, has at times been sidelined, especially when it was seen as a bit inconvenient. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that it had a “chequered” history. As my noble friend, Lord Griffiths, reminded us, it was not used in the way intended when it was set up. Importantly—we have not heard this voice this morning—the amendment would also require the JMC to focus on the very unique challenges facing Northern Ireland, including the aspects discussed in your Lordships’ House last night.
The amendment also covers the relationship between the JMC—the Joint Ministerial Committee—and the new and, as we have heard, highly important UK/EU Joint Committee. For example, the Secretary of State would have to brief British members of the Joint Committee to make sure they knew what the JMC was discussing, so that discussions held with the devolved authorities were fed in to the UK negotiators. This is vital. The British members of the Joint Committee, who would, of course, be Ministers, would have to give regard to the views of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which brings together the devolved authorities. They would also have to bear in mind the requirement of the Northern Ireland protocol to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
It is particularly important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said, to realise that, in addition to a general interest in all these negotiations, much of the implementation will fall to the devolved authorities. As any of us who have been involved in developing policy know, if you do not discuss beforehand how it is going to be implemented, the chances are that the policy will not work.
Given the importance of ensuring that Brexit works for all parts of the UK, including the devolved nations, and given the concerns of the devolved Administrations that they are being excluded from vital talks—as we have heard, an amendment which we will come to later about the authority of courts has been tabled without any consultation with them—we look forward to a rather more positive response from the Minister when he replies. If the response is really positive, it might help the Welsh Assembly to consider whether it wants to give its legislative consent to this Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. The thread that binds together the amendments spoken to by the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords is their entirely legitimate interest in the Government’s level of engagement with the devolved Administrations and the protection of the devolution settlements. Having listened also to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I fully understand that these amendments particularly reflect some of the concerns raised by colleagues in the Welsh Government. I hope I can reassure the Committee that these amendments are not necessary and the Government are fully committed to proper engagement with the devolved Administrations.
I turn first to Amendment 18. It is clear to me that the concern here is about the scope and breadth of the powers in this clause. I hope that I can address those concerns satisfactorily. I should add that the Government have also taken note of the report produced by our noble colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to the powers contained in this Bill.
I hope I am right in understanding that the noble and learned Lord is concerned that, without this amendment, the devolved authorities would be able to use the powers provided in Clause 22 to implement the protocol and, in doing so, would be able to amend the devolution statutes in those areas where they have such competence. However, I am afraid I have to resist this amendment because the restriction proposed by it risks preventing the United Kingdom fulfilling its international obligations, which stem from the Northern Ireland protocol. The noble and learned Lord will understand that we must be able to fulfil those obligations as a responsible player in the international system and as a close partner of our European neighbours. The particular problem with the amendment is that the proposed restriction would prevent the devolved authorities adopting certain decisions agreed between the UK and the EU in the Joint Committee, in relation to the operationalisation—if I may use such a word—of the protocol in areas of devolved competence. I must make it clear that that risk to the UK being able to fulfil its international obligations is unacceptable to the Government.
This amendment would have the effect of preventing amendments to the devolution statutes, even in situations where the devolved Administrations agreed to an exercise of the power in new paragraph 11M(2) jointly with the UK Government. This restriction could therefore hinder the introduction of UK-wide legislation that has been agreed on by all four nations of the United Kingdom. The Government could not allow such a situation.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
I am grateful to all noble Lords, who have spoken in this debate. It has underlined how important it is for the future that we look carefully at these devolution issues and, in particular—what I regret to say is my experience as well—address a lack of understanding of the significance of devolution as we go forward.
Things have improved from the first occasion when I had to talk to an official about laying out legislation slightly more carefully so that Wales’s position was clear. He told us, “Yes, they did that in agriculture Bills for sheep, so they could easily do it in other Bills for Wales”. Things are better than that, but maybe not better enough.
It is very important that we put in place the necessary assurances—preferably in legislation, but also by way of structure. Words are fine, but deeds are better. I hope that, by raising these points, we will show that we can proceed with respect for our changed constitutional position and that we in this House—and the Government as well—can do everything possible to reduce the risk of any split in the union. With regard to Wales, it is important that those who may wish to see the union not continue be given no further ammunition for their cause.
Three amendments stand in my name and in the names of other noble Lords. The issue in Amendment 18 arose last night in relation to Clause 21. At the conclusion of the debate, the Minister said he would produce a memorandum which would try to explain why restrictions could not be placed on these powers. I still do not understand why not. These are a perfectly proper means of changing the devolution settlement. If the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are agreeable, the Section 109 route—to take the example of Wales—will do so. I did not address this issue at any length because the better course is to await the memorandum which the Minister has promised to see how we might go forward.
On Amendment 23, I am very grateful for the assurance given and will consider that further. As to Amendment 45, the clause has no legal effect, but what is really important is that we try to show the people of Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland that things have changed. When we go forward as a United Kingdom, that is something that everyone, particularly those in London, should bear fully in mind. However, I am very grateful for all the speeches that have been made and in the light of the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beith
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the power of Ministers by delegated legislation to decide which courts and tribunals should have power to depart from judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and by reference to what test.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 21 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who apologises that he is in court. I look forward to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who has chaired our Constitution Committee’s proceedings on this issue. As the committee has pointed out, the clause that we are seeking to amend raises substantial constitutional concerns. I note that two former Lord Chief Justices are in the Chamber as well, so I look forward to an interesting debate.
After the end of the implementation period, the United Kingdom courts will still have to interpret a large body of retained European law. This necessarily will involve reference to the case law created by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This case law will continue to apply in our courts alongside any relevant domestic case law. However, in Section 6(5) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—as noble Lords will remember all too well—we have already legislated to give the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland the power to depart from retained EU case law, having applied the same test as they would have applied if they were departing from their own case law. The Government now want to give themselves the power by regulations to extend that ability to depart from established case law to other unspecified courts—which could under the terms of the Bill be any court in the land—to specify the extent to which, or the circumstances in which, the court is not to be bound by EU case law, and to substitute the Government’s view of what test should be applied by the court after consultation for the Supreme Court’s existing and well-established test.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a litigator over 30 years of European law issues for whom these paragraphs and the legal uncertainty they unleash bring the prospect of endless work and riches as yet undreamed of. None the less, I put my name to the amendments, which of course will do nothing to obstruct or delay the Brexit that will occur on 31 January.
At Second Reading, I described another clause of the Bill as “Henry VIII on steroids”, but even that description is hardly strong enough for new subsection (5A)(b). That would allow the Minister, by regulations, to decide the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, our courts are to consider themselves bound by the law of the land, whether in the form of retained EU case law or retained domestic case law that relates to it. If Parliament is asked to change retained EU law, we will debate it and no doubt find a way to do it. Taking back control of our laws is one of the principal points of Brexit and, for my part, I hope to play a constructive role in that process. But to stand by and see these law-changing powers given to Ministers is quite another matter.
European law, no less than our own, is contained to a significant extent in the judgments and interpretations of the courts—what in the domestic context we refer to as principles of common law. If Ministers were free to remove the binding force of principles that they did not like, they could selectively neuter the protections given by law to workers, consumers, disadvantaged groups and the environment. Such a power in the Executive to interfere with the law declared by the courts, including the courts of this country, has no precedent that I know of. It would also cause uncertainty with effect from now, because no one can predict which parts of retained EU law will be changed over the year ahead or how the structure of what remains will react when a load-bearing element is removed.
Alarming in a different way is new subsection (5A)(c), on which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, began his remarks. Courts could be licensed under this provision to make their own departures from retained EU case law on conditions that Ministers could specify. As Sir Bob Neill explained in the Commons, that is a recipe for uncertainty, confusion and opportunistic litigation on a grand scale.
The Minister will, I anticipate, encourage us not to worry, because senior judges must be consulted. But consultation means only that. The Government have the whip hand. The complex ramifications will not be exposed by argument as they would be in court and, if deference to the judges’ views could ever have been assumed, it certainly could not be now. I suggest that there would be situations in which the judges will not even feel able to offer an opinion.
Imagine the scene. The Minister summons the judges and informs them of his proposal to instruct them that in accordance with the clear will of the people—or at any rate of the Government—they are no longer to be bound by the settled interpretation of the precautionary principle in environmental cases or the principle of indirect discrimination in employment law. The judges would no doubt come back with such comments as might occur to them on the timing, the procedural implications and so on. But since such instructions would be lawfully issued, if this clause passes into the Bill, and would implement clear government policy, these serving judges could not pass substantive comment without being dragged into the policy sphere, which, contrary to the views of some, they are extremely anxious to avoid.
Secondly, the Minister will point out, quite correctly, that the power in question will sunset when the transition period ends. However, it is the power to make regulations that will sunset, not the application of those regulations after the transition period. So that reassurance is illusory.
Thirdly, perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who is as shrewd as he is principled, will tacitly accept the overbreadth of these provisions but hint at their restrained future use. In that case, I would invite him to come back with a version consistent with those restraints. We are reasonable people and if his only concern is a possible bottleneck in the Supreme Court other solutions could be devised and have indeed been suggested to him.
To leave this extraordinary clause unamended would be, I suggest, a dereliction of duty. I hope that amendment will come from the Government. However, when the time comes and in the last resort, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said on Monday,
“we should not be intimidated from fulfilling our constitutional role of scrutiny and amendment”.—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 490.]
That is particularly so, I would add, on an issue that was not put to vote in the Commons, that has been the subject of strong comment from the Constitution Committee, that in no way jeopardises Brexit but that threatens the independence and good order of the courts.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, members of the Constitution Committee are very concerned about this suggestion in the legislation. The case was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who went into some detail, so I do not wish to repeat all that. I simply want to ask the Minister, first, whether it is the Government’s intention to use this new subsection (5A)(b), and, secondly, if they will not use it, why it is in the Bill. If they intend to use this provision, can the Minister please give us some examples of where that might be?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I also serve on the Constitution Committee and share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The relationship between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature is a matter of some current controversy. The Executive have been stunned by the judgment made in the Supreme Court in the autumn, and I suspect that in part we are seeing a somewhat petulant response to that circumstance.
At all events, what is proposed in this legislation is a gross intrusion by the Executive into the proper realm of the judiciary. The Executive complain that the judiciary has extended itself excessively into its role; we are now seeing a retaliation on a major scale. Whatever practical motivation otherwise that may have caused the Government to write new subsection (5A)(b) into this clause, it is a foolish initiative on the part of the Government.
This is territory in which the Government ought to walk delicately, like Agag. It sets an appalling precedent, and it intrudes into the proper role of Parliament, because it is not appropriate. Even if it were appropriate for Ministers to interfere at all in this realm of judicial discretion, it is not appropriate for Ministers to do it by regulation. Such decisions ought to be made by Parliament in primary law, ensuring that the sort of very important principles which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has suggested might be interfered with by Ministers under the terms of this legislation cannot be dealt with in this kind of way.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am puzzled by some of the issues that have been raised by this amendment. First, only a year or two ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, then president, called for Parliament to tell our judges clearly how rulings of the CJEU are to be dealt with after Brexit. Apparently our noble and learned friend did not see any difficulty about that.
Secondly, to tell courts that they are not bound by something does not mean that they will not follow it. If they are not bound, they may well still choose to follow it if they think it is good law. There are indeed many instances where the Court of Justice of the European Union has not produced good law: for example, over the secret nature of MEPs' expenses, on genetically modified crops and on diplomatic immunity. This is not surprising, because it is a court very unlike our own type of court. Its judges are nominated by sending countries for six years—they have only a six-year tenure. They have enormous salaries and expenses, and I am sure that they are reluctant to lose them after six years, and anxious to be renominated.
There are of course no dissenting judgments. Many of the so-called judges are not judges at all. They have been professors—obviously, I have great admiration for professors—and civil servants, with of course the exception of the British judge. So I am a little sceptical about this court. I think people sometimes confuse it with the European Court of Human Rights. We hear much talk that, if we depart from the rulings of the CJEU, our human rights will be affected. That is not the issue today.
I ask those who put forward this amendment what they mean, or envisage, by binding and not following, and why they think it would be better for citizens to have to go all the way to to the Supreme Court, with all the delay and expense—and lots of nice jobs for lawyers—that will be involved if you can only get a diversion from EU law by going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, although I am one of the few legal Cross-Benchers who has not been Lord Chief Justice, I too want to say a few words in support of these amendments.
I wonder whether my noble friend Lady Deech has recognised the precise area that we are concerned with here, which is retained EU law: that is, decisions of the European Court of Justice pre the end of the transition period, not decisions to come thereafter which can merely be taken account of and do not bind. So we are concerned with the actual decisions taken before we finally part ways.
Under our system, it is normally for Parliament, of course—and to a very limited extent for Ministers, by secondary legislation—to legislate: to declare what the law is, almost invariably for the future. Only rarely do we give law retrospective effect. But in 1966, as I am sure we all know, the practice statement in the House of Lords said for the first time that we could depart from what has otherwise been the sacrosanct principle of stare decisis—of precedent in the interests of certainty and finality—subject to a rigorous test. It is a rarely used power, now transferred to the Supreme Court and indeed, by a decision that I wrote in 2007, to the Privy Council. In certain limited circumstances, the courts can depart from their previous decisions.
The sort of consideration or test is whether the earlier ruling is now judged to have been plainly wrong, and how long it has stood. If it is recent, that is one thing, but if it has stood for a long time there may be many who have acted in reliance on it. Let us not forget that when the court exercises this power it does so by declaring what the position is and always has been. It therefore applies retrospectively and leads to cases where those affected by it, although they may run into time difficulties, may need leave to appeal, or to bring proceedings, out of time. They may then say, “That is now established as the law and therefore we would like to invoke it.”
In the ordinary way, we only use this power where the individual case leads to manifest injustice or is contrary to public policy, or where the established line of authority unduly restricts the development of the law. In a very interesting and powerful piece in the Spectator last week, one of the excellent contributors to the Policy Exchange, Professor Richard Ekins, quarrels even with Section 6(4) and (5) of the 2018 Act, which already provide in effect for the Supreme Court, and in certain circumstances the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, to have the same powers to reverse EU-retained case law; in other words, not to follow what they would otherwise need to follow, the already decided ECJ decisions, in the same way as they can not follow existing domestic law.
Professor Ekins suggests that that
“would introduce unnecessary legal doubt and improperly empower the Court to make new law.”
I see that point, of course, although I would not deprive the Supreme Court of this power. However, it strongly reinforces what he already said in the article in support in effect of Amendment 21: that it would be absurd for some lesser body as yet unknown, and I rather suspect not quite thought out, to decide who should, at a lower level, be authorised by ministerial regulation to depart from retained EU case law. That would indeed be a recipe for chaos, confusion and uncertainty.
As to the other main point, Professor Ekins wants all the power to change EU case law to be either the power of the Minister to promote by way of primary legislation—which of us would quarrel with that; it is plainly the correct approach?—or for the Minister by secondary legislation. That is where the real problem lies. If the proposed change of legal direction from earlier rulings of the ECJ involves obvious fresh policy choices, such as the sort of things instanced by my noble friend Lord Anderson, it will affect some already established important legal principle and is plainly an issue for Parliament by primary legislation. Secondary legislation could be appropriate here only if it is demonstrably necessary either to work cogently with some clearly established new post-Brexit situation or something of that character.
That said, I share Professor Ekins’s objection to involving individual judicial officeholders, however senior and distinguished, in the process of ministerial law-making. This again chimes with what my noble friend Lord Anderson said. I support both the amendments. Let the Supreme Court, as under the 2018 Act, have this rare power that will be seldom exercised, but mostly it should be for primary legislation to depart from well-established legal principles.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, I too would welcome some clarity in this field, but I do not think that clarity can be provided by Ministers creating regulations behind the scenes and then serving them up to the House of Commons, which has not rejected any ministerial regulation since 1979, or this House, which has rejected them on minimal occasions, and by doing so in 2015 apparently caused a constitutional crisis. The issue is very simple. Of course there should be clarity and of course it should be provided by Parliament. We will now be considering what is domestic law. We call it EU case law, but the whole point of the process that we are going through is that it will become British EU-retained law. It will be British law and no longer EU law. It is that which will be interfered with.
I could spend some time going through the doctrines of precedents. They are very clear and simple. I remind the House that they have provided a way of achieving legal certainty. You can conduct your affairs with a degree of legal certainty. You can conduct your business, conduct your tax affairs and deal with foreigners outside this country. They tend to want to come to this country because the law is certain and clear. Yet simultaneously, and it is one of the great glories of our system, we have common law that goes back to 1189 that has enabled the law to develop, flourish and adapt as and when it became appropriate and necessary to do so. The greatest tribute to the common law is that it carries the day in all English-speaking countries. It is still used in India and Australia—adapted, of course, because that is one of its fundamental strengths, to conditions there.
I gave a lecture and talked to people who have suffered the horrendous problems of Bhopal, which not many of us will forget. There is a perfectly good legal principle—British, as it happens—called Rylands v Fletcher, which decided in Victorian times to create a new system. If you bring dangerous things on to your land, it is your job to keep them in, and if they get out, you are responsible. That was the common law working with absolute certainty to produce a new way of looking at the responsibilities of the landowner. So between them, the principles of legal certainty and the use of the common law enabled our law to develop.
Here, the noble and learned Lord the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, reminded us, with his own personal experience, asserted on Monday by repeating that
“there is no intention on the part of the Government to extend the power to every court and tribunal in the land.”—[Official Report, 13/1/2020; col. 555.]
But that is the power that is being given by this legislation as it stands to a Minister. If that is not the Government’s intention, what on earth is the point of giving the power in the legislation to the Minister?
Where do we go? This permits the Minister to make regulations that would create jurisdiction in any court at any level to disapply retained EU case law, which is our law. Just think of the district judge sitting in, for example, Pontypool County Court, bound by all the decisions of all the courts above him or her by our own native law—Occupiers’ Liability Act, Unfair Contract Terms Act and even the Finance Act—who is then told, “Here is the EU case law. You are not bound by anyone’s decisions on that, so take a running jump at it.”
That in truth is what the poor judge will have to do. Think of his poor colleague in Penrith County Court, faced with a large organisation taking advantage of this new system by going to a small county court without the experience to respond to: “This bit of EU case law really troubles us. Your honour is not bound by it, so here are the reasons you should find for us.” To be fair, it could happen the other way around with a litigant who knows perfectly well that under case law he has no case, going to the same judge and saying, against a large business organisation, “They cannot rely on the case law any more, because you are not bound by it.” The same could happen in a tax tribunal or a VAT tribunal. All of this is quite unnecessary because, as the Minister has said, that is not the Government’s intention.
I would love to have a go at Henry VIII, whether he is filled with fat or with whatever drug to describe this condition today, but I am going to resist the temptation to do so, because I want the Government to realise that this is nothing more than a reasonable argument that needs to be addressed. All that is needed, without causing any delay to Brexit or creating a problem on 31 January, is for the Government to decide what arrangement should be put before Parliament in primary legislation to achieve the desired objective.
As an example, I did a bit of drafting last night so that they could say, “The Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland are not bound by retained EU case law”. Or the Government could say that those courts may depart from any retained EU case law if and when. It is not difficult, and I will offer myself to the Minister to sit down and talk it over with him if that would help. If Ministers are listening, perhaps that offer will be taken up. However, we have to address the principle, because the slightest incursion into judicial processes must be for Parliament, not for Ministers.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Perhaps I may make some brief observations, in part in support of the underlying purpose of what the Government have said they want to do, but in total support of this amendment. As I understand the position, the Government want courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland to have power not to follow decisions of the CJEU on retained law. That is a purpose I support. In the course of the debate on the withdrawal Bill, in particular the Report stage in April 2018, I asked the Government to think again in relation to allowing the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, the Inner House in Scotland and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland to have this power.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, would like to speak first, I would welcome that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I do not particularly wish to speak first, but in view of the noble and learned Lord’s invitation, I will make my brief contribution. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I have a fair amount of experience in this area of European law and the modification of existing judgments—I sat in the House of Lords when it set aside a previous judgment. It is extremely important that we consider the principle that has to lie behind this. The present situation is that EU retained law has been made part of the law of the United Kingdom unless and until it is modified by Parliament in due course. When passing the previous withdrawal Act, we placed a number of restrictions on that power for Ministers in various areas relating to human rights and so on.
From what I read in the newspapers as these things developed, my impression was that the Government were anxious that the power to modify or depart from EU judgments would be better given to a wider set of courts than the Supreme Court, and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland on criminal matters, as had been done in the withdrawal Act. I can see that it may be part of overall policy that it should be rather wider than the present law would permit. However, it is important that whatever method is used, it is one that will prevail across the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to give the power to do this to, for example, the Inner House of the Court of Session, would have the effect that it would apply in Scotland but not in England and Wales directly, nor in Northern Ireland. There would be a degree of difficulty in that. That is why, in my view, this power should be in the Supreme Court. As we all know, when the Supreme Court gives a judgment, it is a judgment for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that the name of the court is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
If it is desired to give the power to a wider section of the courts, the way to do so is to specify which courts they are. The example given by my noble and learned friend is one possibility, but it is for the Government to decide how wide they wish to be. However, it is important that the courts should not have the power to ultimately decide; it should be required to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can modify the burden that that would involve by a lead process, leaving it free to dismiss a case where it was thought there was nothing in it. One possible line is for the lower court to give a judgment which might ultimately help the Supreme Court, but I do not know whether that would always be necessary. The important thing is that any court that has this power would have it only as a way of referring the matter to the Supreme Court.
I was thinking of putting forward an amendment to this effect, but I thought it probably better to leave it until we have had a chance to discuss it. I have reached the conclusion that, as a practical matter, if we in this House can persuade the Government to change, it is likely to be effective; whereas if we do not persuade the Government to change, it may not be effective, with results that we may not altogether approve of. My main effort in this is to try to persuade the Government that a system along the lines I have proposed would be perfectly acceptable and workable, and would embrace all the courts that it needs to embrace.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for preceding me because he is in a unique position to give advice to the House on this issue. I only intervene to add to what has already been said because I want to stress the importance of the issue. There is an old saying that hard cases can make bad law. This may be a hard situation for the Government but they are in danger of making very bad law indeed. Why they are in danger and why they would be wise to think very carefully again before they ask for this to be implemented is apparent from the careful steps that were taken back in 2005 when I was still one of the chief justices—to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred—who are present before your Lordships.
At that time, changes were being made which went to the root of the constitution, and the courts were concerned that they could be severely damaging to our unwritten constitution. As a consequence, the then Lord Chancellor and I—then Lord Chief Justice—came together to make a concordat to try to deal with those difficulties. It was recognised that one of the underlying principles of our common law and constitution was the separation of powers, and what was being done in 2005—which affected the position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the courts—was trespassing on the principles that had existed hitherto. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was well aware of these principles when he was Lord Chancellor and a member of the Government. The role that the Lord Chancellor played at that time was to ensure that the important balance—which explained how we managed to continue without a written constitution—succeeded, which it did remarkably well.
As I see the situation, what my noble and learned friends and my noble friend Lord Anderson have been saying to your Lordships is that this proposes a change in our law that would undermine the proper observation of the rule of law in a most critical way. I suggest that for this House to allow that to happen without protesting in the clearest way would be very undesirable indeed. I feel confident that if the Government look at this matter again and bear in mind the speeches made to this House today, they will see how it can be dealt with. However important Brexit is, it must not be allowed to create a precedent that could be followed hereafter, as has been suggested, which would damage our situation.
I hope we will always be able to continue in this country without a written constitution. However, if we let what is proposed go through with saying it should be amended, we will create a situation where that will not be possible. We should pause before doing so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have no legal training, unlike many of the eminent lawyers who have spoken this morning. I have occasionally found myself in court, but mainly as a litigant against the Met Police and the Government, although occasionally as a defendant, but I was obviously always innocent.
As I have no legal training, perhaps I can be seen as somebody who represents some of the majority of the people in the UK who have no legal training and who perhaps will not understand what is happening here today, because quite honestly it is an aberration and something that we all have to resist. I very much hope that this Government can see that they have a fight on their hands, because if this clause gives any insight into government thinking it is quite chilling and quite upsetting, as it is contrary to everything that Britain stands for.
Our overconfident Government want to completely redraw the checks and balances in our constitution so that Ministers can opt out of legal precedent at will. Ministers are seeking power to disapply EU case law as though their existing Henry VIII powers are not enough. No good justification has been given, and no sensible restrictions have been put in place so that these powers are used only when strictly necessary. This clause will create a wild west of legal uncertainty, where no one can really be sure what the words “contained in retained EU law” actually mean, until even the most basic issues are litigated on. It is a scorched earth policy and totally inappropriate for our legal system.
Of course, these absurd powers will also be particularly harmful for the environment and our natural world, since so much of our environmental legislation comes from the European Union. The UK Government have a terrible track record of getting into trouble with the European courts for things like our air pollution epidemic and the amount of raw sewage in our rivers. It is almost no wonder that the Government would like this magic wand to take away EU case law. But what is convenient for our Government would be disastrous for our environment, which is why my noble friend, who cannot be here in the Chamber at the moment, and I so strongly support these amendments. I hope that the many clear, sensible and legal arguments put forward by so many noble and learned Lords today will encourage the Government to rethink this.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I too am not a lawyer, and I will not even attempt to add to the legal arguments, which have been so well set out by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Judge, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and others, as to why any decision on the interpretation of retained EU law should be taken at Supreme Court level, as envisaged in the 2018 Act, and why ministerial regulations are simply not appropriate in this matter.
I will say three things. One is that it is a really bad way to make law suddenly, with such a clause, with no consultation either with the judiciary—if this was the consultation that has happened today, I think we can take it as, “No thanks”—or, indeed, with the devolved nations, which we discussed earlier. I will answer the question put by my noble friend Lady Taylor about what the Government have in mind. At a briefing, it was very clear that they already had something in mind, a sunset clause at the end of this year, and my answer is simply that there is something that is not oven-ready at the moment that is waiting to come in. There is a closed envelope somewhere, and it is appropriate that we should be told what exactly is in it, so perhaps we could hear about that later.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said, Clause 26 could result in the divergence of approach within and between the jurisdictions of the UK on matters where a common approach is essential: things that are fundamental to our UK-wide single market. On Monday, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, recalled that for 40 years EU legislation
“ensured that there was a large amount of similarity and coherence in how these laws were interpreted in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The question that arises now is: will we require to maintain that level of coherence in order to operate as a single national economy? This will be particularly true for food, farming, fishing … in Scotland and … the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, 14/1/20; cols. 530-1.]
Harking back to the earlier discussion about the all-United Kingdom economy, this seems a crucial issue. Allowing lower, non-UK-wide courts to interpret the regulations that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned, environmental matters, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or VAT or duties, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, mentioned, could open a wide door to divergence on issues within our own single market.
Thirdly, there is obviously a fear that this provision risks undermining workers’ rights, given that the political declaration makes no mention of the rights previously protected by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and its key principles which have found their way into EU case law. Employees in the UK benefit from the ECJ’s sometimes more generous interpretation of employment rights, such as the right to paid holidays, the requirement for employers to keep records of hours worked to comply with the working time directive, and the ruling as to whether overtime is factored into holiday pay. These have been essential and are now part of UK law—of course via case law. Without a guarantee to uphold the body of case law on workers’ rights, the Prime Minister’s commitment to protect our employee rights after Brexit will sound more hollow than any chimes of Big Ben, whether on 31 January or any other day.
Clause 26, which has been dropped in with no rationale, prior debate, consultation or Green Paper, diminishes the Bill while introducing uncertainty into our laws. It has no place here. We will seek to remove it, although, as other noble Lords have said and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, urged, it would be much better if the Government were to do this.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will seek to offer some explanation and reassurance with regard to the clause in question.
As has been noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, we are concerned here with retained EU law. For clarity, Clause 26 draws a distinction between retained EU law and relevant separation agreement law, which is applicable as a consequence of the withdrawal agreement and is untouched by any of these proposals, given our international law obligations. Retained EU law will form part of the law of the United Kingdom. It is then a question of how we approach the interpretation and application of that law, which, in turn, takes us to the question of precedent and the binding force—at present—of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this context.
Provision has already been made, pursuant to Section 6(5) of the 2018 Act, to confer upon the United Kingdom Supreme Court the power to depart from previous decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The idea that one can depart from such a body of case law is hardly novel. It has been a feature of common law since at least the 1960s, when the judicial committee of the House of Lords expressed its intention to depart from previous case law as and when it felt it was necessary to do so. Therefore, we are not, as it were, moving into novel territory in this context.
The intention behind this clause is to give a power to make regulations to ensure that the United Kingdom courts are not inappropriately bound by retained EU case law as part of the body of United Kingdom law after we have left the European Union. It goes no further than that. These courts may choose to follow that case law, but the point is to ensure that they are not bound to do so in circumstances where they form a view that it would be inappropriate to the development of UK law for them to do so.
The Government are sensible in the manner in which they will seek to exercise the regulatory power. The Bill requires that Ministers must consult the senior judiciary across the whole of the United Kingdom before making any regulations, and indeed may consult other appropriate persons, and any regulations will be laid before Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Those safeguards are clearly in place.
We want to ensure that United Kingdom law after we leave is consistent and clear. The power will be employed in a way that is consistent with our own constitutional norms and traditions: judicial independence, the doctrine of precedent and the separation of powers. Any regulations will respect these long-established principles but will also allow that retained EU case law is not the sole preserve of the court of final appeal, be it the United Kingdom Supreme Court or, in the context of criminal matters, the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister says that this will be done under the affirmative procedure. Should that come here, we have always had the right to negate such an order. However, should this House do that, given the advice it has had, it would not be challenged as a constitutional outrage but would be a proper use of this House’s power.
Lord Keen of Elie
It would always be a proper use of this House’s power, albeit there are constitutional norms that apply. However, it is not just this House; the House of Commons would also have the opportunity to address the terms of any regulations. I have no doubt that, having regard to our constitutional norms, this House would have regard to the determination of the House of Commons on that point, but would not be absolutely bound by it. I fully accept that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister has just said that this would improve consistency. How can it improve consistency in the interpretation of law if you potentially have a proliferation of lower courts that can all reach different judgments? The import of the objections made in the last hour is precisely that having just the Supreme Court, and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, is much more a recipe for consistency than what the Government are planning.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is one view as to how we might achieve consistency. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will have noted from the contributions made by a number of noble Lords and noble and learned Lords—in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—there are diverse views as to how this could be achieved.
For example, one view is that the power should rest only with the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary but that there should be a reference process. Another view is that the power should be conferred upon the Court of Appeal, a lower court, or the Inner House in Scotland, because that would assist the Supreme Court as and when it came to consider the matter, and speed up the whole process of determining the issue. There are diverse views, as is reflected in the report of the Constitution Committee, as to how this could best be achieved. That is a very compelling reason for taking this regulatory-making power in order that, with the appropriate consultation, we can come to a suitable consensus as to how this is best done in the future. We can then allow for flexibility.
I stress that if, for example, we left the power purely in the hands of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, that might assist in consistency of decision-making—I will come back to the question of precedent in a moment—but it would put immense pressure on the Supreme Court itself and potentially create significant delays for litigants. Given that, it would not be a recipe for certainty; rather, it would be a recipe for uncertainty.
As I say, there are diverse views on how we can best achieve the result that we are all seeking. That is why it is appropriate that we should pause, take the matter forward by way of regulation, consult with the appropriate parties and then determine the best means of doing this. That will have to be resolved before the end of the implementation period.
At the end of the day, the power can be used only to determine which courts can depart from retained EU case law, the circumstances where they may do so and what test may be applied in doing so. It will not be used to set out how the courts are to interpret retained EU case law, because that is a matter for the independent judiciary, and it will not determine that courts may not follow established EU case law.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made a number of points about unleashing uncertainty. With the greatest respect, Section 6 of the existing 2018 Act already provides that the Supreme Court may depart from established EU case law, although it may take significant time before it comes to address a particular question in a particular case. There is, therefore, what he referred to as “uncertainty with effect from now” if we proceed purely on the basis of Section 6.
Lord Beith
Can the noble and learned Lord tell us at what level of court he thinks it would be inappropriate to extend these powers, and would that level embrace all those courts which do not have a precedent-creating capacity?
Lord Keen of Elie
As the noble Lord is aware, there is a level of courts, for example the Sheriff’s Court in Scotland, which is not bound by each other’s judgments, and therefore at that level one could arrive at inconsistency of decision-making, and we are conscious of that. The question is where we should best place the determination, and the whole point of this clause is to allow for the flexibility that is required, upon consultation with the appropriate parties, to determine how we can best achieve the outcome that everyone seeks. I am not in a position to say that it will be just the Supreme Court, as it is under Section 6, or to say that it will be just the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. However, one can see a rationale behind the approaches, both of which have been supported by various noble and learned Lords in the course of this debate. What we want to be able to do is to resolve that debate and achieve a consensus that will bring about the best result for the law of the United Kingdom, given its different legal systems. What we are seeking in the end is certainty for those who seek to litigate in our courts, and we would achieve that by coming to a consensus on how we should look at EU case law going forward.
I cannot accept the amendment and at this time I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
How does the Minister defend—if he conceivably can—the violation of the principle of separation of powers embodied in this clause?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not consider that this clause in any sense violates the principle of the separation of powers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Given that that Minister has not answered my noble friend’s question and given that there is a sunset clause on this, there must be something ready to go. Can he not explain what it is?
Lord Keen of Elie
No. What is ready to go is a consultation process. That is why we have not reached a conclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked two questions, the first of which was, “Are the Government going to use this power?” We are going to use it in order to consult with appropriate parties. May I give examples? Examples have been given by noble and learned Lords. One example is a reference system to the Supreme Court. Another example is to extend this power to the Court of Appeal. That is what we want to determine by virtue of the consultation process we wish to take forward.
Lord Newby (LD)
Is the Minister saying that when the consultation goes out, it will in effect be saying, “Give us a clue as to what you think makes best sense because we haven’t the faintest idea ourselves”? Are the Government going to express no thoughts about what might be preferable? Have they had no thoughts? Have they not thought about it before now? In every other aspect of Brexit, the Government have clear, dogmatic, unwavering thoughts. On this single one, they appear to have no thoughts at all. Is that not strange?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this Government are not dogmatic—the noble Lord is quite wrong about that. Let us be clear: there is a starting point. If I can refer the noble Lord back to Section 6(5) of the 2018 Act, he will see that the starting point is already enacted. However, we want to find a way forward that is more effective and appropriate, and that is the purpose of the consultation process that is allowed for in the clause.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Will the Minister answer the point raised about the policy areas the Government have in mind where they could use these powers?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not a question of having policy areas in mind. We want to take forward a consultation process that will enable us to arrive at an appropriate conclusion as to how we should look at EU case law as a part of retained EU law after the implementation period has expired.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I understand that the first part of the amendment may be reasonably accommodated within the answer given to the previous question about separation of powers. I cannot see how the second part can be accommodated—formulating the question the court has to decide in deciding whether the previous decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union should be followed.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, we seek to consult on the appropriate test to be applied in taking this matter forward. We intend to do that in consultation with the senior judiciary.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, given that the existing law has now been in place since 2018 and all that time could have been used for this consultation, why has this suddenly gone in now with the power to make changes by ministerial decision? If it was not felt at the time that the 2018 position was correct, why has this consultation—which could take place without an Act of Parliament—not already taken place?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, in the interim there had been certain distractions, including a general election—the outcome of which the noble Baroness will be familiar with.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, may I just be clear? When in future the High Court, say, is given this power to exercise what currently under the practice direction is only for the Supreme Court, will it not merely be saying that we will not follow this precedent from the European Court of Justice, but declaring retrospectively that it was wrong all the time? Or will it be saying in this particular case that we are not going to follow that principle but in all other cases—cases pending, appeals and so forth—we will? In other words, will there be the retrospectivity we now have under the practice direction, with the court declaring what the law in truth is and saying it was wrongly understood before; or is it merely to be, as legislation has it, that this will be the law in future—we are changing it?
Lord Keen of Elie
That matter will have to be addressed in the context of the regulations that are to be made, but those are the two options available. You can either proceed upon the basis that has pertained since the 1960s, which is, as we have stated, the law as it has always been, or say that the law is about to change. I make the point again that what will be provided for is the circumstances in which a court is not bound by EU case law. It will not be a circumstance in which they are told they are not allowed to follow EU case law; it will be open to them to do so if they wish.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I found that a very disappointing response from the Minister, for whom I have great respect. It did not answer the question of which courts would now be part of the process and added to the list; it did not answer the question of what test the Government envisage being introduced through the process; and it did not answer the question of why this is not included in the Bill. The attempt to use the regulation process as an ex post facto defence of the fact that the Government have not come up with a policy yet, but would quite like to talk to some of us about what it might be in the future so that it can be put in regulations, is wholly unconvincing.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out, he was talking to the Government about this 20 months ago. There has been plenty of time to come up with a policy in the interim and not leave us in this situation where we are told, “It’ll be alright, we will bring in some regulations and discuss them with you all; all your concerns will be accommodated”. I do not think that they have been accommodated at all.
I welcome the intervention from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As so often on these occasions, he pointed out that with a bit more work, maybe we could get somewhere and achieve something that is consistent with the Government’s intentions but meets people’s concerns.
There are times when Ministers have to recognise the level of feeling and concern which has arisen from significant quarters in the course of Committee proceedings. This has been a remarkable debate and, in the proceedings so far on the Bill, no other debate has brought out such intensity of feeling and concern, particularly from people with significant experience to contribute to the discussion. Ministers have to recognise this. We talk about consultation, and I think that some consultation is required between now and Report.
Certainly, we will want to reflect on what the Minister said on the possibilities—I was encouraged by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay —and how we can reconcile what the Government are talking about with the need for some degree of certainty around how the law is to be administered in future. We are certainly not there yet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS and Social Care: Staffing
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to ensure safe staffing in social care and the National Health Service in this Parliament.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interests as a nurse, as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, patient safety is paramount. We expect health and social care providers to deploy sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times. The NHS People Plan aims to ensure a sustainable overall balance between supply and demand across all staff groups. This Parliament will see the people plan deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2025, a further 6,000 doctors in general practice and 6,000 more primary care professionals, all of which will support safe staffing and better care.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
I thank the Minister for her reply and particularly commend the NHS People Plan, yet evidence suggests that urgent action is needed to address the shortages in social care as well as healthcare. Many older people with dementia are failed by our social care system, in part due to costs and the availability of suitable staff. It is vital that the Government resolve the future of social care funding. Without certainty on funding, employers cannot invest in and plan for the future workforce. Dignity in care will be achieved only with rapid, proactive planning. Can the Minister explain the potential delay to the cross-party talks about funding for social care and what approach will be taken to ensure that proper staffing in social care is available during this Parliament?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and pay credit to the work she has done in this area. She is absolutely right that we have to make urgent progress in delivering a sustainable social care solution. In the first instance, we have given councils up to £3.9 billion of additional funding in 2019-20, and the Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to see cross-party consensus on a sustainable way forward this year. I look forward to seeing progress made as swiftly as possible and hope that we will see work across this House on it, as I know this place takes the issue very seriously. In addition, we have run a national adult social care recruitment campaign to raise the profile of adult social care and encourage applicants. This has been successful; we have seen a 23% increase in the number of vacancies advertised on the DWP’s “Findajob” platform, which is improving the situation in the short term.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there are particular shortages of nurses in certain specialties such as children’s palliative care, children’s mental health and learning difficulties. What will the Government do to improve the situation in those very important and sensitive areas?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness is quite right that we want to target recruitment towards the areas with the greatest shortages. That is one of the reasons why, when we announced the new non-repayable funding, we also announced a top-up for targeted specialties struggling to recruit. It is also why we have announced the availability of placements which can enable nurses to develop experience in specific specialties, which make it easier to recruit and retain those nurses in very rewarding and sometimes hard to recruit specialties.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will understand why the House might be slightly sceptical of “as soon as possible” promises, given that we are still waiting for a Green Paper that was promised almost two years ago. A date would be a good idea here.
Do the Government intend to follow the example of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and introduce safe nursing staffing legislation? Does the Minister agree with me—and with UNISON, which has 450,000 health workers in its membership—about the ever increasing importance to the NHS of recruiting nurses from overseas? How can the Government justify increasing the health tax, which applies to overseas nationals and will surely make it harder to recruit and retain nurses? Will the Minister suggest to the Treasury that the Government should in fact drop that planned surcharge?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Baroness will know that appropriate staffing levels are already a core part of the CQC’s registration regime and that the law already requires hospitals to employ sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times. It is also mandatory for staff to provide monthly reports on the average number of care hours per patient per day, which is considered a better measure than staff numbers. However, we recognise the proposals that have come forward regarding staff safety and legislation; they are being considered at the moment.
The NHS surcharge is being considered to make sure that it is at an appropriate level to ensure that we continue to recruit at an appropriate level. At the moment, the rate of recruitment from non-EU countries has increased significantly by more than 150%.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am sure the Minister knows that safety is about not just numbers but the continuing development and supervision of nurses and midwives. Can she comment on what the Government are doing to ensure that both nurses and midwives are funded properly for clinical supervision and professional development?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The right reverend Prelate is quite right. Ever since the tragic events in Mid Staffordshire, the NHS and our nation have been on a journey to make sure that the NHS is one of the safest healthcare systems in the world. This is based broadly on three policy strands: better regulation; greater transparency; and a culture of learning. HSIB is part of that. We hope to move forward in putting legislation in place to ensure that there can be learning without blame, and we hope to ensure that the appropriate training is in place. The people plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is in the process of finalising, will ensure that specific proposals on how that will be delivered come forward imminently.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are to be commended for wanting to raise the number of staff in the NHS and social care. In the near term, it is equally important that we make sure that we use the staff we have as efficiently as possible, and that we give them the tools and skills to be as productive as they can, including through the use of technology. To what extent will the digital tools that already exist and are on the market feature in the people plan?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
My noble friend is a great advocate of investment in innovation and technology—and for good reason. One of the health infrastructure plan’s key priorities is ensuring that we bring forward the data and digital transformation solutions that will enable staff to spend more time on caring and less time on administrative and repetitive tasks that could be much better undertaken by some of the digital solutions that are now available. Some of those solutions would manage rotas more effectively and others, such as those being delivered by the £200 million AI hub, will enable, for example, AI solutions in radiology and pathology, which could lead to much earlier and more effective diagnoses in areas such as cancer.
Hong Kong
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the situation in Hong Kong, including the recent elections, continuing protests, allegations of police brutality and the arrest of media and humanitarian workers.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare that I travelled to Hong Kong to monitor the recent elections as a guest of Stand With Hong Kong and Hong Kong Watch, of which I am a patron.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we remain concerned at the situation in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the peaceful conduct of local elections, and we continue to urge all sides to take the opportunity to find a way through with meaningful political dialogue. It is essential that protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, and that the authorities respond proportionately. We expect arrests and judicial processes to be both fair and transparent, and we have consistently called for a robust, credible and, indeed, independent investigation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, in welcoming that reply from the Minister, perhaps I might ask how the Government will respond to the evidence given to Parliament by Dr Darren Mann about the police arrest and zip-wiring of medics, which he said amounted to
“grave breaches of international norms and human rights law.”
He described disproportionate brutality, including the shooting of rubber bullets at close range and the use of tear gas in confined areas. Does the Minister agree that this is in contravention of the United Nations guidelines on the use of less-lethal weapons and breaks international law? Does not the arrest of a young woman outside our own consulate at the weekend mean that it is time for us to demand an independent inquiry, as the Minister said, and for us to take the lead in establishing it and explore the use of Magnitsky-type powers to bring the perpetrators to justice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s final point, as he will be aware, bringing forward Magnitsky-style powers through a sanctions policy is something we are looking at proactively at the Foreign Office, and we will be coming forward with recommendations in the near future. He raises important issues, and we pay tribute to his work in Hong Kong and in consistently raising this issue. We take the allegations set out by Dr Mann’s description of the arrest of medical personnel at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University very seriously. As we have said time and again, we also expect the Hong Kong authorities to abide by their own laws and international obligations.
As I said in my original Answer, we believe that an independent inquiry into events in Hong Kong is a critical step, and the UK has repeatedly called for such an independent inquiry to take place. The noble Lord mentioned a recent arrest outside the British consulate-general. I assure the noble Lord that the UK fully supports the right to peaceful and lawful protest. Indeed, as he will know, a static protest has been in place outside the British consulate-general in Hong Kong for a number of months now.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the reports of police secreting themselves in ambulances, thereby putting at risk the neutrality of the medical services?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, there are many reports around the recent situation and unrest in Hong Kong. My noble friend raises one particular issue. Suffice it to say that we take note of any such news stories and ensure that there is an evidence base in support of them. There will be protests and injuries. I assure my noble friend that we continue to implore the Hong Kong authorities to act to support those attending to those injured through such protests to give the right medical attention as soon as possible.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, having just returned from the gas attacks in Hong Kong as a visitor and guest of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, I feel that it is really important that the Government understand and represent fairly the issues for the academic community. I talked extensively to the vice-chancellor of the university, who is massively torn between his need to protect his students and obeying what is required by law. Any noise and representation that the Government can make is therefore of immense importance, given the loneliness and difficulties they face at present.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Lord that we take very seriously our responsibilities in raising the issues around the protests and the response to those protests. We raise issues consistently both with the Hong Kong authorities and indeed with Chinese counterparts. The noble Lord said he has just returned from a visit. It is important to get a real insight into issues on the ground and, if the noble Lord is willing, I will seek to sit down with him to discuss his views and insights in more detail.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, having heard what the doctor said about how medical personnel in Hong Kong deal with the injured—be they protesters, policemen, journalists or bystanders—it is surely intolerable that their work should be interfered with in any way. Given that the Sino-British agreement is registered internationally, should we not be much more assertive in protecting humanitarian law?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord, and think that it is right, whether we are talking about Hong Kong or anywhere else in the world, that medical professionals, when they are seeking to assist those injured, whatever the reason for the injury, are given unfettered access. As I have said on a number of occasions from the Dispatch Box, we are absolutely committed to the agreement. Indeed, as the noble Lord may be aware, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary released a statement on the 35th anniversary of the joint declaration in which he said:
“This agreement between the UK and China made clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years. The undertakings made by China, including the right to freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and the rule of law, are essential to Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life.”
We stand by that.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Is there anything further that Her Majesty’s Government can do in this very difficult situation—perhaps in diplomatic terms, at the UN or wherever—to hold the behaviour of the Chinese up to the scrutiny of the whole world? It is not only the awful thing in Hong Kong, which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has just spoken of, but also the Uighurs in the province of Xinjiang. It is shocking and should be exposed to the whole world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises some very important points. I assure him that that we take seriously our responsibilities to raise the issues both of Hong Kong and of the Uighurs in Xinjiang. As the UK’s Human Rights Minister I have taken this forward and, during our formal statements at the Human Rights Council, I have directly raised the issue of the Uighur community, as well other persecuted minorities in China.
Climate Change: COP 26 and Civil Society
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to engage civil society in climate change issues ahead of COP26, to be held in Glasgow in November 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, we engage regularly with civil society, and will continue to do so en route to COP 26 and beyond. As a delegate at COP 25 in Madrid, and while an MEP in Lima, Paris and Marrakesh, I saw at first hand the important role that civil society plays in such gatherings, and anticipate that such groups will be vital to the success of COP 26.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but people now accept that civil society has a very important role to play. The location of Madrid was agreed at the last minute, but the fact that there was so little civil society engagement led to its failure. Therefore, I do not feel very reassured by the Answer that the Government are really on the case with this. When we signed up and bid to host COP 26, did we agree to anything—in the way that a country hosting the Olympics agrees to enhance sport in schools—such as making the understanding of climate change more available to everyone?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness is right to state that COP 25 in Madrid did not have the full participation of civil society. One of the simple reasons was that COP 25 was due to be in Santiago. I suspect that a number of people had booked tickets there and discovered that they could not get a refund. However, I suspect that in Glasgow there will be full participation in those proceedings, because right now there is a great appetite to explore and express those views. In response to the second part of the question, I can say that Glasgow was chosen because it is seventh-highest in the world in the global destination sustainability index. We also have a direct train line into the venue, which will ensure a lower carbon footprint. I believe that there will be a legacy left in Glasgow, and that the Governments of Scotland and the UK will continue to build on it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on getting COP 26 in Glasgow. It is a great thing for the country. It is also important because of the climate emergency which the other place has declared. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say in October that there would be a cabinet committee for climate change, to ensure that it was across Government. How many times has it met under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord will be aware that very soon after that was announced, there was an election, and shortly after the election there was Christmas. Unfortunately, the cabinet committee has not yet met, but it will meet this month, very shortly. I will report back to this House on what has been discussed at that meeting.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on the United Kingdom lowering its CO2 emissions from 2% to 1% of the world’s output, but meanwhile, worldwide net emissions of CO2 have gone up. Are we not in great danger of meeting 2050 with no net CO2 emissions only for worldwide CO2 emissions to have gone up, because the Chinese and Indians will have continued to build coal-burning power stations?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend is right to express that simple point: carbon emissions have gone up year on year since the beginning of the COP process, and some significant emitters are doing too little to address this. The United Kingdom has been powerful in its advocacy of decarbonising, while still growing the economy. If we can continue to grow the economy and secure jobs while decarbonising, that is a model that the world should follow.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, rather in contradiction to what was said in an earlier question, the Government are woefully slow, as the House debated last June, in coming forward with policies and measures to meet new emissions targets—starting with the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which are not being met, and including bringing international aviation and shipping emissions within the scope of the Paris Agreement. The Government’s White Paper is already at least nine months beyond its promised date. Would not the best way to encourage debate on these issues be to get on with these essential tasks and provide real leadership?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. In the Government’s declaring net zero by 2050, the UK became the first major economy to do so. We will publish our energy White Paper imminently. The EU itself has struggled with aviation. We must ensure that aviation and international shipping are part of the decarbonisation process. Not to do so would be to ignore one of the most important elements of the carbon in our atmosphere.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, what has the response of the Scottish Government been to this initiative?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, the Scottish Government have supported the Government’s approach and have welcomed the arrival of the COP process in Glasgow. We are working in close collaboration with Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to ensure that the COP is a success. We are on the same page, we recognise the same challenges and we are pulling on the same rope in the same direction.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, may I, as someone from Edinburgh, welcome the fact that the conference is to be held in Glasgow? Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to ensure that as many as possible of the international conferences to be held in the United Kingdom are held outside London—in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, as well as in Edinburgh and Glasgow? Will he also do everything he can to ensure that both Edinburgh and Glasgow remain part of the United Kingdom? I am sure he will.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That was an extraordinary link, but I fully endorse the noble Lord’s belief that Scotland, including Glasgow and Edinburgh, must remain part of the United Kingdom. We are stronger and better together: I am happy to confirm that. We should have more international conferences outside London, and Scotland is a perfect place for that; so are the north of England, Wales and the West Country. We have an extraordinary country with extraordinary offerings. Let us do more outside London.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. COP 26 gives this country the opportunity both to show leadership and to showcase achievement. However, welcome though the commitment to net zero in 2050 is, does the Minister agree that by the time of the Glasgow meeting we need a sector-by-sector detailed road map of how we will actually achieve that target?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The White Paper will be a part of that, and will set out exactly how we will both achieve our own domestic targets and show the leadership required to bring about the necessary negotiations to deliver a good outcome in Glasgow.
Extinction Rebellion: Prevent Programme
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision by Counter Terrorism Policing South East to include Extinction Rebellion on a list of extremist ideologies to be referred to the Prevent programme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, CT Policing South East is quoted categorically as saying that it does not classify Extinction Rebellion as an extremist organisation, and its inclusion in the document was an error of judgment. Extinction Rebellion is not considered an extremist group under the 2015 definition of extremism; the Home Secretary has been clear on this point.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification, but of course the damage has been done. How can anyone, even if they make a mistake, consider a peaceful demonstration by thousands of people, mostly children—including some of my family—worried about the future of the planet as extremist ideology? I suggest that the Minister instead adds to a final list the climate change deniers and the oil companies funding them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, they too have their right to free speech in this country—a point that goes to the heart of the noble Lord’s original Question. CT Police South East was quick to say that it had made an error of judgment. People do make mistakes.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
Does the Minister accept that lawful demonstrations are an essential part of our democracy? Extinction Rebellion is a non-violent campaign and to equate it with proscribed organisations is unacceptable. Prevent has already received critical reviews from our Muslim community and this incident has not helped. Will the Minister publish the full criteria taken into account when considering proscription of this nature so that these could receive the full scrutiny of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will appreciate that we do not discuss how the Home Secretary comes to decisions on proscription, but she does so on the vigorous legal advice provided to her at the time. Extinction Rebellion was on a list of those with an extremist ideology, as opposed to a terrorist ideology. However, CT Police South East has accepted that this was wrong.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, while it is right that the police have acknowledged their error of judgment, demonstrators made an error of judgment when they glued themselves to trains, stopped people going about their normal business and interfered with people going to visit the sick in hospital? There are errors of judgment on both sides and we should emphasise that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a good point. Many errors of judgment were made in some of the protests. He is right that not only were people prevented from seeing sick relatives in hospital, some of their relatives died before they could visit them. CT Police South East has done the right thing and my noble friend is right to point out some of the issues that the public faced during those protests.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, at what level in the police was this counterterrorism document, for which an apology has now been given, cleared as being appropriate? Was the Home Office in possession of a copy of that document, or aware of its content, prior to it being exposed in the Guardian? If the answer is that it was cleared at a police regional or area level and the Home Office knew nothing about it, surely it is wrong that a document of that kind—containing the guidance it did about a campaign, not about a terrorist organisation—does not require clearance at a senior level, at least in the police, to ensure both appropriateness and consistency of approach across the country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the assessment was made under the local area CT plan, which is independent of the Home Office. Obviously it came to the attention of the police and, as I said, they have accepted their error of judgment.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding what has been said today, is my noble friend aware of a Policy Exchange report prepared by two people—one the former head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command—called Extremism Rebellion? It argued:
“The police response to law-breaking by demonstrators must be far more proactive in enforcing the laws that relate to public protest, preventing Extinction Rebellion and other political activists from embarking on illegal tactics that cause mass disruption and significant economic damage.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right. The public order issues around these protests were significant, particularly to the people of London, Bristol and elsewhere. As he said, they caused great disruption to people’s lives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The right to protest is inherent in our British constitution, such as it is, and this sort of error by the police—it is great that they have acknowledged it—should not happen. Does the Minister think that younger people who have put themselves out on the streets to protest may have less trust in the police than ever now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think so, but the noble Baroness is right that the right to protest is enshrined in our values in this country. Nobody, I think, is disputing people’s right to protest, but a line is crossed in terms of protests and public order offences when that right to protest infringes on people’s everyday lives.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, on the occasions when mistakes were made when I was in the Home Office, it was often at a very junior level. I will never forget a youngster in tears when a report was published that had not been cleared. I had to assure her that it was the person who had failed to supervise her, not her, who should be on the line. I commend the Minister for her openness and her willingness to put this matter straight. There is a very big difference between labelling people as extreme because they happen to be on the streets promoting a just cause and measures taken by a very few that lead to anarcho-syndicalism. If we can distinguish between the two and use the legitimate law to deal with the latter, it would be a fine thing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As always, the noble Lord makes a very sensible point, and I thank him for it. We have to make those distinctions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it is a fundamental part of our democracy that Members of both Houses are able to come here to vote and enjoy free passage? Does she recall that last year these people were responsible for preventing disabled people getting to and from this House? That is unacceptable and why we used to pass sessional orders instructing the Metropolitan Police to ensure that that happened.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right. People were prevented from coming here to vote and had to use trains where they usually would have made their journey to work using buses. It made life more expensive for them. My noble friend is right to point out that demonstrations cannot disrupt people’s everyday lives in the way that they did.
Criminal Records Notifications Disclosure
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking following reports that criminal record notifications were not disclosed to EU Member States of 75,000 convictions.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Britain is one of the leading contributors to the European Criminal Records Information System. We are currently working hard to upgrade our legacy systems. The central authority for the exchange of criminal records is working at pace to implement the technical fixes which will ensure that all the correct data is shared with EU members.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this revelation is both shocking and worrying. Does the Minister accept that this is a huge failure on the part of the Government and that it is possible that dangerous offenders have returned to their home country without the UK making proper notification to the authorities? When the error was discovered, it was not corrected—shamefully—because of the risk of reputational damage to the UK. Can the Minister give the House a timescale for clearing the backlog of these notifications? What is his department doing to review procedures to eliminate the scandalous situation which was discussed at meetings but not acted upon?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is entirely correct: this is a very serious matter and the Government take it very seriously. We cannot duck the importance of getting this right. I shall say a few words to explain the context for this incredibly complex and technical matter.
Britain remains one of the leading contributors of data to ECRIS. Interestingly, the UK sent 30,000 conviction notifications through ECRIS to EU member states in the past year and received 16,000, which gives an idea of the balance of contributions. In the UK, we are dealing with legacy systems that are profoundly out of date, and with many EU agencies and 27 EU nations, so the complexity of this task is enormous.
I reassure the House that throughout this period ECRIS’s dynamic system was working as well as expected and delivered a fine service to our EU partners. The problems involved were connected only with dual-national citizens—those with British and EU passports—and those who did not have fingerprints in their files and therefore were probably connected with minor crimes. Following this revelation, we are working our hardest to get to the bottom of the problem. It is not possible to provide a concrete timescale at the moment, but I reassure the House that a considerable investment is being made through the national law enforcement database that will considerably enhance our ability to deliver good data to our partners.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, is it the case that this goes back as far as 2015? However far it goes back, when was it actually discovered? The underlying question is: how can we expect co-operation from other states, which is necessary for the security of the UK, if we are not open with them when things go wrong?
Lord Bethell
The original database was put together in 2012, and records suggest that the problem was first identified in 2015. When I asked about these dates, I shared some of the surprise in the House at these extremely long time periods, but I reassure noble Lords that our partners are understanding of the problems we face, because every country has legacy police database issues of its own. All countries are trying to meet the needs of the 21st century, particularly by turning archive and legacy data into something that is usable today. It is noticeable that when the alert was shared at the Council of Europe working group which discusses mutual collaboration on policing issues, there was positive and understanding feedback from our EU partners.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me the Government’s position on future collaboration with other EU police forces after we leave the EU, because this is an important issue?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend is right, and police collaboration after Brexit is one of the big priorities of this Government. That is why in the implementation period, we will be discussing this with the EU and our partners. The political declaration envisages a relationship spanning operational and judicial co-operation, data-driven law enforcement and multilateral co-operation through EU agencies. Those three important silos will be the basis of our ongoing negotiations.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we all appreciate that the Home Office must be a difficult government department for Ministers to supervise and control. I can think of a former Home Secretary who felt obliged to offer his resignation over these sorts of matters, and my noble friend Lady Hughes resigned because of failures within the department. The former Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, also had to resign because she had inadvertently misled the House of Commons as a result of poor information. Can the Minister tell us—in answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which was not answered—precisely when Ministers were notified that this failure had occurred, and who took the decision that it should not be made public on the basis of reputational damage? Are any Ministers contemplating their positions?
Lord Bethell
The paper trail is extremely complex, and I am not in a position to give the kind of blow-by-blow account that the House would like. I sympathise with the question, and I would like to be able to give the noble Lord more detail. I am afraid that these issues are a necessary part of upgrading our technical and data arrangements. This is a complex and ongoing project, and while this mistake is extremely regrettable, at no point has there been any suggestion that those involved have not behaved with best intentions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, unfortunately this issue appears to go not only to competence—it paints a rather sorry picture of a Home Office-related database—but to trust. The question of when the police and Ministers knew about this problem, which was asked about previously, harms our reputation. Unfortunately, it comes swiftly on the heels of another revelation that is being pursued in the European Parliament, which is that the UK is being charged with the illegal copying of data from the Schengen Information System on to a national database and then sharing it with private companies. An internal report from the European Commission makes very interesting reading, but I do not know whether the Commission is pursuing infringement proceedings. However, none of that will help with the subject that we will be discussing later today —the question of seeking a data adequacy assessment from the European Commission. We are not exactly scoring 10 out of 10 on either competence or trust in our handling of European data shared under data-sharing arrangements.
Lord Bethell
The data arrangements that Britain is committed to are handled with great delicacy by this country. Ministers are thoroughly committed to trying to make them work, and Britain has a very good record on both technical delivery and trust. I go back to the statistic that I shared earlier: 30,000 conviction notices were sent through ECRIS to our European partners, whereas 16,000 were received. That is an indication of what a strong and energetic partner we are in these matters, and I reassure the House that that remains the commitment of the Government.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The Minister should be aware of the reports by the Brexit committees that I and other Members of the House have been on concerning the importance of the security issue, particularly after we leave the EU at the end of this year. It is profoundly important and has been discussed time and again. What we need to hear now from the Minister is not just the important answer to my colleague’s Question but whether the Government will make a full Statement to this House as soon as they have all the facts—he says that he does not have them all available at the moment. We need to know those facts. They are profoundly important for our negotiations with the European Union on the whole issue of security and the European arrest warrant and all that goes with it.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is quite right to emphasise the importance of this matter, but the correct channel for communication with our EU partners is through dialogue with COPEN, the European Council working group. My understanding is that it is the intention of the ACRO Criminal Records Office, which is the liaising agency with COPEN, to maintain a dialogue, to keep COPEN up to date and to respond to any concerns from our EU partners. Those concerns have not come through in a meaningful way. Although I am keen to be here and to keep the House up to date, it is really through that channel that we should keep our EU partners up to date.
Petroleum (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Advocate Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
House of Lords (Elections and Reform) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Abortion Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Wednesday 15th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Jan 2020)
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, coupled with another, prevents a widening of the definition of “deficiency” in relation to retained EU law which would allow the Government to make additional changes by delegated legislation.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, at the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I will move Amendment 24, to which I am a co-signatory. I will also speak to Amendment 26.
When the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was a Bill, our Constitution Committee—in an earlier report in September 2017—expressed great reservations about the exceptionally wide delegated powers in that Bill. In respect of what became Section 8, the Committee was not at all happy with the extensive powers to make such regulations as Ministers considered appropriate to deal with
“any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or … any other deficiency in retained EU law”
arising from withdrawal. The Committee was unhappy that this application of a subjective test to a broad term like “deficiency” made the reach of the provision potentially open-ended.
In the Explanatory Notes, the Government had said that
“a failure means the law doesn’t operate effectively whereas deficiency covers a wider range of cases where it does not function appropriately or sensibly.”
That was why our Committee was worried about subjectivity. It was also concerned that it was going to be difficult to distinguish between powers necessary to make more technical changes to the existing body of EU law and anything that would creep into the area of new policies on matters that previously lay within the EU’s competence. It was afraid that, whatever assurances there were from the Government about intentions to limit their powers to technical matters, the Bill as drafted did not impose such a constraint. That was all to express the worry at the time of the Bill that became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Now that we are two-and-a-bit years further on, our Constitution Committee—in the report it issued yesterday—has expressed further unhappiness at the Government’s wish in Clause 27 to amend Section 8 of the 2018 Act in order to expand the remit of correcting deficiencies. It is worried that
“clause 27(2)(c) and 27(6) amend section 8 to insert vague and potentially important new categories of deficiencies which would trigger the broad ministerial powers conferred by the 2018 Act. Neither the Explanatory Notes nor the Delegated Powers Memorandum make clear why such provisions are required.”
It reminds us that
“Section 8 of the 2018 Act lies at the heart of the concerns we expressed in our reports on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill”,
as I earlier cited. It concludes:
“Any expansion of the powers under section 8 requires substantial justification. The Government should explain why the powers in clause 27(2)(c) and 27(6) are necessary, and if unable to do so, should remove them from the Bill.”
That is the challenge to the Government: to explain why they need this further widening of the powers under Section 8 to correct so-called deficiencies.
The delegated powers memorandum says about the justification for taking the power:
“These amendments are necessary to allow the power to function in the revised context of the implementation period.”
We were always going to have an implementation period. I simply do not understand this next sentence:
“It was not possible to draft the power in this manner when the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was passed, because that Act was drafted without prejudice to the outcome of the negotiations, and so could not take into account the prospect of a withdrawal agreement.”
We knew that there had to be a withdrawal agreement; Theresa May had reached a draft withdrawal agreement. I cannot now remember the date on which the 2018 Act became law—I have it here somewhere, but someone will remind me—but of course we knew there was going to be a withdrawal Act, so I do not understand that bit in the explanatory documents at all.
I remind noble Lords that Amendment 24 concerns the insertion proposed by Clause 27(2)(c) of the present Bill, where the Government would have power to correct deficiencies where the retained EU law is not clear in its effect as a result of the operation of any provision of Section 8 of the 2018 Act. The phrase
“not clear in its effect as a result of the operation”
gives the Government quite a wide scope for making regulations. As I say, that is on top of the already pretty wide powers under Section 8 of the 2018 Act. Amendment 26—I need to remind myself of its exact wording as I have too many papers in my hands—also addresses provisions to widen the scope for correcting deficiencies in a way that certainly worried the Constitution Committee and therefore worries me and colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, if I may speak for her on this, who have signed the amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain very clearly why this power is justified.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Clauses 27(2)(c) and 27(6) of the Bill amend Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to expand the definition of deficiencies in retained EU law and to include deficiencies arising from the end of the implementation period. In its interim report on the first version of the WAB, your Lordships’ House’s Constitution Committee expressed concern that the power to expand the definition of deficiency was “vague” and could insert “potentially important new categories” without any real justification.
During the passage of the 2018 Act, we were repeatedly assured that there was nothing to worry about in relation to these powers, as they would cease to operate on exit day. However, we are now told that the power needs to be extended to address deficiencies arising from the implementation period. Given that we had an estimate of the total number of SIs to be made under the 2018 Act, can the Minister provide an estimate of how many would arise as a result of extending this power?
The Hansard Society and others very helpfully tracked the Government’s use of Section 8 powers during the withdrawal negotiations and the results were not promising, with many SIs tabled late in the process and some even having to be withdrawn and retabled as they contained their very own deficiencies. In the light of the Government’s record, is the proposed extension of the Section 8 powers simply a case of Ministers trying to buy more time for work that should have been done already? What guarantee is there that extending the Section 8 powers will not occur every other year?
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hayter, for their amendments and the noble Lord for his contribution to the debate. I also express my thanks to the Constitution Committee for providing what was an extremely thorough analysis of this Bill. I hope my response will provide reassurance to noble Lords about the purpose of these clauses; if the House will forgive me, I will go into quite a bit of detail on this.
As noble Lords will know, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was drafted without prejudice to the outcome of our negotiations with the EU. However, now that we have agreed a withdrawal agreement together with the implementation period, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, observed, it is necessary to update that Act to ensure that it can still fulfil its intended purpose in light of the new circumstances.
The subsections to which the noble Baronesses have tabled their amendments are there to ensure that the power can continue to meet the broader goal, which was much discussed during our debates on the 2018 Act, if noble Lords remember, and on which there is a widespread measure of agreement across the House. It is simply to ensure that the law continues to operate correctly, as it was passed at the time. To provide the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, with a specific example of the kind of thing to which we are referring, we will need to replace the previous deficiencies in the statutory instrument on telecoms, which will no longer work because EU-derived domestic legislation will have been amended during the implementation period to implement the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications. That will be changed during the implementation period and we may well have to go back to the previous fix in order to update it and provide a functioning statute book at the end of the implementation period. That is why we need to extend that power.
Moving on to the specifics of Amendment 24, EU law will of course generally continue to apply in the UK during the implementation period. This Bill takes the approach of providing what are known as glosses for EU-derived domestic legislation, to clarify the way in which EU-related terms should be read so that our laws will continue to work during this period. Obviously, as a non-lawyer, the only “gloss” that I am familiar with is gloss paint, but for the benefit of the House, glossing is a technical device used to direct readers of the law to interpret specific phrases without textually amending the original provisions. Apparently, it is a fairly standard legal clause. When retained EU law is created at the end of the implementation period, the EU-derived domestic legislation will be the glossed version of that law. Subsection 2(c) ensures that the powers in Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 can be used to fix ambiguities which may arise as a result of the approach that we have taken to the saving and exceptions of retained EU law, such as the application of the glosses set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. In our view, it is right and appropriate that the Section 8 power is made available for this particular purpose.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Could the Minister answer my question and assure us that there will be no further extension of the powers in Section 8?
Baroness Ludford
The Minister gave an example of telecoms legislation, which will change. Why can such deficiencies not be dealt with under the existing text of Section 8—namely
“any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively … or any other deficiency in retained EU law.”?
Why, in the example he gave, is Section 8, as it exists now in the 2018 Act, not adequate?
Lord Callanan
Of course it may be possible to continue to use that power but until we see how the legislation works out—how it is introduced during the implementation period—we will not know that exactly. We therefore think it appropriate to extend the sunset period, et cetera, to give us the new powers to correct upcoming or future legislation that may be introduced during the implementation period.
Baroness Ludford
I was not talking about the length of the time of the powers but about extending the scope. Amendments 24 and 26 are relevant to the provisions that would insert new subsections (2)(ea) and (9), which widen the criteria for finding a deficiency. If there were a change in telecoms legislation, the existing Section 8 in the 2018 Act seems perfectly adequate because the Government could say that there is a failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, because telecoms legislation has changed. That is enough. We do not need the new, widened scope to find a deficiency.
Lord Callanan
It is certainly the view of our legal advisers that we would potentially need the new, widened powers to be able to do that, but I can write to the noble Baroness with further details of why it is necessary.
Baroness Ludford
I have probably made it fairly clear that I do not find the Minister’s assurances terribly convincing, and I look forward to his letter. Perhaps the legal advisers can explain to him why it would be necessary in my example. Our Constitution Committee has consistently warned us against wide powers in this area—things where there could be mission creep outside technical corrections to policy changes. I think its alarm bells are flashing on this, which is pretty convincing to me. The Government giving themselves a power to correct deficiencies because something
“is not clear in its effect”
and has something to do with
“any aspect of that withdrawal”
is pretty wide in scope.
I have to confess that I have not been reassured or convinced by this short exchange, but that is probably all I will get until we see further information. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 24.
“Oversight of negotiations for future relationship
After section 13B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (certain dispute procedures under withdrawal agreement) (for which see section 30 above) insert—“13C Negotiations for future relationship(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before the end of the period of 30 Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which exit day falls, make a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU.(2) A Minister of the Crown may, at any time after the initial statement is made, make a revised statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU.(3) A statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU must be consistent with the political declaration of 17 October 2019 referred to in Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement (negotiations on the future relationship).(4) A Minister of the Crown may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU unless—(a) a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown.(5) In conducting negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, a Minister of the Crown must seek to achieve the objectives set out in the most recent statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU to have been—(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(b) the subject of a motion of the kind mentioned in subsection (4)(b).(6) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must—(a) lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress made, by the end of the period, in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, including—(i) the Minister’s assessment of the extent to which the outcome of those negotiations is likely to reflect the most recent statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU to have been approved by the House of Commons, and the subject of a motion in the House of Lords, as mentioned in subsection (4), and(ii) if the Minister’s assessment is that the future relationship with the EU is, in any respect, not likely to reflect that statement, an explanation of why that is so, and(b) provide a copy of the report to the Presiding Officer of each of the devolved legislatures and to—(i) the Scottish Ministers,(ii) the Welsh Ministers, and(iii) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply if, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU.(8) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament—(a) a statement that political agreement has been reached, and(b) a copy of the negotiated future relationship treaty.(9) A treaty in the same form, or to substantially the same effect, as the negotiated future relationship treaty may be ratified only if the negotiated future relationship treaty has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown and—(a) the House of Lords has not resolved, within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the negotiated future relationship treaty is laid before that House, that any treaty resulting from it should not be ratified, or(b) if the House of Lords has so resolved within that period, a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why.(10) Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification) does not apply in relation to a treaty if subsection (9) applies in relation to the ratification of that treaty.(11) In this section—“devolved legislature” means—(a) the Scottish Parliament,(b) the National Assembly for Wales, or(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;“future relationship with the EU” means the main arrangements which are designed to govern the security and economic aspects of the long-term relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU after IP completion day and to replace or modify the arrangements which apply during the implementation period, but does not include the withdrawal agreement;“negotiated future relationship treaty” means a draft of a treaty identified in a statement that political agreement has been reached;“negotiations” means negotiations the opening of which, on behalf of the EU, has been authorised under Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;“reporting period” means— (a) the period of three months beginning with the first day on which a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(b) each subsequent period of three months;“statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU” means a statement—(a) made in writing by a Minister of the Crown setting out proposed objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, and(b) published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate;“statement that political agreement has been reached” means a statement made in writing by a Minister of the Crown which—(a) states that, in the Minister’s opinion, an agreement in principle has been reached with the EU on a treaty the principal purpose of which is to deal with all or part of the future relationship with the EU, and(b) identifies a draft of that treaty which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflects the agreement in principle;“treaty” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (see section 25(1) and (2) of that Act).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reinstates the oversight Clause from the original version of the Bill, providing an ongoing role for both Houses of Parliament during the future relationship negotiations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 27 stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Hannay and Lord Bowness. I will also speak to Amendment 28, which is in almost the same names, and Amendment 40, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. These amendments would essentially reinstate what had been promised in the earlier Bill: proper parliamentary oversight of the Government’s negotiating mandate and the negotiations themselves. They would also ensure proper reporting back including, crucially, on whether a satisfactory deal looks probable before the cut-off date for any extension. This is especially relevant, perhaps, if the FT is correct that the Prime Minister himself is finally beginning to doubt that all can be done and dusted by the due date.
As the Bill stands, the European Parliament will have a much greater say over the stance of the EU negotiators than we will over ours. The Minister shakes his head. His knowledge of the European Parliament is certainly longer than mine, but I think he will find that it will have a rather greater grip than we will over what happens.
Our EU Committee expressed its concern about the omission of the old Clause 31 of the October Bill, without which Parliament will have no statutory role in respect of the future trade deal, save a very limited final nod under the CRaG—and even that can be disapplied by a Minister. We have agreed before in this House that Parliament should be involved throughout the process to ensure that, apart from anything else, the talks are not heading to the rocks of no deal. But that is presumably exactly why the Government do not want us to have a role.
Despite the commitments made at the Dispatch Box by the Government before the election, they have stripped those statutory rights from this Bill—all because they have a majority of 80. The Commons was told not to worry and that Parliament would of course have a meaningful role throughout the future relationship negotiations but, as that role has been deliberately dropped from the draft legislation, I am afraid that that assurance is simply not good enough. The removal of the original Clause 31 shows how the Prime Minister can change his mind; we are simply asking for the first version of his mind to be in the Bill. Amendment 27 reinstates the Government’s own words.
Amendment 28 is slightly different; it asks the Government to update MPs and us on progress in negotiations half way through the implementation period and requires a Minister—who of course cannot mislead the House—to give an assessment of whether a deal is likely before 31 December and, if it does not look likely, to outline the Government’s approach.
Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks the approval of both MPs and the devolved legislatures for the Government’s negotiating objectives—a goal that we clearly share.
The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who is not in his place, said at Second Reading that
“scrutiny is not an optional extra.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 483.]
Amen to that. If the Government will not accept these amendments, they need to explain what exactly they are afraid of and why a Government, answerable to Parliament, are deliberately cutting elected MPs, as well as your Lordships’ House, out of any meaningful role. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading about the dropping of Clause 31, which was in the October 2019 version of the Bill and is in Amendment 27, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just said. I thought it would be helpful to have better detail about the position for MEPs, among other things. The position is set out in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which says:
“agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the following procedure.”
It runs through that procedure and says, in paragraph 10:
“The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure.”
That is further backed up by the interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission, which says in part III:
“Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements”.
That is at paragraph 23. It goes on:
“The information referred to in point 23 shall be provided to Parliament in sufficient time for it to be able to express its point of view if appropriate, and for the Commission to be able to take Parliament’s views as far as possible into account.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is also on Amendments 27 and 28, and I wish to add my support for them. The Constitution Committee’s report, published two days ago, says in paragraph 3:
“This Bill is of the highest constitutional significance.”
One of the many aspects of that constitutional significance is as it affects the relationship between Parliament and government. As I understand it, the role of Parliament and the role of the second Chamber of Parliament—the House of Lords—in legislation is that we should present reasoned arguments and criticisms of what the Government have put forward. In response, the Government’s duty is to listen to those arguments. Where they are persuaded that those arguments are reasoned, or where they are unable to provide reasonable answers to them, they should adjust the legislation to meet those arguments.
The other dimension is that, as policy proceeds, the Government should be held to account by Parliament; there should be ongoing accountability as policy proceeds. Amendment 27 does not say that we want to know the details of everything; it talks about objectives. The Government are asked to tell us regularly what their objectives are. That seems entirely reasonable, particularly as the Government’s objectives remain so unclear and, in some ways, contradictory. On regulatory divergence, for example, I have listened to the noble Lord several times explaining the rationale for the regulatory divergence the Government are committed to and each time he explains it I become less and less convinced that the Government know what they want. I think that is partly because different elements of the Government and of the Conservative Party want entirely contradictory outcomes.
The question of the future security relationship also contains a number of unresolved internal differences. On future trade relations, we heard on the radio this morning someone with very close links to the Trump Administration saying that if we want good trade concessions in our future relations with the United States, we had better give something in return on Iran and our policy on the Middle East. There are many questions there that it is reasonable for Parliament to hold the Government to account over, and to ask Ministers to continue to justify.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in what I thought was rather an odd speech, said that we should not bother Ministers when they are in the middle of negotiations, because they will be tired and busy and we would get in the way. That seems to me, if I may say so in her absence, absurd. Parliaments are there to hold Governments to account and if the Government think they can get away without being held to account, except every five years in elections, we have moved away from constitutional and parliamentary democracy.
We heard a number of empty threats on Monday about the future of the Lords if we were to pass any amendments. There were suggestions that we were standing in the way of the people’s will and that various Members of this House perhaps represent the people against Parliament—although some of the Members of this House who put themselves forward as representing the people seem rather less popular in their backgrounds than one might otherwise expect. All I say to that is that if one faces up to the question of Lords reform—I say this as a former Minister responsible for trying to take through Lords reform—it is very difficult.
Some of us were at a meeting this morning where it was said that Lords reform and electoral reform were the two most difficult constitutional changes that anyone would wish to take through. It was implied that neither would happen in our lifetimes. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there is an idea that somehow, with the Express and the Mail behind the Government, threats can be made that the Lords will be abolished—and with Rebecca Long Bailey behind the Express and the Mail in threatening it. The idea that that will happen and we will all then turn quiet is out of the question. We have to do our job. We are here as a revising Chamber and it is our duty to ask the Government to revise when we are not convinced.
There is a question that all Conservatives here should ask themselves carefully as they consider how the House considers the Bill: if a non-Conservative Government were attempting to push through a Bill of this sort, which diminishes the role of Parliament in holding the Government to account, what would the Conservative response be? I think I know. I therefore strongly support this amendment and I hope the Government will recognise that, in rejecting it, they are trying to push the relationship between Parliament and Government towards the Executive and away from proper constitutional democracy.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on Lords reform, I remind him that your Lordships’ House was not saved by anybody in this House. It was actually saved by Jesse Norman—who paid a serious price from David Cameron, who subsequently refused to put him into his Government—and a number of right-wingers in the Tory party. We do not have that support in the Commons any longer, so I would not be quite so laid back and complacent about the future of your Lordships’ House. It has been seriously threatened and bruises have been left.
As to the amendment, I think we have all very much welcomed the election of Sir Lindsay Hoyle as Speaker of the House of Commons. I think he will be an umpire rather than a protagonist in the Brexit debate; he certainly has not indicated which way he voted in the referendum. However, the suggestion that he will not allow any Statements or Urgent Questions on the Brexit negotiations in the year that extends before us is for the birds. The idea that the Government will have no accountability to the House of Commons—or to your Lordships’ House—on how the negotiations are progressing is just ridiculous. For that reason, it is completely unnecessary to have this stuff in the Bill; I think there will be a lot of accountability, which will be ensured by the new Speaker. There is no point whatever in putting it in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I am strongly in favour of reforming the House of Lords. I hoped when I was appointed to this House that I would in due course become an elected member for the Yorkshire region. I have now been in this House for 23 years and that has not happened. I am very conscious of the difficulties of reform.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Yes, and the noble Lord should be very pleased with himself that he has done much to make the idea of reforming our House a significant factor, now that there is a Conservative Government with a serious majority.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, as one of those who sponsored this amendment, I will make a few brief points. Its subject matter is very familiar to Members of this House, because we went over all this ground during the Trade Bill last year. We sent to the Commons an amendment that had very similar effects to this one, only this one is in the different context of negotiating the new relationship with the EU, and it has remained there untreated ever since. However, the view of the House was expressed by a very large majority, with support from all corners of the Chamber.
This negotiation with the EU, which will go far beyond purely the trade area, must do so because, if we allow the non-trading goods areas that are at stake—I will not list them, as it is a very long list—to go over a cliff at the end of this year, when we have only a trade agreement, that would be pretty disastrous. It is a very important and wide negotiation, and it is perfectly reasonable to try to set bounds to the rules of the road in legislation about how the Government will relate to both Houses of Parliament during its course. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in this.
Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull pointed out, drawing attention to the European Parliament’s position, which is completely different, it would be pretty anomalous if this Parliament, which is meant to be taking back power, had much less influence over this negotiation than the European Parliament. That is not a very happy situation; it was one that existed during all the negotiations of the last few years and did not turn out terribly well. I do not quite understand why the Government are fearful of subjecting themselves to this fairly reasonable amount of oversight and mandating when they have a very large majority in the other place, which will of course prevail in support of the Government’s views on how the negotiations should be conducted.
Yet they tabled the text that we now have before us when they could not be sure of that at all. That is a bit odd as well; I think I can understand perfectly well why it has happened, but it is still odd. This is not only about the European Parliament. For example, one of the major trade negotiations not covered by the Bill will be with the United States, where Congress will play a far greater role than the one that the Government envisage for this Parliament. That is also pretty unhealthy.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter. I particularly support the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He is already establishing himself in this House as an excellent chair of the EU Select Committee, succeeding a previous excellent chair. My only regret is that I am no longer on that committee to serve under his chairmanship.
In my experience from my four years on the committee, the attitude of successive Secretaries of State towards the committee was always one of good will but they made promises they never kept. At one stage, we were told, “Oh yes, every month you’ll see me and I’ll come to answer your questions.” My recollection is that we saw David Davis at intervals of perhaps five months during his time as Secretary of State. I think that we saw Mr Raab once; I might be wrong about that. Mr Barclay was the most attentive towards the committee. He seemed keen to improve in the next phase of the EU negotiations on his own degree of accountability. He saw maximum transparency in the conduct of the negotiations as being in the Government’s interests. I am sorry that No. 10 has decided to go for breach of promise on all this. That is a great shame.
Whenever the issue of the European Parliament’s rights to scrutiny is raised, you get a vigorous shaking of the head from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I would love to hear his explanation of why those rights are not what we all know them to be. He seems to reject the notion that the European Parliament has many more rights than the British Parliament to access information and question officials to find out what is happening, but that is the case. The role of the European Parliament was greatly strengthened by the Lisbon treaty, and again by the ECJ judgment to make it easier for the Commission to negotiate on the EU’s behalf on services as well as on goods. It has also been strengthened by the brouhaha over the Canada agreement; a stronger role for Parliament clearly would have prevented the difficulties that the agreement then ran into in its ratification in member states. I think it is in the Government’s interests to be more transparent.
Yes, Brexit is happening—as I said in my Second Reading speech, I fully accept that—but the Government do not yet realise what trade negotiations are really like, because they have not done them for half a century. Having served for three years in DG Trade, or at least in the cabinet of the Commissioner, I can tell you that they are brutal. The people in charge of the EU side in these negotiations stand up for EU interests with tremendous firmness. I suspect that this is what we will encounter once we have allowed ourselves to become a third country, which in a few weeks we will be. They will treat us like any other third country.
One has to be transparent about the trade-offs. I will cite just one example. How do we rate the relative importance of the fishing and car industries? The fishing industry has tremendous political profile and thinks that as a result of Brexit it will get much more fishing in British waters and that we can keep continental boats out—but it represents 0.5% of GDP. How much are we prepared to sacrifice in our negotiating position for the fishing industry? The car industry employs up to 1 million people in this country, when you look at the supply chain. If we do not achieve the kind of customs partnership that Mrs May said she was in favour of, there is a real risk that inward investment by the overseas companies that rebuilt the car industry in Britain will go elsewhere over time. There has already been a lot of talk of that on their part. This would be a devastating blow to one of Margaret Thatcher’s main achievements in the 1980s and 1990s in being able, as a result of creating the single market, to attract to Britain huge amounts of foreign investment, which has greatly benefited our people. I repeat: 1 million jobs.
If there is not transparency, how do the Government explain to people that they are not guaranteeing the future of 1 million jobs but have put all their negotiating eggs in the basket of trying to give a few more opportunities—not actually saving any jobs—to our fishing? We need openness if we are to have a proper debate in this country about where our interests lie. That is what we need in the coming 12 months if we are to have any hope of a harmonious outcome to these rushed negotiations.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I will comment on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the European Parliament and the relative degrees of parliamentary scrutiny. He has much more experience of Brussels; I have worked there, but not for nearly as long as he did. It is not correct to say that the European Parliament’s rights in this matter are greater than the United Kingdom Parliament’s. Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Parliament must be kept
“immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure”,
but does not give it a role in deciding the substance of the negotiations. However, it must pass the final agreement by a simple majority vote. So it has to agree at the end, but it appears not to have the right, stage by stage, to dictate to the Government what they are to do as they negotiate.
Lord Liddle
I never claimed that. I claimed that the Parliament was so fully informed that it had a grasp of the trade-offs that it would have to make in deciding whether to vote for this deal at the end of the day.
Viscount Trenchard
As far as I understood, the noble Lord said that the European Parliament had much more say in dictating the mandate, but perhaps I misunderstood him. In any case, it appears that during the last three years the UK Parliament has been exercising power to control the Executive, and the Executive have not been seen by their interlocuters on the European side as having the right to negotiate, because all the time noble Lords opposite, and others, were saying to individuals in Brussels, “Don’t worry, Parliament isn’t going to allow the negotiating team to do this. We will reverse it.” Now the people have spoken and the House of Commons has a strong majority of 80 Conservative MPs, all committed to a real Brexit. That is known. This amendment is designed to obstruct because the House of Commons will not accept it, and noble Lords know this well.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I very much agree with the points made a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. In Wales during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, we were fortunate enough to attract more than 200 American companies and more than 50 Japanese companies to invest in Wales, largely through the work of the Welsh Development Agency. They came to Wales in order to sell to the European market: there is no question about that, and therefore these questions are of mainstream importance to the National Assembly for Wales. That is why Amendment 40, standing in my name, covers the matters involved in Amendment 27 and brings into the loop a role for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I concur very much with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in opening this debate.
Amendment 27 provides, in subsection (4) of the proposed section entitled, “Negotiations for future relationship,” that:
“A Minister of the Crown may not engage in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU unless … a statement on objectives for the future relationship with the EU has been approved by the House of Commons.”
My Amendment 40 extends the same principle to the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The lead Amendment 27 does indeed bring in the three devolved legislatures, to the extent that it provides that copies of the proposed progress reports should be provided for each devolved legislature, and to the relevant Ministers of those three nations. The general arguments in favour of my amendment are similar to those for Amendment 27, so I will not repeat them. I support everything stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. However, I will again press that the devolved legislatures should be fully in the loop and that their approval should be obtained. They have as valid a right to be in the picture as Members of the European Parliament; it impacts directly on their work.
I realise that the Government may withstand the whole concept of getting prior parliamentary approval for their negotiating position with regard, say, to trade in sheepmeat, but they contend that the Government can negotiate exactly what they like, and they have it in their power to do so. In reaching their negotiating position and their proposals, they will no doubt have discussed their strategic objectives with their ministerial colleagues in charge of sheepmeat issues in England. It would be amazing if they were not to do so; indeed, it would be a chronic dereliction of duty. But, unless a provision along the lines of Amendment 40 is brought into play, the government team in charge of negotiating with the EU on the future sheepmeat trade will be totally ignorant of the views of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These need to be systematically built in.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I would adopt many of the arguments put forward by my co-sponsors, and I shall not repeat them. I put my name to it because I believe, perhaps naively, that it ought to be self-evident that Parliament should have a particular and special role in holding the Government to account during the vital negotiations that will determine the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. The pledge to establish a free trade agreement tells us little or nothing about this. I raised a number of questions at Second Reading, which I will not repeat because I got no answers to them then, and I would not anticipate an answer this afternoon.
I emphasise that the amendment does not attempt to delay or stop Brexit; it would not even delay the passing of the Bill in time for 31 January. As for my noble friend’s reliance on Select Committees, Questions and debates, I submit that those are no substitute for a formal recognition of the special circumstances of the negotiations we are about to enter.
The parliaments of Denmark and Sweden, to name but two—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Surely all that can possibly happen in the House of Commons is that the Government make Statements on their position in the negotiations with the EU. That will happen anyway, if the Speaker allows it. How would putting it into the Bill make the slightest difference?
Lord Bowness
It would impose an obligation. I bow to my noble friend’s knowledge of the workings of the House of Commons, but it seems to me that there is probably a very compliant majority at present, so we need safeguards in the legislation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
The majority in the House of Commons only counts if there is a vote. There are no votes on Statements.
Lord Bowness
That still does not seem to me to obviate the need for full information to be given to both Houses of Parliament. I suspect that my noble friend is implicitly accusing me of trying to delay the Bill or to stop Brexit, rather than being concerned about the future of our relationship. I refute that allegation, but I entirely accept that I remain very concerned about our future position.
I apologise for hesitating slightly here, but my noble friend has rather thrown me—which was, no doubt, his intention. I appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench to recognise that we all accept that we are leaving, but that some of us want to ensure that we retain as many as possible of the benefits of 40 years, and that they are not all lost just to satisfy the ideology of a clean and absolute Brexit. Those of us who think that way may be in a minority, but we are a substantial minority.
I apologise to my co-signatories to this amendment for my following comments. They are not intended to undermine the amendment or the arguments that they have put forward but I accept that the amendment was drafted at a different time, in different circumstances, and is very long. Arguing from my position, I ask the Government—it may be a vain hope—to give serious consideration to discussing whether there may be a simplified formula in the Bill which people such as I—and they—might find it possible to accept. It would be a gesture of good will to those of us who are not ideological Brexiteers. At the moment that good will is in pretty short supply and I hope that we might see it. I certainly hope that it will break out during the negotiation period.
It may be a vain hope but it is a serious suggestion that we endeavour to find a clause which would be acceptable to those of us with differing points of view across this House.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that I have nothing but good will towards him despite our profound disagreements on Brexit.
It has been a pleasure for me in our Committee proceedings up until now to be able to support my noble friend Lady Hayter but, sadly, at this point I have to part company with her. I cannot agree with her or my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that their new clauses are appropriate. They are in effect seeking to substitute the House of Commons for the Government. Under their proposals, the House of Commons would give the Government their marching orders as they move into these negotiations and the Government would be expected to act as an agent of the House of Commons. That is constitutionally inappropriate and will not work well in practice. We saw in the last Parliament the damage done to our national endeavour by the insistence of the House of Commons that it must take charge of the process of negotiation. It was a disaster for us.
When it comes to setting objectives, there is no alternative but to trust the Government. The Government will have to make judgments as they negotiate and the objectives they set for themselves at the beginning may well have to be modified in the light of their assessment of what may be achievable.
I do not think that the analogy the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested between the procedures and powers of the European Parliament and the way for us to proceed in our system of parliamentary government is appropriate either.
Openness—the transparency that my noble friend Lord Liddle was calling for—may be difficult, if not inappropriate, in the circumstances of a complex, lengthy and difficult negotiation in which it may not be prudent for the Government to make public what they are thinking of doing and the ways in which they intend to set about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, reminded us, the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House will have ample opportunities to express their views and to hold the Government to account, not least through the work of the Select Committees of your Lordships’ House.
I support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Government should be expected to maintain a full and constructive dialogue and full consultation with the devolved Administrations. We debated that principle yesterday and again in our first debate this morning.
It is very important not only for the benefit of our union—fragile as it is at the moment—but for reasons of practicality and of ensuring that outcome of negotiations makes realistic sense in terms of the situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, or be as prescriptive as him, although I note there is a certain vagueness in the way he has formulated his paragraphs on the requirement for consultation. I think he takes it a bit too far, for the reasons I have given.
There may well be moments in the process of negotiation when the Government consider that it would be helpful and in our interests that they should lay out their position very fully to the House of Commons and seek its endorsement, but that needs to be a tactical judgment in the light of the way events develop. I do not think it is wise for us to seek to tie the Government’s hand and inhibit their freedom in conducting these negotiations as best they can in the interests of our country.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, finds the amendment positively undesirable. I think it is quite difficult for the Government to argue their case, since the amendment merely reinstates what was in their October version of the Bill, so in October the Government must have thought this perfectly workable and not subject to the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who obviously thinks that the Government were a bit soft then.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It was desperate expedient. The Government had no option, given the parliamentary arithmetic.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is the point I wanted to touch on. I thank the noble Lord. I have gone through the Conservative manifesto very carefully and I cannot find any commitment not to keep Parliament fully consulted on the process of the negotiation. It seems to me that we are not in serious Salisbury convention territory here.
The substantive arguments against this amendment, rather than the politically cynical argument against it advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is that it weakens the Government’s hand in negotiation. I know from my past career that that is completely untrue. It is the reverse of the truth. I spent quite a long time unsuccessfully trying to negotiate air services liberalisation with the United States. The arguments for it were easy. Even I could win the argument, but I could get nowhere because of the power of parliament used as a negotiating weapon by American negotiators: the power of the Senate to refuse. When you win the argument with the American, he says, “You make a very good point, but we’d never get it through on the Hill.” I do not believe that Parliament as the Wizard of Oz would be a terrible threat to the Government, provided they had explained what they were trying to do. I know that being obliged to keep Parliament informed is an extremely good weapon in the negotiator’s hand.
I come back to a more general point, which has been made many times in these debates by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, in his remarkable maiden speech which we all greatly admired. Honesty—not pretending that you can have it all and admitting that there are trade-offs to be had—goes with transparency, and it seems to me that this perfectly reasonable means of ensuring a degree of transparency to Parliament, which was perfectly reasonable and acceptable to the Government in October, would be consistent with trying to bring public opinion to understand some of the difficulties and trade-offs that lie ahead in the negotiation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can I put it to the noble Lord that he was not actually arguing to what this amendment provides? He was arguing for transparency and for negotiators to be able to use in their negotiation the tactic of saying, “We’ll never get it through Parliament”, or, “We’ll never get it through Congress”, but that is different from what this amendment prescribes, which is that the objectives which the Government would have in their negotiation must have been approved by the House of Commons at the outset. That is a different proposition.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Given the majority in the House of Commons, it is not a terribly high hurdle. In a way, this is an obscure debate as we know what the answer is going to be—the Government can get their way in the House of Commons. It is odd for the Government not to want to strengthen their negotiating hand by having a procedure of this kind—or a simplified version, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, hinted at. To have something like that would strengthen their hand and provide them the means of ensuring that the country is brought along to understand the trade-offs that will have to follow.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Kerr.
This is all about power. The Government are in powerful position at the moment. I say “at the moment”, because it will not last. We know that the pendulum swings, and that power is fluid and leaks away. The arguments for the amendment are good, but I am more concerned about good government. My experience is that Governments, when they are at their most powerful, are in a kind of vacuum, and this is a time when mistakes are made. This is the year when the Government will plant the seeds of their own failure, and I am in awe of their task over the next year.
I date back from the time when we did trade negotiations ourselves. I was a gofer in the Board of Trade on the Kennedy Round. I was in charge of knitting needles, aspirin and canned fruit at various times. I was also Private Secretary to the then Minister for Trade, the late Lord Brown of Machrihanish. I am familiar with trade negotiations from that earlier period, and I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is right: trade negotiations do not bring out the nice side of other people; they bring out the tough, rigorous side.
Although the Government are powerful in this House, and in politics, they are not necessarily going to be strong in the negotiating room. They need the support of Parliament, and they need friends. They will have more friends if they consult and if they are open, because the analysis needed for trade negotiations —on services and the other areas that are so important to this country—will involve groups of people, Scotland and Wales, and sectors. The Government need to be open and use their power with maturity. They need experience, they need to be open, they need to recruit friends and heal. The trouble is that the bruises are too recent, which colours some of these exchanges.
The Government must work with Parliament, with noble Lords, and be open to understanding the hugely different currents and flows that will underlie these negotiations. If they think they know all the answers and can ignore the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, and just be the Crown, they will make some awful mistakes and the country will suffer for them. I urge the Minister to take these amendments, and the arguments that lie behind them, seriously.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Is the noble Lord arguing that there will be no reporting by the Government to Parliament on the negotiations if this is not in the Bill?
Lord Wilson of Dinton
I am not arguing that. I am worried that the Government’s powerful position, and their glee and joy, which is understandable, will lead them to a certain arrogance and to ignore the role which Parliament can properly play. These amendments are a good reminder of the role that Parliament must play. I urge the Government to work with Parliament, with noble Lords and with influences that can be brought to bear behind the scenes, to listen and not to think that they know all the answers and can just go in and negotiate, because they cannot.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should like to briefly follow that very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton. The spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is about consultation. It is about making sure that people behind the scenes know what is happening and can understand if they have to give something up rather than it being delivered on them.
The Senedd, the National Assembly of Wales, has responsibility for a set of devolved competences. When negotiations become difficult and tough, it is almost inevitable that at times people will have to give things up. If people in Wales, behind the scenes, know what is happening and understand why, they can support it. If something is just delivered on them as a fait accompli afterwards, trust is lost. There is a Chinese saying that I think we should remember: trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback—and it is trustworthiness in behaviour that wins trust.
The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations was set up with promises by the Government to seek consensus over approaches behind the scenes—yet, sadly, I understand that sometimes the committee had no more information than could be found in the previous day’s newspapers. Sometimes those attending were told that they could not be told more because it was not in the public domain. If there is a small group of people whom you are taking into your confidence and you trust them to observe that confidence, it is not helpful for them to be told, “You can’t be told what’s going on because it isn’t in the public domain”—because the role of that group is to share that confidential information and thinking before the next round of negotiations.
The spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, completely encapsulates a need: where devolved competences are at stake and will be deeply constitutionally affected, it is only right that the devolved Administrations are involved and that their thinking is sought early on, so that they can explain it both to their own legislatures and to the people who voted them into office.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendments 27 and 28, and I would have put my name to Amendment 40 had I seen it before the deadline. This is a sad day for me, not just because these amendments are necessary but because today I have disagreed very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. We have sat together companionably for six years. He is like a human form of Wikipedia. He knows everything that there is to know about all noble Lords and this saves me from having to use my phone.
Returning to the amendments, I hope that Hansard has a copy and paste function, because, quite honestly, we have been over this time and again. Noble Lords have said the same things to the Government again and again, and at one point it seemed to have sunk in, because the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill last year contained a whole load of provision for parliamentary scrutiny. I know that the Minister will reply to us with his tried and tested lines that we have heard before—but, quite honestly, that is not enough. The election has changed things and now the Government have gutted the agreement Bill of all scrutiny. I say to the Minister that, just because his Government now have a majority in the other place, that does not make them right or mean that this is the right thing to do. It does not make them immune from parliamentary scrutiny. Our job is to hold the Government to account, and if they scrap us—well, actually, I have been trying to abolish the House of Lords for six years and it has not worked so far.
Is it not obvious that a lack of parliamentary engagement—a failure to bring the majority on board—is what led to the parliamentary deadlock when the final deal was secured? Instead of working with Parliament, the Government told us that there would be no running commentary and that the sharing of details would undermine the negotiations and so on. Scrutiny was deferred until the very last stages of the negotiations when, instead of it being a mere inconvenience, it culminated in a crescendo of chaos. Had the Government engaged constructively with Parliament, things could have turned out very differently. However, despite all those lessons, the Government are, once again, trying to sideline Parliament.
Over the coming weeks and months, much will be made of the Salisbury convention and the extent to which this House should exercise its powers and functions to scrutinise, correct and improve. My stomach slightly turned over when the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that we had to trust the Government. Well, actually, no, we do not. It is our job to trust when it is appropriate to trust and to distrust when we can see that they are going wrong. When the Government try to shut down scrutiny in the way they have with this amended Bill, it leaves this House with no choice but to exercise its constitutional might as far as that extends. The last stage of the negotiations was the easy bit. It is the next stage that is going to set out all our future concerns. That negotiation must be got right, and this sovereign Parliament absolutely must play its role in securing that for the national interest.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I think that the context has changed. When the Benn amendment went through, it was suspected of having the intention to thwart or delay Brexit. We are not in that position now: Brexit is going to go ahead. Surely, then, it is the job of the whole of Parliament to defend and promote its own interests and those of the Government in the negotiations going forward. So, in a perverse way, this amendment strengthens the hand of the Government by bringing in Parliament to back it and provide support as they embark on their negotiations; it does not diminish it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 27, and at this stage in proceedings I will be brief. I found it endearing when the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that we must place our trust in the Government. I tend more to side with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on this. The Government have made it very clear that their version of taking back control is to do their best to shut out Parliament as far as possible. We need only to look at the illegal attempt to prorogue Parliament to see that in action. Why, if they were very keen for us to be involved in the trade negotiations, would they go to the trouble of taking out of the Bill the clause that would have given us that involvement? It might be right—as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said—that we should put our faith in the Speaker of the Commons. But, again, why should we do that when we could have the safety of having our own involvement on the face of the Bill?
My second point is quite straightforward. I find it embarrassing when this House is threatened that trying to do its job will result in a potential threat to its survival. We have a very simple role: it is scrutiny—not to thwart the will of the Commons but to ensure that we improve legislation. We can improve this piece of legislation. We should do that, and if we do not have the courage to do that because we are worried about our own survival, we do not deserve to survive.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I am going to make a rather cynical contribution to the debate. The debate has brought out very clearly the difference between accountability and a mandate. I am not in favour of the Government’s hands being tied by Parliament in these negotiations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that it is for the Government to conduct these negotiations, not for Parliament. We will have the opportunity to comment and to give our views, and we should. We certainly should not be cowed from doing that.
However, I will quote a recent example that I really think establishes this point. The Government unexpectedly, before the election, got an agreement with the European Union that the European Union always said that it would not make. How did they get it? They did it by making a concession on the Irish Sea that they would never have got through Parliament. They made a concession which they had said they would not make—but they found it necessary to do it, and when they had done it, Parliament and the electorate came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to have done. If Parliament had been able to control what the Government were able to do, the Government would not have been able to make that concession.
We might be cynical about that concession—we might think it was the wrong thing to do—but it was the thing that got the agreement and that was necessary to get the agreement. Certainly, the Government will need friends in these negotiations, but they will also need flexibility, and Parliament should not seek to take away that flexibility.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I would like to point out two matters. First, in new Clause 13D(2)(b) and (c) in Amendment 28, there is the requirement that a Minister must provide
“a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, agreements can be concluded and ratified before IP completion day”,
which seems to be in the nature of a prophecy required from the Minister as a matter of compulsion, and
“the policy of Her Majesty’s Government if agreements are not concluded and ratified before IP completion day.”
Once again, that is nothing to do with saying what is happening; it is giving an opinion as to what is to happen next, which as far as I am concerned is the difference between the two.
Lord Callanan
Amendments 27 and 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would all introduce new clauses with a similar purpose. They seek to create statutory roles for Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the devolved legislature in overseeing the future relationship negotiations. It is the view of the Government that the general election has shown that the public support the vision of the political declaration for a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU, and indeed this gives us the mandate to begin negotiations.
As this House will be aware, under the Royal Prerogative the negotiation and making of international trade agreements is a function of the Executive, as indeed in the EU it is a function of the European Commission, a point well emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. This enables the UK to speak with a single voice in negotiations and ensures—
Lord Bowness
Just in the interests of clarity, is it not true that the European Commission acts on a mandate from the Council—that is, the elected heads of government?
Lord Callanan
Yes, it is. I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord is making. It usually acts on a mandate although it is not clear to what extent or what detail will be provided in that mandate.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
If I can help the Minister, the point that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was making is that the Minister said it was in the hands of the Commission. He has now said that it is in the hands of the Council, which is correct.
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord is well aware, it is the role of the Commission to do the negotiating. It will report back to the Council and the Council will provide steers on how it will do that, but the detailed negotiation is a matter for the European Commission.
Lord Liddle
There is a meeting every fortnight of officials from member states that monitors what the European Commission is doing.
Lord Callanan
There is not a direct analogy between the position of the UK and that of the EU. The UK is one member state and the EU is 28—shortly to become 27—member states. My point is that this enables the UK to speak with a single voice in negotiations and ensures that partners can have faith that the Government’s position is the position of the United Kingdom.
It goes without saying that the Government will of course support Parliament in fulfilling its important role in scrutinising the actions of the UK Government in the negotiations. Both Houses will have all the usual arrangements for scrutinising the actions of the Government. I find incredible the statements that have been made about how little a role Parliament will have to play in these negotiations. This House alone has spent over 650 hours on debates on EU-exit-related themes since the 2016 referendum—believe me, from my point of view sitting on the Front Benches, it has sometimes seemed even longer. I find it difficult to believe that noble Lords will not want to question and interrogate me or whichever other Minister is in my place at the time on these negotiations. Indeed, committees of this House have already published three reports on this Bill after fewer than 10 sitting days of this Session.
Let me address the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the role of the European Parliament and the famous Article 218. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is sadly not in her place but we have served in the European Parliament and know the reality of these matters. It is important not to draw unhelpful comparisons between the Commission which, as I said, negotiates on behalf of the 27 member states, and the UK Government on how negotiations are conducted. The information provided by the Commission to the European Parliament is carefully calibrated to not put the EU at a disadvantage in the negotiations. The detail of what information shall be provided to the Parliament is left entirely to the discretion of the European Commission.
The European Parliament will, as this Parliament often does, try to insert itself into the negotiations and want to influence their conduct through its various committees and organs. That is entirely right. It happens in the European Union and I suspect it will happen in this country as well. However, we need to be careful not to overstate what Article 218 does. It is not specific on reporting requirements and that compares very well with the Prime Minister’s commitment to keep Parliament fully informed about the progress of these negotiations. Article 218 does not specify what documents will be available or when.
Of course, it also bears saying that this Bill is not the final word on engagement between Parliament and the Government. As I indicated to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, when we met and as I have said a number of times, the Government will want to start a process of discussions with Parliament into exactly how the various committees and organs in both Houses will scrutinise the work of the Government in this area. In our view, there is no need to set out bespoke statutory reporting requirements in the Bill or impose a statutory duty on a Minister to provide public commentary on the likely outcome of confidential negotiations at a fixed point, as was proposed in Amendment 28. In our view, this risks seriously disadvantaging negotiators acting for the United Kingdom.
I also note that setting out requirements of this type in legislation might well not have the desired effect, as an attempt to pre-empt outcomes and timings can be easily overtaken by events. Let me give the House an example. Last week, I delivered an update in this House on the Government’s negotiations and on Article 50, as required by Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Benn Act which many Members in this House spent many hours telling us was essential. For that debate, which took place at 10.30 in the evening, virtually the only people in the House to debate these matters were myself and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hayter. Many of the Members who insisted on passing the Benn Act and introducing these statutory reporting requirements did not trouble themselves to come along and take advantage of the legislation they had passed. There were only three speakers in that debate, myself and the two noble Baronesses.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Does the Minister agree that he did not actually cover the negotiations but covered only why that requirement was no longer needed? He did not touch on the negotiations at all.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes my point very well. The reason why I did not was because there had been no further negotiations since that legislation was passed. There was nothing to update the House on. It illustrates the point that it is bad legislation, and bad to set out these precise timetables in legislation. There needs to be flexibility on behalf of the Government and of course on behalf of Parliament. Of course, the changes to domestic law required by the future relationship treaty will require legislation for their implementation. This will mean, of course, that Parliament will have its say, just as it is having its say on this Bill and on the amendments. It should be noted that the key powers provided by these clauses would be given to the House of Commons. Last Wednesday, MPs rejected a similar power in an amendment in Committee by 344 votes to 255. Noble Lords are welcome to ask the other place to think again about what powers it should have, but I am confident of what its response will be.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I should have said a big “thank you” for the time he spent with me on this topic in his cosy office. I am afraid that there will be a bit more time spent as well. I was very keen that he cover two things. First, he covered his view of Article 218, but he did not go at all into the interinstitutional agreement, which really expands, quite dramatically—I read it out—on what the European Parliament receives automatically. It is not having to ask for it—it receives it automatically, which is quite a big difference. Nor did he comment at all on what David Davis had said to us about parity of information, which is a different point in fact than that made by the amendment. I was really asking the Minister to comment about whether the parity of information pledge made by the then Secretary of State in the summer of 2016 was still current.
Lord Callanan
I did not cover that specifically. The noble Lord quoted the document—I have it in front of me—and it refers to the Commission providing early and clear information to Parliament. It is not specific on what information exactly should be provided and at what stages; its very nature is that of an interinstitutional agreement attempting to cover a whole range of different scenarios. My point is valid: the Commission controls what information is provided and when. With regard to his other point, the pledge still holds, essentially. The Government are committed—the Prime Minister said it—to provide as much information as is possible to Parliament to enable it to provide its proper scrutiny, without conflicting with the necessity to conduct a lot of these negotiations in confidence as we do not wish to prejudice our negotiating position.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will be very keen to hear my point about the devolved Administrations. We are firmly of the view that it is the responsibility of the UK Government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we recognise the specific interests of the devolved Administrations in our negotiations with the EU and their responsibilities for implementing that legislation in devolved areas. We have been clear that the devolved Administrations should be closely involved in preparations for the negotiations, and will continue to engage with them extensively. Indeed, only last Thursday I attended the 21st meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, where we had a constructive—as they say, full and frank—exchange of views with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and, at the time, the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Now that we have an Assembly up and running in Northern Ireland, I am sure it will want to contribute to these negotiations as well.
I chair one of the joint ministerial committees; I have been up to Scotland many times to take part in these sessions and my noble friend Lady Williams has also attended them. A number of UK Ministers go and there is regular dialogue with all the devolved Administrations, both on the negotiations and, up until now, on ongoing EU business. That will continue and we are looking at how that should develop and be taken forward when we are no longer an EU member state and we move on to the implementation phase. We are committed to ensuring that we have the best deal for all parts of the United Kingdom. The devolved Administrations are, of course, free to engage with their own respective devolved legislatures as part of this process, but the delay that would be caused by creating unnecessary powers of veto could, in our view, frustrate our ability to finish negotiations by the end of the year.
We believe that the Government have a mandate to begin the negotiations and there is no need to introduce additional hurdles or delays before those negotiations can begin. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I think the Minister referred earlier to anything that is agreed being preceded by the CRaG process to ratify or conclude it. It is hard to believe that the sort of agreement the Government seek and which, as he rightly says, they have support for seeking will not include such matters. Does he not agree that if anything that is in an agreement includes changes to the UK’s domestic law, it will require primary legislation before it can be concluded? Can he just be clear on that?
Lord Callanan
I did not hear the first part of the question, but if the noble Lord was asking me whether I agreed that some parts of the agreement may well require domestic legislation to implement, the answer is yes.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, there are two parts to what we have been talking about. One is about the mandate and the other is about oversight of the ongoing negotiations. As I think has just been clarified, the EU Commission negotiators seem to manage very well by being given a mandate from elsewhere —that is, from the Council—and reporting back there, so it really should not be difficult. The Minister seemed to be quoting the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by saying that the European Parliament did not have the powers that other noble Lords have suggested. I think he will find that there is an institutional agreement going rather further, and that is what gives it the grip.
During the discussion on the mandate, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who of course is an old hand at negotiating, said that his definition of the mandate that he used to work with was “Whether I’d get away with it”. It sounds as though our Government are trying to do that, which is rather the problem. Given that the Government have a majority of 80 in the other place, I really do not see what they are afraid of by our requiring that they should put the mandate, and report on the negotiations, to a House where they obviously control the numbers. They cannot be that afraid of your Lordships’ House, so it is slightly hard to imagine why they are so resistant to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, championed the existence of Statements. Those work quite well for someone like me on the Front Bench, because I get my fixed and protected time to question a Minister when they come with a Statement. But if there are only 10 or 20 minutes, or even 40 minutes, on a Statement for Back-Benchers when this House has a plethora of real experts and we are talking about something as detailed as negotiations, our Statements at the moment do not really provide the sort of scrutiny that your Lordships would expect on such a vital matter.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Baroness not accept that the Opposition has Opposition day debates as well, which can spell this all out at much greater length?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I do, absolutely, but I was referring particularly to experts. I will try not to offend my colleagues now, but many of those experts do not sit on my Benches yet are absolutely in that part of the House that we so value. We have great experts from not just international negotiations but industry and trade. They do not just sit in the Opposition and do not have the grip to be able to take a debate like that. Even if what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, suggests were written into the Bill, there would be a day’s debate every month or two, or that sort of thing. We think it important to have more than just a Statement without a vote, particularly in the other place.
The grip is needed to make sure that this happens. Until my noble friend Lord Liddle said so, I had not realised that not every Secretary of State was as good at turning up—although I remember an occasion when one Secretary of State did not turn up twice, having been expected by the EU Committee. Again, offers of good will are perhaps not quite sufficient.
What is important in this came in the example about America—I think it was from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—but also from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Parliamentary approval actually strengthens, not diminishes, the Government’s stance; that is worth listening to. The taking back of control was meant to be by Parliament, not just by the Government, but we are surely at our strongest where the two work together. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said two things. One was that when the Government are strong, they can make mistakes; he also urged the Government to work with Parliament, not set themselves against Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested that a simplified version of what we tabled might be more acceptable to the Government. I urge the Government not to turn their back on that. The Minister will have heard, with only a couple of exceptions, the real feeling that we will do our job best if we can do it in a way that is written into the Bill. We will then be confident that the negotiations will be able to fully engage this House and, more importantly perhaps, the other House as this vital matter continues. I have a feeling that we will return to this on Monday or Tuesday but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, Clause 33 amends the withdrawal Bill to debar any Minister from agreeing to an extension of the implementation period beyond 31 December this year. Such a possible extension is provided for in article 132 of the withdrawal agreement, which says that
“the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the”
implementation,
“period for up to 1 or 2 years.”
My co-signatories and I object to this clause standing part because we believe that ruling out an extension of the implementation period in all circumstances is impractical and against the national interest. We do not believe that it will be possible to negotiate a comprehensive agreement covering trade, security and the other issues covered by the political declaration by the end of the year and, this being so, the logical and sensible thing to do is to allow for the possibility of an extension.
Why do we believe that such an extension will be necessary? I will concentrate on trade, although reaching agreement on other matters such as security will be equally contentious and time-consuming. What is the evidence that it will be impossible to conclude an agreement on time? Let us first be clear about what we mean by “on time”. The EU will decide on its negotiating mandate next month, so no talks will be possible at all until towards the end of February. The withdrawal agreement makes it clear in article 184 not only that the negotiations have to be concluded by the end of December but that ratification has to take place before the end of the year, so that the negotiated agreement can come into force, as far as practically possible, by 1 January next year.
Any comprehensive agreement will be a so-called mixed agreement, which will require it to be ratified not only by the EU Council and the European Parliament but by all national Parliaments and a number of regional assemblies. In the case of the Canadian trade agreement, the one we are told is closest to what the Government now have in mind, ratification itself took over five years. But to be very generous, let us assume that it might be possible within two months. This would mean that the agreement must be concluded by mid-October, giving a maximum of eight months for the negotiations.
It is well known that all trade negotiations, so far in human history, normally take years to complete. The Canadian agreement took more than five years, for example. The Government rightly claim that these negotiations will be different because we are already in full trade and regulatory alignment with the EU, so it will be easier than starting from scratch. While this may be true, it is absolutely clear that the negotiations will not be straightforward.
The head of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said last week in London that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive deal within the timetable. Even the Prime Minister yesterday said that, while he thought reaching a deal would be “epically likely”, he did not rule out the possibility of a failure to do so because of, as he put it, a possible
“complete failure of common sense.”
I looked up “epically” because, when I first read it, I thought it was a spelling mistake—it is a word that I have neither seen nor used before. It does not mean what the Prime Minister thinks it means. It means
“in a lengthy, grand or important way”.
He is in fact more correct than he probably realises, because this will definitely be done “in a lengthy way”.
What evidence is there to support the Commission’s view and to doubt the Prime Minister’s breezy optimism? It is worth looking at the Canadian deal to get some clues. First, despite the fact that that deal took many years of negotiation, it does not even give full tariff and quota-free access, something that the Government say is absolutely the first building block of what they are looking for. In the case of Canada, there remain quotas on poultry, eggs and meat and tariffs on beef, pork and wheat. This difficulty over agriculture is before we get to the even more difficult issue of fishing rights. The idea that we can easily reach agreement is simply false.
Secondly, on services, according to the Government’s own estimate produced in the document that we were allowed to read only by submitting our phones and going into a windowless room in January 2018, the Canada deal includes over 550 individual restrictions on the trade in services. Yet the Prime Minister says he wants the deal to cover all services. It might be possible in some areas, but the idea that there is a possibility of agreeing 550 concessions that were impossible to reach with Canada within the period that he is discussing is wholly implausible.
More generally, the Government want to minimise the cost of trading with the EU. This assumes a particular importance, because it applies not only to trade between the UK and the EU but also, now, to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We had a fascinating debate last night on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in which he sought assurance that there would be no restrictions on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK— restrictions, incidentally, that are envisaged, and indeed set out, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, made a valiant attempt to argue, in line with the Conservative election manifesto, that there will be unfettered trade, but could not give a definition of “unfettered” consistent with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, which clearly provides for customs and other checks. Incidentally, “unfettered” is now the word when it comes to trade. For how many years, and how many hundreds of times, have we heard the Minister talk about “frictionless” trade? How much of a tactical retreat “unfettered” is from “frictionless” is an interesting semantic issue. There is something in it, but the fact that the Government are not even pretending that they are trying to seek frictionless trade says something.
The noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who was masterful—as was his Sir Humphrey-inspired brief—had to admit that achieving even unfettered trade across the Irish Sea would not be straightforward. This means that it will take time. If noble Lords wonder whether the kind of checks that may well be necessary in future between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and between Great Britain and the EU matter, I would direct them to the impact assessment produced by the Government on 21 October last year to coincide with the publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill. On customs declarations alone, HMRC produced estimates of administrative costs—nothing to do with tariffs—of between £15 and £56 per declaration for goods going from the UK to the rest of the world.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, just before the noble Lord sits down, I quickly ask him something on a point of information. He spoke for 10 minutes and did not mention two words: “Salisbury convention”. I am sure he knows that, on page 5 of the Conservative Party manifesto, there is a clear commitment not to extend the implementation period. Does he agree that this amendment is in contradiction to the Salisbury convention?
Lord Newby
No, because it does not require the period to be extended at all. If the Prime Minister is correct and we pass this amendment, there is absolutely no let or hindrance to the Tory party manifesto being adhered to. Deleting this clause will, I fear, make the Prime Minister’s life easier. He should welcome it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and indeed with the remarks I suspect will be made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will not go into the detail of the matter because it has been very eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I will confine myself to three general points.
The first is that the position that the Government are now taking in the Bill is wholly inconsistent with the position that we took before the general election. We are entitled to know why, as a matter of substance rather than political guile, the Government are moving from a position previously expressed to that now expressed in the Bill.
Secondly, following a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I say that this prohibition is bogus because we all know full well that a Government with a majority of 80 in the House of Commons can, if they so choose, reverse a provision in a Bill—as they did, for example, on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. If that is true, then anybody who says that this will help the Government in their negotiations with the European Union is talking nonsense, because the European Union interlocutors will know as well as we do that this provision can simply be set aside.
I come to my final point. I have been involved in negotiations, both as a politician and as a lawyer, for 40 years, and I believe in the importance of flexibility. In the last debate, a number of noble Lords talked about the importance of giving the Government flexibility and not tying hands. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was one; the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was another; and a third was my noble friend Lord Callanan, who made the point that events can overturn outcomes and things can happen which are surprising and destroy timelines. That is going to happen if we impose an arbitrary timetable. What could well happen—indeed, what is likely to happen—is that the Government come back with either weasel words and an amendment of the statutory time; or we get a partial and incomplete agreement, or an unsatisfactory agreement, or no agreement at all. If we had more time, the situation could be perfected.
This is a profoundly unwise provision in the Bill and we would do well without it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I will not repeat the arguments that I put to the House at Second Reading in support of Clause 33 and the ruling out of an extension of negotiations beyond the end of this year, but will just make two points now. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who, as I recall, once held the economic brief for his party, appeared not to recognise the profound damage to our economy that the prolongation of the Brexit process has already caused. It has now been three and a half years, during which it has been very difficult for rational participants in our economy to make investment decisions or decisions of other kinds. Our economy is now in a fragile condition, and it cannot be in our national economic interests to perpetuate this process any further than is absolutely necessary. For that reason, it is highly desirable that investors should be able to look forward with some confidence to the conclusion of the negotiations about the future relationship by the end of this year.
That brings me to my second point. Again, I was puzzled as to why the noble Lord, Lord Newby, considers that a bare-bones agreement would cover only tariffs and quotas. I cannot see why the essential elements of all the necessary agreements cannot be negotiated between now and the end of the year. Personally, I would be quite relaxed if some technical fine-tuning were still needed subsequent to 31 December, and indeed I accept that the multiple process of ratification across the European Union will take some time. If we can achieve the certainty provided by a resolution of the key issues by the end of the year, that can only be helpful, 2and if the Government reaffirm their determination on that point in the form of Clause 33, that will also be helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his arguments against Amendment 27, said that it would be easily overtaken by events. That provides a great argument for the removal of Clause 33. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out correctly that the next deadline point is 1 July 2020. I confess that I looked at a website to check, and that is 168 days away. If you add in holidays, weekends and so on, and think about how many days that gives us to reach a point where we have to decide whether or not we are ready for the deadline of the agreement with the EU, it is a very short time indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said rightly that the economy and companies—I am particularly concerned about small businesses—have been greatly damaged by the uncertainty around Brexit. Removing Clause 33 will take away another point of uncertainty and will give us stability instead of yet another deadline.
Earlier in Oral Questions, my noble friend Lady Jones referred to the false classification—subsequently withdrawn—of Extinction Rebellion in a police document as bringing the law into disrepute. Particularly among young people, it caused grave concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, passing this Bill with Clause 33— with something we know the Prime Minister has accepted may have to be removed; we know that a one-line Bill can do that at any point up until 31 December—brings the law into disrepute.
There is also the risk of a crash-out if we get to the end of the year and do not have an agreement. There is a strong suspicion out there in the country—and perhaps among some in this House—that parts of the Government still seek that crash-out outcome. Leaving this clause in the Bill adds to that suspicion.
Finally, we know that the Prime Minister has found it very difficult to find ditches in this country; it has been very hard to identify ditches. I do not think that we want the Prime Minister to waste any more time roaming the country, seeking that ditch that he just cannot find.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend a question? If he were negotiating any sort of agreement and learned that the other side had a self-imposed time constraint, would he not regard that as a huge advantage?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made an unanswerable case. Human beings have been conducting negotiations since the beginning of time, and over that period there have been certain common conclusions about the sort of approach to negotiations that leads to a favourable outcome and the sort that, on the whole, does not. That is part of the common wisdom of humanity. Part of that is that you are at a great disadvantage in any negotiation if you have time constraints greater than those of your counterparty. What we have here is a Government who want to impose on themselves a time constraint greater than that which applies to their counterparty, which is most extraordinary. Mr Johnson may feel that, after all these millennia, he can revolutionise human psychology, and that the conclusions that have been drawn from human experience up until now are no longer valid. I have had quite a lot of experience of negotiations in my life, both as part of a team and from conducting negotiations myself as a diplomat, as an investment banker, as a Minister and so forth. I know that most of those common wisdoms of humanity are valid and correct, and one veers away from them at one’s peril. If somebody behaves entirely irrationally, as appears to be the case in the Government at the moment, one has to ask whether there is perhaps some Machiavellian plot behind the behaviour that explains this irrationality. That is what worries me, because the obvious explanation of Mr Johnson’s behaviour is that he does not want a successful outcome at all. He wants a hard Brexit or a bare-bones solution. He does not want to say so; he does not want to take responsibility for saying so.
A bare-bones solution would leave out altogether these very important issues of our relationship on security matters with the rest of the European Union, the future of the common arrest warrant, the pooling system of information exchange, and so forth. It would leave out a number of very important matters that appear in other amendments on the Marshalled List today: such things as the Euratom relationship, the European Medicines Agency relationship, the future rights of British subjects living abroad to receive their full pensions in the country in which they have taken residence, and the availability of medical cover to British people finding themselves elsewhere in the European Union. All these are very important matters and of course they would be set aside at a stroke if there were a bare-bones solution. There would be no chance of regaining those benefits. It could be that Mr Johnson actually wants that outcome and does not want to be held responsible for the consequences—human, economic, et cetera—of that solution.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, at Second Reading I mentioned my “I told you so” speech that I have already prepared for when the Government have to come back and seek some additional time to negotiate the future relationship, the complexity of which we have heard about from my noble friend and others in this debate.
I am not an expert on negotiations, but I hear from those who are that they are not simple. They are brutal, according to my noble friend Lord Liddle in the last debate; tough and vigorous was how the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, described them; and fixed deadlines tie one’s hands too much. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford said about fixed deadlines at Second Reading on Monday that,
“the one thing you do not want to do is to tell your opponent that you are in a terrible hurry. It also means that you cannot use certain ploys … You cannot walk out for two or three weeks … You cannot try to halt proceedings while you undertake a study of a particular subject”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 513.]
which could be a very difficult subject. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, described this as the high-wire approach to negotiations.
For a Government who have resisted sensible amendments on the basis that they would tie the hands of negotiators, the prohibition on extending the transition period seems a bit nonsensical. Let me be clear, since not all reports have been entirely accurate, that we know we are leaving the European Union at 11 pm on 31 January. Our objection to the clause is nothing to do with the date of Brexit but is because it places an unnecessary constraint on our negotiators. Why would we tie the hands of our negotiators if another few hours or days could get a better deal over the line? Our EU Committee says that concluding talks by December will be “extremely challenging” and warns—this is something we need to know—that should no extension be agreed by July, it is not clear there is any legal route under the withdrawal agreement to extend it, whether by days or weeks, for whatever essential reason. So that one-line Bill may not actually work: it may work in this Parliament but not on the other side of the negotiations.
Not only that, but the new free trade agreement might need its own implementation period. Processes for customs and VAT, physical checks, rules of origin regulations and schedules—which will be enormous, with all the paperwork—licences and permits, contracts and new systems will need to be set up. Mrs May understood this well and chose the December 2020 date accordingly, but assumed it would be 20 months from when we left. It is now only 11 months from when we leave to the December deadline, but with equally challenging demands—indeed, probably more challenging, given the different regulatory and technical rules on opposite sides of the Irish Sea as a result of the new withdrawal deal. It is very hard to understand why the date for the end of the implementation period has not been changed now that we are leaving in January 2020, rather than in March 2019. The original timeline would have allowed the implementation of the deal, and we now simply do not allow for that.
There is an understandable fear that the hard deadline is not to force the EU to move at speed but because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is not in her place at the moment, helpfully clarified on Monday, a time limit has an “implicit no-deal outcome”. That may be what it is all about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Davies have suggested.
One small point on a different issue is that while the Bill disapplies CRaG, it has been pointed out by legal experts in Scotland, I think, that this does not seem to apply to the related EEA, EFTA and Swiss agreements, which were implemented under Clause 6. This means that CRaG continues to apply in those circumstances, so time might be needed for these agreements to pass through CRaG. Will the Minister respond to that issue raised by the Scottish Law Society?
The Government’s majority of 80 leads them to think they do not need to take account of this House. I do not understand why they still seem to need to take account of the ERG, for whom this clause has clearly been inserted. This is unnecessary, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Removing Clause 33 does not undermine the manifesto, because we can still leave and end the implementation period on 31 December. However, as I also said earlier in the week, we will let the Government take ownership of this. We will leave the EU shortly, but on their head be it if the negotiations mean they have to come back to ask for more time. In that case, we will give it with a smile, but also possibly with an “I told you so” note.
Lord Callanan
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others who have contributed to this debate. I think the key point was made by noble friend Lord Bridges: the manifesto on which my party won the election that delivered a substantial majority for this Government was absolutely explicit in ruling out any extension to the implementation period. The general election has clearly shown that the public support that vision. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that his party put forward an alternative vision that was comprehensively rejected by the public. This clause implements that provision. It binds the Government to this commitment by enshrining in statute that Ministers may not agree to the extension of the implementation period beyond 2020.
I reassure noble Lords that in the withdrawal agreement both sides—we and the EU—have committed to using their “best endeavours” to negotiate a future partnership. Moreover, both the EU and the UK committed to agreeing a deal by the end of 2020 in the political declaration. It is worth quoting from paragraph 135, which says that,
“it is the clear intent of both Parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship and to begin the formal process of negotiations as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, such that they can come into force by the end of 2020.”
This clause provides both parties absolute clarity on the timetable for negotiations. This will help ensure that our negotiations can progress at pace and that we have our future relationship agreed by December 2020. It is in the interests of the UK and the EU to agree a deal that supports the flow of goods, the provision of services and business being done. That is what we are going to do.
In sum, this clause delivers on our manifesto commitment to the British public not to extend the implementation period beyond 2020.
Viscount Hailsham
Would my noble friend tell the House whether he thinks there are any negotiating advantages that flow from this clause?
Lord Callanan
It definitely concentrates the minds of both parties. As I said, it has been explicitly agreed in both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, as I have quoted, by us and the European Union.
It will ensure that we can move on with negotiating a future relationship with absolute clarity on the timetable. For this reason, the clause must stand part of the Bill. With regard to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about the EEA and the Scottish Law Society, I will write to her.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but what has worried me in listening to this debate is what happens if there are impediments to negotiations from the other side which absolutely cannot be resolved by 31 December. Do the Government think that they may have to leave without a deal?
Lord Callanan
No. As I have just said, we very much hope that both sides will be able to reach an agreement. Both sides have committed to do so. I quoted the section in the political declaration whereby we and the EU have committed to getting the negotiations finalised and coming into force by the end of 2020.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Minister has in a sense just given the game away. They “hope” to reach an agreement. The Commission has said that it is impossible. The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was not inevitable. The key question which this amendment seeks to address is what happens if you cannot get to that point. When asked whether this could mean we leave without a deal, the Minister said no. So what happens if there is no deal? Is he accepting a bare-bones deal? I do not remember seeing that in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The Minister has done nothing to reassure me that there is anything in the Government’s approach that makes reaching a deal in this timetable even vaguely possible. In those circumstances, as I said in my speech, I do not believe that it is in the interests of anyone—neither economically nor in terms of the national interest, given the security and other issues covered by the political declaration—for the Government’s hands to be tied by law in this way. Therefore, I am wholly unpersuaded by the Minister. For today we will not put this issue to a vote, but we will return to it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will argue that Clause 37 should not stand part of this Bill. I think I have had three sets of discussions with Ministers about this, for which I am enormously grateful: once on the phone and twice in meetings face to face. I am grateful for the time they have given me. Indeed, I was quite flattered on one occasion that there were three Ministers and seven officials—I thought the odds were just about even on that one. At any rate, I have had plenty of chances to make my points.
Regarding the Salisbury convention, as it was mentioned in the last discussion, it is fairly clear to me that it would allow us to move this amendment—to do what we like—on unaccompanied child refugees, because they were not given any mention in the Conservative Party manifesto. Indeed, it was quite a shock to many of us when we saw the Bill that Clause 37 was there at all, as we had had no previous warning.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, my name is on the amendment because I regard it as the most important matter of honour that we must deal with in the Bill. The whole House admires the stamina with which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pursued this issue. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council, which was run by the noble Lord for many years and still runs on Dubs energy and still gets his constant support.
On this issue, the House was persuaded by the noble Lord’s arguments in 2016, and again in 2018. We are now in a curious position where the Government say that the 2018 provision is undesirable and needs to be replaced with this new one. The most important thing about the Government’s proposed new Clause 37 is that it kills Section 17 of the 2018 Act. What is the difference between the two? The 2017 Act laid on the Government the obligation to “seek to negotiate”—not to negotiate, because we cannot do that because a negotiation has two sides—a deal for these children. Everything else in the proposed new clause is the same as in Section 17, except that we now find that the Government must make a statement to us on what their policy is.
I am not terribly worried about the Government’s policy here. I believe the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, at Second Reading, that the Government’s policy has not changed. I believe that the Government want this to happen. However, I am not clear about what priority the Government attach to it and I am very suspicious that they wish to use it as a negotiating card. That is what is most alarming to me and, to be honest, most disgusting. The fate of these children should not be seen as a matter for negotiation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on Monday night made one substantive argument against this amendment, apart from saying that government policy has not changed—on which, as I say, I believe him. He said:
“It is vital that the Government are not legally constrained in those discussions.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 554.]
Implicitly, that means that the Government might not wish to pursue this and might wish to try to trade willingness to do this for some concession by the other side. That seems particularly offensive.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I too have my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been very measured, as ever, in his introduction to this debate and it seems the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gives an unarguable analysis of the position.
I have said of other provisions of this Bill and of the Conservative manifesto that they are dog whistles. If somebody thought that this was a useful dog whistle as a replacement for the 2018 legislation, they got it wrong. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I believe that the concern in this House for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children reflects public concern. We see them as children and seekers of asylum, not as immigrants whose numbers are to be kept down, and not as in any way other.
The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, at the end of our day of the Queen’s Speech debate said that Section 17 of the last Act was no longer appropriate because the negotiations have already been started by other states. I cannot read into Section 17 that it refers to those negotiations. The noble and learned Lord is far too skilled a lawyer and wedded to good law to be comfortable with dog whistles in the form of legislation, and I am sure the same goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, if she is the one to be answering this debate. I hope this can be explained in more detail—unless, of course, I have misrepresented it. Laying a statement of policy—the requirement of this clause—is not getting the job done.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said there are no other changes. There is one change in the way the terminology is used that I am puzzled about. The reference to the child’s “best interests” has moved from coming to the UK to joining a relative in the UK. I am puzzled about it, but even more bothered. What significance should we read into this? Noble Lords will realise that I do read significance into this. Again, can the Minister help? The new clause must mean something different from the original—which, as has been said, is very modest. In non-technical terms, it means a signal that the UK Government are rowing back from working internationally to protect a rather small number of children who have undergone and are undergoing experiences that few of us could cope with—or, of course, that they are bargaining chips, as has been suggested. I understand that suggestion. It is not just about leaving them stranded on a journey to sanctuary in appalling circumstances; it leaves them vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and the particular risks of getting across the channel. Withholding the right of family reunification is not the way to tackle the scourge of people smuggling and people trafficking. Please let no one say that it would be a pull factor, because it is the push factors that we need to have in mind.
To be positive, I have some questions. What can the Minister tell us about the progress of negotiations on the arrangements, given that the Government have expressed commitment to the principle of family reunion and supporting the most vulnerable children? I think all children are vulnerable. Surely it is not about putting this on the back burner. What discussions are they having with organisations that support families to reunite about the design of a replacement for the Dublin system? What plans are there for necessary domestic legislation? Of course, I would welcome their adoption of my Private Member’s Bill, but I know that is not how these things work.
Earlier this week, other noble Lords may have had an email from a group of “kids”, as they style themselves, from Sherington Primary School in Charlton. I cannot read all their letters, but I will read just a little from one:
“I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose my home, my parents and to have to leave my country. These children are completely alone and terribly vulnerable. Surely we can’t just turn our backs on them. I thought my country was better than that. Please reconsider.”
That is a kid from year 6 of a primary school. I thank the 14 kids, whose names I am not reading into the record for safeguarding reasons. They may be kids, but they display a very clear understanding of the importance of safe and legal routes.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment, to which my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has put his name. He is sorry not to be able to be in the Chamber today. A few weeks ago, we celebrated the story of Christmas. In the nativity, the happy events in a Bethlehem stable were followed by the more dramatic flight of the holy family to escape the violent persecution of King Herod. As we discuss this amendment, that story of the child Jesus and his parents fleeing from violence to a foreign land resonates loudly.
Children are among the most vulnerable victims of conflict, persecution and violence around the world. We all know that they do not choose to become refugees separated from their families. We as a nation can choose to reunite some families torn apart by conflict by offering children shelter, hope and a future. That is what I believe the majority of people in this country wish, and I am sure that is what the Government wish. This amendment seeks to ensure it by guaranteeing a safe, legal, effective and managed route for child refugees to join their families in this country.
As we prepare to leave the European Union, the United Kingdom has an opportunity to decide what kind of nation it will be and, very importantly, to communicate that to a watching world. The legislation we agree will send a powerful signal about what and who we value.
As has already been observed, this clause has provoked much concern. At a ministerial briefing yesterday, intended to reassure those of us who are concerned about it, I found myself puzzled. We were told of the Government’s excellent record, and that it will continue. That is good, but why then remove the family reunion obligation from primary legislation? We were told that the latter was constitutionally odd, and, further, that the Government need to ensure that their hands are not tied during Brexit negotiations. At the same time, we were assured that refugee children would not become bargaining chips in negotiations about anything else. We were told that there is a need for reciprocity, although the numbers of children going in the opposite direction, from this country to others, is minimal.
As I understand it, the Government maintain that this clause will not change anything. If that is the case, why not remove it? This amendment would reassure those who are nervous that this country will continue to be a place of safety and sanctuary for the most vulnerable refugees fleeing persecution and conflict: children. It would reassure everyone that the Government will uphold their commitment to those children and provide a measure by which we may all be held accountable for our shaping of this nation as a place of hospitality and welcome. That is surely worth a bit of constitutional oddity.
The story of Jesus and his parents fleeing their homeland for a place of safety is a story repeated millions of times over in our world today. Can we assure everyone that this country will continue to be a place of safety for children, especially those who have been separated from their families?
I commend this amendment and ask the Minister: will the Government reinstate their commitment to protect the most vulnerable of refugees: children?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, we should be ashamed, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reading out what a primary school child is reminding us about. We are adults: many of us are parents, all of us are in some way related to children, and for goodness’ sake, we were once children ourselves.
I am quite taken aback. Here we are, as adults, debating what should happen to these children. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 said that the welfare of children is paramount, but we must also remember that people are vulnerable, and children are vulnerable young people. This small group of children about whom we are speaking have rights. This Government are proposing to take away their rights, because in the 2016 legislation of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which I strongly supported, and in the 2018 withdrawal Act, the rights of this small group of children were upheld. Now the Government are taking them away, even from the latest withdrawal Act.
I am sorry that because of family affairs I did not attend the meeting yesterday, and I am afraid that I did not see the Minister’s letter, but it was extremely helpful to hear what was being said. What I find extraordinary is that it is part of existing law. As for the idea that it is an oddity and we should not be legislating, this House supported the House of Commons to legislate for children with rights to rejoin their families in this country in 2016 and 2018. I make no apology for repeating this. For goodness’ sake, it is existing law. We are not talking about going out on a corner or something unusual; we are talking about retaining what this House and the House of Commons have already passed. This is one point which the Government have not met. It is existing law. The children have rights under Dublin, but they also have rights under English law, and this Government are intending to remove them.
The Government’s proposals seem to me to be peanuts. They do not in any way reflect what has already happened in Parliament, and that is not good enough. Coming back to what a primary school child in year 6 was saying, are we going to fail our own children, let alone the children with rights to come to this country?
I did not want to support amendments to this Bill, because I recognise that we have got to get it through, but this is a separate issue. It bears no resemblance to the rest of the withdrawal Bill, but my goodness, it matters. It is not only the children under the trees in Calais and Dunkirk—I saw them last year, and former MP Fiona Mactaggart and I wrote a report about it—but also the fact that they have a right to come here. Are we just going to let it go by the board?
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, the compassion in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, makes it extremely difficult to oppose him —but oppose him I do. Despite the wonderful statements by Cross-Benchers of enormous eminence who know more about children’s law than anyone else, my work in international children’s care tells me that this way lies danger. I have worked with children on all continents of the globe. I used to be a director of Save the Children and have worked with almost all international children’s organisations, and perhaps the heartland experience that I wish to offer the Minister is on child trafficking.
When I was fortunate enough to be the rapporteur for Romania, and when working in other countries on this, I saw the deep underbelly of the filthy trade that happens when you begin to move children away from their own jurisdiction. Whether a child is deemed to be a refugee or is labelled as part of a family, child trafficking is the fastest-growing sector of organised crime on the globe today. The European Union legislation has not only failed to protect those children but has, in some ways, made things worse. I will give a clear example of a Member of the European Parliament—from France, incidentally, although this is not a criticism of France as such. When we were having this debate in the European Parliament, he could not understand why the free movement of children should not take place, since the European Union allowed the free movement of camions. Noble Lords will remember that “camions” means lorries.
That is exactly what happens: once you start moving children around, there is no stopping it. It does not help to say that they are coming to the United Kingdom. One of the most traumatic cases I had to deal with was that of a child from Romania. When I went there, there were 30,000 children who had been trafficked in eight years: no names, no pack drill, just numbers on a computer. One of them was a boy who came as a refugee to London on a false passport. In London, that false passport was changed and he managed to get an American passport. When he arrived in America, he was met by eight men, and he has never been seen again. Thanks to one of those wonderful efforts by the FBI, the CIA, Scotland Yard and the Romanian police, 11 men were captured. They were said to be the biggest child trafficking ring for pornography on the globe.
I beg the Minister to retain Clause 37. We need to protect these children, to help them to stay in their own jurisdiction, not to move them around like this. They are unprotected as soon as they leave their own jurisdiction. We cannot manage it. We in Britain are very poor at managing unaccompanied children of our own. Look at the ones in the Midlands, for example. We have thousands of children coming in every year from countries trying to dump their children here. Others then pick them up and sell them.
I have another very good example, although there are too many to give all of them. When I went to Bucharest originally, there were 12 trafficking agencies—
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
I will give way. I will have difficulty, as I cannot hear, as noble Lords know. Somebody will have to tell me.
In Bucharest there were 12 trafficking agencies, and when we pushed them out, they went over the border to Moldova, and they are now bringing in children from China.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
If noble Lords will forgive me, I will ask someone to interpret for me, because I was born deaf and will not pick it up.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I have been to Calais and met unaccompanied children: on one occasion my noble friend Lady Bennett and I were together in Calais. Does the noble Baroness accept that the children most at risk are the unaccompanied children? The children we are talking about are coming to their families. They do not have a jurisdiction; they do not have a family unit. They are coming to their families.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Lack of a jurisdiction is not quite the case. They have not lost their own jurisdiction, unless they have been signed out of it. You can therefore get them back home to their own jurisdiction. That is why my work, and the work of most people who, like me, work internationally, is to try to look after those children at home, to support the families and to bring clean water and food and everything else. Of course children can be signed out—by their own judges, for example—but most of the children that the noble Baroness is describing will not have been signed out at all; they will just have moved.
So I will merely say that we know all too well what happens to children when they are moved around. We in this House should not do anything to encourage that movement. That is why, from the heart, and from all my experience, I urge the Minister to retain Clause 37.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have sat and listened to the debate on the Bill in this House, which has been wise—and sometimes entertaining, sometimes depressing, depending on one’s view of leaving the European Union. For the past two days I have stayed quiet and reflected on what has been said. For me it has been a surreal debate at times. Last night we had a debate in which all sides of the House pleaded with the Minister to keep one single market in the United Kingdom, and the Minister could not agree that that could be guaranteed. Earlier today there was an amendment about the rule of Parliament, and taking back control of the sovereignty of Parliament and not the sovereignty of the Executive. In the previous debate the Minister said that our hands should not be tied in negotiations—but the Government are tying their own hands by putting a false deadline on the negotiations.
However, I have to stand up now, because we have moved from a surreal debate to a cruel and heartless debate. Now we are talking about children who have family in this country. They are segregated; they will have seen war and persecution; some of them may have seen their mothers raped; some will have seen things that we cannot understand. And we already have a law in this land that says that, as a guarantee and as a matter of principle, they will come here now. Clause 37 takes that away. The Minister shakes her head, but it does. Basically, it says that rules will be laid before Parliament in two months’ time. It stops the existing provision and tries to put in a new provision—and we know not what that new provision will be.
Sometimes in politics, you just do the right thing. You do a thing as a matter of principle. I see nothing at all wrong in bringing here, as fast and as safely as possible, unaccompanied children who have family in this country. It is the right thing to do practically, and it is the right thing to do in principle. I must say to the Minister that this is a political decision. It is not a legal decision; there is nothing impeding negotiations. What is more, it is the right thing to do. I do not care what the other 27 countries do. As a British citizen, I want my values to be that we accept these children as a matter of principle. If the other 27 do not wish to do that, that is about their values—but this country, and this Parliament, should stand steadfast in saying that this is the right thing to do, and we want it to happen now.
I tried to think why the Government would not just allow this to happen. Why would they want to put a two-month staging post in place? Do they not want to do it? The Minister and the Government keep telling us that they do want to do it, and that it will happen. Fine. Are they not quite sure how it will happen, so they want to change the rules and the policy? The Minister shakes her head. So why have they not shown us what the new policy will be? Why the two-month gap? What are we waiting for? If nothing is going to change, the existing provision should stand.
Are we saying that we are putting in a provision for a two-month wait and nothing will change? Yet there are children across the country who need our support and help. Or are we going to use these young, vulnerable children as a negotiating chip? What a disgraceful position for us, as a country, to get ourselves into—that we could use the most vulnerable of the vulnerable as a negotiating position to try to get the other countries to agree to do something, we know not what? There is no reason for this clause—other than the possibility that there is something, however slight it may be, that the Government wish to change. I do not believe that that is the British way, I do not believe that those are British values, and I do not believe that that is what the British public will support.
I will end with what Robin Walker said when he was a Brexit Minister in the other place. He said that this was a matter of principle. I agree: it is a matter of principle—and it is time to put principle into action and stop the fake negotiation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I think my credentials in legislation for children are fairly long and fairly clear—or at least I hope so. Before we start to think about children in principle, it is vital to think about the provision that we seek to replace. The Clause in the 2018 Bill gives children no rights whatever. It does nothing more than require the Government to enter into negotiations with regard to those children. That is all, which is very important.
However, the question is: is Parliament entitled to tell the Executive what they must negotiate for? That is the language of the part of the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. In other words, it is said that, as a matter of principle—I will elaborate on that principle in a minute—it is not right that the Government’s hands should be restricted by Parliament before the negotiations. It is the Executive’s responsibility to do the negotiation; it is for Parliament to call the Executive to account on how they have done it.
I shall refer to this only briefly, but your Lordships will remember that in the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to Prorogation, it pointed out that the important thing was the accountability of the Executive to Parliament. That makes an important distinction between the Executive and Parliament, because the Executive have the executive function, and then Parliament has the right to call them to account for the way in which they have carried it out.
The provision in question—Clause 17 in the 2018 Bill—is precisely that. It is an instruction to the Executive to open negotiations in a certain way. I understand from what we have heard already that the Executive have entered into such negotiations. However, the point made in the letter is a general one, of the kind I have just mentioned.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Unlike him, I have not had any explanation from the Government about this, because an explanation—I looked it up in a dictionary just in case—involves explaining. We have not heard explanations, but we have heard excuses. Those excuses narrow down to three matters. First, the existing law in Section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is perfectly all right and reflects the will of this House and Parliament generally; it has passed. The change cannot be interpreted as anything but a watering down. It is either a watering down or, as we have heard, a bargaining chip—something to trade when the negotiations happen.
The worst explanation is that this is a dead cat. It is an issue that the Government purposely know will excite much of this House; it will raise a lot of concerns and we will, I imagine, push it hard. The Government are therefore narrowing down the matters that we will push hard on when we come to Report. Whatever it is—whether it is a watering down or a bargaining chip, which would be absolutely wrong, or a dead cat—the conclusion is the same: we must remove this clause from the Bill. The Green group here, if I can call us that, supports the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his efforts.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dubs in this matter. For me, this is a moral and ethical matter as well as a political one. Why would a Government resile from a clear provision to facilitate the reunification of refugee children with their families, particularly when it had already been passed into law?
A noble Lord opposite, who is not currently in his place, said that a Government with a majority of 80 might make some big mistakes, and the inclusion of Clause 37 would be just such a big mistake. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the British people are essentially humanitarian. The Government would be seen to be lacking in their will for social justice and basic humanity if any inhibition was put in the way of ensuring that that small number of children—who are already out of whatever their jurisdiction might be deemed to be, but find themselves in difficult and, for us, unimaginable circumstances—are reunited with their families in this country.
It is often said that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, its weakest and those in the most difficult circumstances. We would be found wanting if we were not to oppose the introduction of Clause 37; we would be treating badly those who are already extremely vulnerable. I would much prefer to be well considered in how we deal with, consider and treat the most vulnerable.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I cannot believe we are here again. It is like déjà vu, or a bad dream. I thought we had put this issue to bed. It took a long time previously and I have not forgotten how hard NGOs and people on this side of the House—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—had to work to make Dublin III work for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who had family here. It was not an easy legal trip but, through JRs and so on, we got it to work eventually, and the thought that the system might be dismantled is too depressing for words.
It seems that Conservative Governments pass up no opportunity to try to prevent us abiding by our legal duty to uphold the rights of the child. I fear that views sometimes articulated by the right-wing press make some Members on the government Benches think they are being taken for a ride. One such view is that these children are sent here as a way to cleave open the system, so that the rest of the family may follow. Can they produce the evidence to back that up? No, because there is none. Children are more likely to stay quiet about where their family is because they fear that retribution might be visited upon them.
Another such view, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is that allowing family reunification creates a pull factor that will encourage others to make the trip. I suggest that anyone who truly holds that view visits some of the refugee camps and speaks to people there. I am sure that listening to their human stories—such as that of Adam, whom I know well—will encourage them to think differently. Adam is not his real name. He fled north Darfur at the age of three with his family. He was orphaned but made it to a refugee camp where he lived a hand-to-mouth existence until the age of 14, in constant fear that the Janjaweed militias would one day succeed in taking him away. There was no school and no hope, just fear. At the age of 14 he took the decision to leave to try to make his way to Europe because the risk was worth it. He was driven to take the risk by desperation. His is just one story. There are many more children like Adam who desperately need our compassion and our kindness but, most of all, our commitment to international rules of law that protect the best interests of the child and, in particular, to the continuation of the Dublin III regulation once we have left the EU for good.
Removing our commitment to Dublin III from the Bill with a promise to make good later is not good enough. These children, and in particular their advocates, need to know that a system that has finally been made to work will not be dismantled. Starting from scratch to set up another system that works legally will mean that time will be lost, and lost time means that lives will be damaged. I think the Government will agree that there will be a gap in legislation and they cannot know how long it will be. Please let us leave things be.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The Dublin III arrangements will continue until the end of this year. The Government’s purpose is to make arrangements that will take effect immediately after that. That is what this is about. It is not about taking anything away. It is about construction after the end of this year, assuming that—I am assuming what was said in the last debate—still stands.
Baroness Sheehan
I thank the noble and learned Lord. The Government say that they will, but the question is when. There is no guarantee that there will not be a gap through which—
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
There is no guarantee that anything is going to happen particularly, but Dublin III is in and the Government have expressed their intention to replace it with an arrangement that applies to children here who have family in Europe and to children in Europe who have family here.
Baroness Sheehan
If, as the noble and learned Lord said, nothing is going to change, let us leave things be.
Lord Elton (Con)
I have just a small point. I understand that under Dublin III “specified family members” refers not just to parents but to grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings. When she replies, will the Minister slip in a word because that would make it easier for some of us to follow what is happening?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to explain why Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill. There is very little to add after the dozen contributions and the eloquent speech by my noble friend Lord Dubs, so I shall keep this short as we wait to hear from the Minister. I hope that her words will be positive.
The Government’s inclusion of Clause 37, which reneges on their previous binding commitment to seek to negotiate reciprocal agreements with the EU to facilitate the safe passage of child refugees with family in the UK is unnecessary and unjust. We will shortly be told that the Government’s commitment has not changed and that their policy remains the same. Your Lordships’ House was not convinced by this argument during consideration of the withdrawal Bill, which is why it voted overwhelmingly to insert the negotiating objective, and I am sure this House will not be convinced by the argument now, although we wait.
The provisions in the 2018 Act have been in place for 18 months and were not opposed by the Government. That surely means that they cannot be considered hostile or as examples of Parliament unfairly asserting itself over the Executive. The closest parallels I can see to the Dubs provision are the environmental ones in Section 16 of the 2018 Act. These required the Government to do something. Ministers fulfilled the requirement and that section has now been replaced. Ripping up prior commitments in the face of such opposition is not how a new Government should start their term in office. It is not too late for the Minister to accept the amendment or to bring forward the Government’s own text ahead of Report. I hope the Government will do the right thing. However, if they do not take note of this debate, we will certainly bring back the substance of it on Report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have had many discussions with him, as he outlined. We do not always agree on how we are going to get to places, but we certainly agree with the end. I think Parliament and the Government are in absolute agreement that we are all fully committed to the principle of family reunion and to supporting the most vulnerable children in the world. Our policy on this has not changed. I want to underline that point because noble Lords seem to think that perhaps the policy has changed. It has not. On the point the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made on the manifesto commitment, it is writ large in our manifesto:
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”.
We intend to keep to that commitment, and I am sure Parliament will hold us to account if we do not.
Clause 37 underlines that. We could have just deleted Section 17 and, by turn, Clause 37. We did not because we wanted to outline that commitment again in legislation. The commitment builds on the Government’s proud record of providing protection to vulnerable children. Since 2010, the UK has granted protection to 41,000 children—7,500 of them in the year ending September 2019—most of them because of our obligations under the refugee convention and the wider commitments that we have made. It is mostly nothing to do with EU structures.
More than 5,000 unaccompanied children are being cared for by local authorities in England alone—an increase of almost 150% since 2014. The noble Lord referred to local authorities, and he knows that the Government wrote to local authorities in good faith, and that whenever we heard about additional places being available, we took note and upped our number under Dubs. We have granted 27,000 family reunion visas under the refugee family reunion Immigration Rules over the last five years. This is not a mean Government or a mean country, and I am very proud of our record.
In 2018, the UK received more than 3,000 asylum claims from unaccompanied children, accounting for 15% of all such claims across the EU. That makes ours the third highest intake in the European Union. On national resettlement schemes, we take more children than any other country in the European Union. It is worth saying this because sometimes, if you listen to debates in this House, you would think that we do not do anything. It is important to outline our record, which reflects the unique importance of protecting unaccompanied children and preserves the principle of family reunion, which will continue. I commend this House on its strength of feeling on this issue—we are all humanitarians, and I assure noble Lords that the Government share an undiminished commitment to addressing these issues.
Clause 37 concerns only whether there should be a statutory duty to negotiate an agreement on family reunion for unaccompanied children who have applied for international protection in an EU member state, and who have family in the UK, and vice versa. The debate is not on wider issues relating to refugees, asylum or family unity. It does not represent a change of Government policy—as I said at the outset—it simply removes the statutory requirement to negotiate. We remain fully committed to providing protection to vulnerable children, and noble Lords might note that we have already committed to taking 5,000 people from beyond the MENA region, in dangerous areas of the world with vulnerable children, in the next year alone.
Noble Lords will be aware that, as part of the negotiation and making of treaties, including international trade agreements, this is a function of the Executive. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said in the previous group that he did not want to tie the Government’s hands, but in the group before that, the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Howarth of Newport, said that Parliament should not tie the Government’s hands. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made a good analogy with the Prorogation decision.
A statutory negotiating objective is neither necessary nor the constitutional norm. It is unnecessary because the Government have already written to the European Commission on 27 October to commence discussions on this issue. It is vital that the Government are now able to get on with it. The UK has existing and extensive legal provisions to guarantee family reunion, and one noble Lord—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, but I apologise if I am wrong—spoke of no guarantees going forward, yet this legislation already exists, and is not affected by EU exit in any way. Furthermore, the UK will continue to be bound by the Dublin regulation during the implementation period, as my noble and learned friend pointed out.
Lord Scriven
That is a bit perplexing. If the guarantee is already in law, what is this clause about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord hits the nail on the head, because one might ask what Section 17 was about in the first instance. I said at the beginning of my speech that Clause 37 could not have existed, and we could have deleted Section 17, but Section 17 is, in most part, as it was originally, and is amended to include the reporting to Parliament and not the seeking to negotiate. It goes above our obligations and commits the Government to lay that Statement to Parliament on our policy regarding future arrangements with the EU for the family reunification of unaccompanied children seeking international protection, providing Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our progress.
The clause makes it clear that supporting the most vulnerable children remains a priority, along with restoring the traditional division of competences between Parliament and government, as the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Butler, pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that Parliament cannot give the Government their marching orders in negotiations. I hope that I have quoted him correctly.
Lord Howarth of Newport
As long as the Minister does not suppose that I do not fully support the spirit of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
No, I was not making that inference. I was trying to point out both consistency and inconsistency within some of the debates we have been having today, as noble Lords seem to have contradicted themselves depending on what the issue is. On the division of competences between Parliament and Government, noble Lords will have seen, and will continue to see, changes being made across the Bill. It does not undermine our policy intent and rightly ensures that Parliament is informed of our policy intentions in respect of our future arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that we have already written to the Commission, and that is correct. It shows our intent and commitment in the coming year.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke of Clause 37 killing Section 17. It does not; it amends it, as he went on to outline.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could she be clearer about this correspondence with the Commission? The Minister said in the meeting we had yesterday, and again just now, that a letter went to the Commission in October, to which there has been no reply. It is perhaps not surprising, since the Commission does not have a mandate to negotiate until after we have left the European Union. Perhaps that is a perfectly innocent explanation, but surely the amendment being moved will actually strengthen the Government’s hand when they come to negotiate in March or April, by demonstrating the high priority which Parliament gives to it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The reason we have not had a reply is probably, as the noble Lord pointed out, to do with the fact that we have a new Commissioner. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s point—this amendment ties the Government’s hands in negotiation, and we do not wish to see that. We want to articulate our commitment through the manifesto and in Clause 37.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am not quite clear on how it ties the Government’s hands. If we leave what is now on the statute book in place, there is an obligation on the Government to seek to negotiate. The Government say that they have already started seeking to negotiate, so I am not sure how it ties their hands.
I am left suspicious. I am with the noble Baroness and am prepared to agree that policy has not changed. I reject dog whistles and dead cats, and I believe the Government’s policy has not changed. What bothers me is that I do not know what priority they attach to it in the coming negotiations, and I fear that we are into bargaining chip country, which is really offensive.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The fact that the Home Secretary wrote to the Commission underlines our commitment, as does the fact that we put it in the manifesto and in Clause 37. The amendment to Section 17, to which the noble Lord referred, was an instruction to the Government, and I do not think that the Government should be bound by that.
I want to pick up on the noble Lord’s point about bargaining chips. Section 17 of the 2018 Act talks about seeking to negotiate. In one context—the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, puts it—that is noble, and I have absolutely no criticism of his intentions. On the other hand, when the Government say that they will write to the Commission and seek to engage with the EU in the coming year, that is seen as using children as a bargaining chip. I am not entirely sure how the Section 17 amendment, which talked about seeking to negotiate, and what the Government are proposing, which the noble Lord feels very sceptical about, are in any way different when it comes to bargaining chips.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
If the Government say, as they did on Monday night, in terms, that that amendment will not do because it is vital that the Government are not legally constrained in these discussions, that seems to imply that the Government might not pursue this point if the EU 27 decide to strike some sort of bargain with us which entails our not pursuing this point. If the statute book remained unamended—if the 2018 Act, which binds the Government only to seek to negotiate, remained in force—in what way would the Government be legally constrained unless they intended to negotiate in bad faith, which I do not think is the case, or to regard this as a lower priority, as a card that could be played? I find that very offensive.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I would find it offensive if the Government saw children as bargaining chips. I do not think that any Member of this House or the other place sees a child as a bargaining chip. The Government are seeking to undertake an arrangement in which there is reciprocity. It makes absolute sense that we have reciprocal arrangements with Europe. We might be leaving the EU but we are certainly not leaving Europe, and children here will have family in the EU, just as children in the EU will have family here. We are seeking reciprocity, and Dublin III, as my noble and learned friend said, will be ongoing to the end of the implementation period. Please let us have no more comment about bargaining chips, because the legislation seeks to do the best by all children, whether they be in the EU or the UK.
Baroness Hamwee
Before the Minister moves on, I do not understand the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, although perhaps reading it will help. None of us wants to think the worst of the Government over this matter. It might be helpful if noble Lords could see a copy of the letter that went to the Commission in October. It has been referred to several times but I do not think that it has been seen by any noble Lord.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not sure that I can give that undertaking but I will certainly request it. I will also come on to the noble Baroness’s question about the words “best interests” appearing in subsection (1)(a) but not in (1)(b). The phrase “equivalent circumstances” in subsection (1)(b) duplicates that. She might like to take a look at that and, if she is not content, I will be happy to go through it with her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about the gap, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out that Dublin III will exist until the end of the implementation period. My noble friend Lord Elton asked for the definition of “relative”. I think that there has been another misunderstanding—that all the relatives were listed in Section 17 but do not appear in Clause 37, although they do. A relative in relation to an unaccompanied child means
“a spouse or civil partner of the child or any person with whom the child has a durable relationship that is similar to marriage or civil partnership, or … a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother or sister of the child”.
That is quite an extensive list and I hope that that helps my noble friend.
I shall finish on the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. Section 17 in and of itself gives no rights to children. Through Clause 37 we are attempting to lay out our intentions. We have done so in the manifesto and have already started talks with the EU on this subject. Our commitment to children has not changed.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few brief words. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been quite illuminating in the main, but perhaps I may comment on two or three specific points.
First, I want to refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said. I very much respect her important work with Save the Children and other organisations overseas, but I think she is quite wrong on the trafficking argument. Where there are no legal routes to safety, people will allow themselves to be trafficked and will come illegally. Surely, by having legal routes to safety, we are making the position of traffickers much more difficult and making it much easier for people to achieve safety. Therefore, I am sorry but I do not agree with her on that.
Perhaps I may also return to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made. I do not have the wording of Section 17 of the 2018 Act in front of me but it has been referred to. It says that the Government should seek to negotiate on a particular basis. We have already talked about Clause 33 of this Bill, which would add something to the 2018 Act. It says:
“A Minister of the Crown may not agree in the Joint Committee to an extension of the implementation period.”
That is telling a Minister of the Crown exactly what he or she may or may not do, which is totally at variance with the argument that we have heard on Clause 37. I do not understand. On the one hand, the Government are saying in their own Bill that Ministers may be told what to do; on the other hand, they are using that as an argument against my amendment.
I am sorry to quote the Minister’s letter again but one paragraph seems to be at variance with other points and I wonder whether the Minister would like to withdraw it. It includes the words,
“so that the traditional division between Government and Parliament be restored”—
that is, by removing Section 17—
“and the negotiations ahead can be carried out with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas.”
That goes a lot wider than what we have been talking about tonight. It seems to me that this is meant to talk about some relationship between government and Parliament, which in any case Clause 33 disproves, and it refers to
“an appropriate manner across all policy areas.”
I am sorry but I cannot interpret that in the way the Minister suggests.
I want briefly to make two or three other comments. I agree that the manifesto talks about a commitment to refugees but it says nothing about child refugees. It says nothing at all that would enable the Government to invoke the Salisbury convention against my wish to remove Clause 37 from the Bill. If the Minister would like to meet me to talk about local authorities, I would be very happy to do so. I know that local authorities are very helpful. I know of Northern Ireland organisations that will want to help now that the Government there has been restored. The debate is going on in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, although no decision has been made there yet. It seems to me, however, that there are more local authorities. In addition, Safe Passage, one of the NGOs with which I am working closely, has written to all local authorities and we have got quite a lot of positive answers. This shows that local authorities are willing to take more.
When we debated Section 67 in 2016 and the amendment that I put forward about child refugees with no people here, there was a fierce battle. I was asked time and again to withdraw my amendment. The Home Secretary asked me to withdraw my amendment. It got through, despite the Government’s wishes, and it got through the other House, despite their wishes. Then we had the amendment to the 2018 Act that we are talking about now. Again, there was a big vote fairly late in the evening; the Government did not want it. In opposition, we had to argue for amendments on behalf of refugees and now the Government seem to be taking credit for that. I am sorry, but that is not the way the world has been. I appreciate that the Minister is totally sympathetic to refugees, but that is not how the Government have behaved. They have resisted all these amendments and all we have in opposition is the chance to move amendments in the hope of making our point. That is why we have had these arguments.
I shall not press this issue tonight, but particularly in the light of the discussion, I might wish to return to it on Report.
“Publication of further legislation relating to EU exit
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish draft Bills relating to the—(a) agricultural arrangements,(b) employment rights,(c) financial services legislation,(d) fisheries arrangements,(e) healthcare arrangements,(f) immigration arrangements for EU nationals,(g) monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections, and(h) trade remedies arrangements,that will be in effect in the United Kingdom after IP completion day.(2) When publishing these draft Bills, the Secretary of State must make a statement outlining the steps they will take to seek the timely passage of such legislation before IP completion day.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to bring forward versions of the Brexit legislation published but not passed during the last two parliamentary sessions, as well as requiring Secretaries of State to outline how this legislation will be passed before the end of the implementation period.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for adding their names to this amendment. If passed, it would require the Government to bring forward versions of the Brexit legislation published but not passed during the last two parliamentary sessions.
During the 2017 to 2019 Session, the Government published a variety of Brexit Bills. These often stalled in the Commons due to the Prime Minister’s lack of a majority and ultimately fell when the parliamentary session ended. These pieces of legislation are listed in my Amendment 30. They covered agricultural arrangements, employment rights, financial services, healthcare arrangements, immigration arrangements for EU nationals, monitoring and enforcement of environmental protection and trade remedies arrangements. These are vital areas where businesses and the country need clarity on the future direction of travel. These Bills have not yet resurfaced and it is not clear what form they will take once they are published.
Many noble Lords from across the House—from the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches—spent many hours debating, discussing, negotiating and voting on complex details relating to these areas. For example, in relation to trade, we do not know whether the new trade Bill will include the scrutiny provision previously inserted by your Lordships’ House. We do know that the Bills are coming because they were reannounced in the Queen’s Speech, but it is not yet clear when we will see them and what their timetables will be. Amendment 30 requires the Secretary of State to outline how the legislation will be passed before the end of the implementation period.
This House has agreed to consider the Bill before us over the next few days on a truncated timetable due to the pressing need to ratify the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, and we understand that. However, I hope that the Minister can assure noble Lords that this truly is an exceptional case rather than one that sets a precedent for Bills in the year or 11 months ahead. I know that the Minister will resist this amendment, but I hope that, in doing so, he will outline approximate timetables for these Bills, including giving an indication of whether any of them will begin in your Lordships’ House.
In the past, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has refused to be drawn into such debates, simply stating that all required legislation will be passed by the relevant deadlines. As he has been reminded several times over the last few days, the implementation period will come to an end in just 11 months’ time. Now is the time for the Government to provide more detail and instil some confidence that proper time for debate and deliberation will be given and that we will not, in this House, hear the tired old argument that dissent and debate have to be stifled to get Brexit done. These base arguments—as we have heard many times over the last three days—try to remove from this House its function as a revising body where we have often brought good sense to help ailing or deficient Bills. I beg to move.
Lord Warner (CB)
Perhaps I might make a brief interjection. Following on from yesterday’s discussion on immigration, many of us were left a little uncertain as to what the Government were going to do with their new immigration system. So it is very important that we come back to the detailed legislation on immigration as quickly as possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones was absolutely delighted to sign this amendment. I know that she, before I arrived in this House, did a great deal of work on many of the Bills referred to here. Your Lordships will all remember to some degree being a student at school, university or college, and that last-minute rush to write the essay. I am afraid that we have seen far too much of that kind of operation from the Government. Under normal conditions, the timetable here in this amendment would be a huge rush, but what we are saying is, “Let’s not have an even bigger rush than this provides.” These Bills have appeared in three Queen’s Speeches; surely they are oven-ready by now and we could have them very soon. They are going to be big meals that require lots of digestion. Please let us have a timetable that is clear, so people know where they are going.
My noble friend Lady Jones asked me to mention the latest reincarnation of the Environment Bill. We need to know when the environment enforcement body will be established. We have been told that it will happen as soon as possible; surely that has to be now.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to the three speakers that we have had in this debate on Amendment 30: the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and, briefly, the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I can be brief on this one. The procedures for introducing and scrutinising Bills are, of course, very well established, and those procedures are not without reason. All the Bills mentioned will be introduced with adequate time for scrutiny. To ask for so many Bills to be published in draft is unprecedented, as it is for the Government to commit to a statement on the amount of time each Bill might spend in Parliament. Let me reassure noble Lords directly, however, that this Government are committed to ensuring that all the necessary legislation is passed by the end of the implementation period.
As the noble Lord intimated in his speech, versions of the Bills covering many of the areas noted in his amendment have already been published in previous Parliaments and are publicly available for study. Others were mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. However, I am sure that the House can appreciate the tremendous amount of work being done to make sure that these Bills best achieve their policy aims. In some cases, this means that the Bills will differ slightly from the previous versions. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to proper scrutiny and that we will balance the need to have the necessary Bills in place by the end of the implementation period with adequate time for Parliament to scrutinise them.
I suspect that the noble Lord got the answer he was expecting, so I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. The reason for launching this is that we want to secure proper time for scrutiny, debate and discussion. The Trade Bill was my first Bill in this House. My noble friend Lord Stevenson and I put a lot of time and energy into that Bill and this House made some good, sensible changes to it. It would be a shame for that to go to waste. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Non-regression in relation to environmental and animal welfare matters
After section 16 (maintenance of environmental principles etc.) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 insert—“16A Non-regression in relation to protected matters(1) Any action taken by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown under—(a) this Act, or(b) any other enactment, for the purposes of or in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU,is unlawful if it is intended to have, or in practice is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect in relation to the protected matters.(2) A public authority exercising a function in respect of a protected matter must not exercise that function in a way that is intended to have, or is reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.(3) Regulations may not be made under this Act if they are intended to have, or are reasonably likely to have, a regressive effect.(4) The protected matters are—(a) the environment,(b) food safety standards,(c) registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, and(d) animal welfare.(5) For the purposes of this section an effect shall be considered regressive if it—(a) reduces a level of protection provided for in retained EU law, or(b) weakens governance processes associated with that protection.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Ministers from using powers relating to EU withdrawal to diminish protections in retained EU law relating to the environment and animal welfare.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have added their names in support of this amendment on a cross-party basis. It would ensure that, post Brexit, the actions of Ministers and public bodies must not have a regressive impact on the environment, food safety, REACH and animal welfare. The amendment is necessary as the Government have seen fit to remove the provisions previously agreed in the 2018 withdrawal agreement, which provided for a legally binding commitment to non-regression in most areas of environmental law. The Government have said they remain committed to the principle of non-regression, so it is not at all clear why these provisions have been actively removed.
It goes without saying that there has never been a more important time for strong environmental legislation. The world is facing a climate change emergency, with global warming impacting food production, rising sea levels destroying habitats and catastrophic floods and fires threatening human life and livelihoods. The Government have signed up to the UN climate change conference political declaration, but those promises need to be backed up by binding and robust action. The Government have said that they want an ambitious environmental programme—indeed, the Conservative manifesto promised to legislate for high standards of environmental protection—so it seems strange that their first act is to water down a Bill that would have helped to achieve those high standards. Our amendment would put the non-regression principle back into the Bill where it belongs, and where other environmental principles remain via the withdrawal agreement.
The great advantage of a non-regression clause is that it would give reassurance for the longer term. It would protect current and future generations against the weakening of environmental standards once the issue drops out of the headlines and out of the list of government priorities. It would also help the Government to hold public bodies to account in achieving their environmental standards.
It is still not clear why the Government have taken the clause out of the Bill. If, as the Minister claimed in the Commons, the Government are committed to non-regression, why not leave it in? If the Government plan to put it in the environment Bill instead, what is the harm in having it in both pieces of legislation? If, as the Minister claimed in the Commons, the plan is to diverge from EU environmental principles and go it alone, who will judge whether the outcome will be as good as the environmental benefits that we have enjoyed in the past or that we should have enjoyed in the future?
As I said at Second Reading, over the years our environment has hugely benefited from EU directives and regulations, with over 80% of our environmental legislation derived from the EU. It is the main reason our habitats and birds have been protected and our water, air and soil quality have improved. The Government are expecting us to take a leap in the dark with their commitments to becoming a world leader in environmental protection outside the EU regime. If they are so committed, it is still not clear why they cannot accept a non-regression clause. Surely that is the minimum promise that they ought to be able to make if they are so ambitious for the future.
I hope the Minister will feel able to support our amendment. If not, I hope he can spell out in some detail what kind of non-regression guarantees are being proposed for the environment Bill. These questions were posed by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading, so far without a response. I hope that on this occasion the Minister can rectify that and give us some guarantees. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I was very happy to add my name to this amendment because the whole question of environmental standards and what will happen after we leave the EU is something that concerns many on all sides of the House, as well as the general public. The environment, as the noble Baroness opposite said, is very high on people’s agenda.
I put my name to the amendment because, like the noble Baroness, I wondered why this issue was not going to be part of the Bill. However, I have to say that I have spent some time in detailed discussions with the Secretary of State and Ministers down the other end as well as with Ministers in this Chamber. I do not think I could ever be described as naïve, although I have been led astray sometimes by government Ministers on all sides, but I do not doubt for one minute this Government’s thorough commitment not only to maintaining the environmental standards of the EU but to going beyond that. This is a very useful exercise to reinforce to my noble friends on the Front Bench that no excuse will be taken if those standards are not maintained when the environment Bill comes forward, and I will be looking for improvement.
With that in mind, I have always regarded this more as a probing amendment—I have learned today that in Committee that tends to be what happens—but I do not at all regret adding my name to it because this is a matter of great importance.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 31, to which I have also added my name. I fully support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Many contributions today have been extremely legalistic, but for me this amendment is much simpler.
Many noble Lords will be wondering why it is necessary to have this amendment in the Bill. The Government have committed not to compromise on environmental standards. An undertaking was in the previous withdrawal agreement Bill but was removed from the Bill that passed through Parliament in December 2019. If the Government have committed not to compromise, why was it necessary to remove this undertaking from the Bill? Despite being asked, the Government have provided no clarity on how environmental standards are to be protected.
As we can see from what is happening in other parts of the world, not least Australia, the environment is very fragile. Animal and plant species are constantly under threat from the effects of what used to be known as freak weather conditions. These excessive droughts, floods and temperature rises are having a devastating effect on animals and humans alike. They are no longer occasional disaster events but have become yearly occurrences. Unless the UK engages completely with preserving, maintaining and enhancing our environmental standards, we are likely to see an increase in flooding and fire damage in our villages and on our moors.
Ensuring food safety should be paramount when the Government come to broker trade deals with countries outside the EU. The UK consumes large quantities of chickens, and I am sorry about the next bit. Currently we import chicken breast meat and export darker leg meat. This trade currently goes to Europe, where we know standards of food protection are the same as ours. We could be self-sufficient in chickens if the British housewife could be persuaded to consume more dark meat and slightly less breast meat.
On a purely personal note, I am extremely reluctant to find myself having to buy chlorinated chicken that has arrived from America, be it whole chicken, breast or leg meat. A lowering of food safety standards has had dramatic effects on our country in the past; the BSE crisis springs to mind.
As stated at Second Reading, the UK currently has high standards in habitat protection and product safety. These standards have been developed with our European neighbours so that we now benefit from cleaner beaches, safer food and the best regulation of chemicals in the world. While these will pertain at the point of exit, are we really going to leave ensuring the maintenance of these standards to the joint committee? We have heard that the joint committee has the ability to amend the withdrawal agreement itself should it choose to do so, with no parliamentary oversight.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
My Lords, from comments I have made on other matters, your Lordships’ House will know that democracy is one of my pet concerns. When we are discussing this excellent amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—I endorse everything she said in introducing it—it is important that we make clear what we are talking about. Non-regression has now become part of our common parlance in your Lordships’ House and perhaps in the other place as well, but what does that actually mean? If we are looking for a definition in commonplace terms, I would suggest that it means not losing the hard-fought gains that we have won over decades. The Green Party and green campaigners have fought very hard for the level of standards that we now enjoy under the European Union. We have often been critical of those standards and said they should be higher, but we know they are much higher than in many other jurisdictions, most notably the United States of America—with which, of course, we know the Government are very keen to get a trade deal.
A few days ago, I asked your Lordships to think about the climate strikers, the young people who have been out on our streets, who will no doubt be out on our streets again. I ask noble Lords who want to reject this amendment—and the Government, if they want to reject it—to think about how those people will feel when they are told that what has already been won, which they would say is inadequate, will not be guaranteed. I think we know what their reaction would be.
With all the Henry VIII, secondary legislation making and judicial erasure powers that the Bill currently provides, the Government are going to find themselves in an unprecedented position to rewrite enormous parts of UK law at will. We are told that, “There is no intention to reduce standards; we’re going to try to improve them.” Of course I applaud those words, but if that is the case, why not accept this amendment? It should not be contentious, just as provisions to protect workers’ rights, which are part of the same kind of package, should not be contentious.
We have all had a long day, but I think everybody in this House from all sides has at some point fought to support some protection covered under EU legislation. Please let us protect and keep them all and not lose the work of the past and of decades of campaigns.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support this cross-party amendment in its entirety, but particularly to cover the issues I raised on Monday at Second Reading and, if I may, to have the right of reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who made reference to my speech from earlier in the debate in his closing remarks. He said:
“The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to animal welfare. At the moment, we cannot prohibit the movement of live animals because of EU law. But when we leave, let us hope that we can address that, because we have expressed an intention to do so.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 556.]
That is factually correct and I entirely applaud the Government’s intention of doing something about that important issue. However, with the deepest respect for the noble and learned Lord, that is completely irrelevant to the point I made. There is nothing in a non-regression clause which stops the Government raising standards. What it does do, as other noble Lords have rightly said, is ensure that standards are not lowered. That is the issue we are collectively concerned about as we face the worrying prospect of these free trade agreements, with all bar one of the countries proposed having lower welfare standards than ourselves.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville talked about chicken legs and breasts. I want to talk a little about eggs because, as it stands at the moment, the United States of America has no standards whatever on the welfare of hens used for laying eggs. Therefore, if we allow the American market access to ours, we will face eggs coming in to be used in food products with standards far lower than those produced by British farmers. Our farmers will rightly argue that their welfare and production standards are higher and cost more and that they are therefore at a competitive disadvantage. They will press the Government to reopen the battery cage directive, which has been with us for so long as part of our membership of the European Union and guarantees higher farm welfare standards.
If the Government were to lower those standards, I would like to ask the Minister whether my understanding of the following is correct. Given that we have gone through this process of nationalising all this EU legislation through statutory instruments, sitting through hours and hours in the Moses Room, is it correct that, if the Government were to lower our animal welfare standards for battery hens, for example, the Government would need only to introduce a statutory instrument and would not require primary legislation? That is my understanding. It is a real worry to those of us right across this Chamber who have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just said, fought so hard and for so long for high animal welfare standards that those could be lost by a simple statutory instrument.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who is not in his place, spoke movingly, in the debate on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the Government needing to set out their vision for Britain in the post-Brexit world. He articulated it very well. What is the Government’s vision for Britain? If they want Britain to be a world leader in animal welfare, they have to demonstrably deliver that through all their legislation, trade deals and marketing. Look at the example of New Zealand, which has said that it wants to be a world leader and is a world leader—it has done just that. This is in every piece of legislation and every trade deal and it is in their marketing strategy.
This is the first piece of legislation of the new Government which mentions animal welfare and yet, by not accepting a non-regression clause, they are basically saying that standards could be lowered as a result of trade deals in the future. Therefore, it begs the question: how will the Government guarantee that animals will not suffer lives compromised by lower animal welfare standards if the Government will not accept a non-regression clause in the withdrawal Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords for raising issues which come within Defra’s responsibility. I entirely respect the sincerity of all the points that have been made by noble Lords.
The UK has a long and proud history of high standards for environmental protection, including chemicals, food standards and animal welfare. It is of the utmost importance that these are maintained as we leave the EU. The Government have been clear that we will not weaken protections in these areas when we leave, but rather we will maintain and enhance our already high standards.
This Bill is focused on putting the withdrawal agreement into domestic law. This amendment is about what happens to our environmental policy and others after our exit from the EU. We do not believe that that is appropriate for this Bill.
These matters were debated extensively in the passage of the 2018 Act, when the Government were clear that the regression of the type the noble Baroness fears would not be within scope of the key Section 8 power of the 2018 Act. Those Section 8 powers can be used only for the purposes of correcting deficiencies that arise as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The 2018 Act does not provide a power to change laws simply because the Government did not like them before exit. The Government cannot use the powers for the purposes of simply rolling back standards and protections.
Where substantive policy change is required, appropriate legislation will be brought forward. I underline this when I say that, if a Government were to introduce legislation to reduce protections, Parliament would be able to have its say at that point. This would allow for more effective and tailored scrutiny. In any case, I want to assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have spoken—as I have done many times from this Dispatch Box—that this Government have absolutely no intention of introducing legislation that would have that regressive effect.
As I have said, the UK has this long and proud history of environmental protection. The UK was the first country in the world to introduce legally binding emission reduction targets. In 2019, the UK became the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The UK is also the top performer in the EU on resource efficiency and is demonstrating leadership on the circular economy and smart taxes to reduce landfill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right in talking about the world’s fragility, and I think we are absolutely seized of that imperative. That is why the Government will shortly introduce the environment Bill—I say this specifically to my noble friend Lord Randall but also to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—which is about strengthening environmental protections. That Bill will enshrine environmental principles in law and will also include measures to improve air and water quality, tackle plastic pollution and restore habitats. I should say, going off script, that we may have been subject to all sorts of EU directives and regulations, but we, the EU and the world have to do a great deal more. The point about that Bill is that it will create legally binding environmental improvement targets and establish a new independent office for environmental protection to hold the Government to account.
We are planning for the OEP to be operational from 1 January 2021. That may slightly answer the question the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, posed in an earlier debate. I want to emphasise that there will be no governance gap. This will collectively ensure that environmental ambition is at the heart of government once we leave. I am in absolutely no doubt that all of your Lordships who have spoken—and many more—will take much interest in that Bill, and I think that is tremendously important.
Regarding the UK’s effective regulatory system for management and control of chemicals, as mentioned in the amendment, this is partly based on the REACH regulation, which is widely seen as a gold standard worldwide. The environment Bill will have provision to amend REACH to make sure our chemicals management remains fully up to date. Any change must remain consistent with the fundamental aims and principles of REACH, including the precautionary principle. There will also be a series of protective provisions that cannot be changed, such as the last-resort principle on animal testing—I think that is a matter the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has expressed concern about before, so it is important to say that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am grateful for everything the Minister has said. I did ask—I do not know whether he specifically addressed this point—whether there will be a general non-regression clause in the environment Bill. He has talked about there being legally binding targets for improvements in some areas. I understand all of that—the Government will have improvements on air or water quality or whatever it might be—but the great advantage of a generalised principle of non-regression is that it applies to everything: not just the Government’s priorities today but the things that are not sexy today and that might be on the back burner. It encompasses everything, and I am not sure whether the Minister has given me that reassurance. Maybe it was buried away in his script, but it would be helpful if he could say it again.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The environment Bill has not been published yet, but it will not be long. I am not in a position to start talking about the detail of some of the clauses tonight, but that is why I spent some time on this. I say directly that I cannot start suggesting what the clauses of the Bill will be about, because I am not in a position to do so.
As I have tried to set out in this explanation, I obviously understand the points that have been made, but I am not sure I agree with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, may have said about some of these matters. Yes, of course we should endorse the work of the past, but I sometimes sense a determination that either this Government or the party I represent would find it impossible to be positive and strengthening about the subjects we are discussing. I would regret that, because the whole focus of what I have tried to explain in detail—it is why I was asked to deal with this amendment—is precisely to show that this department and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining and enhancing our already high standards, including through the legislation which will come forward very shortly.
As regards any Section 8 regulations made under the withdrawal Act, noble Lords already have the ability to scrutinise any changes which those regulations might make to retained EU law. This Bill is a vehicle to implement the withdrawal agreement, not, in our view, to legislate for environmental policy.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords for this important debate. I have gone on rather longer than I think I was requested to because I felt it important to set out some detail on the measures that the Government will bring forward, and to highlight what is a clear direction of travel. Our intention is to move forward. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will accept my firm commitment on behalf of the Government and the department, and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of our amendment. I should say at the outset that the Minister will know, as we have said before, that he is held in high regard by this Chamber. We obviously do not doubt his intentions and commitment on many of the things he talked about. A lot of our concerns arise not from the intentions of Defra, or even perhaps the intentions in a future environment Bill, but through the pressures which will come from elsewhere. We can only anticipate or guess those pressures at this stage—from future trade Bills and future deals that might be wanted done.
Our anxiety is not about the Minister’s good intentions; we can see what is in the Conservative manifesto and the good words that have been written about all this. Many of us have worked on a number of the animal welfare issues that the Minister talked about, so, again, we do not doubt his good intentions or his record on all that. But we are going into an uncertain future, and deals will have to be made outside our immediate remit. I suppose that is where our concern comes from.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for sticking his neck out on this issue, even if he back-tracked slightly. I had intended this to be slightly more than a probing amendment, and we have had a good debate as a result of it. We want to believe in the Government’s commitments in the way that he described.
Our particular concern about non-regression, which I know that the Minister felt he could not really respond to in the detail that we would have liked, was that it would give us that underlying safety net when everything else is moving around quickly, as it will be in the next year. I am still sorry that we were not able to go as far as we would have liked on that issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was absolutely right: these progresses in policy that we have made over the years are hard fought for and hard won, and we all hold them very dear.
I have gone as far as I can at this point in the evening in probing the Minister. We are looking forward to the environment Bill. If it is anything like the draft we have already seen, it will be a long tome and we will spend many happy hours debating it all. I hope that we will see in writing the legal commitments that the Minister implied we will get at that point, so I look forward to the publication of and debate on that Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Reporting of progress on achieving a data adequacy ruling
After section 15 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (publication and rules of evidence) insert— “15A Reporting of progress on achieving a data adequacy ruling(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before 31 June 2020 and every two months thereafter until IP completion day, make a statement setting out the status of Her Majesty’s Government’s discussions with the EU on a future data adequacy ruling.(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include—(a) a report of the discussions carried out to date or since the last report,(b) a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, a data adequacy agreement can be secured from the European Commission in order to take effect immediately after IP completion day, and(c) the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in the event of a data adequacy agreement not being secured to take effect immediately after IP completion day.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister to provide updates on the UK’s discussions with the EU regarding the granting of a data adequacy decision.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 32 is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support. I am also pleased to see the new Secretary of State in her place. Although I think she will not respond to this debate, I am sure she is learning from the process and we look forward to further interactions with her in due course, not least the opening Question Time, which I see is now on the timetable—it should be fun.
This is a probing amendment, by which I seek to draw attention to two things. One is the importance of the personal data sector; that may not need to be said, but it is worth reminding ourselves of its importance. The other is the implications for our economy if the Government are unable to persuade the EU to agree a data adequacy decision within the tight timetable that we have. But I also want to raise concerns about the future of this sector in light of the Government’s plans for further changes to the law, some or all of which might reduce the chances of us obtaining a positive data adequacy outcome.
The facts are that 43% of EU tech companies are currently based in the UK and 75% of the UK’s personal data transfers are with EU member states. It is therefore vital that a data adequacy agreement is reached within the timescale proposed under the withdrawal agreement. But quite apart from the timescale, achieving a positive adequacy decision for the UK is not as uncontentious as the Government seem to think. For a start, any adequacy agreement requires the European Commission to consider a wide array of issues, such as the rule of law, respect for fundamental rights, and legislation on national security, public security and the criminal law in that country. As was pointed out during the passage of the Bill, the surveillance practices of the UK intelligence services may indeed jeopardise a positive adequacy decision tout court. But there are particular difficulties and it is worth reflecting on these.
Further modifications of the GDPR, as it was legislated for, are possible in the UK after Brexit using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in areas such as rights, principles, definitions, powers of regulators, and fines. This means that the European Commission will have concerns on how secure the adequacy decision will be. Can the Minister say what guarantees will be under consideration in these areas? One problem with the UK’s version of the GDPR is that the Government resisted calls from this side of the House to include the recitals in the legislation. However, somewhat ironically, much of the ICO guidance on the GDPR is linked to the recitals and references are made to all of them. How will the Government square that anomaly whereby, after December 2020, those recitals will relate to the EU version of the GDPR but not specifically to the UK version? It has been argued that several of the exemptions in Schedules 2 to 4 to the DPA 2018 are not mirrored in other EU member states’ national data protection law, such as immigration and national security references, which might diminish the rights and freedoms of EU nationals in the UK. Can the Minister say how the Government will resolve this?
As was discussed at length during the passage of the Bill, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the amount of bulk personal data collected routinely in the UK are generally accepted as a problem. Do the Government have any thoughts on how to address these issues? The status of codes of practice produced by the Secretary of State under the Digital Economy Act 2017 and the framework for data processing by government raises the question of whether the ICO is an independent regulator. Does the Minister accept that this may cause problems for the data adequacy ruling?
There are important provisions within the withdrawal agreement in relation to data protection over the transition period and I accept those. They include the fact that the GDPR and related EU privacy laws will continue to apply in the UK during that transition period and that there will be no immediate change in UK law on exit day. The UK must continue to interpret and apply the GDPR and related EU laws consistent with wider EU legal principles. The UK courts will therefore continue to apply decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and changes in EU law through the transition period, though presumably there will not be that many. The CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction in the UK, and decisions on the GDPR may be referred to the CJEU during the transition period.
We have all that as a base, but what happens if either we find that the EU will not grant an adequacy agreement or that it is significantly delayed? The current thinking is that impacted organisations—there will be a lot of them—will need to adopt specific legal safeguards to support the lawful transfer of personal data to the UK and that they will use standard sets of contractual terms and conditions, which the sender and the receiver of the personal data must both sign up to. But SCCs cannot be used to safeguard all transfers, and redress would of course be a civil and not a criminal matter in the courts, with all that that implies. The question is whether the Government have in mind to legislate to provide certainty for this possibility. Can the Minister comment on that?
The Government have ambitious plans, which we broadly support, to respond to increasing concern about the use and misuse of personal data, particularly as these affect children, but also including online trolling, fake news and undue influence on political issues. The Government are also considering how and in what way data companies are covered by competition and other regulations that apply to media companies.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I support this amendment, of which I am a co-signatory. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, though I fear I might add a few questions for the Minister. As he said, free data flows across borders are an essential foundation of many key sectors of our economy, not just the tech industry as such but manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and financial services. It is vital that the free flow of data between the UK and the rest of the EU continues post Brexit with minimum disruption.
The European Union Select Committee, in its recent report on the revised withdrawal agreement and political declaration, pointed out that there was a lowering of ambition in the political declaration compared to what we have now as part of the EU’s digital single market. We have free flows, whereas the political declaration talks only about the “facilitation” of data flows. That is not the same as “freedom” of data flows. A host of organisations and the Information Commissioner have all persuasively argued that we need to ensure that our data protection legislation and practices are ruled as adequate. That is why it is so important that we get these regular reports and, as the amendment says, that we discover what the policy of HMG is if we do not have a data adequacy agreement after the end of transition.
We cannot take such a decision for granted merely because the GDPR more or less forms part of UK law. A major obstacle to an adequacy ruling is, of course, the bulk data provisions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, particularly in the light of the European Court of Justice decision in Tele2/Watson, the case brought by David Davis and Tom Watson over the legality of GCHQ’s retention and bulk interception of call records and online messages. That judgment ruled that UK mass surveillance laws breach the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Just today there has been an opinion from the Advocate-General, the court’s legal adviser, who tends to get followed in 80% of ECJ cases, on a case which involves Privacy International, and a reference from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The Advocate-General has reinforced EU privacy law against mass retention and access to customer data by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. I think this concerns provisions in Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. So we may get a second CJEU ruling, which will be problematic for any adequacy ruling given the very explicit requirements of Article 45(2)(a) of the GDPR, requiring the commission to consider
“respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”,
as well as
“national security … and the access of public authorities to personal data … and … international commitments”.
They will probably want to look at any potential transatlantic transfers agreed with President Trump.
It is already clear that many aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act fall short of satisfying the CJEU criteria. The purposes of retention are not limited to fighting serious crime, data retention is not targeted to what is strictly necessary, prior independent review or judicial authorisation is not required in all cases, and there is no provision for informing individuals.
What are the Government going to do in the area of the powers of intelligence agencies to satisfy the European Commission—and the European Parliament, where I had some experience of this, particularly in the era of the Edward Snowden revelations, when many in the Parliament were jumping up and down about GCHQ but there was nothing they could do about it while we were in the EU? Once outside, we actually get much stricter scrutiny about our interception practices than when we are inside; it is something of an irony, really. Then there is the problem about the exception for immigration data in the Data Protection Act 2018. The EU will no doubt closely monitor how the Home Office reviews settled status applications and whether data subjects can obtain full access to their personal data if there are disputes or problems about their status.
In addition, we discussed earlier today the accusation —it seems stronger than that—that the UK has illegally copied, and therefore misused, the Schengen Information System database by copying it into a national database and even sharing it with private companies. The commission report says that UK practices
“constitute serious and immediate risks to the integrity and security of SIS data as well as for the data subjects”.
That is another area where we are going to be under strict review. There is the trust issue, which we also discussed earlier today about the criminal records fiasco—I think one would have to use that word.
There are lots of questions and challenging reviews that the Government will have to answer in seeking data adequacy decisions. We need to know what steps they have taken so far to achieve this decision. Will they apply to continue to participate in the European Data Protection Board? What will they do if we get turned down for a data adequacy agreement? Anything else is second best. Have the Government thought through what their strategy will be if they do get refused? Will they change the legislation on handling personal data for national security purposes? Those are a lot of questions, but it is a very significant area of the negotiations with the EU 27. From past experience, I know that the European Commission will be very much on the ball— not least because of the eagle eye that the European Parliament will have on this area—so the Government have to be as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for this amendment, which seeks to add additional scrutiny to the data adequacy assessment process by introducing a bespoke statutory reporting requirement. It has certainly been very useful in drawing attention to the importance for both the UK and the EU of the UK pursuing and obtaining positive data adequacy decisions to enable the free flow of personal data after we exit the EU. It is also helpful that the noble Lord highlighted the success of our tech sector, which I thoroughly echo. I am sure that my noble friend the Secretary of State shares that view.
The free flow of personal data is an important feature underpinning the UK and the EU’s future relationship for economic and security purposes. The UK is currently a global leader in strong data protection standards, and protecting the privacy of individuals will continue to be a priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to a lack of ambition. I do not think there is any lack of ambition on the part of the Government in this area. The Data Protection Act 2018 strengthened UK standards in line with the EU GDPR and law enforcement directive, providing a unique starting point for these discussions. The UK is ready to begin the adequacy assessment process and we are pleased that the EU has committed, in the political declaration, to the Commission beginning its assessment of the UK as soon as possible after our withdrawal, endeavouring to adopt adequacy decisions by the end of December 2020.
Before I try to answer some of the questions posed, I hope it will be helpful to touch briefly on some of the preparation that has been going on in government for the last two years for this eventuality. The Government established a data adequacy negotiation hub which sits within the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It was set up early in 2018 and includes experienced experts in both data protection and negotiation. They are ready and waiting and keen to start negotiations with the Commission now.
This amendment would introduce a bespoke statutory reporting requirement, as we heard, covering the assessment period. However, as we heard very eloquently from my noble friend Lord Callanan earlier, there is a need for flexibility of reporting during what will be at times, I am sure, sensitive negotiations. While the Government are absolutely clear in our responsibilities to keep Parliament updated on that progress, and that obviously includes your Lordships’ House, we do not believe that such a rigid regime is appropriate. Obviously, both Houses have an array of tools at their disposal to scrutinise the Government, including through their Select Committees: I refer to the recent report of the Lords EU Committee, which scrutinised the revised withdrawal agreement and political declaration and concluded that the provisions on data protection were to be welcomed.
In this context, we believe there is no need for further bespoke reporting requirements for data adequacy, particularly as setting these out in legislation may have unintended consequences, as was discussed earlier this afternoon. I shall now try to address some specific points, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his offer that I might write to cover some of them.
In a sense, both noble Lords asked about the spirit which would underpin our approach to moving forward in these negotiations. Our aim is to try to find the right way to safeguard privacy while both promoting trade and innovation and protecting citizens from crime and terrorism. All those things are crucial to fully realising the opportunities from the data economy.
Baroness Ludford
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the fact is that the CJU has condemned our regime under the Investigatory Powers Act. The European Commission will have to take account of that, so to say that we and the EU have common high standards is not entirely borne out by the facts. The CJU has criticised, in a full judgment, the Investigatory Powers Act. How will we cope with that in the search for data adequacy?
Baroness Barran
As the noble Baroness understands very well, the adequacy discussions will be broader than strictly personal data and data protection, and will cover these issues. It will be our role to explain to and convince the EU of that, which we are confident we can do.
Similarly in relation to immigration data, which the noble Baroness raised, we believe that there are some misunderstandings about how this provision works. Rather than going into that detail tonight, I can write to her on this. However, we are confident that the provisions included in the Act are fully compatible with EU law, although clearly we recognise that they will be closely scrutinised.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office. We believe that the ICO is a strong, independent and effective regulator and that its relationship with DCMS upholds that independence. We really do not have concerns that this will be an issue in relation to adequacy.
The noble Baroness referred to the opinion received today from the Advocate-General of the EU; as she said, the opinion is non-binding and the impact will happen only when we have the court’s judgment, although I note her comments on the probability of that. Since the opinion was published only a few hours ago, my officials are currently digesting it, so noble Lords will understand that our ability to comment on these proceedings is limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about recitals in the future UK GDPR which still include the EU terminology. Recitals are non-binding in both EU GDPR and future UK GDPR. They are there only as an aid to interpretation and we do not believe that the references to the EU will be confusing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the Schengen Information System. I understand that the House will discuss the UK’s access to several EU law enforcement databases on the next amendment. If she will permit it, I think it would be easier to return to that question then.
Both noble Lords asked what will happen if an adequacy decision has not been granted at the end of the implementation period. Obviously both sides have committed clearly, and it is an absolute priority, to make this work, but in the event that an agreement is not reached, the Government have already done a huge amount around no deal, working proactively to communicate companies’ responsibilities in this area—particularly in relation to smaller companies, which we know might find this more challenging. The Information Commissioner’s Office produced a portal to support organisations preparing the standard contractual clauses referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I fear that time may not permit me to answer any more questions but I will endeavour to write and cover all the important points made. I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Lord that, once adequacy discussions are under way, both Houses will continue to use all the available scrutiny tools at their disposal to ensure that they are absolutely appropriately informed on the Government’s data adequacy progress and policy. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Before the Minister sits down, I hope that she can respond to one section of what I was asking about, on the interaction between existing responses to the data adequacy question and the new legislation that the department is working on. Does she feel that the new legislation as previously conceived—and, indeed, as set out in her party’s manifesto—is being progressed and that there is no adverse fallout from that?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this short but good debate. It was a robust response. I thank the Minister for the various points that she was able to cover and I look forward to her letter.
I did not raise it, but sitting a bit behind those on the Benches opposite is the question of why such a mess was made on the age-verification issues relating to children’s safety online. In a sense, that is why I asked about future policy in relation to where we were. This is a moving target. I do not want to be critical about this in any sense because it is right that we keep things moving and do not stick on where we were, in some sort of pre-Brexit mode. We must move forward. Life is changing, attitudes are changing and technology is moving forward at a huge pace.
We must be ready to anticipate that but it must not be at the expense of some hard-won decisions that were reached after a lot of debate. They were good decisions in relation to the Bill; both the Home Office and DCMS were heavily involved in them and I am sure that they are joined at the hip over this wonderfully named data adequacy hub. I wish it well in its future negotiations; I am sure that it is raring to go and that it will be very successful.
That leaves us with a bit of an information gap. Yes, the existing arrangements for getting information can be used, but they are never as efficient or effective as the Opposition want and are probably too frequent and difficult for the Government to respond to. How much better if we had a plan where we could say, “Every two months, you’re going to stand up and say something about it.” Perhaps we can make this work but I hope that this important issue is kept very much at the forefront of the department’s work, that there is an all-government response to this because it applies across the piece, and that we see something positive come from it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Implementation period negotiating objectives: security partnership
(1) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government within the framework of the future relationship of the United Kingdom and the EU to secure agreements that achieve equivalent outcomes to—(a) continued UK participation in the European Arrest Warrant;(b) continued UK membership of Europol and Eurojust; and(c) continued direct access for UK agencies to the following EU data-sharing mechanisms—(i) the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II);(ii) the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS); (iii) the Prüm Decisions;(iv) Passenger Name Record (PNR); and(v) the Europol Information System (EIS).(2) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to seek a comprehensive security partnership as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 33 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford.
At Second Reading, I alluded to the amendment as a means of mandating the Government to deliver on their promise that the UK would be as safe and secure outside the EU as it has been within the EU by specifying what the Government should seek in a comprehensive security partnership with the EU.
Various EU measures and mechanisms that are currently available to us as an EU member state are valuable to UK law enforcement. At a briefing given to the APPG on policing in 2017, the National Crime Agency lead on Brexit outlined what these were, what the alternatives might be and the impact on the UK’s safety and security were they no longer available. They were the Schengen Information System II, sharing information about terrorist suspects, those wanted under the European arrest warrant, stolen vehicles and similar information; the European arrest warrant, allowing rapid extradition without political involvement; Europol, pan-European strategy development to counter serious and organised crime; ECRIS, sharing information about criminal convictions handed down by any court in the EU; Prüm, rapid electronic comparison of DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registrations held on the databases of each EU state; cross-border surveillance, allowing surveillance of UK suspects in the EU and vice versa; and joint investigation teams under Eurojust, prosecuting pan-European crime.
He concluded that there were “workarounds”, but that these would be less efficient and effective than the existing EU mechanisms. For example, if Interpol were used instead of Prüm to try to match DNA found at a UK crime scene with DNA profiles of criminals held on EU member states’ databases, it would take months—and in some cases no response would be received at all—compared with seconds up to 24 hours using Prüm. He anticipated that extradition agreements would need to be negotiated separately with each of the remaining 27 EU states and that these would require political involvement, as opposed to the European arrest warrant where the decision is made by a judge. He concluded that the UK would be less safe and less secure if, rather than relying on existing EU mechanisms, it had to work on the basis of non-EU workarounds.
It was therefore reasonable to conclude that if these EU mechanisms were no longer available to the UK when we left the EU, alternative mechanisms would need to be put in place that delivered the same outcomes as efficiently and effectively as the existing EU mechanisms. Otherwise, the Government would have failed to deliver on their promise that the UK would be as safe and secure outside the EU as it had been inside. The amendment would require a Minister of the Crown to update Parliament on progress in achieving these outcomes within four months, and regularly thereafter.
Why do we consider this so important? First, as Andrew Marr put it on Sunday to the Security Minister, the right honourable Brandon Lewis MP, the European arrest warrant and Europol, for example, rely on the European Court of Justice to resolve disputes between participants, and it is a red line for the Government that the ECJ should play no part in UK affairs after Brexit. The Security Minister replied that Europol has United States of America involvement, and clearly the US is not a member of the EU. What he was actually referring to was an agreement between Europol and the United States to share information within strict limitations—an agreement that can be terminated by either side at three months’ notice—not active involvement as an equal partner in Europol, deciding on the nature and scope of Europol’s activities, and nothing to do with the ECJ. Neither the USA nor any other third-party country has a say in Europol’s operations.
The Security Minister did not comment on the European arrest warrant, which more clearly and obviously requires the ECJ to adjudicate between participating states where a warrant is issued but another state refuses to extradite. The Security Minister did not comment on the EAW, probably because he knows that we are very unlikely to continue to be part of the European arrest warrant after Brexit. For example, Germany changed its constitution to allow the extradition of its own nationals under the European arrest warrant, but limited extradition to other EU member states. As I mentioned at Second Reading, Iceland and Norway applied to participate in a limited variation of the European arrest warrant in 2001, but that has yet to take effect, and they are both within the European Economic Area and the Schengen area.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment but, on further reflection, I thought that I should, as someone who has worked in the Home Office and seen how important our easy access to these European systems is for the public’s safety. It is worth us reminding ourselves that a primary purpose of any Government, of whatever political persuasion, is to keep the citizens of its country safe. Clearly there will be challenges for our security services, the police and our criminal justice system if we come out of these systems and do not have comparable or equivalent access to them and their information.
The problem is even more serious than the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined in his extremely comprehensive and well-argued speech. The Government recognise that our criminal justice system faces a lot of challenges and has considerable inadequacies; they want an independent review of it. The Government’s acknowledgement of the system’s weaknesses in keeping our citizens safe makes it even more important that they should be busting a gut—if I may put it that way—to ensure that the UK keeps the kind of access to those systems that it has now, despite the criticisms currently made of how we have used them. It follows that any inability to have that access, or equivalent access, will weaken the Government’s capacity to keep their citizens safe. That will not be a good story to tell the electorate at any future election.
We must treat this area rather differently from how we treat some of the others in the Bill. It is up there as one of the top issues for the Government to tackle in the next six to nine months. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his colleagues deserve much credit for bringing this matter forward now, and I hope that if he is not satisfied he will push this matter to a Division next week. I entirely support Amendment 33.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving Amendment 33, which has provided an opportunity to discuss an aspect of the future relationship that rarely receives the attention it deserves. As my party’s Treasury spokesman in this House, I recognise that our future trading relationship with the EU is of vital importance. However, it is not the only future relationship up for negotiation; nor is it the relationship that will keep British citizens, and our streets, safe.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that this is a vital area, in which we must do well, and which we must all understand. The political declaration includes a commitment to agree a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”
However, we should remind ourselves that although it is referenced in the withdrawal agreement, that declaration is non-binding. As well as lacking legal force, it is short on detail—largely, we understand, at the Government’s request.
Although Mrs May was misguided to threaten the withdrawal of security co-operation if the EU refused to grant us favourable trading terms, her Administration did at least provide an indication of what a future security partnership might look like. We have not had the same indication of what a Johnson-led Government wish to negotiate—and it seems that the Bill, which strips out the original requirement for proper engagement with, and scrutiny by, Parliament, means that we are unlikely to find out any time soon. If we do not know, it is highly doubtful that our police forces or security and intelligence services can be any more confident that the Government will preserve UK participation in the EU agencies and data-sharing protocols that are so important in their day-to-day work.
In the Commons, my Labour colleague Nick Thomas-Symonds outlined the risks that we face from any loss of access to EU databases, such as the Schengen Information System, meaning that
“information that today can be retrieved almost instantaneously could take days or weeks to access.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/20; col. 509.]
Modern crime, whether cyber or terrorist attacks, requires quick decisive responses. As we have seen time and again in recent months, organised crime increasingly takes place across borders, taking advantage of any vulnerabilities that exist. Those vulnerabilities are best identified and addressed by working alongside our neighbours.
To lessen our degree of co-operation with our EU neighbours would be reckless. But, given the Government’s determination to conclude both our economic and our security relationships with the EU in just 11 months, it feels almost inevitable that there will be a diminution of the benefits that this country and its security agencies currently enjoy. I hope the Minister will be able to provide at least some of the detail so sorely lacking to date. I repeat my support for the principle underlying the amendment. If the Minister’s response is lacking, we may return to this issue at a later stage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I support them in drawing my and the Government’s attention to the various elements of co-operation that are so crucial in keeping our citizens safe.
It has never been in doubt that it is in everyone’s interest to maintain that strong relationship with the EU in this area. The political declaration provides the framework for the strong relationship, including co-operation on the specific capabilities that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has set out in his amendment. However, the precise details that noble Lords seek will be a matter for the next phase of negotiations that will be carried out, I hope with flexibility, in this and other areas. A statutory requirement to negotiate—a matter discussed quite vocally in this Chamber today—is neither necessary nor appropriate.
On the role of Parliament, I refer noble Lords to the strong commitment given by the Prime Minister that Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of the negotiations and will have the opportunity to scrutinise any legislation required to enact the future relationship. Therefore, a reporting requirement is not needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about Norway and Iceland and their extradition agreement with the EU. Apparently, it is now in force as of 1 November last year.
I am sorry that I cannot fill in any detail but no detail is yet forthcoming. However, I hope the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his support and his perspective, from his experience in the Home Office, on how important this issue is. He made an important point about the Government acknowledging the weakness already of the UK criminal justice system without losing these EU mechanisms. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
It is all very well for the Minister to keep putting matters off by saying, “This is going to be negotiated and I can’t say what the details of the negotiations will be.” Time is running out. That excuse will not be available in less than 12 months’ time and we are concerned that our law enforcement agencies will be handicapped as a consequence of losing some, if not all, of these EU mechanisms, as the National Crime Agency lead for Brexit told us in a briefing a few years ago.
I am grateful for the correction on the modified European arrest warrant arrangements with Norway and Iceland, which apparently came into effect on 1 November last year. That means that they took 18 years to come into effect. If that is the kind of timescale we are looking at to get a similar agreement between us, as a third-party country, and the EU, we are in serious trouble. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Mobility framework
It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to take all necessary steps to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the United Kingdom and the EU which includes a mobility framework that enables all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study, including the ability while resident in one state to work with ease across borders.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to seek reciprocal rights for UK and EU citizens to work, live and study.
Lord Fox
I thank my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support.
Earlier the Minister spoke about the teams of people working hard on drafting legislation, so if the Government felt moved to accept the spirit, if not the content, of this amendment then the drafting of the immigration Bill may be made simpler.
The amendment essentially reproduces an amendment to the Trade Bill which was passed in your Lordships’ House. As your Lordships will remember, it never went any further because it was never put in the next stage to the other place. With that in mind I shall keep my comments to a relative minimum. I beg noble Lords’ indulgence as I shall talk a little about some of the statistics that I related to that amendment last time. If we look at the statistics about economic migrants from the Migration Advisory Committee in autumn 2018, it found that migrants had little or no impact on the overall employment or unemployment of the UK-born workforce. Migration was not a detriment to the wages of UK-born workers. The MAC noted that migrants had a positive effect on productivity and innovation and that EEA migrants contributed more than they consumed in health services and social care.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I wish to say something about services since this amendment in significant respects covers their operation for UK workers living in this country and in Europe. I feel that we should be moving on from making the case to considering the details of the solution, yet services is an area that right through the Brexit debate has not been given the proper attention it has deserved, and continues not to be given it. Services are 80% of our economy, account for 40% of our exports, and most services go to Europe.
This is urgent. We are, for example, already losing large numbers of jobs in tourism in Europe, and Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI, referred in May of last year to:
“Creative and tech firms that should be the foundation of our future economy moving their headquarters to Europe.”
This is before the transition period has even started. As I said last year in the debate on a similar amendment to the Trade Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned, services are the canary in the coal mine. The problem is that the free movement of people is integral to the success of services, because so many individual citizens, including freelancers, not only drive these industries but are in many respects the product itself.
It is not just the financial industries—which the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who is not in his place, singled out in his reply to my Question last week on this area—but creative, IT, translators, tourism, and many more. I ask the Minister whether any impact analysis has been done on the effect of Mr Johnson’s Brexit deal on our trade in services with the EU. The sense from industry is that unless a mobility framework is put in place, the result is going to be devastating for those industries. As one IT worker put it this week, “A deal without a mobility framework for professionals delivering services in person will mean enforced redundancies and loss of income for thousands of people.”
Many of the sectors that will be affected have many of the same or similar concerns. What consultations have the Government had with relevant sectors to list and compare requirements? How much have they talked to the creative sector, to IT, and so on? There has been a lot of discussion about transparency and consultation today. In many ways it has been the theme, but those working in services currently feel that they have no idea what the Government intend to fight for on their behalf. EU companies do not know either.
A solution needs to be found that neither discourages European employers or clients—as indeed is unfortunately already happening—nor is impractical or costly for UK workers. More fundamentally, even at this stage, the Government need to look more closely at the effect of the loss of free movement on our hugely important services. For their continuing success, UK and, through reciprocity, EU workers urgently need an appropriate mobility framework.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I want to add a couple of words to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his amendment. As far as the NHS is concerned, if the Government do not allow more people to come in and work in a highly labour-intensive industry, then they will not be able to spend the money that they are promising to put into the NHS in a way that is useful to patients. But that is not my main point.
My main point is to emphasise the extent to which there is continual movement between the UK and European countries, as part of big research projects in medicine, science and technology. People can freely move around Europe for six weeks, a month, a week or a weekend, and many of these projects have EU money, which has come to this country to be used to set up and run projects, but not all the work is done here. The work may be done with partners in other parts of the EU, and there is a constant flow of people. If we put barriers in the way of that movement around Europe of expert people—and many are not highly paid professors but PhD students who have come to this country—working on joint research projects, not only for basic research but for translational research, we will get ourselves ostracised. We will not be a partner that people want to play with, because it is difficult for people from other countries to move around Europe as part of those projects. We will cut off our nose to spite our face. We need something like this amendment to ensure that mobility and a mobility framework get the attention that they need for the future.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is now not in her place—spoke earlier about our seeking reciprocity with regard to children. I assume that the same is true as regards reciprocity for UK citizens abroad and EU citizens here. Thus far, the Government have singularly failed to negotiate successfully to secure the same rights for UK citizens as they have now to work, live and move across the EU. It is true that they can continue to live and work where they are at the moment at the end of the implementation period, but UK citizens will then lose their current right to move elsewhere across the EU—something that is, as we have just heard, at variance with the right of other EU citizens. Therefore, they will be disadvantaged compared with their fellow workers who are EU citizens already here, be they researchers, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, artistes, mentioned by the noble Earl, translators, interpreters, freelancers or a number of other specialist staff who tend to move around because of the nature of their jobs. Under the agreement so far reached, they will only be able to live, stay and work in one of those 27 countries but will lose their freedom to move elsewhere.
Therefore, it is vital that we raise this matter higher up the Government’s negotiating aims. This is urgent as well as important. It is time that the Government did more to defend their own citizens’ interests rather more robustly than they have succeeded in doing thus far.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I just want to add briefly that the wording in the amendment reflects the wording in the White Paper of July 2018 on the future relationship. I do not know whether that White Paper has become “paper non grata” under the present Government but it talked about a framework for mobility providing reciprocal arrangements, which is broadly what the amendment refers to. That is what we want to hear about—a framework for mobility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, prompted me to think. To the extent that we have EU citizens with settled status, assuming that they do not feel that they have to seek British citizenship, they could be working on a research project based in the UK and, because they will retain their EU citizenship, they will be able to travel around 27 countries. However, the UK citizen may well not be able to do that, so will be second class compared to a work colleague who is an EU citizen and has a passport from one of the EU or EEA countries, unless a mobility framework with reciprocal arrangements and rights encompasses the ability of those UK citizens to work across the EU 27. Therefore, it is relevant to UK citizens living here but of course also highly relevant to UK citizens living in the EU 27. Many face difficulties in getting their residence finalised in an EU country but a lot are also very worried that they are losing their ability to work across borders. The fact is that nothing can be as good as EU free movement. The same applies to the security partnership —nothing is as good as EU membership. Therefore, we are trying to approximate as far as possible what we have at the moment, even though it falls short of that, but a key point is encapsulated in the final words of the amendment, which are:
“including the ability while resident in one state to work with ease across borders.”
My other point concerns pensions, pension uprating and healthcare arrangements, which are absolutely crucial to UK citizens in the EU 27. This is hugely important for the UK economy and for individuals—whether they are EU citizens or, perhaps even more, UK citizens resident here and resident in the EU 27 —who need to be able to move around where their work takes them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, used a few key words when he quoted from the respected committee. This is a regression. This is going backwards for the people of the United Kingdom. Far too often, this has been seen as an issue that concerns people from other parts of Europe coming here. We need to look at this the other way around, and far too little has been discussed about that. When this issue has been discussed, it has often been seen as an economic issue. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made some powerful arguments about that. But the fact is that this is much more than an economic issue. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, made arguments about the NHS. Of course, we know that if you meet an EU citizen in the NHS, they are far more likely not to be in a queue with you seeking treatment but to be treating you.
I will focus very briefly on young people. There is a principle that young people should not have fewer freedoms and opportunities than their parents. They should be able to live, work and love wherever they want to be. It is a quality issue, because rich, wealthier young people from more privileged backgrounds will always have those options; it will be people from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds who will lose those options. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about where we are going. What we are trying to do here—collectively, all of us—is to end up with the least worst Brexit, and the best possible mobility that we can have will ensure the least worst Brexit.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment and for raising the important subject of a mobility framework. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, my main interlocutors, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their contributions.
We are all aware that free movement of people between the EU and the UK will end as we leave the European Union. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate—even if they do not necessarily agree—that seeking to mandate the Government to negotiate further free movement provisions goes against our entire approach. As we have previously announced, the Government will be introducing a new points-based immigration system built around the skills and talents that people have, not necessarily based just on where they are from.
I appreciate the desire to secure rights to travel, work, study and live in the EU in the future. We recognise the importance of mobility for economic, social and cultural co-operation, and we committed to agreeing the best deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. The political declaration that we have agreed sets out the aspects of mobility that the UK and the EU have committed to discussing in the future-relationship negotiations. These include: providing for visa-free travel for short-term stays; mobility for research, study, training and youth exchanges, and securing mobility for business purposes.
The noble Lord’s inclusion of the right to work across borders is well intentioned, but in our view unnecessary. The agreements that we have reached on citizens’ rights with the EU, EEA/EFTA countries and Switzerland protect the rights of these so-called frontier workers. These are UK nationals who are living in the UK or a member state but are working in another member state, or EU citizens living in the EU and working in the UK. That will take effect at the end of the implementation period.
For example, this will protect an individual who lives in London but works in Paris or Brussels, and vice versa. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord on this point. However, as we have argued in other amendments, in this situation it is not helpful for Parliament to set a negotiating objective for the Government in statute. This would limit the Government’s flexibility in negotiations and, as I said, the detail of future mobility arrangements with the EU is set out in the political declaration and will be discussed in the next phase of the negotiations.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, raised the important subject of the onward-movement rights of UK nationals in the EU. We recognised at the outset that this was a vital subject for those UK nationals who are living in the EU. I have to tell both noble Baronesses that we tried very hard to get it included in the negotiations, but the EU refused to discuss it in the withdrawal agreement and said that it was an issue to be discussed in the future relationship negotiations—so that is what we will do. I assure noble Lords that we tried very hard to get it included in the negotiations, and it was not for the lack of trying on our side that we were not able to conclude an agreement on that. On that basis, the details of future mobility arrangements will be subject to negotiations in the next phase of the talks.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Fox, with my response to his amendment—although I suspect that I have not—and that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Fox
I thank the Minister for his response. Frankly, I had not expected a great melding of minds. It is clear that from these Benches, and seemingly from all the other Benches, that we think the Government are wrong on this. The Government of course have a majority and therefore have the right to pursue their wrong-headed policies, but there will be many of us who will continue to remind them of, and take opportunities to change, that wrongness. As time unfolds and the Government begin to attempt to implement a complex points-based system, as they call it, they will find that they have neither the personnel nor the systems to do so quickly, and pretty soon they will find that we are accessing and bringing in at least as many people as we are now, if not more. Personally, I welcome that, but it stands against many of the things that the Government have said in the past. That said, I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
“Implementation period negotiating objectives: level playing-field
(1) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government within the framework of the future relationship of the United Kingdom and the EU to secure agreements that achieve the following outcomes—(a) close alignment with the EU single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations, with clear arrangements for dispute resolution; (b) dynamic alignment on rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment so that UK standards at least keep pace with evolving standards across the EU as a minimum; and(c) participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including for the environment, education, science and industrial regulation.(2) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to seek close alignment with the EU single market on key level playing-field provisions such as workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards and protections as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.
Lord Fox
Oh dear, it’s that man again. Amendment 35 concerns the level playing field. We have heard a lot about standards and regulation over the last day and a half. This is not about going through all those standards and regulations and whether they are being regressed or otherwise. It is about the overall effect that the playing field, as we have called it—we will talk about that—will have on the negotiation stance. This is very much a probing amendment to try to find out how the Government will deal with what seem to me a number of conflicting circumstances in their positions.
We have heard a lot about regression but we are not going to talk about the individual issues here. Amendment 35 seeks to require the Government—those words again—to seek alignment of their regulations, institutions and objectives for the future FTA with the EU. My noble friend Lord Newby talked about whether we are talking about unfettered or frictionless access. A key element to access to the single market will be the level playing field, which is why this is a really important element. I am keen to hear the Government’s intellectual thoughts here. For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about workers’ rights, environmental regulations, state aid, food and product safety, data rules and the whole framework by which people do business and live their lives. It is not a small issue. Picking out just one of those—employment regulation—I note with surprise that the Prime Minister is quoted in the Financial Times as describing employment regulation as “back-breaking”. I come from an agricultural background and it was the absence of employment regulation that caused backs to break. The point I am trying to make is that regulation is often seen as harmful and terrible, but it has had a beneficial effect on many people’s lives. You have only to ask agricultural workers alive today to see how employment regulation has improved their lives. That is just one small example.
These rules matter to people, the environment, business and many other things. But they will also matter to the EU trade negotiation; in fact, they will make or break it. The non-binding political declaration on the future EU-UK relationship makes it clear that there is a direct link between Britain’s regulatory regime and market access; we know that to be true. That is picked up in the wonderful report from the European Union Select Committee, which I have already referred to. It talks about where there has been a substantial rewrite, which we have heard about in other cases. The report says that the declaration, in adding the issue of the
“geographic proximity and economic independence of the parties,”
adds more doubt about how this will go forward.
In the event that the EU eventually agrees to a UK-wide customs union, which it may, member states will require the UK to sign up to level playing field provisions. What is a level playing field? Most people who talk about them are usually trying to tip one in their direction at the same time; that is of course the subject of the negotiation, and I would not dream of seeking to tie the hands of the Government on that. By the definition of the negotiation, a level playing field is the price of any zero-tariff, quota-free and rules-of-origin-free access to that very important market for the United Kingdom. Anything less will create friction, or perhaps fetter access to that market. That is what our major industries fear. If noble Lords talk to major industries, as I am sure they are doing, they will hear that the issue of data, which we heard about two amendments ago, is frightening the fintech industry to death. Questions about rules of origin are frightening the food industry. Chemical and pharmaceutical companies fear, among other things, how the chemical regulations will pan out. Aerospace and automotive are famously concerned about how their industries will survive in this remit.
There are many other examples of when the Government and Ministers have said the right things—I praise them for that. The Government have worked with the words and talked about balance and regulatory alignment. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, talked about the pressures on the Government that will come. There are also examples of the Government painting a picture of a much more freewheeling approach. We have heard people worrying in other debates about regression of rules and regulations and there are those quotes from different Ministers in different places, particularly the Prime Minister, who sometimes chooses to set out a Britain on the edge of Europe, with lighter regulations. Before the election, DExEU signalled an openness to “significant divergence”. This all adds to people’s distrust of the Government’s intentions.
In Johnson’s case, his ambivalence seems determined by his proximity to the United States: the nearer he is to President Trump, the more free market he is in what he says. We should note that talk of the US trade deal really makes the level playing field issue with respect to the European Union very difficult. We talked on a previous amendment about some of the food security issues which the United States could create, so there is a big challenge here. These mixed messages from Government could be constructive ambivalence before we go into a negotiating period, or there could be splits or confusion. Perhaps the Minister can define quite why all these different messages are coming forward.
From the EU’s perspective, there is no such thing as a little bit of a level playing field. From its perspective, it is level or not level. I think a lot of the talk has been about having some levelness, but not all of it. I think that is to misunderstand the approach that the European Union will take when it comes to negotiations. Theresa May’s deal agreed a relatively generous level of provisions around taxation, labour and social standards and environmental protection. We are now in a different place, so I think we need some delineation from the Minister of which areas will be the focus for negotiations because I am sure that those Theresa May provisions will be, at the very least, a starting point from the European Union’s perspective.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has talked at great length about a level playing field. The level playing field he refers to is the EU level playing field. It is not any other level playing field, such as the House of Lords level playing field, which seems to suit the Liberal Democrats, who are overrepresented in your Lordships’ House by 67% on the basis of the proportion of votes cast at the last general election.
Viscount Trenchard
That is my pleasure. Proportional representation has its place but it may not be applicable everywhere.
I am very surprised that the noble Lord has sought to require the Government to adopt his amendment seeking a level playing field with the EU on workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards. Is he not aware that it was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party, to which all Conservative candidates signed up, that the Government would get a proper Brexit done and that we would leave the customs union and the single market? It is essential that we do that to have the flexibility we need to develop and maintain our own independent trade policy, and to negotiate free trade agreements with third countries.
The noble Lord’s amendment requires close alignment with the EU single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations. “Shared institutions” sounds to me as though we could still be regulated by EU regulators even after we had left. The EU will seek to export its regulatory framework and standards to us in return for providing market access. Dynamic alignment on workers’ and consumers’ rights would completely subjugate us to the EU, ruling us out as a potential trade partner for others and denying us the benefits and upside of Brexit. We know that the noble Lord does not want to leave the EU but surely he understands that, given that Brexit is going to happen anyway, we should make sure that we can play on a level playing field at the global level. That means freeing ourselves from EU strictures, such as the noble Lord’s amendment would make worse.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount’s flow but I cannot resist asking him, even at this time of night, whether the Prime Minister’s new best friends in constituencies in the north of England and the Midlands will welcome his robust approach to workers’ rights at the next election.
Viscount Trenchard
I believe that the policy which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister used to persuade his new supporters in the north of England and elsewhere to support is one that will produce more prosperity for the United Kingdom and a brighter future for all, and that those who voted for him in the north of England will see that it is in their interests to continue to vote for him and his successors, because his policy will have so clearly worked. Furthermore, since we will be free of the cash drain and the regulatory strictures of the EU, which have progressively stunted the United Kingdom’s voice in global fora—I speak as someone who has spent a large proportion of his working life outside the UK, looking in—the new supporters of the Conservative Party in the north will, I hope and trust, wish to continue to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked a lot about regression and standards. He is always trying to bind the Government not to resile or retreat from the high standards set by the EU. But standards are not about high and low; they are about what is proportionate, what properly balances the interests of the innovator with those of the consumer, and what sufficiently but properly protects the consumer against risk. EU regulation in many fields relies so much on the precautionary principle that it has a very negative effect on innovation. That places at risk the UK’s position as the best country in the world in which to conduct medical and scientific innovation, so for all those reasons I would resist the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Ludford
Before the noble Viscount sits down, can I point out that the reputation he just mentioned, as the greatest country in the world in which to develop medical and other research, has been acquired while we have been in the European Union?
Viscount Trenchard
The noble Baroness is quite right—it is in spite of our being in the European Union. This precautionary principle regulation increasingly affects international pharmaceutical companies, which have said to me that it is important that we should not allow much more of that or we will be a less friendly place for innovation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not know about this talk of workers’ rights, but I started at 11 this morning, it is now nearly 10 pm and we are starting again at 11 tomorrow morning—sadly not being paid to be here; I am not a worker, so I cannot use the EU regulations. But that is rather beside the point. I am looking forward to the Minister’s “intellectual thoughts” as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked of him.
The Government’s aim is for a free trade agreement—“unfettered” trade—which, if we are not to undercut our competitors across the EU, is bound to involve a level playing field of regulations and state aid rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. Michel Barnier has repeatedly stated that Boris Johnson’s ambition of a tariff-free, quota-free deal hinges on accepting this, and EU leaders suggest that level-playing-field commitments will be a precondition for the EU to conclude a free trade agreement. Emmanuel Macron has stated that
“the more ambitious the agreement, the more substantial the regulatory alignment”.
That does not mean all the same rules and institutions—we do not go along with that—but this is about the rules by which we can trade with the EU. Macron also said that a level playing field will make the negotiations “go pretty quickly”.
As we know, the Prime Minister keeps saying “Get Brexit done”, but this also means getting an FTA before the end of the year. If we do not uphold workers’, consumers’ and environmental rights, this will not help the Prime Minister to get his Brexit done. Appearing willing to undermine EU standards—and the Government are seen as undermining them—will immediately indicate to the EU that its companies may face unfair competition from ours. The Government’s deletion of the clauses upholding existing rights has already alarmed the EU and companies there, let alone our own workers and consumers.
Amendment 35 inserts the aims already set out in the political declaration—though of course they are not enforceable in that—where the Government agreed to
“maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards.”
We are asking for this, from the political declaration, to be included in the Bill.
We have had 45 years of progressive integration of our employment rights and other standards alongside the EU. These regulations are good in themselves for the workers and consumers concerned and for the environment, but they are crucial for an open, fair and competitive continental market on whose growth and resilience all our well-being depends. Furthermore, as has been suggested, any future trade deal must incorporate these high levels of alignment and a level playing field with the EU in order to prevent an alternative vision—the deregulatory US deal—taking primacy over the EU deal. It sounds as though that it is something the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, would like, but we on this side of the House would not. Let us keep to the high standards that we have.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for so ably moving his amendment on the issue of close and dynamic alignment on single market rules. I have a sense of déjà vu, because we have of course discussed this subject many times, both during the passage of the previous EU withdrawal Bill and in many debates and Questions in this House. I will probably not surprise him with my answer but I will nevertheless plough ahead with it anyway.
It will, I am sure, not come as a shock to the noble Lord to find that the Government cannot support his proposed new clause in Amendment 35, for the reasons that I will set out. I will say, before that, that we want an ambitious future economic partnership with the EU, one that allows us to be in control of our own laws and benefit from trade with other countries around the world. Adopting his amendment would prevent that. We do not believe that dynamic alignment with future EU rules is in the best interests of this country. It is here in this Parliament, not in Brussels, where decisions should be taken over the laws that govern our country. That is the very essence of taking back control. This view is supported by many of the leading experts in the field, including the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently said in the Financial Times:
“It is not desirable at all to align our approaches, to tie our hands and to outsource regulation and effectively supervision of the world’s leading complex financial system to another jurisdiction.”
Lord Fox
I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords for their contributions. Whenever I have a feeling of self-doubt, I have only to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to cure it and I feel a lot better afterwards.
The Minister talks brilliantly on the Government’s regulatory approach, saying that we do not need to follow EU rules to achieve this. That would be true had the Government not done the deal they did on Northern Ireland. That is the point I am making about the internal tension within the regulatory scene in that negotiation. That is his problem and we will be following it very closely. I will read the Minister’s response in Hansard and inwardly digest it, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“UK participation in the European medicines regulatory network
(1) It is the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the United Kingdom to participate fully after IP completion day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, the EEA and the European Medicines Agency.(2) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the objective in subsection (1) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to seek to maintain participation in the European medicines regulatory network as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 36 as my noble friend Lady Jolly cannot be in her place tonight, given that the arrangements for today changed at very short notice. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Davies of Stamford, for supporting the amendment.
As a member of the European medicines regulatory network, the UK enjoys a wide range of benefits, including access to a vast network of expertise and the ability to draw on specialists from across member states. It is particularly important in the recruitment of participants for clinical trials, especially for rare diseases. As a lone state we would not have a large enough patient population to carry out meaningful research and produce meaningful evidence. Within the EMRN, the shared reporting of side-effects means that NHS clinicians have instant access to important data regarding the safety of medicines they prescribe to their patients. These benefits cannot be recreated outside this network and if we are to continue to benefit from them, the Government must negotiate continued participation following the UK’s departure from the European Union.
The European Medicines Agency has already relocated to Amsterdam. If we leave the EMRN we will be leaving a body that constitutes 25% of the global pharmaceutical market to be a stand-alone country that makes up only 3% of that market. Pharmaceutical companies will have to submit separate applications to the MHRA to gain UK marketing rights. Evidence shows that countries such as Switzerland, Canada and Australia all receive applications for drug licensing after the EMA, with an average delay of six months. The sad fact is that the UK will not be seen as a priority, and patients will inevitably see delays in accessing new medicines.
There is no way for the Government to replicate the expertise of the EMA and the power of the single market. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister commit to the UK negotiating the MHRA’s full participation in the EMA marketing authorisation on a similar basis to EEA countries’ regulators. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will commit to making this a priority in negotiations? The United Kingdom’s departure from the EMA will damage patients in the UK, who will be collateral damage of our leaving the EU. This is not something that the UK public ever voted for.
Given the discussion on Amendment 34 on more general reciprocal rights, I ask the Minister a further question, of which I have given her advance notice, on the lack of mention of reciprocal health arrangements after leaving the EU. The European Union Committee report, Brexit: the Revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Agreement, which came out on Friday, notes the lack of any mention of reciprocal health arrangements and says, in the section on mobility on pages 56-57, that clarity is needed on how this will work. Specifically, paragraph 252 says:
“There is no reference in this section of the Declaration to reciprocal healthcare”.
Paragraph 257 says, in bold type:
“We are concerned at the omission of any reference to reciprocal healthcare, including the European Health Insurance Card, as a means of facilitating mobility. We call on the Government to set out, as a matter of urgency, its plans for maintaining reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the context of the future relationship.”
In paragraphs 173 and 174 there is also specific reference to reciprocal healthcare in Northern Ireland and the Republic. I will not repeat it now, but it makes the point that that is vital.
Can the Minister explain why there is no mention of reciprocal healthcare in the Bill and confirm explicitly to the House that the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, which many of us worked on, provides for such reciprocal arrangements? Perhaps most importantly, can she confirm that the Government will stand by that Act and not amend or repeal it? I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have given my name, which has been moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do so as a former Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals Minister who has stayed in touch with this sector since my time as a Minister.
The UK life sciences ecosystem has thrived, with an EU pharmaceuticals regulator based in this country and a strong medicines research base working closely with other European researchers. Over the years a strong pan-European research collaboration has grown up, which has benefited UK jobs and NHS patients. Every month, 45 million packs of medicines move from the UK to the EU and 37 million packs come the other way. The pharmaceuticals sector invests more in R&D than any other—20% of all UK business R&D. This is an industry with an annual turnover of £60 billion and exports of £30 billion. It employs 63,000 people, of whom 24,000 are working in high-paid jobs in R&D.
I say this because all of this is now at risk of lasting damage, particularly if there is not enough time to agree a well thought out deal during the transition period. There is now the prospect of a very clunky regulatory system, with companies having to deal with two regulators—the EMEA and the MHRA—if they want market authorisations in both the EU and the UK. The Government are saying that they want the UK market authorisations to be obtained first, but the EU is the bigger market and some companies think that they may end up with shorter IP protection in the larger market if they do what the Government ask. A dual regulatory system is likely to mean higher costs, driving up NHS prices and damaging patient access to new drugs. It will mean fewer joint research projects benefiting from EU funds, and UK-based companies are less likely to find the UK Government replacing the lost R&D funds from the EU. Over time, we may well see fewer clinical trials being done in the UK.
That is why this amendment is important. It offers the possibility of repairing some of the damage done by Brexit to UK life sciences and UK-based pharmaceuticals and biotech companies. We need to do our utmost to restore some basis for extensive collaboration and research work between us and the EU in the life sciences, and we need to do the best we can to make the regulatory processes as smooth as possible if we want people to continue to do pharmaceuticals research in this country. The Government have been slow to appreciate the damage they have been doing over the last three years to this British success story. Passing this amendment would start to repair some of the damage.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, my two colleagues have made a powerful case for the European Medicines Agency. They are perfectly right. The consequences of getting rid of it—of leaving the EU structure—are very serious. There are two parties involved in any introduction of a new ethical compound to the market. One is a pharmaceutical major—and by “major” I mean household names that the House will be familiar with: Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Glaxo, Boehringer, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche—I have left out two or three and a couple of Japanese ones, but you can count them on the fingers of three hands or so. The second is a regulatory agency that provides registration, which is of course the key to licensing, prescribing and selling freely a drug in the jurisdiction concerned.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, let me say how much I welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
When I had the temerity to raise this issue and all the others raised by the noble Baroness on Monday at Second Reading, I sought information and assurance on a range of healthcare matters. I think we can say that I got the bum’s rush from the Minister when he answered my questions. In fact, he did not answer them at all. I hope we might fare better this evening.
The medical research sector has been clear that continued close co-operation should be a priority in the negotiations. Indeed, the Government have recognised the international nature of the life sciences sector. They are committed to aligning as closely as possible with the European Union clinical trial regulation when it comes into effect, safeguarding vital UK-EU clinical trials. Indeed, the political declaration also refers to continued co-operation with the European Medicines Agency, which would help ensure that patients in the UK have swift access to the newest medicine. However, the political declaration has no legal standing, so the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right to repeat in the Committee the concerns expressed by the European Union Committee. As it stands at the moment, we cannot see that the European Medicines Agency will continue to benefit patients in the UK.
For some treatments, those of rare diseases, a single authorisation at EU level is vital in providing for cost-effective licensing and distribution of medicines for small populations. If the UK is outside the EU market and companies are required to pay again for separate MHRA licensing, as well as an appraisal by NICE and equivalent bodies in the devolved nations, there must be real concern that some treatments for rare diseases may become not financially viable to launch in the UK, therefore risking patient access entirely.
I know that the Minister absolutely understands all this, so it is very important that she reassures the Committee that these issues will not just be taken into account but will be part of the negotiations and will be successful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I thank all noble Lords for their, as always, thoughtful and expert contributions. During the Government’s preparations for EU exit, this House has discussed on a number of occasions the great value of the UK’s life sciences industry and the importance of ensuring that it remains—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly said—one of the most productive health and life sciences sectors in the world. As noble Lords will know, this sector alone contributes over £74 billion a year to the UK economy and employs close to 250,000 people. I contest the argument that it has recently been damaged. A report just today shows our leading position in cell and gene therapies, in which ongoing UK trials represent 12% of global trials and have increased by over 45% in the last year alone. That is in the context of Brexit.
The Committee is right that this is a crucial sector to the delivery of healthcare treatments to patients across the UK and will continue to be so in future. We must get this right. I assure noble Lords that the quality and safety of patient care is paramount in the department’s and our partners’ EU exit plans. This has been visible in our extensive efforts and preparations to ensure that the supply of medicines and medical products into the UK remains uninterrupted following the UK’s departure from the EU. This led to the department’s multilayered approach to put in place in the case of a no-deal exit from the EU. It was a substantial approach, which included work to procure additional freight capacity and to ensure buffer stocks and stockpiling; working closely with industry to improve trader readiness; and collectively helping to ensure visibility in the supply chain and, therefore, much more robustly ensuring continuity of supply processes.
While no-deal planning has been stood down, there is no question but that this work will stand us in good stead going forward, given the strategic importance of the supply of medicines and medical products in all scenarios—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out. In fact, we are finding that the learning from this work is already helping us to better manage routine shortages, which are becoming increasingly common globally.
During our preparations for EU exit, we have at all times worked closely with our delivery partners. We are committed to doing so in future. Their support, expertise and hard work have been invaluable and will remain so as we enter the next stage of negotiations.
Turning to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I hope noble Lords will understand that we cannot accept this proposed new clause. The amendment was originally proposed in the other place and was not accepted there. I do not want to impute motive, but following debate, the sponsor in the other place chose not to move his version of the amendment to a vote there.
I wish to reassure the Committee on some of the questions raised, because it remains our objective to work closely with our EU friends, as we do at present, to ensure that patients continue to have access to safe and effective medicines and reap the rewards of our new relationship with the EU. Our overarching aim for medicines and medical devices regulations at the end of the implementation period is underpinned by the following commitments, which I have given before: patients should not be disadvantaged, which speaks to questions raised around rare diseases in particular; innovators should be able to get products to the UK market as quickly as possible; and the UK should continue to play a leading role in promoting the health of the public. We are in a better position than some of the countries—
Lord Davies of Stamford
All this is fine PR speak. All these principles sound splendid, but what are the Government actually going to do? The answer cannot be simply, “We will stay close to the European Medicines Agency.” Does that mean that we will leave that agency, not leave it or have some new, structured relationship with it?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
As always, the noble Lord gets to the point. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said, the exact relationship with agencies will be subject to negotiation. I have set out the core principles which will be part of our negotiation, and I would also point out the key assets which we bring to the table. The MHRA has real expertise in many areas —licensing of medicines, pharmacovigilance, clinical trials regulation—and already provides benefits to patients across the UK and the EU.
Regarding the points on clinical trials, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as part of EU exit negotiations, we are working to ensure that we will continue to have the best possible environment to support clinical trials. Our overall aim is to ensure not only that patients in the UK have access to the best and most innovative medicines but that we improve UK trials applications—so that they continue to be authorised by the MHRA and ethics committees, as they are now—and that the UK’s ability to participate in multinational trials will not change. We will also have a simpler way of allowing a single application to a single national decision in the UK, which we have been working on very hard.
The Government have set out the key principles of the UK’s negotiations with the EU in their manifesto, and as part of the political declaration. However, as has been said this evening in response to similar amendments, a statutory negotiating objective in primary legislation, as proposed in this amendment, is neither necessary nor the constitutional norm. We cannot accept a statutory reporting requirement either, but the Government will support this House in fulfilling its crucial role of scrutinising the actions of the UK Government during negotiations. The Prime Minister committed at Second Reading in the other place that Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of these negotiations. We will have many challenging and robust debates in this place as well, where your Lordships will hold us fully to account on the progress of those negotiations with the EU.
It is important to note that our approach to negotiations with the EU in this area is set out in the political declaration and the Government’s mandate, but this is only one part of our overall support for the life sciences sector. This commitment is also clearly demonstrated through the medicines and medical devices Bill, which was published in the Queen’s Speech and which we will have a lot of debate about in this place. The Bill is to ensure that the UK remains competitive and at the cutting edge of innovation, to the benefit of patients. I look forward to discussing those provisions with the House later this year. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on the Government’s intentions, and on how we intend to take this forward, and on that basis I urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton
Before the Minister sits down, may I tell her that I passed my question about reciprocal healthcare through to the Whips Office? I also asked in my speech whether the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act would remain in place unamended, which would reassure the EU Committee on its concerns at the fact that there is no mention of reciprocal health rights anywhere in the withdrawal agreement.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I apologise to the noble Baroness; I passed over that note in my response to the debate. Where the UK, a member state, an EEA or EFTA state or Switzerland is responsible for the healthcare of those in scope of the social security co-ordination part of the agreement, such individuals will be entitled to reciprocal healthcare cover from their competent country. This includes EHIC cover for people with full social security co-ordination rights under the agreements, and cover for people who have previously worked in the UK, another member state, an EEA or EFTA state or Switzerland before the end of the implementation period. Obviously, the specifics in future will be subject to the negotiations that will be forthcoming. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, and she will feel that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, and to other colleagues for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Davies, for their expertise, and especially for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The Minister is always courteous, and always gives us her best brief, but I am not reassured at all on the issue of the EMRN, partly because. although there was plenty of talk about trying to maintain the excellence in life sciences, there was no response to the question of how, with only 3% of the pharma market, we would be able to play the same role as we currently do in the EU, with 25%. There was also a complete failure to respond to the major concerns that everybody expressed about patients not being able to access drugs because we suddenly become a very minor player. On that basis, I will withdraw my amendment this evening, but I will consider whether to lay something for Report.
On the other matter, concerning reciprocal healthcare, again, I am not quite as positive as I think the Minister would like me to be. I remain concerned that the phrase “no-deal planning” was mentioned in the context of both parts of my speech. We on this side are concerned about the impact on UK citizens abroad, and on EU citizens here, of the loss of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. That is really worrying. But I am pleased to hear that there is some reliance, at least in the transition period, on the healthcare arrangements Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Oaths and Affirmations
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text