House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Next year, the United Kingdom will proudly host COP26—a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to tackling climate change and our desire to secure global action. Development and diplomacy together will be integral to our work. We recognise that there are few global threats more serious than climate change, and its impact will hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest. It is vital that we build back better from covid-19. We are prioritising activity that delivers clean, resilient, inclusive recovery, and the Government are committed to that task.
Liz Twist
One of the greatest achievements of our overseas development aid programme has been working towards improving the position of women, but biodiversity loss has laid extra burdens on women, who, for example, have to walk further for fresh food or water. What steps will the Minister take to mitigate biodiversity loss in developing countries and reduce the burden on women?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important and accurate point. The fact that my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith is a Minister across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office shows the integrated approach that this Government take. Our work on development, our diplomatic work and our work to protect biodiversity and the environment all work together to ensure that women and other people who are vulnerable are not hit harder by changes to our climate.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister may talk the talk, but the hypocrisy is staggering. His Government continue to funnel billions into fossil fuel projects, including £1 billion in Mozambique. Their own impact assessment is damning, saying that it would lead to permanent loss of natural resources, food scarcity and displacement, undoing the very resilience that DFID aid is there to help build. Does he agree that this flies in the face of climate justice and undermines the very people it is his job to protect?
James Cleverly
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we build back better, protect the environment and protect the most vulnerable people in the world. Last year, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would provide £1.44 billion over the next four years to the green climate fund, doubling our commitment to the largest international fund dedicated to supporting developing countries to adopt low-carbon, climate-resilient technologies. That makes the UK the largest single contributor in the world to that fund.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is committed to ensuring a safe return to school for children all around the world. We are taking decisive action through our education programmes and will throw our diplomatic and development weight behind global efforts, including the UNICEF-led campaign to support children’s return to school. On Monday, we announced £5.3 million of new funding to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to enable over 5,000 teachers to provide education in 10 refugee hosting countries.
Sir David Evennett [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response and commend the work that she is doing in the Department. How will the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office assist the Global Partnership for Education replenishment next year?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK is proud to be the largest bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, with a commitment of up to £225 million over a three-year period. As a major education multilateral, it has a key role in tackling the global learning crisis. That is more crucial than ever given the covid pandemic, which is having a profound effect on education systems across the world. The GPE is flexing about £400 million to support education stability, and the UK is keen to play an active part in the 2021 replenishment. We are presently exploring the possibility of how we could co-host that replenishment
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
IMC Worldwide was commissioned by DFID to build 31,000 classrooms in Pakistan for a fee of £107 million. It renegotiated to only build a fifth but kept 58% of the initial fee. The majority of the classrooms built were substandard and presented a risk to children. By October last year, only a quarter had been retrofitted. Will the Secretary of State put the two DFID reviews into what went wrong in the public domain? Why is the same classroom design being used in other countries? Were any children hurt, and when can they go back to school?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The safety of children will always be our No. 1 priority, and I agree that it is completely unacceptable that children were being taught in tents because buildings funded by UK aid were not being built to the necessary standards. As soon as DFID knew that there was a problem, we took urgent action to ensure that all schools knew that the buildings should not be used, while we worked with the contractor to agree a plan for retrofitting the affected buildings. Covid has caused some delays to that progress, and schools are closed until 15 September, but I understand that the first of the buildings will be handed over shortly, in a state that is considered acceptable. Global education continues to be an absolutely key priority for the Government and, whether in Pakistan or elsewhere, we are working hard to get children back to school.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The UK Government are committed to protecting the Rohingya. I thank Bangladesh for its kindness towards vulnerable Rohingya refugees. I recently visited—virtually—Rakhine in Myanmar, where the UK has provided more than £44 million to all communities since 2017, including more than £25 million for the Rohingya. In Bangladesh, we have provided £256 million for the Rohingya response since 2017, including support for food, health and women and girls.
Paul Bristow
In Peterborough, the excellent charity Unite 4 Humanity has been raising money for the Rohingya Crisis Appeal and working with those on the ground in Bangladesh since the start of the crisis. Many others, such as the UK Emergency Medical Team, are there too. Will the Government continue to work with charities and others to help to protect the Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities?
Nigel Adams
UK aid development work delivered through charities and other organisations will remain a priority, given Bangladesh’s vulnerability to climate and man-made disasters. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the excellent work of Peterborough-based Unite 4 Humanity, which I thank for its work, alongside other charities that have stepped up to respond to the Rohingya crisis. Members may have seen on TV adverts this morning that the UK’s Disasters Emergency Committee has launched a coronavirus appeal for vulnerable communities—including the Rohingya—in seven countries. I am pleased to confirm that the UK Government will match funds raised by the UK public, up to £5 million.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
The transition to sustainable agriculture is critical to achieving food-security, nutrition and climate objectives. We have ensured that the UK is taking a leadership role through its hosting of COP26 and our support for several bilateral and multilateral initiatives promoting sustainable agriculture. That support includes £176 million invested in the global agriculture and food security programme, which directly addresses climate change through the use of mitigation and adaptation technologies such as resilient seed varieties, more efficient irrigation and increased intercropping.
Theresa Villiers
Protecting the rainforest in Brazil is crucial for our climate and biodiversity goals, so will the Minister ensure that UK aid supports sustainable agriculture in Brazil so that we prevent deforestation and ensure stable and prosperous communities?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As she will appreciate and understand, rain forests are the world’s lungs. Through the Partnerships for Forests programme, the UK supports sustainable agriculture in Brazil, including through support to address deforestation caused by cattle ranching in the Amazon region, as well as through measures to eliminate from the supply chain cattle produced on illegally deforested land. The UK also supports sustainable agriculture in the soya-producing region of Cerrado.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, the work of the UK to reduce poverty remains central to the objectives of this Government. The way we use ODA will continue to be guided by our responsibilities under the International Development Act 2002, including our commitment to poverty reduction. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will enhance our ability to be a force for good and partner to countries in need that seek support to help them climb the ladder of the sustainable development goals towards being strong, peaceful, economic states.
Ian Byrne
This Government cannot be trusted to tackle poverty here in the UK, and nor can they be trusted to tackle poverty overseas. In the middle of a global pandemic that is pushing millions into poverty, this Government have shut down the Department for International Development and dissolved a dedicated parliamentary Committee so that they can avoid scrutiny of aid spending. Will the Secretary of State please inform the House of how aid will be scrutinised from now on?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
This Government remain absolutely committed to the 0.7% commitment, which is enshrined in law, and that will continue in the framework of the new Department. On scrutiny, clearly it is a question for Parliament how that scrutiny takes place and what the new framework of Committee assessment might be. However, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are absolutely clear that scrutiny should continue to be an absolute focus. It is incredibly important, and all of us as parliamentarians know just how important it is that we watch over, and can provide insight and broader reflection from all those we talk to, to make sure that Government do their best possible. The Government are continuing to support that, and the Foreign Secretary will set out where he hopes to do that in due course.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is with great disappointment that this is the last DFID orals, and I want to pay tribute to all those officials in the Department for their work. I want to assure all those who recognise the importance of development and of supporting the world’s poorest that we in the Opposition will not follow the misguided path of the Government.
In recent weeks, we have heard the Secretary of State and hundreds of non-governmental organisations contradict the Prime Minister’s claims that there was
“massive consultation over a long period”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678.]
of time ahead of his announcement that he would scrap the Department. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, whether she misled the Select Committee last week and when an apology will be forthcoming?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I concur absolutely with the hon. Member that all those who serve—now and in years past—have brought a commitment to helping the UK do as much as it can to support poverty reduction. That commitment will continue and those who are making that their life’s work will continue to be part of the FCDO.
The Prime Minister was clear, as I have been, that any announcement is always brought to Parliament first. The ongoing consultation is now working continuously, and Baroness Sugg is leading that. However, consultation with NGOs was going on before that in relation to all sorts of other issues. That relationship with our NGOs and civil society organisations is something we take very seriously, and we will continue to do so.
Preet Kaur Gill
The decision to axe the Department was done on a whim by the Prime Minister to try to distract from his handling of the pandemic. That is why there are still no details of what the new Department will look like, how it will operate or how it will be scrutinised to guarantee value for money for UK taxpayers who are rightly proud of the work DFID has done in tackling poverty around the world. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that funds will be focused on the world’s poorest and that any cuts to the aid budget come from funds that currently go to middle and upper-income countries or have been found to have limited development impact, such as those outlined in the ONE campaign’s real aid index?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
DFID it is world renowned for its focus and programme expertise, and that will continue to be the case. Poverty reduction will continue to be a critical focus on how we spend the 0.7% that the Government continue to be committed to. We enshrined it in law and it will stay: the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to that. Interestingly, I think there is a real challenge with the sustainable development goals—there are 17 of them—and the ability to help a country become self-sufficient and climb up that ladder will absolutely continue. We will continue to commit to the 0.7% target, based on GNI.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The UK must never be afraid to stand up for what it believes in. We have seen this with our support for the people of Hong Kong and the introduction of our own Magnitsky-style sanctions regime. That is why our health and economic responses to covid-19 have also included further support for governance, transparency and freedom of speech. Our development work must support countries to stand strong, and that means supporting democracy.
Richard Graham
The Minister is absolutely right to highlight the challenges for democracies from the pandemic and the opportunities for autocracies. In a year when the UK will be in the chair of the G7, the Commonwealth and COP26, does my hon. Friend agree with me that this is an opportunity for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I have the honour of chairing, to do more work for the combined Department to promote and strengthen democracies around the world?
Nigel Adams
It is a great pleasure to answer what will be my last DFID oral question from my hon. Friend. DFID and the FCO are strong supporters of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s work. I thank him for his commitment to democracy via his work as chair of the WFD. In 2019-20, FCO funding of £3.3 million and DFID funding of £3.9 million has been allocated. There will be constraints on ODA over the next few months as we respond to covid-19. Via the integrated review, we will examine all options for enhancing UK democracy support. The merger and the establishment of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office presents an exciting opportunity to strengthen the UK’s support for democracy, governance and open societies.
Mr Speaker
Answers are far too long, folks—we are going to have to move on.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The UK has pledged up to £769 million of UK aid to support the global health response and vulnerable countries. As the host of the record-breaking GAVI summit and the world’s top donor to CEPI, the UK is leading the way in finding a vaccine that helps the most vulnerable countries. We have also made sure that new funding goes directly to the immediate response in these countries, and reflects programmes already in place to help people straight away.
Ian Lavery [V]
As of last week, the Government had given less than half of the money that is committed to support the world’s poorest in the face of this devastating global pandemic. It really is not good enough. Have the Government simply outsourced the responsibility to the various multilaterals? Does the Minister have any idea whatsoever of where UK taxpayers’ money has actually gone?
Wendy Morton
As I explained, the UK is playing a leading role in the international response to the pandemic, with pledges of up to £769 million of UK aid to help to address the urgent needs in vulnerable countries through research and development, through money to the International Monetary Fund’s Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust and in supporting the global health response. We are working with the UN to ensure that our contributions are channelled to NGOs and other recipients as quickly as possible.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Both the merger and the integrated review are evidence of this Government’s commitment to a unified British foreign and development policy that will maximise our impact around the world, project our values and be a stronger force for good—they go hand in hand.
Daisy Cooper
The Bond network says that it has not been consulted on this merger and the integrated review has been restarted behind closed doors. Will the Government commit to meeting Bond and other civil society organisations so that those on the frontline can inform the new Department’s aid priorities?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Baroness Sugg leads in the Department in meeting the CSOs, and there are regular meetings ongoing. The integrated review is working over the summer to pull together the key issues, and development is an absolutely critical strand within that.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Last week I asked the Secretary of State what partner organisations and non-governmental organisations were consulted prior to the announcement of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She said that the statement on the merger was first made to Parliament and that there has been ongoing consultation since then. This stands in stark contradiction to what the Prime Minister said previously when he told this House that there had been
“massive consultation over a long period.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678.]
Therefore, was the Prime Minister aware he had taken a decision without any evidence to support it, or did he mislead Parliament to create an illusion of legitimacy for this ideologically driven, disastrous merger?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As set out in previous answers, the Prime Minister made the announcement of the new departmental framework to Parliament first, and there are ongoing discussions led by Baroness Sugg and the permanent secretary with the CSOs and the NGOs.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
This Government are committed to standing up for the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education, building on a strong basis of global leadership, including DFID’s education support for at least 5.8 million girls between 2015 and 2019. The new FCDO will deploy our world-class development expertise alongside the UK’s diplomatic skills, respected around the world, to get every girl into school.
As this is the last oral questions for the Department for International Development, I would like to place on record my thanks, and I know that of the whole House, to all those who serve now and who have served in the Department over the past 23 years. I know that their talent, passion and commitment to help to deliver world-class development programming, policy thinking and humanitarian support to the most vulnerable will be at the heart of the new FCDO and will be critical to its future.
Mr Ellwood
May I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and her team for what she has done in this important Department? I hope that the spirit of what DFID does will continue. She is aware that in Afghanistan and Iraq it is so easy to win the war but lose the peace. Will she agree to meet me, before she loses her job title, to see whether the military can be given funds to create a stabilisation force that can operate in those difficult environments where it is too dangerous for NGOs to function?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I would be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that. The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund exists to do just that and we need to think about how we maximise the use of all our UK efforts to help the most vulnerable, so I look forward to debating with him.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the hon. Lady is aware, we put £150 million into the IMF emergency fund, and the Treasury continues to lead in the Paris Club discussions and with the G20 to ensure that the right solutions are found for the long-term sustainability that those most vulnerable countries will need.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Ensuring taxpayers’ money is well spent is central to DFID’s work and it is embedded in all our activity and will be at the heart of the new FCDO. Programmes are regularly appraised and monitored to ensure that they are value for money, performing effectively and delivering on manifesto commitments.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I draw the House’s attention to my former role as chair of the Trade Out of Poverty all-party parliamentary group. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the importance of fair trade as well as free trade. Now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union and we are able to define our own trade policy, we will ensure that fairness is at the heart of all the trade that we do around the world.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
James Cleverly
The United Kingdom is disappointed about the reduction in aid corridors in Syria. We are pleased that the cross-border humanitarian access will continue through Bab al-Hawa, but we are appalled that Russia exercised its veto and restricted aid through Bab al-Salam. The UK remains committed to supporting Syrians, who are the victims of the egregious politicisation of humanitarian aid, and we recently announced £300 million to the Syrian pledging conference.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
James Cleverly
The UK Government welcome Saudi Arabia’s unilateral ceasefire in Yemen, and we are disappointed that the Houthis have not engaged with that ceasefire. The United Kingdom’s arms control regime is one of the most robust in the world, and we will ensure that we continue to support the people of Yemen and NGOs working in Yemen, as we have done with our recent funding announcements.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
James Cleverly
The first call that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made when she entered post was to the Education Minister in the Palestinian Authority to register our disquiet over the points that my hon. Friend has raised. We will continue to ensure that Palestinian children are educated with our support through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—half of them are girls—but we will also ensure that that education does not encourage violence or prejudice against Jewish peoples.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
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.
Mark Menzies [V]
Last week saw the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Britain. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, BAE Systems alone employs more than 10,000 people across Lancashire, supporting the great work of our RAF, and it is taking on more than 250 apprentices in that part of the business this year. Will the Prime Minister come to visit Warton, meet these apprentices and commit to doing all he can to secure these key jobs through support for defence exports and the Team Tempest programme?
The Prime Minister
I have no doubt that I will be coming to Warton in due course. Let me tell my hon. Friend that 1,800 highly skilled engineers and programmers are already involved in the project, going up to 2,500 next year, and that 800 of those are in his constituency. I look forward to his constituency being at the epicentre of the development of the next UK-led combat air programme.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Over the past few months, we have supported many of the economic measures announced by the Government, but the decision last week not to provide sector-specific support to those most at risk could end up costing thousands of jobs. One of the sectors, aviation, has already seen huge redundancies: BA has announced 12,000 redundancies; Virgin 3,000; and easyJet 1,900. If the Government’s priority really is to protect jobs, why did the Chancellor not bring forward sector-specific deals that could have done precisely that?
The Prime Minister
No one should underestimate the scale of the challenge that this country faces. That is why the Chancellor has brought forward a range of measures, which, by the way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported last week. They include the job retention bonus and the kick-starter programme for young people. We are also doing a huge amount to support the aviation sector. One of the companies that he mentions, Virgin, has now come out of the Birch process after extremely difficult, but in the end productive conversations. That is the work of this Government: getting on, helping companies through it and helping our people through it. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to work out whether he will support or oppose the Government’s programme to get people back into work. Last week, the shadow Chancellor said here in this House of Commons that she supported our programme. This week, he says that he opposes it. Which is it?
Keir Starmer
This is just such rhetorical nonsense. It is perfectly proper and right for the Opposition to set out the parts of the package that we support the Government on and to highlight where there are problems. The problem with the Prime Minister’s dismissal of this is that, since the Chancellor set this out last week, around 10,000 people have lost their jobs. The Prime Minister should focus on them, not the rhetoric. The Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday projected 3.5 million unemployed next year.
I want to press the Prime Minister further on the situation at BA, which is a huge employer and the national flag carrier. Alongside the 12,000 redundancies already announced, BA is trying to force through the rehiring of the remaining 30,000 workers on worse terms and conditions. That is totally unacceptable and it is a warning shot to millions of other working people. The Prime Minister sent an email to BA staff in which he said: “I have already made it clear that firms should not be using furlough to cynically keep people on their books and then remove them or change their terms and conditions.” That was on 2 June. It is now six weeks on. Will the Prime Minister now personally intervene and make it clear that actions such as those at BA cannot be allowed to stand without consequences for landing slots?
The Prime Minister
We have been absolutely clear that we want our great companies across the country to support their workers and keep them in employment where they possibly can. I have made that point clear on the Floor of the House just in the past couple of weeks. Let us be absolutely clear: British Airways and many other companies are in severe difficulties at the moment, and we cannot, I am afraid, simply with a magic wand ensure that every single job that was being done before the crisis is retained after the crisis. What we can do—and what we are doing—is encourage companies to keep their workers on with the job retention scheme and the job retention bonus, as well as a massive £600 billion investment programme in this country to build, build, build and create jobs, jobs, jobs. That is what we are doing.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister knows exactly what I am talking about: it is the rehiring of 30,000 people at BA on worse terms and conditions, and he should call it out.
Yesterday, the Government’s expert advisory group published a report on the challenges this autumn and winter. It was asked to do so by the Government Office for Science. The report assessed the reasonable worst-case scenario for this autumn and winter, including a second covid spike and seasonal flu, and it set out strong recommended actions to mitigate the risks. The report was clear: July and August must be a period of intense preparation—i.e., now. Could the Prime Minister make it clear that he intends to implement the recommended actions in the report in full and at speed?
The Prime Minister
Not only are we getting on with implementing the preparations for a potential new spike but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Government are engaged in record investments in the NHS of £34 billion. The House may not realise that, just in the last year that the Government have been in office, there are now 12,000 more nurses in the NHS and 6,000 more doctors. It was thanks to their hard work, and the hard work of the entire NHS, that we were able to prevent our health service from being overwhelmed this spring. We will take steps to ensure that it is not overwhelmed this winter either.
Keir Starmer
That is the whole point of this report, which sets out the reasonable worst-case scenario and tells the Government what they need to do about it, so I am surprised that the Prime Minister is not committing to fully implementing it. It is vital that the Government learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made and act now to save lives for the future. One of the key recommendations in the report, commissioned by the Government Office for Science, is that testing and tracing capacity should be significantly expanded to cope with increased demands over the winter. The reality is that trace and track is not working as promised, as it stands today, and the report makes it clear that it needs to be significantly expanded to cope with the risks of autumn and winter. What assurance can the Prime Minister give that the system will be fit for both purposes in the timeframe envisaged in the report—i.e., by this September?
The Prime Minister
Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman attacks the test and trace operation, which is working at absolutely unprecedented scale: 144,000 people across the country have now agreed to self-isolate to stop the spread of the virus. He keeps saying that the test and trace operation is failing to contact enough people and failing to get enough people to self-isolate. Actually, it is doing fantastic work: 70% or 80% of contacts are found, and it is getting through to the vast majority of people who have the disease. I can certainly give the House the assurance that our test and trace system is as good as, or better than, any other system anywhere in the world—and yes, it will play a vital part in ensuring that we do not have a second spike this winter. Instead of knocking the confidence of the country in the test and trace system, now is the time for him to return to his previous script and build it up—that is what he needs to do.
Keir Starmer
The problem with the Prime Minister quoting the 70% of people who are contacted and asked to self-isolate is that that has gone down. It was 90% just a few weeks ago and every week it has gone down, so I would not quote the latest figure, looking at the trend. But I have to ask, in the light of the last few questions: has the Prime Minister actually read this report that sets out the reasonable worst-case scenario and tells the Government what they need to do about it in the next six weeks? Has he read it?
The Prime Minister
I am of course aware of the report and we are of course taking every reasonable step to prepare this country for a second spike. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is up to him, really, to get behind what the Government are doing or not. He has previously supported our plan. He has previously come to this House and said that he supports our measures. He now says, I think, that he does not support them. I think what he needs to do is build up the confidence of the people of this country cautiously to get back to work and cautiously to restart our economy, which is what we are trying to do, instead of endlessly knocking the confidence of the people of this country: knocking their confidence in test and trace, knocking their confidence in the safety of our schools and knocking our confidence in our transport network. Now is the time for him to decide whether he backs the Government or not.
Keir Starmer
It is perfectly possible to support track and trace and to point out the problems. Standing up every week saying, “It’s a stunning success” is kidding no one. That is not giving people confidence in the system. They would like a Prime Minister who stands up and says, “There are problems and this is what I am going to do about them,” not this rhetoric about “stunning success” when it is obviously not true.
This afternoon, Prime Minister, I am meeting the families of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group, a group of hundreds of families who have lost loved ones. They say this:
“We won’t let the deaths of our loved ones be in vain. And we won’t allow the Government to risk a second wave of deaths without learning from their mistakes.”
They will be listening to the Prime Minister’s answers today, so what would the Prime Minister like to say to them?
The Prime Minister
I join with, I think, every Member of the House in mourning the loss of everybody who has died in this epidemic. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and through him the victims and their families, that we will do absolutely everything in our power to prevent a second spike in this epidemic. That is why we are taking the steps that we are. That is why we have set up, as I say, an unprecedented test and trace operation. That is why we are investing massively in our NHS and our frontline staff, as I say, in the last year, recruiting 12,000 more nurses, as part of a programme to recruit 50,000 more, and preparing our NHS for winter. We will do absolutely everything we can to protect our country and to stop a second spike.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to decide is whether he wants to back that programme or not. One day he says it is safe to go back to school. The next day he is taking the line of the unions. One day they are supporting our economic programme. The next day they are saying our stamp duty cut is an unacceptable bung. One day they are saying they accept the result of the Brexit referendum. The next day, today, they are going to tell their troops to do the exact opposite. He needs to make up his mind which brief he is going to take today. At the moment, it looks like he has got more briefs than Calvin Klein. We are getting on with delivering on our agenda for the country, getting this country through this pandemic and taking it forward.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the Prime Minister that we are going to work through the Chair? The audience is not that way, it is this way.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will not only protect high food standards in this country and safeguard animal welfare, but open up new opportunities for farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the UK.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Tomorrow, this Tory Government will publish legislation for their biggest power grab since the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish Parliament in 1997. Westminster’s plan to impose an unelected, unaccountable body to rule on decisions made by the Scottish Parliament will not be accepted. The decisions of the Scottish Parliament must and will be decided by the Scottish people. We also reject any attempts to impose lower standards from one part of the United Kingdom on Scotland. Knowing that this Tory Government are prepared to sell out the food and agriculture industry to his pal, Donald Trump, will the Prime Minister confirm that his Tory Government are once again ignoring the wishes of the Scottish people and launching their hostile agenda against devolution?
The Prime Minister
On the contrary, what we are doing is possibly the biggest single act of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in modern memory. The right hon. Gentleman should be celebrating the 70 or more powers that are going to be transferred to the elected people in Scotland. What he wants, by contrast, is trade barriers between England and Scotland, and nobody being able to use sterling in Stirling. He talks about unelected and unaccountable people, but what he wants to do is hand the powers that we would give back to Scotland from this Parliament to Brussels, which is neither elected nor accountable.
Ian Blackford
Of course, the document that we will see tomorrow is going to talk about the benefits of the single market. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not understand the economic value of the European single market and customs union. This Prime Minister often states the need to respect referendum results. He should respect the decision taken by the Scottish people in 1997. We know that this Government are undertaking a full-scale assault on devolution: a Brexit settlement that Scotland rejected is being imposed on Scotland; an immigration system that Scotland rejected is being imposed on Scotland; and a decade of Tory Government that Scotland rejected has been imposed on Scotland. It is no wonder that the First Minister’s approval rating is three times that of the Prime Minister. Effective leadership and respecting the will of the people, contrasted with the bumbling shambles coming from Westminster. Scotland has the right to have our decisions made by those we elect, not by bureaucrats appointed by Westminster. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that his plans will not be imposed on Scotland, and that Scotland will have the chance to choose for ourselves?
The Prime Minister
First, I must repeat my point. It is extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to attack unelected bureaucrats for any role they may have in Scotland when his proposal is to hand back the powers that this place is going to transfer to Scotland back to Brussels, where they are neither elected nor accountable to the people of Scotland. So I really do not know what he means. As for his point about respecting referendum results, the House will recall that there was a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence and breaking up the Union in 2014. They said at the time that it was going to be a once-in-a-generation event. I think they should keep their promises to the people of this country and to the people of Scotland.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Our thoughts are very much with Eva and her family, and we will of course look at everything we can do to support her and her travel arrangements.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Under this Prime Minister, we have suffered one of the worst death rates in the world and Europe’s worst death rate for health and care workers. Previously, he has refused my demand for an immediate independent inquiry, saying that it is too soon, even though, back in 2003, he voted for an independent inquiry into the Iraq war just months after that conflict had started. If he still rejects an immediate inquiry, will he instead commit in principle to a future public inquiry: yes or no?
The Prime Minister
As I have told the House several times, I do not believe that now, in the middle of combating the pandemic as we are, is the right moment to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry, but of course we will seek to learn the lessons of the pandemic in the future, and certainly we will have an independent inquiry into what happened.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue, which is, of course, incredibly important, and has been particularly so during lockdown. Overall, we have massively increased our funding for mental health care to £12.5 billion, but we are also, as he knows, now publishing our national strategy for disabled people, which will cover all types of disability, including physical and mental health.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I can tell the House that we have already taken steps to support local authorities—through another £3.2 billion to support them, a £600 million contribution to fight infection—and we are incredibly proud of what our social care workers do. What this Government have done, in sharp contrast to the previous Government, is not only introduce a national living wage, but increase it by the biggest ever amount.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will indeed think about what we can do. As he knows, these are matters for the honours committees, which are independent of Government, and I urge him strongly to make his representations to them.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I know that we have done a number of growth deals in Scotland recently and that we intend to do more. The best I think I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will write to him with an answer about the Tay cities deal.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have good news for my hon. Friend, because the Department for Transport has received a bid for funding Thanet Park railway station. It is going to be assessed in the third round of the new stations fund, and I hope he will hear good news in the near future.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
In addition to the £160 billion of support that the Government have given to people and firms across the country, we have supported areas and cities in lockdown with considerable grants. There was £20 million to Leicester, business rates relief of £44 million and £68 million in spending on business grants. The best thing possible is for areas all to work hard, as Blackburn with Darwen have done, for instance, to get the virus down and to make sure they are able to open up again.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I will examine the idea of a scrappage scheme for old and highly polluting aircraft, but I can tell my hon. Friend that long before then, we are putting £3.9 billion into the Aerospace Technology Institute. As I am sure he knows, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has set up, with the Department for Transport, a joint taskforce to create “Jet Zero”, a zero-emissions passenger plane in which this country will lead the world.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. In Bradford alone, we have allocated £30 million to help deal with the pressures of the virus. As I said to the House just now, I think we have now put in £4.2 billion in support for local councils across the country. I pay tribute to the work of local councils and their services for helping us to get through this pandemic, and we will continue to support them.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Out and about talking to the good people of South Ribble, I find that they are worried about the economic effects of covid, although they do also say, “Thank God that other lot didn’t get in, because I can’t imagine how much trouble we’d be in right now.” Can the Prime Minister confirm that while there might be tough days ahead, this Conservative Government are throwing the kitchen sink at fixing it?
The Prime Minister
It is not only the kitchen sink, but every part of the kitchen. We are going to build, build, build our way forward. We are going to be supporting the building of 300,000 new homes a year. We are going to do everything we can to ensure that we get jobs, jobs, jobs throughout this country. Whether by installing kitchen sinks or any other part of the house, we will take this country forward.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course we are committing to sharing as much data as we have with councils so that they can get on at a local level, as they have been, dealing with the pandemic. Actually, some of them have been doing an absolutely outstanding job—Kirklees, in particular. We will continue to support councils up and down the land as they engage in local action to make sure that the whole country can start to get back to work.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be back, Mr Speaker.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, which is based in my constituency of South Derbyshire, is the leading producer of low emission hybrid cars in the UK. Its aim, like the Government’s, is to achieve zero emissions from its vehicles. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of recognising and promoting the role that hybrids can play as we move from the vehicles that we have today to zero emission transport going forward?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. Hybrids and plug-in cars can certainly make a huge difference and are an important part of our transition to zero emission vehicles, in which this country—certainly in battery technology—leads the world.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I know that everybody will sympathise very much with Daniel Caplan and his family. I will do what I can to ensure that the hon. Lady is able to make representations to the Department of Health about ensuring that childhood brain stem cancers are properly understood and properly tackled by this country.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Some people are anxious to return to work and some people find that they are actually as happy and productive at home working as they would be at the office. But does the Prime Minister agree with me that the worst reason for staying at home is to follow blanket Government advice that takes no account of safety? Will he commit to revising that Government advice urgently?
The Prime Minister
As I am sure my hon. Friend will see from studying the Government advice, we say very clearly that it is important that business should be carried on and that employers should decide, in consultation with their workers, whether it is safe for those workers to come into work or whether they should continue working from home. I happen to think that employers in this country have made huge strides in getting work places safe, and that is the message that we should all be conveying.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that I speak for many Members in this House when I say that I have had direct representations as a constituency MP from women who have suffered from exactly the conditions identified by Baroness Cumberlege and her committee. I also assure the hon. Lady that the Government take that issue with extreme seriousness. I have absolutely no hesitation in acceding to her request for a meeting, either with myself or the Department of Health, to make sure that she feels that we are addressing the issues in the way she would want.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Government want green energy. The Government want security of energy supply. The Government want to boost economic development in the regions. The Government want to encourage apprenticeships and youth employment. The Government want to increase innovation investment and to have a dynamic supply chain. That is all on offer in Cumbria. Will the Prime Minister support, with Government financial backing, the building of nuclear power generation facilities in Cumbria?
The Prime Minister
We believe that nuclear power is a significant potential contributor to our net zero ambitions, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that Cumbria continues its long, historic tradition as a pioneer of new nuclear technology.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that everybody’s sympathies will be with the family of the victim in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as they are with the families of all victims of knife crime. I think that there are two things we have to do. First, I entirely agree with her that we need a cross-departmental medical approach focused on the needs of the families with the kids who particularly get involved in knife crime, and we need to put our arms around them and stop them being diverted into the gangs that are so often the root cause of the problem.
But we also need a tough policing solution. I have been concerned for the last few years that in London in particular, which the hon. Lady represents, we have not seen the approach that we saw under the previous Mayor, for instance, when there was a significant reduction in knife crime and a significant reduction in murder by dint of having proportionate policing that included the use of stop-and-search to stop young kids carrying knives. We need to have zero tolerance of kids going out on the street armed with a bladed weapon. That is absolutely vital. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says, “Shocking.” In my experience, the people who are most supportive of taking the knives off kids on the streets of our city are the mothers of those kids who are most at risk of being killed. They support stop-and-search, and I hope the hon. Lady does, too.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Tree-lined Streets
Wednesday 15th July 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Tree-lined Streets Bill 2019-21 View all Tree-lined Streets Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require building developers to ensure that the streets of major new developments are lined with trees; and for connected purposes.
In my short time in this place, I have spoken repeatedly about my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his new deal. However, in introducing my ten-minute rule Bill, I must first turn to the architect of the original new deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who remarked:
“Forests are the ‘lungs’ of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.”
Put simply, trees are good for us, and the presence of trees and other greenery in urban environments has a discernible effect on the physical and mental wellbeing of those who live there. The presence of trees has a particularly important role to play in that philosophy, as they are inextricably linked to cleaner air, increased physical exercise and enhanced health and wellbeing. Trees also play a central role in nature’s recovery and in addressing climate change.
This Bill is important, as it would ensure that new developments fully recognise those benefits, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Woodland Trust for its tireless work in highlighting the importance of trees in our national and environmental life.
Street trees seem particularly important in supporting this work. Indeed, a recent study into neighbourhood green space and health in large urban areas was able to map the location of 530,000 trees and compared them with the health records of 30,000 residents, concluding that people who live in areas with a higher street tree density report better health perception and fewer cardiometabolic conditions compared with their peers living in areas with lower density.
The planting of trees is also crucial in our fight against climate change, as trees store carbon and can help to make our towns and cities more resilient. The Bill could therefore make a small contribution to the Government’s aim of eradicating the UK’s net carbon contribution by 2050.
In my seat, we widely welcomed the Government’s £10 million urban tree challenge fund, which was introduced in May 2019 and which will see 130,000 trees planted across towns and cities in England by 2021, and the Bill could also support that ambition. Additionally, it would contribute to the Government’s ambitious target of planting 30,000 hectares of trees across the entire United Kingdom by 2025.
In recent years, we have certainly seen a reluctance among developers and local authorities to promote trees in streets. Frequently, issues such as expense, hassle and liability are levelled as excuses not to rise to this environmental and public health challenge. Therefore, a Bill placing a requirement on major new developments to ensure that streets are lined with trees would ensure that important environmental health and aesthetic considerations are at the heart of new developments across our country.
The people of Heywood and Middleton, like every great citizen of the four nations of our United Kingdom, love nature and frequently demonstrate a desire to protect it—whether the precious green belt around Bamford, Crimble Mill or Slattocks, or smaller green spaces in the towns of Heywood and Middleton—and their enduring objection to any new developments.
Over 100 years ago, the aims of the Planning Act 1909 were to secure
“the home healthy, the house beautiful, the town pleasant, the city dignified, and the suburb salubrious.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1908; Vol. 188, c. 949.]
That seems more relevant now than ever. In our desire to build beautiful we must strive to create an atmosphere that promotes community health and cohesion, and I believe that this Bill will go some way to supporting those values.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Clarkson, Michael Fabricant, Philip Dunne, David Linden, Mrs Maria Miller, Jim Shannon, Paul Holmes, Darren Jones, Sara Britcliffe and Christian Wakeford do present the Bill.
Chris Clarkson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 October, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Opposition Day
Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the European Union’s openness to extend the transition period for negotiations; calls on the Government to immediately accept this offer and notes the Scottish Government’s publication of 3rd June entitled, “COVID-19: The Case for Extending the Brexit Transition Period”, warning of the damage a no deal would cause to the economy in addition to the cost of the covid-19 health crisis.
The Prime Minister, like all of us here, could not have foreseen the covid-19 pandemic when his Government initiated the process of leaving the European Union. 2020 has become a year like no other, and this Government must adapt and do what is right by their citizens. Our priority must be dealing with this health emergency and the consequent economic challenge; it is definitively not business as normal. That is why my Government in Edinburgh, under the stewardship of Nicola Sturgeon, has prioritised dealing with the crisis above all else. We are demanding that the UK Government do the same—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it has started already. This is a serious subject, and what we get is laughing and guffawing from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). He really should show some respect and grow up.
The SNP is calling on the Government immediately to extend the Brexit transition period while we navigate the unprecedented health and economic crisis we currently face. The European Union has expressed its ongoing openness to extending the transition period for negotiations, and the UK Government now need to accept that offer. The Government will claim that this opportunity ended at the end of June, but we are dealing with realpolitik here. We know that while we are still in the transition period this House can legislate for an extension and the European Union would recognise the mutual benefit. It simply requires political will and leadership.
The Scottish Government have set out their position in “COVID-19: The Case for Extending the Brexit Transition Period”, which sets out why it is vital, if we are to ensure the most rapid recovery possible from the covid-19 crisis, that the UK must immediately seek an extension to the Brexit transition period for two years. We are in unprecedented times: a health pandemic, an economic crisis, and the real threat of a second wave of covid-19 later this year. Now is the moment for the UK Government to recognise reality and to reconsider their position.
The United Kingdom is facing an unprecedented economic crisis. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have published various scenarios in which GDP falls by as much as 13% to 14% this year, which would be the largest decline in economic output in 300 years. By comparison, the most recent largest single-year fall in GDP was 4.2% on the back of the financial crisis in 2009. This overshadows anything that any of us we will ever face.
At least 1 million jobs have already gone, and many more will go when the Government end the furlough scheme, which is needed as a bridge to secure employment until recovery takes hold. Indeed, we know from the Office for Budget Responsibility that close to 2 million of those on the furlough scheme could face unemployment. Just dwell on that: the threat of unemployment in the UK could perhaps increase to as many as 4 million people. Just dwell on the human misery—the families struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills; a sharp rise in poverty, and the human cost of that for families and their children. That is why a stimulus package is required to build confidence and get folk back to work.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is outlining the stark realities that we currently face across the whole United Kingdom, and indeed the world. Because of that, is he grateful that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and that the broad shoulders of this Union are supporting Scotland, with more than £10 billion going from the UK Government to Scotland just during the covid pandemic?
Ian Blackford
I must say that I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, as I would expect more of him than that. I say to Conservative Members that we must ensure that we have the tools at our disposal in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I spoke about the importance of the furlough scheme, and we welcomed that. We will welcome Government measures that help to deal effectively with the challenge we face. There is a harsh reality, however, for our industries in Scotland, such as the tourism industry, which is important in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, as well as many others.
Effectively, we are facing three winters, and there is a truncated summer season. Our tourist industry barely exists over the winter months, and the last thing we need is to find that the UK Government are kicking the legs away from our industry by ending the furlough scheme early. The challenge for every Conservative Member of Parliament from Scotland is to ensure that if the UK Government do not provide the necessary support for our businesses and our people, those powers have to reside in the Scottish Parliament. Will Scottish Tory MPs stand with us and ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers it needs to do its job and protect the people of Scotland? I think we know the answer.
The Chancellor said that the UK is suffering because of covid-19, in common with many other economies around the world. However, the UK economy is likely to suffer worse damage from this crisis than any other country in the developed world. According to the OECD, a slump in the UK’s national income of 11.5% during 2020 will outstrip falls in France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the US. With the continued risk of a second wave hitting the economy and our communities in winter, the idea of the UK leaving the European Union at the same time is economic madness.
The outlook is bleak—there is no other way to look at it—and things are about to get much worse, unless the Government end their refusal to extend the Brexit transition period. Refusing to do so is the ultimate act of self-harm. With businesses fighting for survival, a bad deal or no deal will burden businesses with additional costs and red tape. Yesterday, the Financial Times told us that UK Government officials had indicated that a potential additional 215 million customer declarations will be required, at a cost of up to £7 billion. Businesses are fighting for survival, and the UK Government want to send them a bill for £7 billion. I wonder if the Prime Minister will put that on the side of a bus. That is not taking back control; that is self-induced madness.
We can stop this now. We can recognise that this is a price that we cannot pay in the middle of a health and an economic crisis. All it requires is political will. All it requires is leadership.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Is it not the case that the injudicious dropping of a crisp packet would be enough for the Scottish National party to be asking for the extension of the implementation period or the scrapping of the whole project altogether? Might I remind the SNP—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures—that more people voted for Brexit in Scotland than have ever voted for the SNP?
Ian Blackford
Really? Is that the best that Thanet can send to the House of Commons? Heaven help them. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we were told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom in 2014, Scotland would be respected and that we were to lead the UK. The question for him and for his Government is: why did they not respect the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU, with 62% of those living in Scotland voting to do so? At every opportunity in the past few years, the Conservatives, as they have been in every year since 1955, have been thoroughly rejected by the people of Scotland, and it is no wonder. We stood on a platform in the election in December about Scotland’s right to choose. The Tories said, “Say no to devolution. Say no to independence.” How did that go down? They lost more than half their seats and we increased our representation from 35 to 48. I think he has had his answer.
Douglas Ross
It is a point of order, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman said that Scottish Conservatives stood on a manifesto commitment against devolution. This Government have given more powers than ever to the Scottish Parliament, and we have never stood on a manifesto against devolution—
Mr Speaker
We do not both need to stand at the same time—it is easier if you sit down. As a person who is very good with red cards, you should be aware of what we need to do to keep good order. That is a point of clarification and I am sure you will want to save some of that for when you speak later.
Ian Blackford
Mr Speaker, to use football parlance, I think the hon. Gentleman is offside and the Tory party regularly gets a red card from the people of Scotland. The Tories have shown themselves hostile to devolution since time immemorial; a leopard does not change its spots.
Why are this Government intent on this hammer blow hitting the UK economy when we are already in dire straits? We need to create the circumstances for recovery, not make a bad situation even worse. Instead, this UK Government want to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on border infrastructure to prepare for Brexit. Any rational person—I know that not many of those exist on the Tory Benches—would point out the lunacy of such tomfoolery, but of course this is driven by the ideology of those who want to “take back control” whatever the cost, whatever the impact on jobs, whatever the impact on communities, and conveniently blame it on covid-19, rather than admit the reality that it has been self-induced as a result of dogma. This is economic self-harm brought on by the UK Government, cheered on by Dominic Cummings as he holds the reins of power in Downing Street—well, not in our name.
We know that the UK is not even ready for leaving the EU at the end of December. The Government’s own International Trade Secretary has warned of possible legal challenges from the World Trade Organisation; increased smuggling from the EU if not all UK ports are ready to carry out checks; concerns about the protocol if EU tariffs are applied to all goods heading for Northern Ireland by default; and the undermining of the UK’s international trade policy. The NAO said that the Tory Government’s 2019 £100 million Get Ready for Brexit campaign was ineffective and made no clear difference—another monumental waste of scarce resources. Can the Minister, when she rises to respond, tell us how much money will be wasted on the new Let’s Get Going campaign?
Then there is the issue of lost EU funding—something that has been so critical for Scotland for so many decades. “Not to worry”, we are told, “The UK will step in with a shared prosperity fund”. Where is it? Where is the shared prosperity fund? There has been no detailed information from the UK Government on how the fund will operate. Can the Minister update us?
The European Commission’s Brexit preparedness publication also makes for grim reading. Certificates of authorisations will no longer be valid for placing products in EU markets. Products certified by UK-based bodies will no longer automatically be allowed into the EU. All service firms will lose access to the single market unless equivalence arrangements are in place to ensure that standards are the same in the UK and the EU. The visa exemption for UK nationals does not provide for the right to work in the EU and is subject to the reciprocity mechanism applying to third countries. It could be suspended if EU citizens ceased to be given visa-free access to the United Kingdom for short stays: the right to work and travel freely in the EU—rights we have enjoyed for more than 47 years—ripped up, opportunities cut off, hopes shattered, dreams crushed, and for what?
Experts and industry figures have been clear: businesses will not be ready for the end of the transition period at the end of this year. More than 100 UK company chiefs, entrepreneurs and business groups have written to the Prime Minister saying that businesses simply do not have the time or capacity to prepare for big changes in trading rules by the end of the year, especially given that we are already grappling with the upheaval caused by coronavirus. They can see that, we can see that; the only people who cannot are the Government Front Bench and their cheerleaders on the Back Benches.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the CBI—hardly the biggest fan of Brexit—says that if we extend the implementation period it will create uncertainty for business and completely advises against it? What does he know that the CBI doesn’t?
Ian Blackford
I could read out statistics from all sorts of business organisations that are, quite frankly, scared stiff about what ending the transition will mean.
A survey by the Institute of Directors tells us that three out of four business leaders believe that their organisation is not ready for the end of the transition period and that one in seven says that dealing with the pandemic has taken up bandwidth that would have been devoted to preparing for Brexit. The Institute for Government says that in normal circumstances meeting
“the 31 December deadline would have been heroic: doing so in the midst of an international health crisis, with the energies of governments across Europe focused on their handling of the outbreak, seems out of reach.”
Jimmy Buchan, chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association, said:
“We are within six months of Brexit and we still do not know what the future holds for us.”
That is the uncertainty that businesses are facing. For many businesses that manage to survive the coronavirus crisis, this second, Brexit shock would hit them at their weakest and could be the final straw that puts them out of business—more jobs lost, more households in desperate situations, and all because of the intransigence of the Tory Government.
It does not have to be like this. We on the SNP Benches welcome the EU’s openness to extending the transition period for negotiations. Six political parties from every nation of the United Kingdom wrote to Michel Barnier calling for the UK and the EU to agree a two-year extension. In a letter to me, representing the SNP, along with the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Green party and the Alliance party, the EU’s chief negotiator confirmed:
“an extension of up to one or two years can be agreed jointly by the two parties. The European Union has always said that we remain open on this matter.”
Mr Barnier said that any extension decision should have been taken by the Joint Committee “before 1 July”. We have been given an olive branch—a get-out-of-jail-free card—but the Prime Minister has failed to grasp it. The UK Government have set themselves to crash out of the EU with a devastating bad deal or a catastrophic no-deal.
All the while, EU leaders have highlighted the lack of progress in negotiations. Angela Merkel recently said:
“To put it mildly, progress in the negotiations has been very limited. I will continue to press for a good solution. But we in the EU and also in Germany must and should prepare for the event that an agreement is not reached after all.”
That should deeply worry all of us.
There is still time to change course. The Institute for Government has made it clear that there are mechanisms for an extension. It cites four legal options for extending the transition period: amend the end date of the transition period in the withdrawal agreement; create a new transition period to begin on 1 January 2021, which would mean striking a new agreement alongside future relationship negotiations; include an implementation phase as part of the future relationship treaty; or create an implementation phase to prepare for a potential no-deal exit.
The Scottish Government have set out the evidence to back up the arguments for an extension to the transition. Their analysis has revealed that ending the transition period in 2020 could remove £3 billion from the Scottish economy in just two years—£3 billion in just two years. Are our colleagues from Scottish Tory constituencies prepared to sit back and see that self-harm take place against their constituents, or for once, are they going to stand up for us, stand up with us and stand up for Scotland?
The Scottish Government’s analysis revealed that ending the transition period will be calamitous—a £3 billion hit to Scotland made in Westminster and delivered by this Prime Minister and his Government. A no-deal Brexit scenario has greater economic implications and could see the economy 8.5% smaller by 2030 compared with the scenario of continued EU membership. That is the price that Scotland will have to pay if we stay in the Union of the United Kingdom. Those are eye-watering numbers, but behind the statistics is the human cost: unemployment, hardship, poverty—Scotland paying the price for Tory dogma.
I take no pleasure in saying that UK relations with the Scottish Government are worse than ever under this Prime Minister’s leadership. We have been increasingly concerned at the lack of any meaningful consultation with the Scottish Government and other devolved nations on the Brexit talks and at the growing threat of a Tory power grab in devolved areas, including agriculture and food standards—all for a Brexit fantasy that Scotland never gave its consent to and that is now being used as a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and for a future that we never voted for.
It is worth reminding folk in Scotland of the promises that were made in 2014 during the independence campaign. If we stayed in the UK, we would be staying in Europe. Well, we stayed in the UK, and we have been taken out against our will. All the way through this process, the Scottish Government have sought to achieve a compromise to best protect jobs. [Interruption.] We talk about compromise, and the Tory MPs laugh at Scotland. That is the way that Scotland is treated by the Tories in this House. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Carry on, because people in Scotland will be listening.
We have said that staying in the single market and the customs union is the least worst option for jobs and our communities. At every turn, we have been shut out, shouted down and disregarded. It is little wonder that so many who voted to stay in the UK in 2014 now recognise the UK they voted to remain in no longer exists. It is little wonder that poll after poll shows a majority for independence. So many see our future as an independent country in Europe—an outward-looking Scotland, working constructively with others—and see this as a choice of a progressive future with independence, or one of staying with an increasingly inward-looking UK. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) keeps chuntering away from a sedentary position. If he wants to say something, I will allow him to get in. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he would not continue to shout and chunter; it is most disrespectful to everybody, including his own constituents.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
My right hon. Friend speaks about the polling, which shows that we are only going in one direction as support for independence has gone up. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my analysis that the UK Government are clearly carrying out polling on a regular basis—we know that the Cabinet Office is carrying out that polling—and does he, like me, want to see the UK Government publish the polling analysis that is being paid for by taxpayers, which will show that support for Scottish independence is on the rise?
Ian Blackford
Indeed, let us have transparency. Let us have some openness. The UK Government should indeed publish that information.
Where does power lie today in the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister has invested political and Executive oversight in an unelected adviser, Dominic Cummings. We know that a Green Paper is to be published tomorrow, ahead of a joint ministerial meeting with the devolved Governments, that is nothing more than a blatant power grab under the guise of the establishment of a UK internal market. When this Tory Government said they wanted to take back control, they did not mean just from Brussels; they meant from Edinburgh, they meant from Cardiff and they meant from Belfast. This Tory Government’s contempt for devolution has always been known. They fought against devolution in 1997, and they lost.
Of course, the covid crisis has seen the Scottish Government give effective leadership to the people who live in Scotland. The success of that leadership is reflected in the high standing of our First Minister not just with the public in Scotland, but elsewhere—[Interruption.] Again, I hear the laughing and the chuntering. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and his team have dithered and given out mixed messages. Rather than recognise and applaud the success of the Scottish Government, the Tories want to attack them. The Tories cannot come to terms with our Scottish Government providing effective leadership, so they want to constrain our Parliament—that is the reality—and not just our Parliament, but the Parliaments in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
I am grateful that the Welsh First Minister is standing shoulder to shoulder with us, and I am asking our colleagues in the Labour party—
Ian Blackford
Where are they, indeed. Members should not worry, because the SNP will provide an effective Opposition.
I am respectfully asking my friends in the Labour party who are present to stand with us. We went through the Lobby together to establish devolution, and devolution is now under attack from this Tory Government. There is a question to be asked of the Labour party: will they stand with us? [Interruption.] It would be helpful if they would turn up, but I hope when it comes to votes —and there is going to be a fight over the coming months—that we stand shoulder to shoulder against this attack on devolution in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
What is now taking place is nothing more than an undignified attempt to neuter the Scottish Parliament. Let me put the Tories on notice that we will stand up for the sovereign rights of our Parliament enshrined by the referendum result and by the establishment of our Parliament. Let me remind the Tories: our Parliament was established by overwhelming numbers in 1997. It belongs to the people of Scotland.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (David Rutley)
Not the SNP!
Ian Blackford
“Not the SNP!” Do I really have to take that? I know the hon. Member represents an English seat and perhaps he does not pay much attention, but if he looks at every one of the results of elections to the Scottish Parliament since 2007 and to Westminster since 2015, as well as the European results, he will see that the people of Scotland have put their trust in the SNP to defend them from the kind of attacks that we have from the Tory Benches. [Interruption.] I hear, “What about a referendum?” so let me say this. We went to the people of Scotland last December and we stood on the principle of Scotland’s right to choose. We got 45% of the vote. There is a bigger gap between us and the Tories than there is between the Tories and Labour in the United Kingdom. We won that election, by any definition. The people of Scotland elected us in 48 of the 59 constituencies. There are six Tories from Scotland. We won that election. I accept that the Conservatives won the election in the UK, but that means that it is incumbent on the Conservatives to recognise that the SNP won in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
“No, it’s not”—well, there we are: democracy Tory-style. The Tories think that they can simply ignore the people of Scotland. I say to them: carry on, because people are saying now that support for the SNP and support for independence is rising, and you will not stop the people of Scotland determining our own future. It is ours to choose and we will not be stopped by any Tory Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I am going to make some progress.
A Scottish Government assessment of the proposal that is coming tomorrow shows that successful pioneering policies such as minimum unit pricing for alcohol, our no tuition fees policy and the smoking ban would face the unelected body that the Conservatives now want to put in place. The proposed establishment of an unelected external body to determine whether a Bill in the Scottish Parliament has met a new test is outrageous. It is completely undemocratic and will not be accepted. Westminster, under these plans, will have the power to block the legislative process in Scotland under the guise of this new body, so that Scotland’s elected representatives could not decide what is best for Scotland. The internal market plan would also require standards in one part of the UK to be automatically accepted in others. This would be a serious threat to Scotland’s high food standards.
Any forthcoming legislation on these plans needs the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The decisions of the Scottish Parliament must be respected. Will the Minister confirm that Westminster will recognise the importance of consent from the Scottish Parliament, and accept that if consent is not granted the legislation cannot be passed? That is the historical position.
The internal market plan also suggests that the UK Government will include state aid in their power grab. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have been clear that state aid policy should be devolved under current legislation. They want to stay closely aligned with the EU state aid rules. Legal experts have noted that Westminster’s decision to legislate to make state aid policy a reserved power was an implicit recognition that the UK Government were not confident of winning the argument in court. We already know that this Tory Government will do what they want to Scotland with regard to state aid if they get their way on this. Of course, the Tories have form. In 1992, John Major’s Government diverted cash from the highlands to try to boost dwindling Conservative support in south-east England.
Let us be clear: the UK faces a constitutional crisis. Scotland continues to be completely ignored by Westminster and Westminster has proved itself to be utterly incapable of acting in Scotland’s interests. With the exception of the Scottish Tories, who have completely isolated themselves, the Scottish Parliament is united against the moves to erode Scotland’s devolved settlement. All the Opposition parties, as well as the SNP in government, recognise this threat to devolution coming from the Tories. The Scottish Tories remain tin-eared. The UK Government must recognise that Scotland has a choice: we either accept the downgrading of our Parliament or we choose to become an independent country. Let me appeal to those who live in Scotland to join the momentum. There is another way: we can stop the power grab, we can defend our interests, and we can finish our journey to independence.
People want an extension, and in Scotland people have a right to an extension. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. A new poll has put support for Scottish independence at 54%, and that is the second Panelbase poll to show such figures in recent weeks. This marks the highest level of support for the SNP and independence ever, in any poll of its kind. The recent polling on independence shows the unstoppable power of people choosing their own future.
Since the Westminster election of 2019, a majority of polls have shown support for independence in the lead. Commenting on the findings, Professor John Curtice said:
“Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak.”
He explained that
“the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country”.
Even a casual observer could draw that conclusion, based on how the Scottish Government led by Nicola Sturgeon have dealt with the covid-19 crisis compared with this UK Government. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon scores more highly with English voters than the Prime Minister does—[Laughter.] Conservative Members think the fact that the Prime Minister is unpopular, certainly in Scotland, is funny. We do not think it is funny; we think it is something much worse than that. It is now impossible for the UK Government to deny Scotland a choice over its future .The Prime Minister may be the best recruiting tool for Scottish independence since Margaret Thatcher.
The cost of leaving the EU and managing a health crisis simultaneously is unacceptable, particularly when we could be facing a covid second wave in the winter. If the Prime Minister and the Tories fail to seek an extension, if they push ahead with their power grab, and if they continue to impose a future on Scotland that we never voted for, the choice will be clear. The only way to protect Scotland’s economy and our place at the heart of Europe is to become an independent country, and that day is coming. We can provide our road map to independence. We will have our say. Scotland will become an independent country.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
It is a pleasure to respond to this Opposition day debate, not least because it affords me the opportunity to pay tribute to UK and, in particular, Scottish businesses, which have been so resilient and creative during these unprecedented times. It is not just that we want the economy to recover and that we want to beat coronavirus; it is that we can only defeat coronavirus, and whatever might follow it, if the economy recovers. Without businesses and the tax revenue that they generate, we will not have an NHS or a care system, or room for manoeuvre at the Treasury. I want to thank all those businesses for what they have endured and for all the efforts they are taking to keep going. I am sure the whole House would agree with that.
Penny Mordaunt
One moment, please. I should also like to genuinely and sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and his party on having a policy on the transition period, which is more than the official Opposition have managed to do to date.
In the time I have, I want to touch on some of the very understandable issues that concern hard-pressed businesses about next year and about how the Government are helping to mitigate the economic effects of coronavirus and to prepare for when we will take back control of our borders and leave the single market and the customs union. These will bring significant changes, and also opportunities, for which we all need to prepare, which is why we have already undertaken a series of measures to help businesses and individuals to get ready for the end of the transition period, whatever the circumstances are.
Before I do that, however, I want to put this debate in context. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber thinks the odds are of the Government extending the transition period. How likely does he think it is that we would do that, given that its end date is enshrined in law; given that the Government of the UK were elected on a mandate not to extend the transition period; given that the deadline for asking for an extension to the transition period has passed; given that doing so would simply prolong the negotiations and bring uncertainty for our businesses; given that it would hinder our economic recovery; given that an extension would see us paying more to the EU, which is not a good idea; given that we would have to back EU laws and decisions that we had no say in designing, which is an even worse idea; and given that the legislative and economic flexibility that we need to respond to coronavirus would not be possible? What are the chances of the Government doing that? What are the chances of this Opposition day debate succeeding or having any influence? I suggest none.
The Government have been very clear multiple times that we will not extend the transition period. Some might argue that it is not only undesirable to do so but now impossible, so why are we having an Opposition day debate on this issue, on this particular topic, and not on, say, rewards for health and care staff, not on investment in Scottish infrastructure, and not on food standards or Scottish farmers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) debated recently? Why are we having this debate in a week when key negotiations are ramping up and David Frost is going into bat for Scotland’s interests—[Laughter.] I am sure that Scottish fishermen do not appreciate Members laughing. Why not have a debate on issues that might strengthen his hand in negotiation? Why not hold a debate on fishing or, indeed, on any practical or tangible issues that Scottish MPs on these Benches have been talking about at every single opportunity they have been given to stand up for their constituents. Why pick this issue? Why pick the issue of the transition period? Sadly, it is because the purpose of this debate is not to influence or secure change, or even to suggest any further practical measures that could help business. There was no mention in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech of the phased approach, the Goods Vehicle Movement Service, or Treasury schemes. No, this Opposition day debate is designed to do what Scottish nationalists always try to do, which is, sadly, to further divide, to sow seeds of doubt, to undermine confidence and to highlight differences right at the moment when everyone should be pulling and working together. Stirring up division is clearly something that SNP Members enjoy, and I have never understood those motivations in politics. Even if that is what floats your boat, to do it now, when we should be maximising the benefits and focusing on those benefits for the whole of the United Kingdom and for the sake of all our citizens, is truly amazing. It shows, sadly, that SNP Members, and anyone else supporting them today, will have learned nothing from the past few years.
The sizeable majority that this Government enjoy is, in very great part, down to the fact that the people of this country want to move forward. They want to look to the future, not unpick the past, and they respect democracy. This Opposition day debate is simply an attempt to undermine and prevent an instruction given to this Government by the people of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to return to division, to chaos, to paralysis, which is what pushing out the deadline for negotiations would do. The motion does not focus on anything practical in the report. That is not surprising really as that report was written prior to the announcement on the phased border and the border operating model. None the less, it is the SNP’s debate today, so, despite the fact that events and people have moved on, I will focus on the issues that those Members have raised.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way and ending her lecture, telling us what we should be thinking about. If we are talking about division, a lot is predicated on what she said about control of our borders, ending free movement and controlling immigration. Earlier she talked about business resilience. Can she tell me how ending free movement will help businesses, how it will help the fruit and vegetable growers who already cannot get people to do their work? Can she explain what good that will do for the economy and what it will do for food exports, when we have a reliance on EU vets?
Penny Mordaunt
I have been through the detail of the report mentioned in the motion and looked at each sector that it focuses on and mentions. We have not just brought through schemes that help to support business and to mitigate the changes that are going to have to be brought in. The Treasury has also introduced schemes in the wake of coronavirus, and I will come on to that. However, I want to address—
Several hon. Members rose—
Penny Mordaunt
Bear with me.
I want to address the issues the report raises, because the reasons why we are having this debate are illuminating. The report proposes a two-year delay to our timetable and claims that not having one would reduce Scotland’s GDP. The version of the report I have seen says that that will be by £1.8 billion, but the hon. Gentleman refers to £3 billion—a figure that many dispute. However, some say that the cost to UK GDP of a delay would be around 2%.
There are a number of interesting graphs to support the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but I would ask any SNP Member present to add an additional line—one illustrating the hit to Scottish GDP from the break-up of the United Kingdom. Pre Brexit, the Scottish Economic Association put the cost of Scottish independence at 5.5% of Scottish GDP, stating that that would be even greater after Brexit. So why does £1.8 billion or £3 billion matter, when £5.5 billion does not?
The right hon. Gentleman cannot wring his hands about the 144,000 jobs contingent on exports from Scotland—jobs that we are determined to protect—while discounting the 545,000 jobs reliant on trade with the United Kingdom. He cannot claim to mourn the end of EU funding mechanisms that bring benefits to Scottish citizens—and that will be replaced, I might add—and at the same time discount the very real United Kingdom dividend to the taxpayers of Scotland of about £2,000 per household. He cannot complain about the results of negotiations, on the grounds that he thinks he has not been consulted, and at the same time advocate extending a transition period that would make us subject to EU laws, schemes and decisions over which he has had no say whatever. He cannot claim to use economic forecasts to make one argument, but disregard them for another. And he cannot claim to be a democrat, while ignoring the results of votes.
This debate is simply about creating conflict and division, just as the right hon. Gentleman’s press release today is. He has not seen the details of the proposal he alluded to at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, but he does not need to, because the facts are irrelevant to his case, as were many of the things he said in his speech about these proposals.
I want to turn to the substance of what we are doing to support business, because, after all, that is what matters. There will be significant changes and opportunities ahead, and we will help businesses and citizens to manage the necessary adjustments in a very practical and flexible way in order to minimise the challenges and maximise the opportunities. None of those schemes did the right hon. Gentleman mention.
In the withdrawal agreement struck by the Prime Minister, we removed several significant uncertainties that were a feature of our contingency planning ahead of 31 October. We are now taking the necessary steps to ensure that the UK is ready to take advantage of the opportunities. That includes the £705 million of investment announced to make sure we have the right infrastructure, tech and border personnel in place. That is in addition to the £84 million to boost the capacity of the customs intermediary sector. The border operating model and the phased approach we announced earlier have been put in place after extensive consultation with the sector and provide further clarity and certainty for the border industry and businesses.
While we have already made good progress in getting ready for the end of the year, there is still more to do. There are actions that we would strongly encourage businesses and citizens to take now to ensure we are ready to hit the ground running as a fully independent United Kingdom. That is why, earlier this week, we launched a new, major campaign to communicate the steps that we must all take to prepare for the end of the transition period.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. She asked many times why we have brought this debate today. Let me just pick out one sector and give her another 1.8. Scotland’s quality food sector exports £1.8 billion of food per year, 70% of which goes to the EU. My question to the Minister is, how many businesses in Scotland has she spoken to about the effects on them, because that, in just one sector, is why we are bringing this debate?
Penny Mordaunt
When I came into office I spent a considerable amount of time working with the central office of information and all Government Departments to improve our communications with business. An enormous number of meetings and forums take place not just with me and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but with every single Department across Whitehall. Our officials continue to have those discussions and consultations, as do Ministers.
I would say to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, who mentioned one or two sectors: you have not spoken about any of the Government schemes. You have not spoken about the phased approach. You have not spoken about free services that are available from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and how they can be improved. You have not called for any of that.
The right hon. Gentleman began the debate calling for leadership and for the Government to adapt. Indeed, the past few months have been an inflection point for nations and individuals. I call on the SNP to adapt: try co-operation; try finding some common ground for the sake of all our businesses and citizens. I would say that to you at any time but now more than ever, against the backdrop of this unprecedented time that we face.
David Linden
The Minister talks about the need for the SNP and the Scottish Government to compromise. She is in the Cabinet Office and will be aware of the document, “Scotland’s place in Europe”. Can she name any part of that document, which contains a raft of proposals and compromises from the SNP on the single market and the customs union? On which of those would the United Kingdom Government compromise?
Penny Mordaunt
There are many things that I could talk about, but one of the first meetings I held was to put together our negotiating position: we listened carefully to all the devolved Administrations on some of their concerns, particularly on programmes, and we changed our negotiating mandate accordingly. We do listen, and I have taken great pains. I gently point out—I am not going to repeat the vast number of meetings I have had, as I have done that frequently at the Dispatch Box—that as someone who has, in quite difficult circumstances, made sure that I could attend every single meeting that I had planned with the devolved Administrations and the Scottish Government, as I am happy to do, I was stood up by the Scottish Minister. I have shown up for every meeting—the Scottish Minister has not shown up for every meeting.
To conclude, I call on the SNP to adapt—to find common ground—for the sake of all our citizens and businesses, because that is what leadership looks like, and it is what Scotland deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the spokesman for the official Opposition, many people in the Chamber are making the serious mistake of calling other people “you”—even the Minister, whom I have never heard make such a mistake before today. I am anxious that people who are new to the House and have not really seen the Chamber operating properly should not be led astray by those who should know better. Throughout Prime Minister’s questions today, people called the Prime Minister “you”. In the Chamber, “you” means the Chair. One addresses other Members as “the hon. Gentleman”, “the hon. Lady” or something else, but not “you”. [Interruption.] Quite. I call Paul Blomfield.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just reflecting on “something else”.
I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate and remind the House that when we debated the withdrawal agreement Bill in January, the Opposition warned of the foolishness of the Government tying their hands by committing the date for the end of transition to law. We argued that unforeseen events might result in the Government needing some flexibility, although clearly no one expected a crisis on the scale that we face with covid-19. However, our amendment was rejected and the departure date was locked in law. Clearly, the Government could have changed that before 1 July, but they did not and they must live with the consequences.
We are now past the date when an extension could have been agreed. The Government did not seek one and nor did the EU propose one. That ship has sailed and, frankly, it is the wrong focus for a debate on the negotiations that we need today. The issue is not the time available to the Government, but their approach to the talks. If, instead of the motion, the SNP had tabled something seeking to protect Scottish whisky or Welsh lamb, or to avoid non-tariff barriers in manufacturing, we could have worked together on it, because the country needs the best possible agreement—now more than ever—and we hope the Government will secure that, but it is now five months since we left the European Union. We have had four rounds of formal negotiations. We have had a high-level summit between the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. We are into our third week of intensified talks. But judging by the Government’s own statements, we have seen very little progress.
It was not supposed to be like this. Remember the election campaign? Time and again, the nation was told by the Prime Minister that he had an “oven-ready deal”. That is what the people voted for: a deal negotiated by the Prime Minister himself and signed off last October —the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The withdrawal agreement delivered our departure from the European Union and the political declaration set out the principles for our future relationship. The two went together: a single package. As the Prime Minister said:
“The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 572.]
That was the deal promised to the British people. I quote from it:
“an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”
with
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.
It was a deal that would safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”
and keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”.
There was a promise that the Good Friday agreement would be protected through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Those are the promises against which the Government’s deal will be measured, but it is not going well. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chilled British business when he warned that the UK may accept tariffs on some goods if that is the price we have to pay to avoid the level playing field provisions. And let us not forget what exactly the level playing field is about: food standards, workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer protection.
The Government’s proposals in this area have been described as “a giant step away” from the political declaration. The UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, has said there is “fundamental disagreement” in most of the important areas. He went on to say:
“there is a big gap”.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), warned her successor that he will not be able to keep our people safe without access to the quantity and quality of data that is currently available through Prüm, passenger name records, the European Criminal Records Information System and SIS II, but her successor will not commit to that. Just yesterday, the Met police Brexit lead said that UK police forces’ ability to detain criminal suspects from the EU will become slower and less effective if the Government fail to secure a Brexit security deal. At the same time, Northern Ireland businesses are saying:
“we are really in a quandary as to what way to turn…We need a bit of clarity because we haven’t a clue where we’re heading—It’s like walking out into the fog.”
The Government have not even managed to negotiate the continuation of the pet passport.
The weeks ahead are crucial. The Government need to double their efforts to deliver the deal that they promised to the British people. They need to listen to business, whose voice, the CBI, said recently:
“A good deal with the EU will be just one strand of a national recovery plan as the UK responds to the coronavirus pandemic, but it will be one of the most important for the future of our economy, jobs and livelihoods.”
They need to listen to those reeling from the Government’s announcement on the border arrangements, which left the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association saying that he was
“completely at a loss to understand how this framework can be achieved by 1 January 2021.”
They should listen to the TUC, which has called on the Government to
“prioritise negotiating a deal with the EU that guarantees good jobs, rights and other protections rather than a deal with the US that stands to undermine these standards.”
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We have already heard how important this decision is, so will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on where the Labour party is? Why are the Labour Benches empty? Where are his Back Benchers? Why are they silent on this important issue?
Paul Blomfield
I have elaborated our position clearly: we expect the Government to deliver on the deal that they promised the British people. I understand the anxiety among those on the Conservative Benches when they see how the talks are going and see that they—those who were elected on that pledge—may not be able to turn to their constituents and say that they have done that job.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That really is not good enough from the hon. Gentleman. Not one Labour Back Bencher is down to speak in this important debate. They may not care about these issues, but our constituents do. As part of the official Opposition, surely he should be doing better than this?
Paul Blomfield
There is great concern and great appetite to have a serious discussion about the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union. We have brought the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House twice through urgent questions when he had refused to report to Parliament. Some of my colleagues may have anticipated that this debate would not be the one we needed to have, but instead would be framed by the leader of the SNP at Westminster as being about independence, as he did in his final words. We want a serious discussion about the negotiations.
The Government should also listen to voices in every part of our country, and they need to engage effectively with the devolved Administrations—
Paul Blomfield
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman may want to hear my point.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that the intransigence of his party on this issue is perhaps why it received 42% of the vote in Scotland in 2010, but just 18% in the general election of 2019?
Paul Blomfield
The nature of these interventions indicates why it does not seem that the SNP is serious about having a debate about the actual negotiations on which the future of our country is going to be so dependent. It is all about point scoring, not protecting jobs and protecting the economy.
The Government should listen more effectively to those voices of the devolved Administrations and recognise that the Joint Ministerial Committee is not working. It needs to be put on a formal footing, with its decisions properly recorded and respected. The agreement reached with the European Union will affect the nations and regions of the UK differently, and the devolved Administrations will be on the frontline of delivering it. They must be properly consulted and proper regard must be given to their views. It is not a question of vetoes, but of respect for the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Government negotiate with and repatriate powers from the European Union. We need—I make this point both to the Government and to the leader of the SNP at Westminster —a spirit of constructive partnership between the four Governments of the United Kingdom, rather than division.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. To expand on that last point, the concern for the devolved Administrations must be not simply with the UK-EU deal, but with how they are involved in all free trade agreements and in organisations such as the Trade Remedies Authority, with how those deals are put together, and with how the Administrations are engaged and consulted? My real fear is that that will not happen.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right to have that fear because the experience over the past months demonstrates that there is not the real consultation that there needs to be. The Government are playing with the future of our country if they do not respect, engage effectively and have regard to the views of all the devolved Administrations.
There are just five months left until we leave the transitional period—months in which we are already facing the biggest hit on jobs and livelihoods in our lifetime as a result of covid-19. The people of this country expect the Government to do everything possible to mitigate that damage, not to add to it. The Government will not be forgiven if we reach the end of the transition without a deal, or with a deal that falls short of the ambition that they signed up to in the political declaration. That was their promise to the British people, and it is that on which they will be judged.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is an absolute honour and a privilege to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this SNP Opposition day debate. The SNP motion calls for an extension to the transition period for negotiations with the European Union. It is important that we are absolutely clear what the motives are for the SNP calling for that extension to the transition period. It is not about protecting Scotland’s economy. It is not about assisting the economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic. It is all about creating further uncertainty and constitutional chaos to assist in the nationalist dream of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the SNP’s top priority. That is its only priority. That, in fact, is the only reason that many SNP Members got involved in politics in the first place—[Interruption.] I am pleased that they are nodding in agreement. I am pleased that they are agreeing with me—we agree on something at last. Any proposal from the separatists should be considered in that context. The SNP is aggravating on Brexit simply to push its independence obsession.
There is no doubt that the impact of the coronavirus will be significant on Scotland’s and the UK’s economy, but the answer is not to add further uncertainty to Scotland’s businesses with further dither and delay on Brexit. Businesses want certainty so that they can plan for Scotland’s and the UK’s future outside the European Union. Businesses are already preparing for life outside the EU at the end of 2020. The last thing they need or want is the further uncertainty that has been advocated by the SNP today, so I fully support the UK Government’s commitment not to extend the transition period at the end of 2020, because that would simply risk further economic damage to Scotland’s economy.
I also fully endorse the massive support of more than £13 billion that this UK Government have pumped into Scotland so far during the covid-19 outbreak. This includes nearly £5 billion in furlough payments, £1 billion for the job retention scheme, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cuts, the eat out to help out scheme, nearly £1 billion in the self-employed income support scheme, hundreds of millions of pounds in business loans and increases to benefits, plus £4.6 billion in Barnett consequentials. That is a £4.6 billion boost to the Scottish Government’s budget during this covid-19 outbreak. I know that some in the SNP, including the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, like to pretend that this support does not exist unless the Scottish Government logo is branded all over it, but if Scotland was no longer in the United Kingdom, the safety net of support that the UK can provide during this pandemic and other crises would not have been there for other parts of these islands or, indeed, for Scotland anymore.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member and I have disagreed numerous times about the UK’s place in the European Union and what we should do about that, but does he share my confusion about why a party that is so intent on dragging Scotland from one valuable union—indeed, the most successful economic union in history—is so intent on using another to do it?
John Lamont
I completely agree. The points that the SNP’s Westminster leader made earlier could have been made by anybody during the campaign about whether we should leave or remain in the EU; Nigel Farage would be proud of the arguments that he articulated. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is nodding wholeheartedly; it was a very good Farage argument that was put forward by Mr Blackford.
Let me move on to reiterate the support that has been made available by the UK Government and what that means from a practical perspective for Scots. These are not abstract sums of money that have no bearing on everyday lives in Scotland; these are people’s jobs and livelihoods, and the economic wellbeing of our families. Some 800,000 jobs in Scotland have been saved so far during the pandemic, highlighting the strength of our Union. The coronavirus job retention scheme has furloughed 628,000 Scottish jobs, and the UK Government have spent £425 million on supporting 146,000 self-employed people in Scotland through the self-employment income support scheme.
Of course, when talking about jobs, it is worth remembering that nearly four times as many jobs in Scotland are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom as with the European Union. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that around 545,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by demand for our goods and services from the rest of the UK. That is why it is so important that we do everything we can to protect the strength of the UK single market, ensuring that businesses across the UK can continue to trade easily. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK are worth £51.2 billion, against £16.6 billion in EU exports. Whether they are in my constituency in the Scottish borders or in Eastleigh, West Bromwich, Brecon or Dudley, our businesses should be able to trade freely in every part of Britain.
The importance of the UK internal market is why the suggestion from Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that she may close the Scotland-England border or impose quarantine restrictions on people from England is so damaging to Scotland and to our economy. After the First Minister’s announcement, I had tourism businesses, B&Bs and hotels contact me to report that their customers from the rest of the UK had started to cancel their bookings because they were so worried about the border being closed and quarantine restrictions being imposed. That should concern us all, because overnight trips from the rest of the UK were worth nearly £3 billion to Scotland in 2018.
To compound matters, we had the horrific scenes on the Scottish-English border in my constituency, on the A1 north of Berwick, of nationalist protesters shouting—and I quote—“Stay the F out” at English people travelling into Scotland. These racist protesters have admitted taking inspiration from the division stoked by the SNP politicians. They were inspired by comments by SNP politicians. One of the protesters has been pictured with Nicola Sturgeon and other senior SNP figures—
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it cannot be allowed to stand that the hon. Gentleman effectively accuses SNP Members of stoking racism. The SNP condemns unreservedly any kind of anti-Englishness or any kind of racism directed at people from south of the border.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] Please do not talk so loudly while I am talking. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) can heckle other people, but he cannot heckle me. Well, he can try. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) knows that his point of order is not a point for the Chair, but a point of debate. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) will give way when he is ready to give way, and I look forward to hearing the retort from the hon. Member for Glasgow North.
John Lamont
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take an intervention—don’t you worry—but I want to conclude this important point about the completely unacceptable behaviour towards our neighbours, friends and family members trying to cross the border between Scotland and England, coming into my constituency to work, to see family members and to visit friends. Nationalist protesters with “Yes” banners were shouting abuse at them. That is totally unacceptable.
John Lamont
I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member that she will condemn that type of behaviour.
Patricia Gibson
I would like to say to the hon. Member, who has made a number of allegations, that the SNP, as he knows, does not have any truck with racism in any of its forms. He seems to suggest that the SNP is an anti-English party; if it makes a country racist to seek self-government, then the other 190 members of the United Nations are all racist countries. The First Minister’s granny is English, so what possible motivation could the hon. Gentleman have for these hysterical comments? If he is condemning any analysis that suggests that borders may perhaps be temporarily closed to control this virus, perhaps he would like to comment on the practice that has been adopted by Australia, which is doing the same thing between states.
John Lamont
The fact that the hon. Lady refused to condemn that behaviour on the border speaks for itself. Similarly, the delay from the First Minister of Scotland to condemn that behaviour also caused great concern, not just in my constituency but across Scotland. That is not the Scotland I represent, and it is not what we are about. That behaviour on the border is unacceptable, and we should condemn it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am listening carefully to what he is saying about the situation on the border between England and Scotland. As a border MP representing an English seat that has a border with Wales, I can say that we in Shropshire have also seen real difficulties and problems in our community as a result of Cardiff pulling further and further away from London, which causes confusion for border communities such as mine.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that point. As the Minister described so well, in these times of crisis, as a nation—every part of the nation, whether it be Wales or Scotland or England—we should be coming together to tackle those challenges, not having foul-mouthed nationalist protesters standing at the borders shouting abuse at our English friends and neighbours.
I want to develop the economic point. We can see the economic damage that can be caused to Scotland by statements made by nationalist politicians when they deter people from travelling to Scotland. Even before the current crisis, the SNP’s record of managing Scotland’s economy has been extremely poor. The SNP is holding Scotland’s economy back. Scotland’s deficit is six times that of the UK. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the UK.
Even before coronavirus, the SNP had cost Scotland more than a quarter of a million jobs, and then we have its failures in other policy areas, too. Under the SNP, Scottish schools have slipped to their lowest international scores in science and maths. There are 3,600 fewer teachers since the SNP came to power. On the NHS, Nicola Sturgeon’s waiting time guarantee has never been met. Crime is on the rise, with most areas of Scotland now having fewer police officers on the frontline. The Scottish Government have missed their own legal emissions targets and the SNP has broken its promise to extend Scotland’s broadband fibre network. That is a catalogue of failure by the SNP, yet SNP Members come here today arguing for more uncertainty, more delay, more constitutional upheaval and yet another independence referendum.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In thinking of certainties in this debate, I trust that the hon. Member shares with me a great gratitude to the armed forces. Regardless of whether they are Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish, they cross borders into Wales and Scotland to come and help to defeat the virus. I think we can all be proud of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that important point, which is a useful reminder of the important role that our armed forces have played in tackling this pandemic. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that.
I am not entirely sure why SNP Members claim to support independence for Scotland, because if they had their way, they would be rushing to give that independence straight back to the European Union by joining it again. They would be handing newly acquired powers back from Scotland to the European Commission; handing back control of our fishing waters to the European Commission; and dragging Scotland back into the hated common fisheries policy.
The SNP lacks ambition for our great nation of Scotland. I am sad to see the division and uncertainty in Scotland that the SNP is stoking up in an attempt to score political points. The SNP will use any means to push for its independence obsession. It will not come as any surprise to the House that I will not support the SNP’s motion. The SNP is desperately trying to undermine the UK and the UK internal market, putting Scottish jobs and the livelihoods of my constituents and other Scots at risk.
It is the UK Government who are putting the protection of Scottish businesses and jobs at the heart of their approach, both in their EU negotiations and in tackling this pandemic. I support them in everything they are doing to achieve that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is an experience to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), with his typical hysterical and emotion-filled contribution. I will resist the temptation to follow a lot of where he attempted to lead this debate.
Brendan O’Hara
I will give way in a moment, but first I will thank my right hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he opened the debate. He laid out clearly why we believe that it is the best interests of everyone across these islands that the UK Government, even at this late stage, seek an extension to the transition period. He is absolutely correct that at a time of economic crisis, in the middle of a global pandemic for which there is currently no vaccine and when no one knows where or when the next wave will come or how severe it will be, it is beyond madness for this Government to believe that it will be possible to conduct and conclude all the necessary negotiations and implement the results within the next five months. The reality is that the Government know it—they know that cannot happen.
Without an extension to the transition period, the UK will almost certainly crash out of the European Union at the end of the year, with all the economic chaos that will inevitably follow, and those who in 2016 were regarded as the not to be taken seriously, wide-eyed extremists on the fringes of the Conservative party will have won. They will have achieved their goal.
My right hon. Friend was also absolutely right when he reminded the House that this is being done to Scotland by a Government we did not elect who are pursuing a policy that we overwhelmingly rejected. In the 2016 EU referendum, the people of Scotland said unequivocally that we wished to remain part of the European Union. That message has been reinforced time and again since 2016, in both general elections and in last year’s European elections.
Jacob Young
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in the 2014 independence referendum, the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the UK?
Brendan O’Hara
I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that democracy is a constantly evolving process—it is not a one-off event. I know that this will be a problem for many Government Members, but people have the right to change their minds. Politicians have the right to bring back ideas for themselves and for the public to decide upon. In fact, the Tories’ deputy leader in Holyrood has been beaten more times than my granny’s old carpet, but he comes back time and again, as is perfectly his right so to do. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) to stand there like some kind of imperial overlord telling Scotland that it can only go so far and no further. This Tory Government will not decide Scotland’s future. The people of Scotland will decide Scotland’s future.
Ian Blackford
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the thoughtful way he is dealing with these issues. I just want to respond on the issue of Scotland being open and make it crystal clear that Scotland is open. We are an open country; we are an open democracy; and we want people to come to Scotland irrespective of where they come from. We find that there are issues to do with public health that the First Minister is taking responsibility for. That is what responsible Governments do. Let me make it crystal clear that, with Scotland now being open for business, people from England are welcome to come to Scotland, and I know that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I absolutely agree.
Numerous opinion polls since the referendum of 2016 have shown that the desire of Scots to remain in the European Union is strengthening and hardening as time goes by, because not only are they being dragged out the European Union against their will, but it is being done by a Government who are seemingly hellbent on doing it in the most damaging and reckless fashion possible, including refusing even to consider extending the transition period. That is why I firmly believe that Scotland is moving towards becoming an independent nation.
The debate in Scotland is not now framed in terms of “should” and “could”. More and more, that debate is framed in terms of how and when Scotland becomes an independent nation. As my right hon. Friend said, the polls bear this out. The highly respected pollster Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University said just last week:
“Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak.”
That is because, increasingly, those Scots with no particular emotional attachment to the United Kingdom who in 2014, after careful consideration, decided against independence for whatever reason are changing their minds. Those Scots who, maybe with a heavy heart but in good faith, decided in 2014 that independence was a step too far and who were perhaps seduced by the idea of being in a partnership of equals or liked the idea of Scotland staying and leading the United Kingdom, who believed the promises that their Parliament in Edinburgh would become the world’s strongest devolved Parliament, or who truly believed that only by sticking with the United Kingdom could their citizenship of the European Union be guaranteed are changing their minds. Opinion poll after opinion poll tells us that they are changing their minds in droves.
That crucial, pragmatic group of people who will look at an issue, weigh up the pros and cons and come to a considered decision based on what is best for them, their families, their communities and the country are increasingly saying that an independent Scotland is the only viable option, particularly when set against the madness they see unfolding here. They are doing it quietly. They will not shout about it. Mercifully, they will not go on Twitter and have a fight about it. They will do it, as they have done in the past, by looking at the available options and doing what they honestly believe is the right thing.
Let us be clear: the United Kingdom, by its actions since 2014, has brought about its own demise. The United Kingdom is the architect of its own downfall. Every bit as much as the SNP, under the exceptional leadership of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has been pulling Scotland towards independence, so this Government have been actively pushing Scotland towards the exit door. I am sure that in decades to come, scholars and academics will produce theses on the end days of the United Kingdom. They will debate whether this UK Government were utterly incompetent and arrogant to the point of stupidity or whether this was in fact all part of a great Tory plan.
For what it is worth to students of history reading Hansard decades and centuries in the future, I reckon at the moment that it is probably the former. But I can see how someone could come to conclude that it was the latter. If the United Kingdom Government were serious about preserving the Union in 2014, following the narrow no vote in the referendum, they could have decided to make good on their promises to Scotland. If they were serious about preserving the Union in 2015, they could, following the election of 56 SNP MPs to this place, have decided to ensure that in any future EU referendum Scotland’s voice would be heard and Scotland’s decision respected.
If the Government were serious about preserving the Union in 2016, after every single part of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union, they could have decided that the hard, no-deal Brexit was off the table. If they were serious about preserving the Union in 2019, after they lost more than half their Scottish MPs and saw their vote share in Scotland collapse, they could have decided not to indulge in a shameless power grab, trying to seek back the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If they were serious about preserving the Union in 2020, having seen Scottish public opinion swing towards independence, they could have rowed back from the brink of Brexit calamity, agreed to an extension period and sought to salvage something from the wreckage that is Brexit.
But no, the Government did not. Such is their arrogance and misplaced self-assuredness, and so blind and disdainful are they about what is happening across a border that only last week they told us did not actually exist, that they, like zealots, are ploughing on with the project regardless of the inevitable consequences. It would even appear that their oft-vaunted precious Union is expendable for the project. If someone is a Scottish farmer terrified at being put out of business when the UK is flooded with cheap, low-grade meat and poultry from America, or a Scottish hotelier tearing their hair out wondering where next season’s workers are to come from, or a Scottish health board worker trying to work out how to recruit in subsequent years EU nationals to work in our health and social care sector, or a young Scot seeking to live and work in other European nations and take advantage of the opportunities that every single person in this room today has taken advantage of, then that is just too bad. The bottom line is that their voices do not get to be heard. Their opinions do not get to be counted; their fears and concerns are just not important enough to matter. The only thing that matters to this Government is the project.
Brendan O'Hara
No, thank you.
The Government’s insane, narrow British nationalism may well involve driving the UK off a cliff and seeing what emerges from the wreckage. I suppose that in that respect they have just the man at the wheel of the bus, skulking around between Downing Street and Barnard Castle, but let me tell the House that Scotland is not coming with them.
This week, I and probably millions of others were left slightly bewildered as the UK Government displayed once again their love of a totally meaningless, utterly vacuous three-word slogan. This week’s classic was “Let’s get going.” But perhaps, on reflection, as three-word slogans go it is not that bad, because that is exactly what Scotland is planning to do—we are going to get going, we are going to get out of this deeply damaging Union, into a future as an independent member state in a Union of equals with the European Union.
I honestly believe that Scottish independence is an idea whose time has come, and thankfully there is precious little that Government Members are going to do about it.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I intend to be brief, so I hope the House will forgive me if I do not take interventions.
I wish to speak today on behalf of places that many Members will never have heard of, and whose voices have too rarely been heard. In the referendum, almost two-thirds of my constituency of Leigh voted to leave the EU, but in many of its local communities the vote to leave was more than 70%—in some cases, more than 75%. Communities such as Siddow Common, Hope Carr, Higher Folds, West Leigh, Shakerley, Mosley Common, Derby Road, and Kings Avenue in the Oaklands and Meadows estate, voted most overwhelmingly to leave the EU. In fact, every single polling district in my constituency voted to leave the EU, from those who live in the bungalows and semi-detached houses of Pennington to those in the red-brick terraced streets of southern Atherton and those who live in the new-build houses of Astley.
Not too long ago, in many of those places, we would have been more likely to find the Loch Ness monster than a Conservative voter. I am stood here today because huge numbers of my constituents broke with the political habits of a lifetime to send me here to end the political chaos that had been crippling the country since the EU referendum; and that referendum seems, does it not, like a lifetime ago?
I will not betray the trust of my constituents by supporting the SNP’s motion tonight; it would be wrong to do so. Extending the transition period with the EU will only prolong the political turmoil that this country has faced and damage businesses that have tried repeatedly to prepare for Brexit over the past few years, only to face endless frustrating delay. They have been given the certainty of a final deadline to work towards after four years, and now here we are, with some people trying to disrupt the Brexit process yet again.
I have nothing more to say on this matter. This subject has been done to death. My constituents are sick of it. The public are sick of it. Let us get on with it: let us put this matter to bed once and for all.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy), who at least tried to make his point, even if I did not agree with a word of it. He at least tried to make a point that was worth making—by contrast with the bitter and twisted rant by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—and even managed to get the Loch Ness monster in, so he gets an extra point.
The Minister asked why we brought this debate to the Chamber. We did so because it is the right thing to do for people and communities and businesses across Scotland, who are facing a treble whammy of hits in terms of the economy, their lifestyle, their jobs and their family status. There are people living across Scotland, including in my constituency in the highlands and islands, who will be dealt a serious blow come January if there is no extension to the transition. The UK Government are not sleepwalking into this; they are running towards a cluster crisis.
My constituents—and Scotland—never voted for this and they do not want it. It is bad enough that the combined loss of economic activity in leaving the EU is estimated to be up to £3 billion. But on the covid emergency, the UK Government’s language—unlike that of the Scottish Government, whose aim is elimination of the virus—shows that they are planning for a second wave, with the forethought that we shall be going into a second wave while we are faced with a no-deal-Brexit exit—
Drew Hendry
I will give way later.
No matter how the Prime Minister tries to cover it up by calling it an Australia-style deal, it is simply nothing and does no good for any of the people who will be affected in Scotland.
Douglas Ross
I seek clarity on the point the hon. Gentleman makes. He seems to be criticising the Government for planning for all eventualities in a pandemic. Is he honestly saying that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Scottish Government are not planning for all eventualities on covid-19?
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is a former Minister who resigned because his boss’s boss took a trip to Barnard Castle and so broke the covid regulations, so fair play to him, but of course that is the problem. He has left a legacy there and it is now an issue that the Government have to plan for that second wave. To clarify, in Scotland we are planning for elimination of the virus. That is the right thing to do.
We are facing a calamity. The Minister, who is not in her place now, said that she wanted us to focus on the policies of the UK Government—or should we say promises, or rather broken promises. For communities around Scotland, especially in regions such as the highlands and islands, there is another pressure caused by this reckless course. According to research by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, locally we will lose over £160 million and, Scotland-wide, over £800 million. That is the extra punch that our communities are losing out on in terms of EU structural funding. This is funding that underpinned further education, youth employment, smart cities, connectivity for islands and communities, small and medium-sized enterprises, apprenticeships, regeneration, innovation, productivity, social inclusion, and a whole lot more.
People in Scotland, across our cities, towns, villages and communities, are now seeing that the promises will not be delivered through the so-called shared prosperity fund, because it is not coming. Communities and charities have used the EU funding to benefit people, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. They have been waiting now for years to find out what funding will be available post-Brexit, and in spite of promise after promise it is becoming clear that come January there will be none. The Minister had the opportunity to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about the shared prosperity fund earlier, and she chose not to do so.
I have been asking for clarification on this point since 2017, as have many others. A succession of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have all promised details. They said they would consult widely. In 2018, the mantra was: “before the end of the year”. Time and again, they repeated that. In 2019, it turned into “shortly” and “soon”, and in 2020, it is morphing into “in due course”. In fact, we are now at the end point. There is no funding in place. Nobody can bid for anything as we enter 2020. All those promises have been broken, it has all been a glaik.
If the fund ever is established—let us imagine that it could happen somehow—it looks like yet another power grab will be at centre of it, with, ironically, as is proposed, another unelected body telling the devolved Parliaments what to do about the funding. In Scotland’s case, these should be decisions for the Scottish Parliament. It is no wonder—this has been repeated, because people are noticing these things—that polling in Scotland is showing support for independence consistently above 50%. It is no wonder that people who voted no in 2014, who said, “We just can’t do it”, are now coming to me and my colleagues and saying, “You know what? It was a big mistake. We were sold a packet of goods they had no intention of delivering. If they had, we would have had some of it and we have had none of it”.
As this Government ride roughshod over our people’s rights, and ignore the needs of our communities, it is important that they think again. Let me recall the words of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), during a Backbench Business Committee debate on shared prosperity that I secured in 2019. He twice made the promise that devolution would be respected. Indeed, his second clarification stated:
“To be absolutely clear and to repeat what I said in my contribution, the Government will fully respect the devolution settlement in respect of the UK shared prosperity fund and, I am sure, in all other respects.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 445.]
At that time I told him that he would be judged not on those words, but on the actions of his Government. Let me tell hon. Members, and those watching the debate, that the people of Scotland are making that judgment, and seeing that Westminster is not working for them. It is not listening to them or delivering what they need, and that is why more and more people are convinced that Scotland would be better served by taking our place as an independent nation.
There is another unique hit that we will take as a result of this Government’s actions. This is the worst of all possible times for young people across our constituencies for the economic crisis to be coupled with Brexit. That is not in Scotland alone, as it affects all nations of the UK, but it is particularly harsh in places such as the highlands and islands, where we have been working incredibly hard to turn around the demographic of losing our young people.
Drew Hendry
I am going to continue. The jobs that will be lost in the coming weeks and months will predominantly be of those in the 16 to 25 age bracket. Why? It is because they are cheaper to make redundant; they are usually on zero-hours contracts, if they have a job, and they normally have a lower length of service than anyone else. Young people will be disproportionately affected, so if for no other reason than to protect the next generation who will want to deliver a lifestyle that is suitable for them and their families to which we should all aspire in this century, surely the Government should now ask for that extension. Nobody would blame them, because everybody understands that this is a unique crisis. They should ask for that extension and protect our young people.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to speak in SNP Opposition-day debates, because we get the opportunity to play Blackford bingo. We heard the regular things from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) who must, at some point—today twice—show full outrage at Conservative Members for daring to make any sort of noise when he is speaking during the debate, totally ignoring, of course, the chirling nature of his colleagues behind him, when Government Members choose to make points on behalf of the people of Scotland.
We also had, as we always do during Blackford bingo, the words “power grab”, yet I have never heard a single SNP Member be able to articulate what powers are being grabbed. If it is a power grab, there must be powers that are currently held by the Scottish Parliament, and enacted by the Scottish Government on behalf of the people of Scotland, that we, the UK Government, are taking away.
Douglas Ross
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he will be the first SNP Member ever who is able to explain a power held by Holyrood that the UK Government are going to grab away. I look forward to it.
Alyn Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The shared prosperity fund has been mentioned by every SNP Member who has spoken thus far. For those present who do not know, that is the successor to the EU funding mechanism that the Scottish Government, and local government, have used productively for 20-odd years to encourage economic growth. The current proposal is for the UK to take over that funding and control it from London, via the Scotland Office. That is a power grab, surely, in any objective sense of the word.
Douglas Ross
The search goes on, so I will keep asking. What the hon. Gentleman has just described is a power currently held by the EU that the UK is going to get back, because we chose in a referendum to leave the EU, which the SNP would want to give back to the EU.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Gentleman knows that the principle of the devolution settlement is that if ain’t reserved—if it is not scheduled in the Scotland Act—it is devolved. The Government are scheduling these powers that should come from Europe, as he says, to the Scottish Parliament and they are grabbing them and keeping them here in Westminster. That is a power grab.
Douglas Ross
It is not. I was very clear, but I will try to be clearer for SNP Members if they need me to be. Can any SNP Member explain just one—not 10 or hundreds—power that the 129 MSPs and the Scottish Government currently have that during this “power grab” the UK Government will somehow take away? [Interruption.] None can; SNP Members simply cannot do it, because there is no power grab. As I said in my intervention, this and successive Conservative UK Governments have given more powers to the Scottish Parliament than any other and it is now one of the most powerful devolved Administrations anywhere in the world. The problem, more often than not, is not the lack of powers in the Scottish Parliament, but the lack of desire, will and vision on the part of the Scottish Government to use those powers to the best of their abilities. That is really the crux of the argument.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber missed my opening remarks, but I want to come back to his motion, on which the House will divide later. It is about the transition period, the EU and the UK Government. It seems strange to have this debate after the deadline set by the EU and the UK to decide whether to have an extension to the transition period. A decision was taken by the UK Government not to seek an extension and the EU Commissioner said of that decision:
“I take this as a definite conclusion of this discussion”.
The EU Commissioner who responded to the UK Government’s decision has decided that that is a definitive conclusion of this matter and I wish the SNP would accept it as such.
Jacob Young
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and the Democratic Unionist party Members on outnumbering the Labour party Members on the Opposition Benches, with not one Labour Back Bencher to speak in this important debate?
Douglas Ross
I am always happy to agree with my hon. Friend. Let me add that Scottish Conservatives in the Chamber today would outnumber, if he were here, the one Scottish Labour Member by five or six to one. We continue to be a strong force in Scotland and in this Chamber.
Let me return to the title of this debate and what we are discussing generally this afternoon, because there have been a number of omissions in the SNP speeches we have heard so far—I am sure this will be rectified later. We have not heard the F-word at all during this debate. I represent Moray and the Minister on the Front Bench represents Banff and Buchan. In a debate about the EU, I expect to hear about fishing, particularly from the SNP. So why, would we surmise, would SNP Members and their leader here, who represents a constituency that has many fishing interests, not mention fishing once during this debate? Is it perhaps that they are ashamed of their policy towards Scottish fishermen?
During this debate, we are speaking about an extension, but what the SNP have not spoken about is what they would do at the end of that extension, because of course they just want to prolong this period of instability for our businesses, communities and individuals. At the end of it, they do not want another extension or a deal with the EU to be granted by the UK Government; they want to stop us leaving the EU. That is a perfectly acceptable policy for them to hold, but they therefore have to explain to fishing communities in Moray, in Banff and Buchan, and around Scotland, including those that they currently represent here and at Holyrood, what their plans are for the fishing industry in Scotland. It is very clear: they would say to the 1 million people in Scotland who voted to leave the European Union, many of them in fishing communities: “We don’t need you, we don’t trust you, we think you were wrong, and we’re going to take you straight back into the European Union and straight back into the common fisheries policy, which you have campaigned against throughout your lives and has been damaging to your business, because we don’t trust the result you gave in 2016.” That is a shameful position for Scottish National party Members to hold. Maybe it is not surprising, then, that they have not once mentioned the word “fishing” in this debate.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I would very much appreciate it if just one Conservative Member could explain to me why Conservative Members suggest that there would be total control of the seas around the UK in the event of Brexit when UNCLOS—the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—makes it very clear that that would not be case, and, based on historical fishing rights, the other countries in the EU will be challenging this in court? I never hear Conservative Members talk about that—all they say is that UK waters will be completely controlled by the UK, and it simply is not true.
Douglas Ross
I would say to the hon. Lady that I am her one Conservative Member, because I can explain it to her. When we finally leave the transition period on 31 December, we will become an independent coastal state controlling who fishes what, where and when in our waters—a proud independent state. There are examples of others that are able to do that, and we will follow suit.
Something that is not often considered in this debate is how big a difference a short extension to the transition period would make. Fishing leaders in Scotland have said that a one-day increase in the transition period beyond 31 December this year would be a one-year increase for their industry, because we would go into a whole new round of talks. When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber suggests that we as a Government and a country should have two years of extra negotiating during the transition period, we should ask what that would mean for our fishing industries, which I am not willing to accept.
I represent the constituency in Scotland that came closer than any other to voting leave in 2016: just 122 votes separated leave and remain. So while I know it is very convenient for Scottish National party Members, the Scottish Government and others to say that Scotland voted to remain, not everyone in Scotland did. One in two people in Moray voted to leave and one in two people in Moray voted to remain. This argument does foster great passion, understandably, but it is not as black and white as the SNP would often like to make it.
I also want to focus on the points about leadership that we have heard during this debate. I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber when he highlighted poll ratings that suggest that Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership has been positive during this pandemic. I was going to ask him: was it leadership when Nicola Sturgeon chose not to inform the Scottish people of the first case of covid-19 being identified at the Nike conference? [Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) thinks it is funny that the Scottish Government, the First Minister and Scottish Government Ministers withheld information from the Scottish people about the first case of covid-19 in our country, but I do not believe it is a laughing matter. I hope that he will reconsider his actions when I am discussing an important matter about people who have lost their lives.
Is it leadership when the UK Government are carrying out more covid-19 tests in Scotland than the Scottish Government? I am happy that our broad shoulders of the United Kingdom can help the UK Government, but I would have thought that the Scottish Government would be ambitious enough to have the testing facilities in place to do more than the UK Government. I am extremely grateful that the UK Government are there to support the Scottish Government.
Is it really leadership when we have senior members of the Scottish National party, and indeed the First Minister, threatening to put up barriers at the border to stop people coming into our country? Given that the Scottish Tourism Alliance criticised those comments by saying that 70% of tourism in Scotland is from the rest of the United Kingdom, any signal from the First Minister, the Scottish Government or the SNP that we are closed for business is unacceptable. It is not a political issue—it is a financial issue for bed and breakfasts, hotels, restaurants and all those who rely on investment and money from people across the United Kingdom to support them. We need to send an unequivocally clear message that Scotland is open for business. I was grateful to hear that from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber today. Sadly, I would say that the message has come too late.
Christine Jardine
While the hon. Gentleman and I do not share the same view of the European Union—and I would not wish to leave at this moment—does he share my confusion at hearing an SNP Member say that this was the worst possible time for the economic dislocation of leaving the European Union, without recognising the economic dislocation that would be caused to Scotland by leaving the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]
Douglas Ross
I agree with the hon. Lady. The pathetic actions by some SNP Members in response to a legitimate point made by one of my political opponents show their narrow-mindedness, not just in this debate but every time there is a debate in the House of Commons. It was only one of a number of confusing comments from the SNP in the debate and, sadly, I think we will hear more this afternoon.
I want to come on to a point that I made in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. It was unbefitting of him and his party not even to recognise the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom during the pandemic. People in Scotland, whether they support the Scottish National party, the Scottish Conservatives, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Labour party or the Scottish Greens, or whether they have no party affiliation at all, recognise that during a pandemic, when people were looking for health and economic responses, the UK Government went above and beyond, with one of the strongest and most comprehensive arrangements anywhere in the world, to support individuals, businesses and communities.
Almost £13 billion was provided to protect hundreds of thousands of jobs, with support for the self-employed. Support from the UK Treasury went to the Scottish Government, which they sent to local government in Scotland to support businesses with grants of £10,000 to £25,000. That is by any measure the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom supporting every part of the UK: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Whether Members disagree with the Government or with the Conservatives more generally, I hope they would all accept that it is because of that that we have got to this stage of the pandemic in as strong a place as possible.
Ian Blackford
Let us try to bring some grace to the debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on something: when we are dealing with a pandemic, it is important that we work together. I shall use an example of something that happened in my constituency, on the Isle of Skye, where there was an outbreak in Home Farm care home. The testing by NHS Highland and the UK-wide testing was put in place to make sure that we supported the community and we got to a position where we controlled the outbreak. That is an example of the benefits of the two systems coming together, so I am happy to give credit where it is due.
Let me also mention the job retention scheme, which we welcome. I stress on behalf of my colleagues in the Scottish Government and the SNP that, where appropriate, we will work with the UK Government—that is what we have to do in this crisis—but will the hon. Gentleman join me in recognising that we need flexibility in the scheme, particularly to support our rural industries for as long as necessary, so that they can come back with as strong an economy as possible?
Douglas Ross
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his earlier remarks. It is perhaps a milestone in the debate to have some consensual discussion between the opposing sides. On the job retention scheme, he asked for flexibility and, again, I hope he will accept that the UK Government delivered that. When it was established at pace not just by the Ministers and the Treasury but by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, there were strict rules, which were necessary, but listening to concerns from Scottish businesses, communities and others across the whole UK, the Chancellor and the UK Government amended it to allow the flexibility that he is asking for. On further flexibility, the right hon. Gentleman will know that many countries across Europe are winding down their job retention schemes, because it is impossible to continue them much longer.
Douglas Ross
I have been speaking for 25 minutes—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke for 35 minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is a criticism of me, not of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious to me that some speeches—actually, all speeches bar one—have been long this afternoon. However, I have been counting the number of interventions, and this is a real debate, so I do not see any need to curtail it while it is flowing with equal force on both sides.
Douglas Ross
I am very glad, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my other role, I tend to ignore the heckling I get from the sidelines and focus only on the referee. I am glad to get that guidance from you.
Patricia Gibson
I was listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about broad shoulders. There is no doubt there has been some level of financial co-operation between the rest of the UK and the Treasury. However, if the shoulders are so broad, why has Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK’s population, received just over 4% of all UK borrowing, and why, indeed, when the Prime Minister announced his £30 billion the other week, was only 0.1% allocated to Scotland?
Douglas Ross
The SNP and the hon. Lady talk about “some”, but that is £13 billion—£13 billion going in a matter of months from the UK Government directly to her constituency and my constituency and protecting jobs. Just because the Scottish Government cannot rubber-stamp that money and say that they delivered it to the people of Scotland, that does not devalue what the UK Government are investing directly into Scotland.
I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying—
Several hon. Members rose—
Douglas Ross
I will give way as many times as hon. Members like. Eeny meeny—I will give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).
Patrick Grady
Just before the hon. Gentleman brings his remarks to a conclusion, I just wondered whether, with “independent coastal state”, “most powerful devolved Parliament”, “barriers at the border” and “broad shoulders of the Union”, I can get the prize for Ross bingo.
Douglas Ross
I think Blackford bingo has a bit more of a ring to it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can think of something that rhymes with Ross for the next debate—[Interruption.] I said Ross.
Alan Brown
Earlier, as the hon. Gentleman was going on about the broad shoulders of the UK and talking about testing during the covid virus pandemic, he said that the UK has done a lot more testing in Scotland than has been done through the Scottish Government. I am looking at the statistics that the Scottish Government put out every single day, and the cumulative total of covid-19 tests carried out by NHS labs was 324,474, while the total number of covid-19 tests carried out through the UK Government testing programme was 205,000. Does he agree that 324,000 is higher than 205,000?
Douglas Ross
What I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman listened to my speech, rather than trying to google the answer, he would have heard me say that the UK Government are currently testing more people in Scotland than the Scottish Government are, and that is correct. He cannot deny that. The daily testing shows that the UK Government are conducting more tests than the Scottish Government. That is what I said, and that is correct. If the hon. Gentleman gets back on his iPad, I am sure he will have a look at that.
I want to finish by saying something that, sadly, we have to say all too often now in these debates led by the SNP. It has come up time and time again, and it is important because, as the SNP likes to say, the people of Scotland are watching. I gently say to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and to members of the SNP that they do not speak for Scotland. The SNP does not equal Scotland. I do not speak for Scotland. The Labour party does not speak for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats do not speak for Scotland. Scotland is a diverse nation, with a range of views that we should all encompass and debate, but in a manner that is befitting of this place and the people who send us here. I am sorry that in every single Opposition day debate we get from the SNP, we hear protests from SNP Members that they are speaking up for Scotland. They are not. They are speaking up for their belief about Scotland. They are speaking up for their party’s views in Scotland. But they are not Scotland—nobody is Scotland.
When we get an Opposition day debate that looks at the benefits of our two Governments in Scotland—the UK Government and the Scottish Government—I will join SNP Members in the Lobby and support them. However, as long as they use these Opposition day debates simply as party political events for the Scottish National party, rather than actually trying to achieve something for their constituents or our country, I will not support them—and, tonight, I will certainly not be supporting the SNP.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I am struck, as ever, following the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), that PG Wodehouse really did get it right when he said that a Scotsman is rarely confused with a ray of sunshine. I have to say, though, that we do not need to make a performance art out of it. I will endeavour to strike a sunnier, more consensual note in this discussion, because I am very proudly centrist in my politics. On the centre ground is where I will be found. That is where most people of Scotland are and where most people of Stirling are, That is where we all need to tend towards in order to find solutions to this debate today.
This debate is not about stopping Brexit. We accept and we regret the fact that it has happened. It is about extending the transition period to avert a self-imposed economic disaster. There are solutions to be found. At its heart, we all need to take a step back and reboot this conversation. There are several conflicting world views at play in this discussion—all of them legitimate. Scotland voted to remain. Northern Ireland voted by a nuanced vote to remain also. Two of the four home nations voted to remain. Two out of the four home nations voted to leave. The UK-wide leave vote was 52% to 48%. All of these are facts—simultaneously correct and simultaneously legitimate. We have a conundrum that we need to try to find solutions to. Surely those numbers, those facts, suggest that we should have a more nuanced, respectful approach than we have seen from successive Governments since 2016.
There are solutions to be found. I respect England’s vote. I particularly respect what the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) said about his constituency and how every ward voted to leave. I respect that. I do not believe that Scotland had a right at any point in the process to stop England leaving the European Union, much as we disagreed with it, so why the hell does not that go the other way round? Respect must be reciprocal if it is to exist at all. The Scottish Government have endeavoured at every stage of this process to engage with the discussion and the conundrum. I was involved intricately with that at the Brussels end of operations. We tried to find nuanced solutions that would have recognised the conundrum that we all faced: we published “Scotland’s Place in Europe”; we put forward the idea of a Scotland-Northern Ireland backstop; and we put forward the idea that the UK could leave the European Union but remain within the single market, which would have been a compromise that most people could have lived with. All of those proposals were shot down, ignored and belittled by a Government who were so busy trying to negotiate with themselves that they could not spend any time thinking about Edinburgh, Cardiff or Northern Ireland. It is a poor show, and it is a poor show that we are here now, facing into a very negative situation for all the citizens that we serve, however they voted. We need to save the situation and it is not too late to change course. It is not too late to dig up the tram tracks that the UK Government have set for themselves.
All of our suggestions were dismissed, but our party is left with fewer and fewer options. We will work within the law. We will work within the constitution. We will work within Scotland and the UK’s democracy. We will work within the settlements that we have, but we will not meekly comply because of a vote that happened in another country. We will not meekly go along with it, because we are told to by a party that has only recently found a common purpose—for the moment. It will not last long.
Leaving aside the democratic deficit of the United Kingdom, which is clear for everyone in Scotland to see, let us look at the project that is actually being imposed on us against our will and against our democratic vote. Brexit is proceeding on a flawed premise. There were a series of interlocking promises that have not been respected, that have been forgotten about and dismissed. There were the promises on the side of a bus and an oven-ready deal that is neither ready nor anywhere near an oven. We have a deal that is falling apart. In my first speech in this place, I described the withdrawal agreement as a grubby, shabby document and we were proven right, because within seconds of that vote being passed, the governing party walked away from the commitments, which were being viewed in Brussels as solemn commitments —to a level playing field, to a non-competitive aspect, and to various mechanisms. Those were all being treated as solemn commitments from a UK Government who now do not look very solemn, or serious, or at all credible in the eyes of our wider European colleagues.
Brexit has already made the people of these islands poorer on any objective analysis of the economics. All of that pain is perhaps necessary, I am willing to accept, if the benefits are there to see and to be explained, but —I believe in intellectual honesty in my politics—all of those benefits, surely we must accept, are at best hypothetical, and absolutely none of them has been delivered in the real world in any sense. Conservative Members wonder why we are sceptical on these Benches about this project. It is because we have not seen any advantages spelled out after four years of looking for one.
Tom Hunt
Thank you very much for giving way. You said at the start of your speech that this was not about stopping Brexit; it was just about extending the transition period. So why now are you making the case for why we should not leave, and don’t you think it is uncanny how everybody who is arguing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would rephrase his intervention, referring not to “you”, which would mean me in the Chair, but to the hon. Gentleman.
Alyn Smith
I am grateful for the opportunity to perhaps correct if I was unclear. I accept that Brexit has happened. I gave up my seat in the European Parliament because of it; I wanted to come here to fight for Scotland’s place in Europe. There was a point in the December election where we could have had that argument. In the halcyon days, we were thinking about a hung Parliament—with a Labour Administration, with SNP support, and a second EU referendum—but I won Stirling with 51% of the vote and my party won Scotland with a massive vote, to a Parliament we do not want to be in, on a pro-EU platform. Because of events elsewhere, it was clear that Brexit was going to happen anyway. I accepted Brexit has happened in my first speech, so I have made that point. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. What I am trying to do is extend the transition period to avoid a disaster that Conservative Members are going to inflict on this House out of bone-headed ideology, and when the chickens come home to roost, I do hope they will be as accountable as we have been to the people of Scotland on those points.
I again urge the Minister, whom I have much respect for, on the shared prosperity fund. There has been much talk about the power grab. I see the eyes rolling on the Conservative Benches now, but it is a very concrete example. This was not a power that rested in Brussels. The European frameworks exist in order to empower national and local governments. This was a power that was entirely with the Scottish authorities. The proposal on the table now from the UK Government is to put those powers in the hands of the Scotland Office—a part of the UK Government—removing that budget and removing that competence from the Scottish authorities. If that is not a power grab, I will need to have a look at the dictionary the Conservative Members are working with because, in any objective sense, it is. The Minister can assure us now that I am wrong. I will happily be proven wrong. I will happily engage with what we can do with the shared prosperity fund in Scotland, but it must be as a matter of respect for devolution under the competence of the Scottish authorities. If it is not, it is a breach of trust, it is a breach of faith and it is a power grab.
As I say, the pain of Brexit or the pain that Brexit is causing could be worth it if the benefits were there to be seen, but beyond warm words and sentiment, and beyond slogans that do not stand analysis, we have not seen that. Let us be generous—I do try to be generous—and say that the one-year negotiating period was heroically ambitious. That was before covid. Covid has intervened and has taken the focus of all of our Governments and all of our public officials away, rightly, to a health emergency. Extending the transition period is not about fighting old battles. I am not in the business of fighting old battles. Extending the transition period can be done and will give us breathing space and certainty to allow our economy to recover from a health emergency that is turning into an economic emergency. To add a covid-inflicted disaster upon that because of Brexit would be flat lunacy.
I was struck by the Paymaster General’s previous comments. She is now not in her place, but I was struck when she used the phrase that we are now past the point whereby a request can be made. She said that some might argue it is impossible to apply for an extension. She is not here now, but I would happily give way to anyone on the Conservative Benches who can name anybody in Brussels who is of that view. Anyone—Berlin, Paris, Ljubljana? It is a matter of straightforward principle and pragmatism in Brussels that, if the UK applies for an extension, it will be granted. The EU has, at every stage of the process, accepted with regret the democratic choices of the United Kingdom. It will not engage in our internal discussion, so it is with regret that it accepts that an extension will probably not be applied for.
We have not heard any indication today that the UK Government will change course, but they should, and this is a plea from us to do so, because we can still change course. We must change course. This is not about old battles. I asked whether anybody in Brussels, Berlin or anywhere else shared the Minister’s view. How about Dublin? Speaking of Dublin, Ireland is an independent state in north-west Europe that has done quite well lately. With Norway, it was voted on to the UN Security Council. It has the EU Commissioner for Trade in the inestimable Phil Hogan, who is a very strong negotiator in trade deals—Government Members will want to watch that one. It also has the president of the Eurogroup in Paschal Donohoe. The international accolades just keep coming for Ireland, and that is all based on the solidarity, support and encouragement of 26 other EU member states that have its back against the former colonial power.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that Ireland managed to get itself on to the UN Security Council, but Scotland is a permanent member of the UN Security Council through being part of one of the most successful unions. Does his attitude not show that he actually wants to downgrade Scotland’s place in the world by making it a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council?
Alyn Smith
I am happy to engage with that point. I have spent a number of years on the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am now foreign affairs spokesman for my party. The UK is, of course, a P5 member, and Scotland is represented by virtue of that mechanism. I think that it could serve us better if we were an independent member of the UN and an independent member of the EU, working in concert with 27 of our closest neighbours, because I do not have any faith or trust in where the UK is going under the Conservative party. The Brexit process has proven us to be right.
I heard the point made earlier about the 2014 referendum. We do accept that that vote happened—we do accept that arithmetic reality. But a number of people voted no to independence on the basis of specific promises—promises that they cannot risk their European status, that we are a family of equals and a partnership of nations, that the UK is the only way to guarantee economic stability. All those promises and all that airy sentiment now look an awful lot more threadbare than they did, and no amount of bluster from Government Members will disprove that point.
Look at the recent results of votes in Scotland. Under a system where we do not make the rules, we won massively the majority of seats from Scotland in this House. Scotland is represented in this discussion by nobody from the Labour party and by a Minister who represents Milton Keynes. We have no territorial ambitions on Milton Keynes—the Minister can rest easy—but to say that it is part of Scotland is something of a stretch.
The legitimacy of this Government in the eyes of the people of Scotland is really something that Government Members need to have higher up their consciousness, because the people of Scotland are watching. The people of Scotland will have a choice at some point on whether independence in Europe is a better option than being stuck on an island run by the Conservative party. Ireland has shown us what independence in Europe actually looks like, and the Government are showing us what the UK will continue to offer Scotland. I think we have a better choice, and I believe that independence in Europe is coming.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I would like to say that I am surprised and overwhelmed by the positive atmosphere and constructive tone of the debate and that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has come down from his humble croft with a wonderful solution based on his inestimable skills as a slick city financier—alas, no. Like that one bore at every party who becomes more opinionated as the evening wears on, the right hon. Gentleman has returned to his singular obsession.
This week’s excuse for nabbing us by the constitutional vol-au-vents is covid, but let us not pretend that this debate is about anything other than what it is. The SNP has not met a referendum in this century that it did not want to overturn. Whether it is the neverendum of indyref2, or frustrating Brexit by extending the transition period a little bit more, for SNP Members, “once in a generation” lasts about 30 minutes. That is a half-life of caesium-130, not a major constitutional change.
I was at the Glasgow count in 2014, watching as authority after authority sent in no votes in result after result. I was there when SNP Members started cheering early when the Inverclyde result came in. Do you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? They still learned nothing; they were calling for a second referendum before the fine folk of Fife had even sent the final coup de grâce.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman trots out the line that Scotland voted remain, but I remind him that the United Kingdom voted to leave. My constituency, Heywood and Middleton, voted to leave by well over 60% and, contrary to the groupthink of the bien-pensant Écossais on the Opposition Benches, they did know what they were voting for. They saw the opportunities and the challenges and they chose to seize them. The heart of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman remains deeply embittered that his brand of independence did not pass—and if he cannot have what he wants, nobody should have it.
Heywood and Middleton made a pretty bold decision in December by ending Labour’s lease on its votes, and that was in no small part down to the enthusiasm of the right hon. and learned Member the Leader of the Opposition for a second referendum. Let no one forget that that is his position. If nothing else, this debate will be a telling test of whether Her Majesty’s Opposition have learned any lessons. I see not. When it comes to Brexit, the Labour party has had more positions than the “Kama Sutra” and seems in no position to end the walk of shame that started on 13 December. This country has waited far too long for politicians to get themselves into gear. It wanted an outward-looking global Britain, with control over our money, borders and laws.
In closing, I would like to turn to something—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Quantity from that side, quality here. I wish to turn to something that an SNP Member said in yesterday’s debate on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made an insightful point, which I shall quote exactly. He said that,
“nations are best served when they govern themselves.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1428.]
The United Kingdom can, should and must now govern itself in line with the instruction that the people gave us in 2016.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) for what was, frankly, patronising drivel about Scotland and how we think, and for his insight into the 2014 referendum. He did get a joke in about the “Kama Sutra”, so obviously that was enough to have those on the Government Benches cheering; it is a joke we have all heard before so it was not very clever.
The motion before the House is all about common sense. It makes sense to extend the transition period during this covid pandemic. Only the Tories and their unelected tsar, Dominic Cummings, can think that a no-deal crash-out in December, in the midst of this global pandemic, is a good thing. It is quite clear that they are happy to pile chaos upon chaos.
Today’s motion and debate are also about nationalism and those who are obsessed by borders—and by that, of course, I mean the British nationalists, who think that the decline of the UK was due to the malign influence of the EU; those nationalists who are obsessed with controlling the UK borders and keeping people out; the very ones who cling to the glory days of the empire and think that the empire will return. Their idea of independence is so different from what we see as Scotland’s future.
We see a future in which Scotland is a member of the EU—one in which we still have freedom of movement for EU citizens and our students can still participate in the Erasmus scheme. As it stands at the moment, if we remain in a UK that is out of EU, students from the EU who apply to a Scottish university will initially be given only a three-year study visa—a visa that is not even long enough for them to complete their four-year course in Scotland. That is a simple example of how Scotland does not matter and does not figure when the UK formulates policy, particularly in respect of immigration. It is always based on what the Tory Government think England wants and how the voters in England will react.
We know that Scotland relies on immigration for growth, and we actually value those who come and work for the NHS. Meanwhile, the Tory Government and the Prime Minister had to be shamed into abandoning the health surcharge that they were applying to people who were saving lives and keeping the NHS going. Scotland simply cannot afford to be wedded to an immigration system designed for the south-east of England: as well as being inward-looking, it would cost Scotland financially and economically.
Bizarrely, despite the Tory Government’s obsession with controlling the UK borders, they are not actually in a position to do so if they leave without a deal in December. Throwing £700 million at it this week will not magically create a system that will be in place and operating by 1 January 2021. It certainly will not deal with the problem of the Irish border and the fact that there promises to be no new infrastructure. There is no IT system available at the moment that can actually do what they claim it can.
On that, the one aspect the International Trade Secretary understands is the fact that the UK risks being a smugglers’ charter. It is such a risk that she believes the UK could be subject to a challenge from the World Trade Organisation, basically because of the UK’s desire for no border checks for EU imports to Great Britain for the first six months of 2021. How is that taking control of your borders? The International Trade Secretary also highlighted that there is a lack of plans and timescales for tariff declaration systems, border controls and necessary infrastructure for ports in the UK. She also outlined the fear that the dual tariff system will not be in place for 1 January 2021, in breach of prior commitments made to Northern Ireland in the Government’s Command Paper. It is quite clear that the Government are not ready to leave the transition period in December 2020. They really do need to think again about how they go forward.
The hard Brexiteers, of course, still tell us that despite all that, and despite the International Trade Secretary highlighting her own concerns to the Cabinet, there is no need to extend the transition period—that is hard Brexiteers such as the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who, in previous no-deal planning, awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries, no money and no assets. But sure, these are the people who can come together and somehow magic all these solutions into place by December 2020! It is a complete and utter fantasy. Fortunately, the people of Scotland can see through that hard-headedness. They did not vote for Brexit and they certainly do not want a no-deal crash-out. A survey has found that 83% of people in Scotland, and even 77% of people across the UK, say that the UK Government should agree to an extension. Why are those views being roundly ignored?
There is a reason why 48 SNP MPs, out of 59 seats, were elected in December. More and more people in Scotland can see that having our independence means that we can steer our own path. We know they see that the Scottish Government have handled the covid-19 pandemic better than the UK Government, despite what the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) was saying earlier. We have now reached a period where for over a week there have been no deaths in Scotland. I think everyone in the Chamber should welcome that. It is a shame that the death figures in the UK are still way too high, but I think that is a sign of how we have handled it much better in Scotland.
Polls across the entire UK show that Nichola Sturgeon is showing real leadership, unlike the Prime Minister. It is becoming obvious to all that if we are to have a true economic and green recovery, Scotland needs independence. People can see that the Tories crowing about how grateful we should be for getting Barnett consequentials is no substitute for having our own powers on borrowing and taxation. They can see that the summer financial statement the other week completely bypassed Scotland all together.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
To return to the point the hon. Gentleman makes about death rates and figures, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee we have been hearing much about different rates in care homes and lots of the powers that are currently with the Scottish Government to prevent care home deaths. I encourage him to look at the figures, because Scotland is much worse than England.
Alan Brown
I would have thought that, as a scrupulous member of that Committee, the hon. Lady would know that the death rate in care homes in Scotland is not actually higher than the death rate in care homes in England. That said, it is much higher than we would have liked, no doubt about it—it would have been much better for all if so many people did not suffer. I go back to the main point: there have been no covid deaths at all for over a week now in Scotland. It is quite clear that we are handling the virus much better, and yesterday there were only five new cases identified in the whole of Scotland.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but honestly that comment is beneath him. The population of Scotland is so much smaller than the rest of England that of course there would be more deaths in England than in Scotland. He should withdraw the accusation that his Government have done more than the UK Government on covid. It is based on population and the point he raises is not a very good one.
Alan Brown
I will not withdraw the factual assertion I made that we have handled the covid-19 pandemic in Scotland better than the UK Government. And if we are talking about population, we can do that pro rata. The death rate in England is far, far higher than in Scotland. There are still daily deaths occurring every day in England and, as I have said, there are none in Scotland. That is nothing to do with having a lower population—zero is zero.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I suggest that it does this House a disservice if people outside see us haggling over which country has had fewer deaths—frankly, I think it does Members on both sides of the House a disservice—so I would like to go back to the hon. Gentleman’s comment on the summer statement last week. He spoke about how the UK Government’s funding had bypassed Scotland. That is an untrue statement. What it did was bypass the Scottish Government, and once again, that shows that unless the money has the stamp of the Scottish Government on it, the SNP does not accept that money being spent here can benefit the people and businesses of Scotland.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is part of the whole debate about a power grab. The UK Government are trying to bypass the Scottish Government, so he is right in that, because they want to stick a Union flag on it—well, that trick does not work either. I go back to my earlier point: he is one of the Scottish Conservative MPs who stands up and brags about Barnett consequentials, but it is a sad state of affairs that we are expected to be grateful for Barnett consequentials, which come from a UK Government plan on how to spend money in England. They look at England’s needs and apply money to be spent based on England’s needs. We then get a wee share of that money and we are supposed to say, “Thank you very much, UK Government. The broad shoulders do us so well.” That is not how it works. In the Budget process, Scotland’s needs are never taken into account and people in Scotland understand that.
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his characteristically kindly manner. Perhaps I can take him back to the thrust of his speech. Is it not very regrettable that we still do not seem to have any details that lead us to believe anything very much about what the shared prosperity fund will mean for Scotland? If someone travels in my constituency or that of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), they will see many, many signs with European stars on them. Scotland and the highlands have benefited greatly from European funding. I do not know what will replace it in future and I would like to know.
Alan Brown
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for advising me to get back to the thrust of my speech, as I will now, on that very theme. As he correctly points out, in the highlands and islands, so many areas have benefited from European funding over the years. So many road upgrades have been undertaken, with causeways built, to connect islands, all based on European funding. That money is no longer accessible to Scotland. That money was making up for the deficiencies of direct rule from Westminster. Why were all these projects outstanding? Why did they have to be funded by European money? Because Westminster was not taking account of Scotland’s needs.
On the shared prosperity fund, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have no clarity. It says it all that responsibility for the shared prosperity fund lies with the Minister for English local government, so, clearly, it will not take into account the needs of Scotland. It is going to be tailored towards local communities in England. We will get some money and be told to be grateful and thankful—“Take your money and on you go.” It is not working anymore and the people in Scotland understand that.
We have heard today that this is the most successful political union in the world, and they tell us how lucky we are to have such a powerful devolved Parliament—the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world apparently. And yet, if we look across the Irish sea to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly has powers over welfare, pensions and an independent civil service, for example, which the Scottish Parliament does not have. Wallonia in Belgium scuppered the EU-Canada trade deal, so there are some other examples of Parliaments that have much greater power and responsibility than the Scottish Parliament. Most federal states in the United States have more powers than the Scottish Parliament, so this myth that it is the most powerful Parliament in the world does not wash. Of course it has done good for the Scottish people. Of course it is much better than direct rule from Westminster, but do not pretend that it is the most powerful Parliament in the world.
The real truth of the matter in terms of Unionist condescension is that they do not even believe that the people of Scotland should choose their own future. We have heard it today—“You had your referendum in 2014. The people voted in 2014 to stay in the UK, so shut your mouths and get on with it.” That does not wash either. The opinion polls show consistently at the moment support for independence at 54%. It ill becomes these people to say, “You’re not getting another referendum.”
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just mentioned opinion polls. Does he not agree that on 10 and 11 September, prior to the independence referendum, opinion polls showed that Scotland was going to vote for independence, yet when it actually came to the vote a few days later, it voted to remain part of the UK? Why should we listen to opinion polls? Should we not listen to the voice of the people as they express it at the ballot box?
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for another wonderful insight from afar. Yes, there was one opinion poll and yes, it did excite us, but it was only one opinion poll; all the other opinion polls showed that no was going to win, so I do not understand his point. It is clear that the opinion polls have moved and now consistently show record support for independence.
It is clear from some of the observations from Conservative Members that they do not understand what the Scottish population are thinking and how they feel. Their denial just beggars belief. They can talk in this Chamber about denying Scotland another referendum, but they cannot deny the will of the people in the long run. I assure them that independence is coming, it is coming soon, and then we will rejoin the EU and be an outward-looking, ambitious nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. As I said in reply to the point of order from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I have let the debate run and put no restriction on time because it has been a very robust debate and I think it has benefited from everyone being able to take a lot of interventions rather than being constrained by a time limit. I hope not to have to introduce a time limit, because we have plenty of time for this extremely important debate, but I would appreciate it now if hon. Members would please hold the floor for around eight minutes. Eight minutes is quite a long time. That time will be reduced later in the debate, but if everybody takes around eight minutes for the time being, everyone who has indicated that they would like to speak will have an opportunity to do so, and that would be fair.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
First, I reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that I will not mention the “Kama Sutra”, so no upset caused there. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I just did.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the importance of sticking to the deadline and our promise to the British people. The Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, of which I am a member, received evidence relating to the effect of covid-19 on the negotiations. The negotiations are progressing and intensifying, but no amount of extra time will resolve the sticking points. The European Union is refusing to follow its own precedent and incorporate terms that it has accepted in other trade deals. The Select Committee’s report spoke of the possibility that covid-19
“may focus minds on arriving at a timely deal.”
I hope that causes the EU to recognise that its position is unreasonable and accept its need to compromise.
The report also highlighted the importance of giving certainty to business. The SNP’s motion would only give way to months more of uncertainty. It is reckless and acts as a thin veil for the party’s desire to cancel the decision taken by the United Kingdom in 2016.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that four years is enough time to have negotiated a deal with the EU?
Mark Eastwood
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. We have moved on now, and there is no more time for dither and delay. We need to move on.
It is hardly surprising that the SNP called this debate, given its form for disregarding referendum results. Fifty-seven per cent. of the people of Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale voted to leave the European Union. I was proud to campaign for a truly global Britain to take back control from Brussels and reclaim our independent trade policy. During the last general election, the spectre of the Brexit party risked splitting the leave vote and allowing the Labour party to hold the seat. Imagine my relief when my Labour opponents, in their infinite wisdom, published election leaflets branding me as the Prime Minister’s chum and a no-deal Brexiteer. I would like to thank the Labour party for its gleaming endorsement, without which I probably would not be standing here today. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. The fact that the Labour party thought those leaflets would hinder my chances rather than endear me to the electorate just shows how out of touch it is.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) in asking where Labour Members are today. Where are they? Looking at the sparse Labour Benches, there is little sign that anything has changed. It is deeply worrying that the Opposition could muster only one Back-Bench Member to speak in this debate—[Interruption.] And I am not sure where the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) is. I want to offer Labour Members—who are, hopefully, watching or listening in their offices—some genuine advice: listen to the British people and accept the result of the referendum and the enormous benefits of being an outward-looking nation. They should unanimously oppose this motion. By doing so, perhaps they would get a little bit closer to reconnecting with their traditional voters.
I must confess that I am not, in fact, a no-deal Brexiteer. That is not to say that we should be fearful of a no-deal Brexit, given adequate preparation. However, I am optimistic that the Government will secure a deal that works for the whole United Kingdom. They are on track to deliver a deal that protects our legal autonomy and takes us out of the single market and the customs union. We will then be able to secure the vast boons of trade deals with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Japan. My constituents have no desire to dither and delay, and nor do I. I will be opposing the motion with a spring in my step.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood). I noted his use of the term “take back control”, which I might use as well, but possibly running in a different direction. I would also like to inform the House that our Senedd in Wales is today holding the first ever debate on annibyniaeth—independence. In the light of the fact that we are also holding this debate here, and of the tenor in which it is being conducted, it is fair to say that the scaffolding of the UK is being strained to breaking by the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves.
One of the dominant themes of our public debate since the 2016 EU referendum has been that power should lie closer to the people. The campaign was largely won on the emotional appeal of autonomy and control. “Vote leave and take back control” was the mantra that was repeated ad nauseam in debates inside this House and elsewhere. There was, and there remains, a clear emotional appeal to that message, and while I regretted Wales’s decision to vote to leave, back in 2016, I recognise that that vote reflected a genuine and justified dissatisfaction with our distance from where decisions are taken in our politics. Therefore, 2016 should have been a turning point and the beginning of a new process of truly bringing power closer to the people. We should have seen more devolution, not only to our national Parliaments but to local authority level. That vote should have started a process of bringing disengaged voters back into the democratic process, and of giving people real control over the decisions affecting their real lives.
The UK Government themselves acknowledged the need for that. The Brexit White Paper released in March 2017 proclaimed:
“As the powers to make these rules are repatriated to the UK from the EU, we have an opportunity to determine the level best placed to make new laws and policies on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before.”
Instead, what we have had is a centralisation of power—centralisation to these corridors here in Whitehall, standing in the way of powers that should have been in transit from Europe to our national Parliaments rather than empowering Whitehall further. If this were a true Union of equals, these former EU powers would have gone equally, naturally, to all our Parliaments. The process started with the EU withdrawal Act, which ensures that the only Parliament that will take back control is the one most removed from the lives of the ordinary people who many of us in the Opposition represent.
The UK internal market Bill threatens our powers further, by allowing Westminster to dictate trade, environmental, food and animal welfare standards and provisions and by giving Westminster control over state aid—a clear breach of devolution in spirit and actuality.
Westminster once again undermines our nations when it comes to an extension of the transition. The Welsh Government, as well as the Scottish Government, last month called for the transition period to be extended. They were ignored.
Jacob Young
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Welsh Government. Labour is in power in Wales, of course, yet Labour have not bothered to turn up to this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on representing Wales on both sides of the House when Labour do not care.
Liz Saville Roberts
In these extraordinary circumstances, I will agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am deeply disappointed that where Labour are in power and when they have made a clear statement to an effect that is relevant to the title of this debate, they do not have people here to push that argument.
I turn back to the UK internal market Bill and beyond. The Westminster Government, in this matter and others, not only disregarded the approaches from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but did not consult them when they gave official notice to extend the transition.
Now, of course, the coronavirus has affected every nation badly, Wales among them. A recent Office for National Statistics survey found that 46% of Welsh businesses have six months or less of cash reserves—the highest percentage among the UK nations. In just five months’ time, businesses that export to the EU will be subject to customs declarations regardless of whether or not a deal is struck, adding increased costs and immense red tape to businesses that are already struggling.
In 2018, HMRC estimated that each customs declaration form would cost an average of £32.50 to complete. The Government expect that about 400 million additional customs declarations a year will have to be made from next year. The 46% of Welsh businesses that do not have the cash reserves to see them beyond this year will simply be unable to afford the added costs, and we fear that Welsh exports will be deeply affected, even to the point of collapse.
Thousands of job losses have already been announced in Wales: in aerospace, manufacturing, media, and—most recently, today, with the announcement that 80 full-time jobs and 70 casual workers’ jobs are at risk—at the Urdd. The Urdd is a 90-year-old organisation that runs the largest youth festival in Europe. It is critical to Welsh cultural survival, and we have heard today that there is that threat to 150 jobs out of 320. That is deeply concerning.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Urdd Eisteddfod, an important celebration of our Welsh language and culture. Another such example is the Royal Welsh Show, which has not yet received any support from the Welsh Government, despite the additional funding that the UK Government made available. Does she agree that it also deserves support?
Liz Saville Roberts
These cultural events are critical for us in Wales, but this year’s National Eisteddfod has been of course cancelled. Referring back, the Urdd is also one of the organisations that encourages our young people not just to learn Welsh at school, but to use it with each other and to have fun through the medium of Welsh. That support for the language is critical.
For a Government to be actively walking towards further disruption in January is reckless in the extreme, and I fear that it is all part of a plan. The disaster capitalists—those who profit from disaster—are now in charge, and they are gambling that the combined shocks caused by covid-19 and a destructive Brexit will allow them to reassemble the broken pieces into a radically different economic system. I urge the other Welsh Member here—I had to think ex tempore there—to consider the impact that a crash in January, on top of the covid-19 recession, will have on our constituencies and to consider the effect of the collapse in confidence on our fragile rural and tourism-dependent economies. We need that confidence, yet we see no confidence coming our way.
Plaid Cymru tabled a motion that gained the support of many Members on 13 March—right at the beginning of the pandemic—calling for an extension to the transition. The pandemic has changed everything, and we must now put all our energy into the recovery. The UK Government may have missed the deadline within the withdrawal agreement for a simple extension to the transition period, but that does not mean that we are bound to a January crash. There are other options, as other Members have rightly pointed out. I urge the Government to do the sensible thing—the common-sense thing—and to negotiate a real implementation period to protect our economy from the double blow of the pandemic and Brexit.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Here we go again: another SNP debate, another debate on Brexit. I rise today, surprisingly enough, to oppose the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), but I do so in a particularly generous and forgiving mood. It was Oscar Wilde who said, “We should always forgive our opponents, because nothing annoys them so much.” So I forgive the Scottish National party for bringing before the House today this motion on, frankly, a false and flawed assumption: that the covid-19 pandemic has disrupted the Government’s negotiations with the European Union to the point that businesses will be left, as the Scottish Government argue in the document described in the motion, with less time to prepare than previously anticipated. That is quite simply not the case. The process has continued throughout the pandemic, with civil servants working from home and the negotiations taking place virtually.
SNP Members are not the only people to be worried about the efficiency or the productivity of people working from home, but if they truly believe that it is impossible to conduct effective negotiations remotely, that does prompt the question why they were so insistent that we could function effectively as MPs under the virtual Parliament arrangements, which the SNP fought so hard to keep. Indeed, on 8 June in this very place, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a strong and eloquent case for retaining remote working and hybrid arrangements, because they were working properly and should be brought back “in full”. I do not believe for a minute that he believes that it should be one rule for us and another for other people, but I do agree with him that remote working does actually work well, and our negotiating teams have been demonstrating that every day with their continued important work on exiting the European Union.
Patrick Grady
Of course, it is unfortunate that we do not have remote participation, because far more SNP Members would have wanted to take part in this debate if they had been able to contribute via the remote screens. If Brexit is heading towards being such a success, as the hon. Gentleman claims, can he explain the opinion polls showing that people in Scotland are moving towards independence by a substantial majority? Are the polls wrong? Are the people misguided? Or is it actually that the misguiding principles are coming from the Conservative Benches?
Andrew Bowie
I would happily stand and debate opinion polls and their trajectory, but there is only one poll that truly matters, and that is when people get to the ballot box. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the SNP only managed to get 45% of the vote in December. That is a fantastic total and a very strong result, but it shows that 55% of the Scottish population voted for parties that want to remain in the United Kingdom—a United Kingdom that is, I am afraid, because we believe in democracy, leaving the European Union this year.
Throughout the Brexit debate, there has been a false assumption that the status quo was one of the options that remained available to us. That was never true and has never been less true that it is today. The European Union has been hit just as hard by the pandemic as the UK has, and it will have to make difficult decisions about how to respond to the economic effects, exactly as we will. Our staying in the transitional arrangements with the EU, when the EU is rightly not factoring British interests into its plans for recovery, does not make sense. We need all the flexibility available to us to respond to the economic damage caused by the pandemic, and staying inside the EU’s one-size-fits-all framework is simply not conducive to that.
We have had this debate over and over again for the past three to four years. What this country, and businesses in this country, needs is certainty, not more dither and delay. It is disappointing and of serious detriment to the interests of the people of Scotland that the SNP has not yet learned how negotiations work. If the past four years have taught us anything, it is that without firm deadlines, negotiations grind to a halt. That is precisely why deadlines exist—to ensure that important tasks are completed in a timely fashion. I am sure that Opposition Members visit schools in their constituencies from time to time, as I do. The next time they visit I invite them to ask teachers how likely it is that their students’ coursework would materialise were endless extensions on offer.
The leader of the Scottish National party in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, spoke today about the importance of economic certainty and putting the economy first. My goodness me! It was a bigger conversion than Paul on the road to Damascus to finally hear the leader of the SNP making our arguments for us. Surely it means that the SNP has finally accepted our argument against breaking up the United Kingdom, given the huge economic cost that would bring. If the economy comes before all other concerns, the case for Scottish independence is as dead as a dodo.
Stephen Flynn
Parking the politics for a moment, in all honesty does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that our part of the United Kingdom, which we both are elected to represent, is due to be the hardest hit of the entirety of the United Kingdom as a result of Brexit? Does he not have any concerns about that whatever?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Member knows that I share concerns about the economic prospects of our part of the country, which we are both proud to represent, and that is why I, unlike him, welcomed the huge stimulus announced last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so much of which will be going to support Scottish businesses.
Andrew Bowie
Perhaps the hon. Member would like to stand up and welcome the Chancellor’s package of announcements that was unveiled last week.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and giving me another opportunity to reflect on the package last week, which he knows was devoid of any support whatever for Scotland’s oil and gas sector in terms of an oil and gas sector deal. I see his head go down, because he has just walked into that one, knowing exactly what I was going to say. I go back to my initial point. Does he not in all honesty have concerns that our part of Scotland will be detrimentally impacted by Brexit? Just say it.
Andrew Bowie
I may have walked right into that, but that is because last week Oil & Gas UK welcomed the package of support unveiled by the Chancellor. It was very welcoming of the furlough scheme that we put up and it is looking forward to working with us as we develop the oil and gas sector deal. By the way, that deal and support would not come if Scotland was not in our wider United Kingdom.
I have to say something to the hon. Member and any SNP Members. If, heaven forbid, a second independence referendum took place and, heaven forbid, the result went in their favour, we would respect the result because, after all, we are democrats. I doubt we would see SNP politicians coming back here asking for an extension to any transition period that had been agreed, but the untangling of the Union that we are going through now is nothing compared with what it would be like to untangle an economic, political and military Union that has existed for more than 300 years.
The SNP looks both ways when it comes to leaving Unions. They will find any excuse to drag out the Brexit process for as long as possible, but when it comes to independence, it is full steam ahead—no plan, no timetable, no currency, no mandate, no way. They are simply Euro-Unionists. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentions the side of a bus. Earlier, we heard the leader of the Scottish National party talk about what the SNP campaigned on during the December election. Its campaign was solely about “Stop Brexit”; it was not about another Scottish independence referendum. Independence was not even mentioned for the duration of the campaign, so toxic was it to the Scottish National party’s platform. On the side of the SNP bus, in black and yellow, was “Stop Brexit”. It failed, we are leaving the European Union at the end of the year, and we will make a success of it.
Andrew Bowie
I will not because I have already taken two interventions—not even for the hon. Gentleman. SNP Members know that I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union, but there is a certain thing called democracy, and we must abide by the results. Otherwise, everything that we stand for in this place, and out in the wider country, falls flat on its face. We fought the referendum. My side lost, the leave side won, and we must respect that, just as one day—hopefully—the Scottish National party will respect the fact that it lost in 2014, and that Scotland is staying as part of the United Kingdom.
At least the Scottish National party is consistent, and has a position on Brexit and the transition agreement, and I am sure we will debate the issue again in the months to come. Sadly, that is more than can be said for the Labour party, which is all but invisible today. I say in all candour to my friends on the Opposition Benches that it does not look likely, with the sort of actions demonstrated today, that they will get back to the position in which they need to be if they are to become a force in Scottish politics again, let alone in UK politics.
I am conscious of what you said earlier Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will draw my remarks to a close as I know that plenty of people wish to speak. This motion is not about covid, the economy, or people’s livelihoods; this motion is about the Scottish National party and its obsession with stymying the democratic role of the British people. We should be proud of voting it down this evening.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is, for a change, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and I am glad to see him doing better. His more measured approach to this debate has been noted on the SNP Benches, and I wish him well—although, as usual, he was talking guff.
We are in the middle of a health crisis that stretches not just across borders—whether or not the Prime Minister recognises them—but across continents. At least 600,000 people around the world are dead from coronavirus, and many millions more will contract the virus in the future. That situation requires an international response, yet sadly, and predictably, the UK has gone further into its Brexit bunker, and decided to try and opt out of the world.
We have heard repeatedly about how Ministers want the UK to remain close friends with our EU allies, but what sort of friend insists on diverting the resources of the EU and its member states away from dealing with the most serious health emergency in modern history, and to negotiating with an obstinate and childish ex-member that seems to use a “Dad’s Army” script as its terms of reference? The EU has made clear time after time that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, it would be more than amenable to an extension to the negotiations, to allow it and the UK the space and time that is needed to deal with the public health emergency consuming us all. The response from the UK? “No thanks. I’m all right Jack.” What sort of relationship does it think will emerge on the other side?
Scotland is being dragged into a bombastic mix of exceptionalism, isolationism, and outright self-destruction. Ministers and Conservative Members have said that we voted as a Union, but people in Scotland have heard that before. People in Scotland also know that our democratic wish to work alongside our longstanding partners and allies has been torn up and chucked in the Brexit bin. Again, we are seeing that the British state is fundamentally incapable of good governance for Scotland or the rest of the UK. A clique of self-congratulatory Oxbridge graduates would steer their own country on to the rocks in the name of Brexit if they even knew where the steering wheel was. Instead, they have allowed their country to drift over the decades, taking the rest of us with them.
Scotland has never endorsed this self-immolation. For all that Ruth Davidson was lauded to the heavens by her high-profile supporters in the press, her crowning triumph was 28% of the vote in 2017—a figure that dropped two years later. The Tory record at election after election has been an unbroken streak of dismal failure for decades, yet our entire society and economy has been reshaped and allowed to wither on the vine, because that same Tory party has governed the UK for nearly 28 out of my 40 years. Now they expect us to keep silent and meekly go along with their back-of-a-fag-packet Brexit.
As I have said a few times in this place in the past few weeks, my constituency is facing the biggest challenge to our economy for decades. Rolls-Royce, Glasgow airport, easyJet, British Airways, Menzies Aviation and Swissport—I could go on to list company after company, and sector after sector—are in the process of collectively laying off thousands of my constituents. I have asked time after time what the UK Government plan to do to support constituencies such as mine, which are staring economic disaster in the face, but there has been no answer and no sign of a plan. But EU countries do have plans and they are implementing them now. They want to save jobs and key industries, and they have their levers and powers to do that. The Danish Government do not have to send missives to the Germans asking permission to have an industrial or macroeconomic policy. The French Government are implementing their plan for aviation now, yet there is no plan in the UK—none. Aerospace and aviation are left to rot; there is no sectoral support and no sign of any.
Businesses face a double whammy of coronavirus and Brexit, both accentuated by UK Government incompetence, ideology and arrogance. The exporters in my constituency still do not know what and where they will be able to export to the EU in the new year. Our manufacturers still do not know whether they will be massively disadvantaged by trade barriers that their EU competitors regard as fit only for the history books. The service industries still do not know what access, if any, they will have to the single market after 1 January, all while every business and individual in the country grapples with the impact of coronavirus, and the massive dislocation it is causing and will continue to cause.
This is history repeating itself. Our country lived through decades of de-industrialisation as asset-strippers and spivs were allowed to run riot and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the name of ideology—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Emigration from Scotland ran into the hundreds of thousands as families moved anywhere and everywhere they could to find a skilled job—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Our towns and cities became victims of the post-industrial economy—the UK Government sat back and let it happen.
Tom Hunt
The hon. Gentleman talks about the uncertainty that many businesses in his constituency face, but surely that uncertainty would drag on if we were to extend the transition deadline today. Surely it would be far better to focus on getting a deal and providing greater certainty through a clear framework of where we are going to be in the years ahead, rather than extending and pushing it down the road.
Gavin Newlands
I am very grateful for that intervention, but I have just listed all the things where businesses do not know what is going to happen after 1 January, so what certainty is the hon. Gentleman talking about? I have no idea and neither do businesses in my constituency. If he has some certainty to give us, I would be happy to give way again so that he can tell us what that is.
The UK has shown itself unfit and unwilling to govern Scotland properly, with, more often than not, zero democratic mandate to do so. I know that an independent Scotland, with its governance, capability and capacity, could plot a better course than the one we are locked into. I know that we could take our place back in the EU alongside the other small independent countries that make up the majority of its members. Do the Government want to carry on telling the people of Scotland that somehow we, on our own, are an economic basket case propped up by the largesse of the Treasury, as has been indicated? That is their concern, but I urge them not to be hypocritical; they should deliver that message to the people of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and all the other nations, self-governing, sovereign and independent, that make up the EU. The UK Government should pop up in the national news programmes of those countries telling the electorate that they are doing it wrong. They should be firing out press releases and extending the Prime Minister’s role as Minister for the Union to cover all these countries, Britsplaining their way across the continent. But they will not find a receptive audience and they do not find one in Scotland. More and more the rot at the heart of the UK is laid bare for all to see and people are saying enough is enough—enough of jingoism, isolationism and palling up with Trump; enough of watching the poorest in society being punished by a welfare state that is meant to help them; enough of rhetoric towards our friends in the EU that, until very recently, was the sole preserve of the Daily Mail letters page.
We want a Scotland that protects our citizens and works to protect others. We want a Scotland that values Europe and the benefits we bring each other when working in partnership. The Minister for the Union and his colleagues should realise now that to block the democratic will of the people to achieve these goals would be another nail in the coffin for the UK and another example for the Scottish people of how the UK works against our interests, not for them.
Scotland belongs in Europe and the people of Scotland will make that happen sooner rather than later. The Government, despite what they may think, cannot stop democracy, and they cannot and will not stop the people of Scotland choosing their own future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. After the next speaker we will have to have a time limit of five minutes, but that does not apply to Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There have been relatively few opportunities for me, as a new MP, to debate the current negotiations with the EU during this Session, so I welcome this debate. It is timely because, after several years of bluster since 2016, this week we have finally started to see some more details of what Brexit will mean in practice.
On Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the £705 million cost of new border infrastructure and a new comms plan, which has been reported to cost £93 million on top of last year’s £100 million defunct Get Ready for Brexit campaign. On Tuesday, the Government confirmed that some 250 million customs declarations will be required every year, at a cost of £13 billion per annum.
Some of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember that the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised that if we voted leave, the NHS would receive £350 million a week. We were told that leaving the EU would be easy and frictionless, but now this Vote Leave Government are spending, on my calculations, around £250 million a week to prepare us for the realities of Brexit, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. These were preparatory measures; we have no idea what the exact cost of our exit will be. There will be tariffs; the question is on what scale, and we now know that that means a deterioration in our terms of trade. It means higher costs for business, and ultimately it will mean a rise in the cost of living, which will hit the poorest in this country hardest.
I acknowledge that that means that, in many cases, those who voted for Brexit will be hit hardest, but this is not the Brexit that they were promised—all at a time when the country faces unprecedented economic disaster and the greatest public health crisis this century. This is not Project Fear; the Government’s announcements, slowly though they may have come, have continually confirmed that this is Project Reality. Members on the Government Benches might criticise me for talking Britain down, but as I highlighted in my question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier this week, the current actual financial opportunities identified by the Government equate to absolutely zero.
Back in 2016, we were told that Britain would be welcomed, as we left the EU, with open arms by the international community. Despite lots of rhetoric around trade discussions, that welcome is far from certain. That rhetoric of leaving one Union to be welcomed by a host of nations is also used by Scottish National party Members, and that is not the only parallel between the campaign to leave the union in Europe and that to leave the Union of these four nations.
I have to question the consistency of advocating, on the one hand, that Brexit is doing a great deal of damage —with which I agree; so much, in fact, that delay is required—while failing to acknowledge that leaving the UK would be even more fiscally damaging. The UK has many similarities to the EU. The UK has a single market—one which, I acknowledge, is currently being undermined by our EU departure; a customs union; and a single currency. We share a currency and other far closer and deeper economic and social ties.
Britain carries out 40% of its trade with the European Union, and I agree with the SNP that leaving that institution is having, and will continue to have, profound economic shocks, but Scotland does over 60% of its trade with Wales, England and Northern Ireland, and impacting that would be cataclysmic.
The current crisis has been a clear indicator of the fact that working together can achieve better outcomes. It is likely that we will hear that, had Scotland voted for independence in 2014, with the obvious difficulties of separating from a 300-year-old Union, coupled with a likely currency crisis, it would potentially be in a very precarious place at this time, as it dealt with covid.
Earlier, I mentioned consistency. If the pandemic had struck in a world in which Scotland had voted for independence and was in a period of transition out of the UK, do we really think the Scottish Government would have been pressing for an extension to the date of Scotland’s departure due to covid? I do not think so; it is very likely that the SNP would be ploughing on. They would probably have had the same thinking as the current UK Government: given the scale of the crisis, no one will notice a bit more chaos, and if they do, we can point to the crisis. And why? Because they, like those on the Government Benches, do not acknowledge the costs of their beliefs.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) stated that the SNP looks both ways on Unions. So do those on the Government Benches. If the argument is that coronavirus has such an impact on the UK that an extension to Brexit is required, why is the SNP continuing to push for a referendum on Scottish independence?
The First Minister claims that anyone who says anything contrary to the Scottish Government at present is being a political opportunist, but, too often, her party is happy to foster the politics of grievance. Last week, the Finance Cabinet Secretary, Kate Forbes, dismissed the financial support that went directly from the UK Treasury to Scottish people and businesses as if it did not exist. We have also talked about the Barnett formula today, and one of the benefits of the support that has been delivered directly by the UK Treasury is that it has not been subject to Barnett consequentials and has been absolutely based on the needs of UK businesses and employees.
I fear that responsible politics are in short supply these days, not least at the top of the UK Government. I mentioned a commitment made by the Prime Minister back in 2016, and he made another one almost a year ago on the steps of Downing Street, when he promised he would govern as a one nation leader. If that is the Prime Minister’s intention, he makes it very difficult to recognise it in his actions and those of his Government. In relation to the pandemic, what started as a four-nations approach with movement in lockstep—I have heard this on the Scottish Affairs Committee—quickly degenerated into acrimonious briefings and a breakdown in communications.
We have heard frequently in this Chamber from those on the Government Benches about the precious Union, but for me, the terminology “Union” and “Unionist” rings hollow. If the way the Government have handled relations with Scotland and the other devolved nations during the pandemic is Unionist, I am certainly something different. I am a Liberal. I am a federalist. I am an internationalist; I believe not in erecting borders but in dismantling them, and I do not think the politics of nationalism—on either side of this House—the politics of grievance and, ultimately, the politics of division are any way in which to conduct truly progressive politics. I am proud to stand here representing a constituency that voted both to remain in the UK and to remain in the EU.
As the Government look towards the end of this year, I urge them to remember that two constituent parts of the UK voted decisively to remain in the EU. The failure to properly take that into account in negotiations weakens the bonds of the UK. The pandemic has shown that devolution can deliver financial support, while nations and regions make different choices on their social and public health responses. On Brexit, it is incumbent on the Government be a Government for all four parts of the country, not just England.
We have clearly missed the opportunity of an extension, so now the Government must do all they can to seek a deal that will give us the closest possible relationship to the EU and minimise the impact of our departure during the covid crisis.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I want to start by talking about the catalogue of demonstrated Brexit costs, which grows almost unceasingly. I continue to be told by constituents of how it will cause massive damage to their businesses, and I am going to highlight just one of the most recent examples.
Leith and Edinburgh have a long association with the European wine trade—back as far as the 13th century—and it continues today. Raeburn Fine Wines, with premises in Leith, Edinburgh and London, has been telling me about the effects of the Brexit proposal on the wine trade. Perhaps surprisingly, the UK accounts for a large share of the world trade in fine wines, but that is under threat. Import certificates for EU wines will add business costs and near impossible bureaucracy to the uphill challenge of surviving the covid recession.
Wine is not the only high-quality sector facing an uncertain future. The recent announcement of the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission showed that the Government intend to break their promise to farmers to protect food standards post Brexit. The financial services sector also features heavily in my constituency, and it faces being locked out of EU markets or migrating to EU nations to protect its access. Universities face losing research cash. The health service faces losing access to essential supplies, including any new vaccine for the virus causing the current pandemic. Our fishing industry is about to be sold out by this Government, who will be handing out quotas with abandon. The list goes on and on.
Brexit was already a damaging prospect. Add the global pandemic, the trade negotiations going worse than anyone predicted and the OBR forecast of one in eight soon being out of work, and it is not clear to me and many others why anyone other than the blindest zealot would plough on unthinkingly. Now those zealots want to tie an unwilling Scotland to the handcart on the road to hell, with an internal market that once again renders the wellbeing of the people of Scotland secondary to the financial considerations of the south-east of England. No room for nuance or subtlety in the brave, new Brexit; no room for devolution in the sunny uplands of broken Britain.
The Government are so frightened of debate that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in hiding and they have sent expendable cannon fodder instead. That points to the fact that Government Ministers do not seem to understand the four nations. Some of them famously think that there is no border. They think that wisdom rests in Whitehall and all must comply. They have lost even the limited vision that once embraced England’s northern powerhouse—that, too, will be ground down in the new Tory version of Mao’s long march. No dissent will be tolerated, no differentiation accepted. At a time when the best economic solutions for Scotland, Wales and for huge parts of England diverge hugely from the solutions offered in Parliament, uniformity will be enforced. Four legs shall be good and two legs shall be bad.
The proposed UK internal market is an infernal insult to nations that need different frameworks and support; to the people who will suffer the aftermath of the pandemic; and to those who aspire to something better than the fag end of British imperialism and exceptionalism. What has become breathtakingly clear during the coronavirus pandemic is that the UK Government are dysfunctional and incompetent. I shall give a few examples. Ministers and Spads who went roaming around England in flagrant abuse of the rules remain in post; confusing and inconsistent messages are sent out; financial help for those affected was provided at first, then withdrawn; figures on testing capacity have been massaged until they are meaningless.
It is a shambolic mess, much like the Government’s Brexit negotiations and trade talks. Failure mounts upon failure’s shoulders until the combined weight is too much to bear. The bluster and bravado is no substitute for clear thinking and proper action. The confusion and dither, the stumbling up cul-de-sacs and falling over kerbstones are not statesmanship—they are just bluster and bombast. It is a sad and embarrassing caricature of a Government who talk populism and serve elitism.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think we have to move on—sorry. I call Lee Anderson.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
This debate has nothing to do with covid or the negotiations with the EU. It has more to do with the Opposition once again refusing to accept democracy. Of course, Opposition parties have form in refusing to accept the democratic will of the people. Let us remind ourselves that we voted to leave as the United Kingdom—not as Northern Ireland, not as Scotland, not as Wales, not as England. Look at the Conservatives—we are the 109s, and we are here because of the Opposition’s reluctance to accept democracy. Most of us are from leave constituencies, and we were voted in because of the Opposition. That is a fact.
On 23 June 2016, my phone did not stop ringing. People all over Ashfield were ringing to ask where they could go to vote. They were people who had never voted before; people of all ages who wanted their voice to be heard. When the results came in the next day, the same people called me again to say that their vote really did count. The referendum result went a long way towards restoring confidence in democracy in left-behind areas like mine—the same areas that the Opposition told us would suffer if we left the EU. In Ashfield, our pits, factories and swathes of manufacturing industry have vanished over the past 40-odd years, and during the same period we have been part of the wonderful EU. People in Ashfield cannot see the benefits of being in the EU, and no one has ever explained it to them—I wonder why? Perhaps the Opposition do not realise that in places like Ashfield they cannot threaten us any longer.
Lee Anderson
No, I will not. The Opposition cannot tell us that we will suffer, lose our jobs and homes if we do not listen to them. We have suffered in the past, we have lost jobs, seen our area decline and be ignored, but we are fighters in Ashfield and we are coming back stronger. For the first time in decades we have hope, we know we can make a success of things, and we know that Ashfield can once again become a force to be reckoned with in a UK that is not controlled by the EU. But four years later, the Brexit blockers—
Lee Anderson
No, I am not giving way.
But four years later, the Brexit blockers are still at it. The majority of people in Ashfield and the first-time voters are not happy with them. Even the remain voters are not happy with them. We are all democrats and we should respect that. My voters were not happy with the Labour party last December when the people of Ashfield voted me in, and many of my colleagues across the midlands and the north. Just after the election, Labour started knocking on doors in Ashfield to ask why its voters had left it. I was sort of hoping that there would be more Labour MPs here today, but perhaps they have some extra guidelines on social distancing—that is probably why they are not here. Imagine ignoring your core voters for four years and then telling them that they did not know what they were voting for, or that we should have a confirmatory second vote, and then telling them that no one voted for a hard Brexit, a no-deal Brexit or any other type of Brexit. The people of Ashfield voted for Brexit, deal or no deal. The fact that the SNP is now using covid as another excuse to prolong the agony just shows how low it is prepared to sink. But we still do not know what the Labour party’s policy is on this—perhaps in a couple of years’ time Captain Hindsight will tell us all.
The good news is that I have some oven-ready advice for the Labour party. It needs to start knocking on doors before an election and actually asking people what they want rather than telling them what they should want. It was easy for me: I asked the voters, “What do you want?”, and they answered, “Get Brexit done.” I promised to get it done, they voted for me, and here I am, eight months later, after decades—
Lee Anderson
No, I am not giving way.
Here I am, after decades of Labour MPs in Ashfield and after four years of Labour telling the people of Ashfield they did not know what they were voting for. Yes, I am here, and I am sticking up for people in Ashfield. The same Opposition parties keep ignoring my people, but that will not go on for much longer. The Labour party still does not get it. It does not understand its own voters in the midlands and in the north. The SNP is a bit smarter than the Labour party: it does not really want to be a part of the EU, but sees continued membership as a way of forcing independence and splitting up the Union. But have no fear—I will be waving my Union Jack at midnight on 31 December to celebrate the United Kingdom finally getting to make its own way in the world, and I hope that the SNP will be joining me.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I must say to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that I think that is highly unlikely.
It is clear that the path being steered by the UK Government is compounding the economic uncertainty caused by covid, and is at odds with the interests and the wishes of the people in Scotland. It is certainly at odds with the interests and the wishes of the people in my constituency, who rejected Brexit by three to one. I am really confident that as an independent country Scotland would not be on this path. People in Scotland see through the spin, the bluster and the deceit that are at the core of this Government and the strategy they are pursuing.
Scotland’s Government are taking a considered and cautious approach to getting us out from under this dreadful pandemic. There is no way the same could be said of the UK Government’s response. That is not a party political point: 70% of Scots who voted Labour or Conservative in 2019 approve of the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic. With the full powers of independence, we could have made different choices reflecting our different circumstances. It is notable that across the UK fewer than half the people think that the UK Government have handled the pandemic well—a figure that bumps along the bottom of international rankings alongside their pal Trump’s shambolic Administration. This lack of planning and structure bodes very poorly for Brexit.
This is as much about the way that the UK Government consider the needs of all our communities. To borrow a phrase, “lions led by donkeys” is a not unreasonable description of the relationship between the UK’s Government and its citizens. Ironically, the donkeys of yesteryear and those of today, some of whom sometimes lounge on the Government Front Benches, share a remarkably similar outlook: dismissive yet underprepared, and uninterested in experts but well-schooled in Latin soundbites—not of much practical use given the circumstances we are dealing with.
Why would anyone think that this Government—a Government who are all over the place on this pandemic and whose mismanagement of it has affected all four nations of the UK—are capable of rebuilding the economy in a sustainable and fairer way, while they say nothing at all on issues such as child poverty? Why would anyone think that that kind of Government are capable of negotiating an exit from the EU other than by crashing us out, which many on the Government Benches appear to want to do, no matter the harm it does?
It may be late in the day, but it is not too late to do the right thing by delaying the end of the transition. The problem is that leading members of this Government and their advisers have no interest or track record in doing the right thing. It is not just in their dealings with the EU that that is the approach. Inability to negotiate is often associated with a domineering culture. That is how the UK Government conduct their relationship with the devolved Administrations. Having failed to get their way through the four-nation approach to the pandemic, the UK Government simply wandered away down a path of U-turn and confusion. In typical domineering style, their solution is not to improve their ability to work with others, but planning to use the powers of this place to undermine those they should be working with.
Brexit, as it is now appearing from under the desk of Dominic Cummings, will not come quietly. The devolved Administrations tried to work with the UK Government on a post-Brexit settlement that respected the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But when the UK Government’s proposals emerge, they will represent a power grab on the devolved Administrations on a grand scale. Having seen the chaos that this Government have presided over in recent months, few voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will welcome these proposals.
The best recruiting sergeants for the cause of Scottish independence are those who are wilfully charging on with their plans for Brexit and riding roughshod over our votes in Scotland once again, while the rest of the world watches in disbelief as they put at risk the wellbeing and economic future of their citizens. My message to the UK Government is clear, as they set about pushing down this road that Scotland expressly voted to avoid: as you set out to shake the Union to its foundations, do not be surprised if it is not left standing when you are finished.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
This debate purports to examine the effect of the coronavirus pandemic on negotiations for a future UK-EU relationship. In fact, it has become clear that the Scottish National party, with the Labour party in hock, is still pushing the agenda of frustrating Brexit by calling on the Government to accept the EU’s offer of an extension to the transition period.
It should be abundantly clear to the SNP-Labour axis that after all these years the people of the United Kingdom are tired of endless delay and remain subterfuge. The British people voted for Brexit four years ago, yet they are still waiting for us to fully extricate ourselves from the EU’s stranglehold. We hear those on the SNP Benches ask, “Where are Labour?” I agree—where are Labour? The fact that they cannot even be bothered to turn up to the debate shows that they support this rather than oppose it. They are happy to not make up their minds, and they are happy to support this ludicrous motion to try to stop Brexit. That says it all about the Labour party.
The results of the 2016 referendum and December’s election made it clear what the mission of this House must be: to fully leave at the end of the year, come what may. It is critical to the health of our democracy that people have faith in our political system and know that the results of elections and referendums are obeyed, including ones on independence for Scotland. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, now more than ever we need the certainty of exiting the transition period for a number of reasons.
Alan Brown
Is the hon. Member firmly in the camp which says that we had the referendum in 2014 in Scotland and that is it—we never get the chance to have another referendum, and people do not get to change their mind in a democracy? Is that what he is saying?
Alexander Stafford
I am saying that we voted in a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation referendum, and we cannot keep going back and asking the same question again and again. Nothing is more undemocratic than asking the same question again. In fact, one organisation that kept going back and asking countries to vote again and again was the European Union. Time and again, it asked countries to vote again because it did not like a decision. We are democrats: we must stand up for democracy. Even when we do not like democracy, we have to support it; otherwise, the mandate of every single one of us in this House is null and void, because we can go back again and again. For Members to argue for another referendum on Scottish independence now is for them to argue for their own position in this House not being secure—to argue that the people who elected all of us do not know what they voted for. If they do that, they have no authority to call for a referendum. It is a bizarre argument for the SNP to make.
Let me turn back to what this debate should be about: the EU and coronavirus. We need to leave for numerous reasons: business investors need confidence and stability; we need to end the transition period so that we can get the Brexit dividends that will turbo-charge our economy; and, given the ongoing challenges presented by coronavirus and various geopolitical tensions, we must move forward from this Brexit paralysis.
The people of this country are tired of scaremongering and of this great country being talked down. Everyone on all sides of the debate just wants the best possible deal for Britain—or they should do. The Government are working hard to achieve exactly that: an ambitious, comprehensive, Canada-style free trade agreement with our European friends and allies, built on mutual respect and co-operation. We are making good progress in the negotiations and they are proceeding apace. In fact, the reason why we got rid of the virtual Parliament and came back was to get the legislation passed. The SNP was against our coming back to a physical Parliament—another of its delaying tactics that would have delayed Brexit even longer.
I remind the House that those on the Opposition Benches told us that we would not get a deal in respect of Northern Ireland, yet here we are today. We must not be distracted by the Labour and SNP naysayers who seek to talk down our nation down—[Interruption.] They are even chuntering to talk to our great nation down.
Regardless of what type of deal we agree with the EU, I am absolutely certain that Brexit will provide great opportunities for the whole of the UK. My priority is to protect jobs and livelihoods in the areas—such as my constituency of Rother Valley—that have been long forgotten and often left behind. Brexit offers us a chance to create many high-quality British jobs in all four corners of the nation and truly to level up. We can promote UK plc by exporting our skills and goods globally to whomever and wherever we please.
It is necessary to point out that all four nations of the United Kingdom will benefit from the Brexit boom. Our friends in the SNP offer little for the people of Scotland beyond shameless and insidious separatist rhetoric. They neglect to mention that the UK single market is worth over three times more to Scotland than the EU single market—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) wish to intervene, or does he wish to chunter? I will happily take an intervention from a chuntering man.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman talks about rhetoric; has he listened to the first half of his own speech? It has been replete with rhetoric the entire time. He should really read his own speech before he finishes it.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening about rhetoric; after all, this debate is more about rhetoric. I was told it was about the European Union and Brexit, but all I am hearing about is Scottish separatism and Scottish nationalism from this nationalistic party. It is all about trying to bang the tartan drum and trying to get things back, but we had a referendum. Let us move forward and talk about the debate that matters: the Brexit boom that we are going to get and the things that this whole Government were elected to do. We will fulfil our mandate.
I remind the Scottish nationalists—the separatists on the other side of the House—that every single person in Scotland receives a dividend of £1,968 per year more. That is £2,000 per person; it is a great deal for the people of Scotland. However bad the SNP’s separatist rhetoric is, though, Labour’s position is even worse—its Members cannot be bothered to turn up to this debate. After years of flip-flopping and changing their mind on Brexit, they still do not support our exit from the EU. If they did, they would be here, arguing with Government Members against the nationalists, but they cannot be bothered to turn up. My constituents in Rother Valley know only too well that if Labour had won power—with the help of the SNP, because Labour would have been propped up by an SNP Government—Brexit would have been abandoned. That would have gone against the good, ordinary working people of my constituency.
In stark contrast, the Conservative party has kept its promise by taking the UK out of the EU on 31 January. We shall exit the transition period in the same decisive fashion, in order finally to take our rightful place among the nations of the world.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you would think it would be a no-brainer for the Government to extend the timetable for our Brexit transition. Given the global crisis that has engulfed all of our lives, to do anything else would be ludicrous—it would be like someone driving 30 miles to test their eyesight.
Trade agreements are long and complex processes, and the transition period was already tight before the covid crisis put a spanner in the works. Now any decent deal is looking beyond reach and there is not enough parliamentary time to properly scrutinise whatever might be agreed. Yet we have a Government who do not care about doing decent deals in the full light of day and have set their face against the scrutiny of their actions. Nailing the detail on even far easier questions is not a strength of this Administration. On the covid-19 strategy, for example, you would have thought that they would have had an angle on what they actually wanted to achieve by now. Yet when I asked the Government whether elimination was part of their plan, I received a holding reply on 6 July, telling me that the Government could not answer the question within the normal timeframe. How can we trust them with the timeframe for Brexit when they still do not even know what they expect to achieve from this situation?
This is not a principled Government, but a reckless one. We know that they were reckless with public health advice: Dominic Cummings’ hazy drive to Durham during lockdown is testimony to that. Public anger over the hypocrisy was brushed off and we were told to move on. It was another case of, “Do as we say, not as we do”.
The signs do not look good for post-Brexit decision either. Refusal to negotiate sensibly with our European partners has locked the UK out of the successful Galileo satellite programme. The Government have recently gambled £500 million in a share of a bankrupt satellite company, OneWeb, hoping that they can tack navigation capabilities on to the wrong type of satellites. I say £500 million, because that is what has been reported in the media, but when I asked the question formally, I was told that the figure could not be disclosed as it was commercially sensitive. There is no public scrutiny, no business plan and no risk assessment published for this decision, which, by all accounts, goes against the better judgment of experts such as those in the UK Space Agency. With activities such as these, is it any wonder that many people question whether this Government can even tell their arse from their elbow?
In 1995, George Robertson, the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, famously said:
“Devolution will kill Scottish nationalism stone dead.”
Here we are 25 years later, and the Scottish independence cause is very much alive and stronger than ever. Meanwhile, the uncompromising actions of British Brexiteers look like the actual move that will kill the Union stone dead. Devolution, albeit in its limited present form, has allowed the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to develop their own solutions, rather than toeing the line from the Tories. It has let people across these isles know that their voices matter and that we can aspire to more, instead of just simply taking what we are given.
With Scotland’s modern, transparent Parliament in Holyrood, people have elected a Government who better reflect their views, respect evidence, listen to experts and care about the poor, but this current Tory Administration cannot allow such a thing. They seek to put us back in our box. They will dismantle the democratic structures, which were so hard won by the people of Scotland. Lord Robertson may not have had the most honourable intentions in backing a Scottish Parliament, but there were many in the Labour party who recognised and cherished its role. We, in the SNP, were together with Labour at that time, and we must stand together again now as the institutions are disgracefully disrespected by the actions of this Government.
As recently as 2015, Gordon Brown was promising greater devolution and home rule. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the party of home rule has apparently forgotten its roots, and that is certainly shown by the fact that there are so few of them here today, which is a pity.
Owen Thompson
Well, few.
This is a Government who have torn up the respect agenda, which was at least given lip service by their predecessors. The growing culture of disrespect has been brought into sharp focus with Brexit. Scotland voted to stay in the European Union by a strong majority in every constituent part. The hostility displayed towards Europe by Brexiteers—there was a thinly veiled xenophobia from some—was as abhorrent to those on these Benches as it was to the people whom we represent.
After the Brexit vote, the Scottish Government tried to find the least damaging compromise, yet it was rejected. On devolved competences, this Government have seen no need to negotiate and reach agreement with the Scottish Parliament and they just press ahead regardless. Their actions have not gone unnoticed. Now is the time for Scotland to rejoin our European cousins as an equal independent nation.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), with his wonderful accent, huge passion and interesting perspective.
After so much dilly-dally, dither and delay, the United Kingdom finally left the EU on 31 January, and on 31 December it will be job done. Back in 2016, there were a whole range of opinions on whether we should be in or out, but a democratic decision was made and it must be delivered. Now, on doorsteps and in boardrooms across the UK, there are lots of opinions on what the future relationship with the EU will look like and how to make the most of the opportunities that await.
I have heard from many businesses in my part of the world about what they think—from people who voted to remain and those who voted to leave—and there is one common ground that unites sensible, forward-looking business people from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They want no more debate about in, out or shake it all about. They want certainty, and on 31 December they will get it—potential-unleashing, investment-encouraging certainty.
An independent, trading United Kingdom will look out to the world, instead of purely inward to Europe, hooking up to trade with the biggest and fastest-growing economies on the planet. I do not think even the most ardent remainer would argue that Europe is the place to be for economic growth, so it is right that, while we will continue to trade with Europe on mutually agreed terms, we will broaden our horizons with new and better trade deals with the US, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and others. Moreover, the potential for free ports is something that should be welcomed, across the UK and across the political divide, as an amazing opportunity to turbocharge our economy. But others will need to join the queue, because Teesside asked first. We are chomping at the bit and we are ready to roll.
The Government are delivering on the referendum result. We are taking back control of our borders, with a points-based system where people would be judged not on where they come from, but what they can contribute here to the UK. This is another opportunity to reach on up, with the best scientists, clinicians and entrepreneurs coming to play their part in a global Britain.
The naysayers and democracy-denying Brexit blockers who said that a vote to leave the EU would see confidence crash or that the sky would fall—many of them were on the wrong side in the single currency debate as well—do not know better than the 17.4 million people in the UK who voted to leave. We have left, and we are going to make a success of it. Some of the 17.4 million people live in Stockton South, some are represented by SNP Members and some elected Labour Members as well. I realise that Labour and the SNP seem to adopt a creative approach to referendums—keep asking until they get the answer they want—but it is time to move on.
It is time to move forwards together. Let us look forward to our shared future and make the most of trade opportunities that will unleash the UK’s potential. The Government are investing £705 million to fund new infrastructure, jobs and technology at the EU border, so we will be ready to take full advantage of our new sovereign status on day one. So let us talk up the UK. Our amazing, dedicated workforce and fantastic, innovative businesses are about to prove they can succeed on the world stage.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
As we emerge from a health crisis, we are grappling with an economic crisis that could scarcely be more serious. To leave the EU in December with no extension to the Brexit transition period, something which the EU has offered, is complete madness. This oven-baked Brexit touted by the Prime Minister truly is half-baked. Those on the Conservative Benches have told us that we need to stick to this timetable to create certainty. The only thing that is certain is that we are heading for a no-deal Brexit, and that does not provide certainty for business or our constituents at all.
As for this myth about the broad shoulders that Scottish taxpayers have been subjected to out of the goodness of this Government’s heart, in Scotland we have actually received merely just over 4% of the entire borrowing of the UK. Given that we have 8.3% of the UK’s population, I would suggest that Scotland is being sold short, and that is before I even talk about the £30 billion that was announced last week, of which Scotland received 0.1%—far less than the 8.3% our population suggests we should have got. While we on the SNP Benches welcome the furlough scheme, it has to be said that there are more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer.
Unless the UK Government, wedded as they are to Brexit ideology, extend the transition period for leaving the EU, productivity in Scotland and indeed across the UK is seriously threatened. Unemployment in Scotland could conceivably reach 10%. If the Government head off this Brexit cliff, to which 63% of Scots are opposed, they will rob Scotland of jobs, opportunities and prosperity, and it is something the people of Scotland have rejected over and over again.
This so-called oven-ready Brexit continues to be, and always has been, a con. The much-vaunted easy trade deals we were promised are of course nowhere in sight. These fears are not just expressed by the SNP. The chorus of concern from the business world is deafening. And still the Government close their ears. Only days ago, Angela Merkel talked about the EU preparing for a no-deal Brexit, but rather than listen to these concerns, raised across the devolved nations, the Prime Minister has chosen to treat the leaders of the nations of the UK like disobedient children who will not take their medicine and sit quietly. While he drives the UK off the Brexit cliff—we remember the words about this being a Union of equals—we know that at the same time he is doing his best to dismantle the entire devolution settlement.
We know that the Tories have always been hostile to devolution, so much so that in 2016 the Tory party in Scotland was reduced to advertising in newspapers to find candidates—to find paid guns for hire; they could not find enough true believers in their cause. You can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, the quality of the candidates who applied and were eventually elected as a result. The Tory contempt for devolution is shown with the increasing attacks we have seen on the Parliament that belongs to the people of Scotland.
Patricia Gibson
I will not give way; there is a shortage of time.
Clearly, the Government’s philosophy is: if they cannot win elections in the constituent parts of the UK, they simply seek to dismantle the institutions that they cannot control. If this Tory Government actually believe they can prevent Scotland from having the opportunity to choose her own future in this or any landscape, they are sadly deluded. They cannot stem the tide of independence, which they themselves have helped to strengthen and give rise to. We stood on a manifesto of Scotland deciding her own future—much as that may be uncomfortable for some Tories on the opposite Benches—and the Tories stood on a manifesto in Scotland of getting Brexit done. The result of that election tells us what the people of Scotland feel.
Democracy did not end in Scotland in 2014 and the reality is that the UK Government are now frightened of the inevitable referendum that is to come, because they know that support is growing as they ride roughshod over Scotland’s democratic wishes.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I am somewhat bemused by the motion today because on the very first page of the document to which it refers the Scottish Government say:
“This transition period is due to finish on December 31, but it can be extended… as long as that is agreed by the end of June. After that date, it will not be possible to extend under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement—and no other plausible route to an extension has been put forward.”
So I would be interested to hear from SNP Members what route they know of to extend and why they have not shared that with their colleagues in the Scottish Government.
Conservative Members believe that the whole United Kingdom is stronger when we work together and that the real threat to recovery would be the SNP’s policy of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK. We value this Union, this family of nations, which, formed more than 300 years ago, has been the most successful union in history. While 17% of Scottish exports go to the 27 member states of the EU, 60%—over three times more—of Scottish trade goes to the rest of the United Kingdom, and a similar value flows back over the border.
Fifty years ago, my mum and dad moved to the UK, leaving behind their families and friends, because the UK represented the values that meant so much to them and which mean so much to me as well—indeed, they are referenced in the Scottish document: human dignity, freedom, democracy and equality of opportunity. The UK does not just talk about those values; it embodies them. Recently, when Hong Kong’s freedoms were threatened, the UK stepped up to the plate, not just by raising concerns with China but by inviting up to 3 million British national overseas passport holders and their dependants with open arms to move to the UK.
As someone from an immigrant background, I can say that these islands represent hope and opportunity. This is a Union not just of nations but of people, and it is personal for me. My mother works in the NHS in England; my cousin works in the NHS in Scotland. The whole United Kingdom has opened its arms and become a home to my family, and for that I am very grateful.
The optimistic vision for Britain after 31 December is of more trade. It is a vision of a global Britain, engaged around the world, representing our British values of decency and progress, and boosting British exports, from the sparkling wines of Surrey to the slightly better known—for now—Scotch whisky. Scotland will benefit from these trade deals. The rest of the UK is by far Scotland’s biggest market, with trade worth £51 billion, dwarfing that with the EU—and the EU trade will likely suffer because of US sanctions to the EU, which have targeted Scottish products.
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership provides the opportunity for a trade deal centred on the world’s fastest-growing region, covering a population of 495 million people—greater than that of the EU—and, crucially, opening up opportunities in the services sector, which constitutes 70% of the Scottish and, indeed, UK economies. Accession would be a key step in realising our ambition for 80% of UK trade to be covered by free trade agreements in the next three years.
Our vision means more control over our fisheries, ensuring more Scottish fish are caught by Scottish fishermen. It means an agriculture policy designed not for the needs of 27 diverse nations but by the Scottish Parliament for Scottish farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) mentioned, it means freeports, which I think would benefit many coastal communities in Scotland. And leaving on 31 December will mean more powers for the Scottish Parliament; I note that the Institute for Government says it will gain powers in 63 different policy areas.
I hope that we can continue to work together for our common future and to ensure the best possible recovery from the epidemic. The covid-19 recovery has highlighted the strength of our shared institutions, with the UK Government working with devolved Governments to ensure the best possible provision for our people; devolved Governments tailoring policies to local requirements; the NHS, formed across the UK, providing care on the basis of need; the British Army building hospitals and testing people across our four nations, and the Treasury using the financial firepower of our strong Union to ensure that money is distributed to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the basis of need. Our resources are pooled and shared. The best hope for our recovery and the future of the British people is our continued co-operation—working together in a national effort to get the whole country back on its feet.
Crucially, even if it were possible to extend, I am not convinced that that would bear fruit. At the beginning of my career, I worked on a trading floor, and I had a frontline view as the Greek credit crisis unfolded. There are very few decisions that the EU has to bring its 27 countries to terms on to which the answer is more time. We saw last year that extensions do not change the fundamentals. There is no use hiding from the decisions that need to be taken. Perhaps someone should tell the Labour party that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As a new Member, it has been all too apparent to me that one of the hallmarks of this Chamber is repetition. I am afraid that, as I am quite far down the call list, I will repeat some of the points that have already been made, very eloquently, by my colleagues on the SNP Benches.
However, before I get to that, I want to reflect on the fact that when the whole Brexit debacle was being debated last year, I was not here. I was one of the many millions who were sitting at home watching the chaos unfold—people leaving parties; votes not happening; votes happening and the Government being defeated, and then, obviously, a general election. As I watched all that unfold, I had a sense of overriding emotion; I was dismayed and disappointed, but I was also hopeful. I will come back to hopeful, but for now I will focus on dismayed and disappointed.
Aberdeen voted 61.1% to remain in the European Union. The people of Scotland voted 62% to remain in the European Union. The city that I represent is expected to be the hardest hit by Brexit—be that a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or whatever machination of Boris Brexit comes back later this year—but our views are not being considered by this Government. The views of the people of Scotland are being flatly ignored. We have heard Conservative Members stating passionately that their constituencies voted to leave and we therefore need to leave the European Union. I say to them: show some respect for the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, and show some respect for the fact that my constituency is going to be absolutely hammered by Brexit, irrespective of which study we look at.
This cuts to the heart of the debate that we are having here today, in relation to the democratic deficit that exists on these islands. In 1997, when the Scottish Parliament was voted on by the Scottish people, devolution was created. The people of Scotland were able to vote for elected Members to sit in the Scottish Parliament, who would then vote on a raft of policy proposals that would impact the people of Scotland. Subsequently, in 2016, we voted to remain in the European Union, but our views have been completely ignored and we are going to be dragged out. The powers that sit within the European Union that directly relate to devolution are not going to come to the Scottish Parliament in their totality; they are going to come to this place, to a Government that we neither support nor voted for. Where is the democracy in that? From procurement to food standards to minimum unit pricing, the policies of Scotland are different from the policies of this United Kingdom. We have taken a different path on so many issues, and the powers that the UK Government seek to take back from the European Union will put all those positive changes at risk. Irrespective of the rhetoric from Conservative Members, those are the facts in front of us.
Looking towards the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021, if we want to have a discussion about what the role of the Scottish Parliament should be, I say to Scottish Conservative Members, bring it on. The views of the people of Scotland have changed. We have seen it in opinion polls. They want a Scottish Parliament that is empowered and emboldened. This UK Government do not want to deliver that, and the Scottish Conservatives do not want to deliver that. So we are going to have a discussion about the future of the Scottish Parliament. Let’s do it. Let’s see if we want a Scottish Parliament that has the same powers or fewer powers. Or let’s have a discussion about whether we want the Scottish Parliament to have the full powers of an independent nation—a nation able to make its own policy decisions. If this UK Government continue to ignore the democratic will of the people of Scotland in relation to their views on the European Union, they will be sleepwalking into the end of their precious Union.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). He speaks passionately for Aberdeen, and I commend him for that. I am grateful to the Scottish National party for tabling this motion to extend the transition period, as it allows me to remind my constituents why they voted for me last year. On 31 January, the UK left the EU nearly three years after article 50 was triggered, and the people of Redcar and Cleveland celebrated with a great party at the Citz Club in Redcar. They celebrated this passage into the new Europe with a deep sense of relief because, time and again during those three years, their choice had been questioned, their will ignored and their views belittled. They were told that they did not know what they were voting for, that the people should not have had a say, or that a decision that big should not have been left to the public. So they were asked again, and in December last year, the public backed the Conservatives and gave them their biggest majority since 1987 on a promise that we would deliver on the mandate from the 2016 referendum.
Until now, Redcar has never had a Tory MP, and neither have West Bromwich West, Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North and Rother Valley. I and many of my colleagues on the Government Benches are here because people trusted us to make their voice heard. They put their faith in the Prime Minister and a Conservative Government for the first time ever in our constituencies, because they felt let down by a Labour party that had ignored them for so long. I draw the attention of the House to the empty Labour Benches. Tonight, the Labour party looks set to ignore them once again. Here we are, nearly six months since we left, debating yet another motion aimed at extending the transition period, put forward again by those who refuse to accept the result simply because they did not want it.
It is no surprise to anyone on the Government Benches, or to the public at large, that those who still reject the result of the EU referendum are the very same ones who still refuse to acknowledge that the people of Scotland rejected independence in the 2014 referendum. It seems that the Scottish separatists simply cannot accept the result of any referendum. Well, we on the Conservative Benches trust the people of the United Kingdom, wherever they may be, to make the right choices for them. They put their trust in us to deliver on those choices.
As we count down the days towards the end of the transition period, all the motion would do is add yet more delay and betray that unprecedented trust. What we still do not know, however, is how Sir Keir will vote tonight. We know that he was the architect of Labour’s failed Brexit policy, a rigged second referendum between staying in the EU or staying in the EU without calling it that, but what is his position now? Will he jump on this delaying Brexit bandwagon, or will he respect the result of the referendum? Will he return to blocking, delaying, preventing and doing all he can to stop Brexit, or will he show true leadership and listen to the voice of the people who used to vote for his party?
There is no doubt that the Scottish independence party, the illiberal un-democrats and whatever is left of the Labour party are still hoping for Brexit to be reversed. They are still hoping that it will never properly happen. They do not trust the people of this country, just like the SNP still refuse to trust the people in Scotland in the 2014 referendum. The Opposition parties tonight are revealing their true colours and we must do everything in our power to stand strong while they turn their backs.
I am under no illusion that the principal reason I was elected in December was to get Brexit done for the people of Redcar and Cleveland, which is why I was so proud, as one of my first votes in Parliament, to vote Brexit through. It is why I will proudly walk through the Lobby tonight against any extension to the transition period. We want to reach an agreement with the EU by the end of December, based on a Canada-style free trade agreement. We can achieve that in the time ahead. We are not asking for anything that the EU has not already given to other countries, but if they do not want to extend that to us, we must do what is best for Britain and leave without.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just a gentle reminder—I did not want to interrupt the full flow—but please do not refer to current sitting Members by their names. Thank you very much.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
My constituency of Gordon in the north-east of Scotland is one which very emphatically did not vote to get Brexit done. In fact, the reason I stand here today is that I stood on a pledge saying that we needed two referendums: one for the putative withdrawal agreement; and, secondly, in light of all that the people of Scotland have experienced since 2014, a chance to reconsider the issue of Scottish independence. It is the very fact that the UK refused to consider the first of those that the second of those positions is now a near certainty.
Brexit is going to happen—I absolutely accept that—but my real disappointment is not so much in the result but the treatment handed out by the UK Government afterwards, when they confused 52% of the British people as if they spoke for 100%. The Scottish Government sought to find an accommodation that would have kept us in the single market and mitigated some of the very worst impacts of Brexit right across these islands. At every stage, they were met not with courtesy or accommodation, but instead with bone-headed obduracy, witless statements about red, white and blue Brexits or Brexit meaning Brexit, and hardline exceptionalist dogma.
When it comes to our current Prime Minister, it is very tempting to conclude that his place in history will be as the worst Prime Minister since the last one, but his culpability for the shambles we are in at this point goes far, far deeper than that as the architect, the clown prince and the front man of the Brexit campaign. Frankly, it speaks volumes for the sheer and utter desperation of the Conservative party towards the end of last year that the only reason it stumbled towards the withdrawal agreement was that it was prepared to scrap the sacred red line about the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It replaced the backstop and took that red line and laid it down the Irish sea instead.
What, I ask, have we got in return? After four years of negotiations, we certainly do not have a deal, but what we know will happen, deal or not, is that the Government have managed to create that border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are going to sacrifice the freedom of movement and the freedom we have come to take for granted over the past few decades of being able to live, work, love and study right across the continent, freely and without hindrance. We know that there is a threat to those parts of our economy where we have been blessed with immigrant labour to help us, and I am thinking particularly of the fish processing sector in the north-east of Scotland, the agricultural sector, the care sector and our NHS. We know that importers face increased costs, and we know that exporters will face huge delays.
We know that in Scotland and the devolved institutions, we are facing a power grab that will drive a coach and horses through the principle that that which is not reserved is explicitly devolved. We also face a race to the bottom on food standards, animal welfare and workers’ rights.
Is it any wonder that people in my constituency and right across Scotland are looking at the political shambles created by this Government and their predecessors and what they now represent and deciding, “This is not who we are. This is not who we wish to be. This is not how we wish to be represented. This is not how we wish to be seen in the world.”?
We are clearly approaching a constitutional endgame when it comes to Brexit and Scottish independence. I care very much indeed about having a stable, prosperous neighbour in the nations of the rest of the United Kingdom, but I am a democrat. If the rest of the UK is determined to go down this reckless path, I have to accept that there is nothing that I or any other Scottish MP or any other Scottish voter can do to halt that process. If the UK is determined to crash out of its closest European alliances in a state of dishevelment and disarray, that absolutely has to be respected, even if it does not have to be seen as the best future we can go for.
Frankly, an extension to the negotiations seems a no-brainer. It would give time to negotiate a stable landing point, but what cannot be ignored is that the Union that Scots were invited to vote for in 2014 no longer exists. That 55% opposition to independence has turned into 54% support in the most recent opinion polls. It is no longer acceptable for the UK Government to stand in the way of that support finding its expression at the ballot box and the Scottish people being able to choose their own future.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
In June 2016, Ynys Môn voted to leave the European Union. Three and a half years later, I was elected as the first Conservative MP for the constituency for 32 years on a manifesto committed to delivering on the decision of those constituents. They wanted and still want a UK that sits outside the EU.
Over the past four months, we have seen our British community come together as a truly United Kingdom in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. The people of the UK are intent on supporting British businesses to build back better. The UK Government are providing financial strategies to enable the country to recover successfully. What this nation does not need now is the uncertainty of a further delay to Brexit. We need to build. We need to build on the Union that has helped us through coronavirus. Businesses across the UK, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, need to know where they are going. They need clear foundations and timescales on which to plan. Constantly redrawing a line in the sand offers only uncertainty and frustration.
We have seen and continue to see investment from the UK Government that is outside any support offered by the EU. Like Scotland, the devolved Government in Wales benefit from the direct support of the UK Government. The 2020 Budget saw the largest year-on-year increase in direct funding to Wales in a decade. The UK Government are investing across Wales, including £1.5 billion for our railway infrastructure, £120 million for the north Wales growth deal and £5 million for connected communities. The Welsh Government also received £2.8 billion through the Barnett formula from the UK Government to support individuals, businesses and public services through covid-19. More than 316,000 jobs in Wales were furloughed, and 100,000 self-employed people received financial support.
As central and devolved Governments, we need to focus now on helping businesses and individuals prepare for the opportunities available to us from 1 January 2021. As an independent United Kingdom, I believe we can deliver what this country needs to succeed.
I conclude by putting on the record that I fully support the UK Government in their focus on achieving the best outcome for us as we leave the EU. I believe that an extension to the transition period would not be in the best interests of Ynys Môn, Wales, Scotland or the UK.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), even from this slightly disconcerting and unusual location. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that I have become increasingly frustrated on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The debate has been more about political point-scoring than the interests of the people of Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom for that matter.
I find myself increasingly torn—torn between my belief that our Government really should have asked for an extension and my recognition that the time when it was possible has passed; between my belief in the European Union and my acceptance that that particular battle has been lost—we are leaving; and between actually supporting the SNP in this last-ditch attempt and turning my back on its frankly hypocritical self-serving, narrow, nationalist argument.
There is no good outcome to this debate for Scotland; the people of Scotland cannot gain anything from it. When I saw that it was a nationalist Opposition day debate, I expected that we would talk about the state of our oil industry, the pressure on our airlines and airports or the state of our health and education. No—we have another process debate aimed at independence. I am tired, so very tired, of listening to the nationalists claim to speak for the people of Scotland. The nationalists speak for fewer than half the people of Scotland. They do not speak for the majority; they speak for 45% at the last count. The people of Scotland deserve so much better than that.
Christine Jardine
I will not, thank you.
We have heard SNP Members claim today that tearing Scotland out of the European Union will be bad for its economy—and yes, I agree that it will be dreadful for its economy—but I am then astonished that they can keep a straight face and tell the people of Scotland that tearing Scotland out of the UK will not be just as bad, if not worse, for its economy. Please, give the people of Scotland the credit we deserve.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) had a lot to say about democracy, but what about the democratic decision in 2014? Did the nationalists not turn a deaf ear to those 55% of the people of Scotland —the same 55% who did not vote for them in 2019? There is a familiar ring to that: 45% and 55% against.
We have been warned from the SNP Benches about zealots with no thought for anything but the project, and I have to ask myself: which zealots are they talking about? Perhaps they are pointing in the wrong direction. I also have to ask myself about the amount of time that we are wasting in talking about process. I am tired of listening to this vision of British politics that has no Scots in it. There are Scots in the current Government and there were in the last Government, and there are Scots on the Opposition Benches and in Committees throughout this House. Can a party obsessed with Scottish history not stretch their minds back a decade to when a Scottish Prime Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box?
At the conclusion of this debate, I will in all probability —in fact, I shall—support the SNP in the Lobby, but not because of anything that they have said today: not a single word. It will be in spite of every word that they have said today. I believe that our Government should have asked for an extension, but I also believe that it will be in the best interests of every person in this country—I mean the United Kingdom, of which I will argue to my last breath for Scotland to remain part—that we put the argument behind us and move on to building a stronger economy, creating a better society and getting us through what we are told will be the worst recession in 300 years. Those of us north of the border will need all our friends in the south to help us through it together.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). I absolutely agree that it is time we moved on from this debate, and that is what we Government Members want to do and promised our constituents.
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, because this Government have always made it clear that we need to get Brexit done. My constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden made that crystal clear when they voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU and then, in the general election in December, elected a representative—I highlight that word—who respects their decision. The Opposition were out of touch, telling my constituents that they did not understand what they were voting for, and they are still—well, Labour Members are not here today, so I will move on from there. When speaking to businesses in December and since then, they told me that uncertainty worried them the most and that they needed clarity. That is exactly what this Conservative Government have given them: no more dither and no more delay.
We have passed the deadline for an extension to the transition period, and rather than looking backwards, we should be looking forwards to the possibilities. I support this Government’s pledge to forge new trade agreements with countries that are specific to our market and benefit our economy. These agreements will strengthen businesses and provide more job opportunities as the UK escapes the control of the EU.
The news that the Government are unwilling to extend the transition deadline should not come as a shock. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out the Government’s intentions to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in April and has reiterated that position many times. The Government remain committed to emphasising the opportunities presented to Scotland and all the devolved powers. They have also signalled benefits for the UK in taking back control of our borders and laws, with extensive powers already in the hands of the devolved Administrations. I am pleased that the Prime Minister reminded us today that the Scottish people voted to remain part of the UK and that the UK voted to leave the EU.
I stand firmly against the SNP proposal to extend the transition, and I stand here on behalf of my constituents as Hyndburn’s and Haslingden’s representative voice, because I listen to my constituents—something that they have not experienced since the referendum. I hope that all parts of the Union can work together to recover from the pandemic to action a green recovery and to contribute towards a future in which our United Kingdom prospers together.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), although I suspect that I will disagree fundamentally with most of what she said. I will support the motion this evening. The debate has largely focused on the Scotland-UK relationship—I take no formal position on that other than to wish the people of Scotland well and to respect whatever choice they make down the line—but the transition period affects the entire UK, and it certainly deeply affects Northern Ireland.
Brexit, of course, is a great disrupter to the UK and, indeed, to our situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland only works on the basis of sharing and interdependence. The difficulty with Brexit is that it entails some degree of new divisions, barriers and friction, and that will create tension however those lines fall. Of course, the withdrawal agreement respects the principle of consent, and that will be an entirely different process, but none the less, it is important to acknowledge the challenges posed by Brexit to Northern Ireland’s future stability and operation. Northern Ireland did say no to Brexit, but once Brexit occurred, there was a need to protect the Good Friday agreement. The backstop was a better attempt at doing that, but the protocol is there as the next best alternative. However, it poses very significant challenges, and we are not ready yet for that to be properly implemented.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has voted on a majority basis to support an extension to Brexit. While we may be past the 30 June deadline, as others have said, there are options that still can be taken, and I am not entirely dismissing the possibility that the Government may see the light towards the end of the year—far too late when more instability has been caused, but given the current state of readiness, that may well be where we end up.
One year was always going to be challenging in the best of circumstances, but with covid, we have the worst of circumstances. We are already facing up to a very significant economic hit on the back of the covid pandemic. Indeed, the OECD is predicting that the UK economy will be one of the economies around the world that suffers the greatest, so there is a sense of madness that we are proceeding with a further shock from the disruption of Brexit at that time.
We are told that with Brexit and the end of the transition, the Government can be better placed to address covid, but that belies the fact that the European Union, in many respects, is doing better in addressing the situation with the pandemic and in the way that it will potentially recover, not least in terms of the scale of investment that comes forward. The UK, in particular, will suffer if there is no free trade agreement in place at the end of the year, and even with an agreement in place, there will still be challenges, because whatever way we cut it, the UK is stepping back from its closest and nearest market. Whatever trade deals are done around the rest of the world, they will not replace the loss that comes from stepping back from the European Union. There is not a contest between the internal market of the UK and the European Union market. Until now, the two were complementary. In the same way, the UK could go out and cut more trade deals with the rest of the world through the European Union. The term “global Britain”, I fear, is a bit of a misnomer and we are missing the point in that respect.
In closing, I will focus particularly on the lack of preparation. There are five and a half months to go. It is only now that the UK Government are releasing information on the GB-EU interface and, even then, there are many questions that still need to be answered on investment in IT and infrastructure, but that can be phased in. Northern Ireland does not have that degree of luxury. The protocol will be in place from 1 January, whatever way this falls. While some people may say, “Well, in the context of a no deal, Northern Ireland does have some degree of protection in that we still have access to the EU single market in terms of goods,” that does not apply to services. In particular, if we see a situation where there is no trade deal, tariffs will be charged down the Irish sea, and that will have major implications for the cost pressures for Northern Ireland businesses and households.
Five and a half months out, there are many questions still to be addressed for Northern Ireland on IT, infrastructure, staffing and what will be required from declarations and costs. All those are important issues and, at this stage, businesses have been left in the lurch without transparency around that crucial information. Every day that goes past, that uncertainty is damaging the economy of Northern Ireland, so for all those reasons, I urge the Government to reconsider their position on the transition. There is no shame in reconsidering because it makes sense for the UK economy. Let us get this done correctly.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), even if I disagree with almost everything he said. I thank Opposition Members for giving us the opportunity not only to praise the Union, which we on the Government side of the House always welcome the chance to do, but to reconfirm to the millions of people up and down the country—including more than 1 million people in Scotland and a clear majority of people in my constituency—that when they voted to leave the European Union, we will still deliver on that commitment.
We entered the European Union as one United Kingdom, and we exited the European Union as one United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—because together we are stronger. The covid-19 pandemic has shown exactly that. Scotland has been able to benefit from over £13 billion of support from this Government—a Government of the Conservative and Unionist party that is protecting jobs, businesses and livelihoods across every part of our Union.
Despite all that support, SNP Members still believe in tearing themselves away from their most important trading partner. As they know, the UK single market is more than three times more important to Scotland than the EU single market. Ripping that up would be the real act of economic self-harm. However, if SNP Members are saying in this debate that they have seen the light and now value the economic certainty and financial protection they get from being part of the Union, all of us on the Government Benches would be delighted, and we could finally wave goodbye to their divisive separatist agenda.
SNP Members are right that businesses need certainty, and that is exactly what we have provided since I was privileged enough to come to this House in December. Businesses in every part of the UK now know that on 1 January next year, the UK will operate its own independent trade policy, with our own tariff schedule.
The covid-19 pandemic has created great challenges around the world, but we have risen to them and we have adapted. People are working from home. Businesses are using new technology, and our negotiators have done the same. As a member of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, I know that the impact of covid has been a key topic of our discussions, and we addressed it last month, in the interim report that was unanimously agreed by the Committee, including by SNP Members opposite. As part of that report, we took evidence from Mr Frost, Mr Barnier, trade experts and others. That evidence highlighted the fact that, while the pandemic has disrupted negotiations, they have slipped by only a matter of weeks. They are still taking place virtually—and now face to face—and they have been intensified. There is a real impetus to get a deal done.
Whatever the outcome, things will change at the border. As a result of this Government’s announcements, those changes are known and already being prepared for by businesses across the country. Those on the SNP Benches should therefore be transparent about their motives. This is not about the UK leaving the EU. This is about their separatist agenda. Even if it was about the transitional period, they know as well as anyone else in the House that it sometimes does not matter how long negotiations last: if positions remain diametrically opposed, no amount of stalling will result in an agreement. I for one will not break the promise I made to my constituents because of EU intransigence—as the Committee’s report also made clear, the EU needs to change its mandate if an agreement is to be reached.
On a final point, we must address the elephant in the room—or, rather, those not in the room—and that is the Labour party. Looking through the list of speakers, I was, like most of my colleagues, perplexed to see that no one from the Labour Back Benches put in to speak. I considered why that might be. On the Union, Brexit and covid, no one had anything to say. Could it be that their position on Brexit has flip-flopped so many times that none of them knows what to say? Or is it that they, like the Scottish nationalists opposite, believe that democratic decisions taken by referendum should just be ignored? Either way, they appear out of step with the country, with the Leader of the Opposition missing in action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Covid-19 has absolutely affected every walk of life. It is my belief that no person in this nation has been untouched by it, and the first words in the debate title are“covid-19”. There are those who grieve the loss of good people—upstanding members of our communities and families—and people we have been unable to grieve appropriately. As we move into a closer approximation of normal, that loss of life is felt more keenly.
I want to speak about covid-19, and then comment on where we—or rather I—stand. We have lost businesses and jobs. I have a big hospitality business in my area that is in the resort game. It has invested £150,000 of its money, and it is at a loss at the moment to find a way forward. I am very aware of its circumstances, which may be only the tip of the job loss iceberg. The action of the Government has prevented a crash for a great many business—that is true—but we will undoubtedly be fighting economically for many years to come; indeed, our grandchildren may feel the pinch in their working life if we do not get this right.
Just in my small office of six members of staff and myself, one member of staff lost her sister at the end of March to coronavirus. She was unable to bid her a final goodbye and is deeply hurting. Another member of staff was due to be married in Italy at the end of June, but she has seen her plans decimated and brought to nothing. Another staff member is originally from Australia but now lives in Northern Ireland. She heard sad news of her sister in Australia who is in an intensive care unit, but again she could not visit her family or speak to them. I have another staff member whose mother-in-law was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but again, they were not able to do anything about that. My parliamentary aide has two wee daughters, one of whom has uncontrolled asthma. She has been shielding for 16 weeks, and will be until the end of August.
I say those things because, as with my staff members and many others across this great nation, people’s quality of life and mental health has been massively affected by coronavirus. I say that to put a human aspect into this debate, and to underline what the cost has been to normal, everyday people. The negotiations that we are now doing must be carried out with less grandstanding, and by sorting these problems out.
I cannot create jobs out of nothing for those who have lost businesses. I do not have that ability, but this Government can, the Northern Ireland Assembly can, the Scottish Parliament can, and the Welsh Assembly can. I can, however, be part of the solution in this House when making decisions to promote employment, and ensure that the Government do their best for Northern Ireland. I cannot undo the mental trauma that has affected my nation, but I can be a positive force for a bright future, and that is what I wish to highlight today.
I am very fond of my Gaelic cousins on the SNP Benches, and I genuinely mean that in all honesty. However, I am so divorced from their point of view given what they have said—that is respectful to them all, and they know that—that this is one cousin who will not be voting for their proposal tonight. I do not want this to be a sniping opportunity to rehash the old “deal or no deal” arguments that we can all repeat in our sleep; I believe our role as MPs is to think sensibly and create hope, and having the same old arguments about the pros and cons of the European Union does not give hope for our future. Instead, constructive dialogue about a sensible way to carry out the wishes of the people is the way to do that.
In the 2016 referendum, my constituency of Strangford voted by 56% to 44% to leave—that is unlike the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), where it was very marginal at 50.1%. That is all it was.
Jim Shannon
Can we take a moment to consider what we hope to achieve in today’s debate? My desire is simple: it is to say on behalf of Strangford, let us stop the tearing down and start the building up. Let us work for our agrifood sector—I look to the Government to ensure that happens—and for our fishing villages in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. Let us put pride and confidence back into the fishing community, grow that economy, and create jobs. We can do that after Brexit. We can do that when we leave—I very much believe that in my heart, and boy do I look forward to that day.
Let us work together in this place to present a united front to Europe to say—possibly for the first time—that although we want the best for our country, that does not mean that the European Union has to be the loser. If we think and work sensibly together, and build up trading partnerships that are beneficial, we all can win—that is everybody; all regions together—and help our economies and constituents who have been ravaged by this unseen enemy. As my mother would say, today we should say, “Enough of the messing and more of the achieving!” Where there is a will there is a way. We should respect the will of our people, who made it very clear in June 2016. We must get the best possible future in place, with sensible dialogue and the end of senseless rhetoric. We all voted together in that referendum, and we voted to leave.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Can I finally say congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker? You are where you belong and I am glad to see you there.
We are here all over again. The ability of SNP Members to focus on their narrow-minded, party interests at a time of national importance is becoming legendary. If there was ever a sight that shows why we must protect the Union, it was the vision of a Labour party that could not be bothered to show up, with SNP Members behind those Benches. If the Labour party ever has the opportunity to form the next Government, it will be at the price of a referendum on independence to get the SNP onside. Conservative Members do not back that at all.
The SNP has not changed much in not respecting referendum results. It lost the 2014 referendum, and yet it pursues that agenda, with no thought to getting on with the day job in Scotland. SNP Members lost the 2016 referendum, but they are now trying by any means necessary to thwart the will of the British people. This debate is once again a thinly disguised attempt by SNP Members to undermine democracy—nothing else. The irony of that is not lost on me. If they voted for a deal when they were offered one—three times—we would not be here today. Knowing them, however, we probably would be.
Like any good Unionist, I read the newspapers north of the border. In these difficult times, we all have to spend a few more hours at home, and humour plays an increasingly important role in making sure that we can all get by, so you can imagine my reaction, Mr Deputy Speaker, when browsing The National, I found the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) was quoted as saying that Scottish taxpayers were “footing the bill” as the UK prepared to leave the EU. Indeed, without a hint of irony, SNP Members are trying to claim that they would somehow save money by being out of the Union and part of the EU, when we know that public spending in Scotland is 17% higher than the UK average. Treasury figures, verified by the House of Commons Library, show that per head of population, Scotland receives £11,200; England, £9,200; and my constituents in Eastleigh, £8,600.
I will always lobby for resources for my constituency, but I accept that that difference is the price that my constituents pay because we are stronger together—and we are stronger together as one United Kingdom. We are stronger together culturally, with our shared history, and we are stronger together economically. It was this Government who introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has protected the income of 630,000 people in Scotland. It was the Government of the United Kingdom who have supported 146,000 self-employed people through the self-employment support scheme, and it was this Government—the United Kingdom Government—who have provided over £2.7 billion to the Scottish Government for rates relief, small business grants and grants for businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector.
We need to ensure that we are prepared for Brexit and that our borders are fit for purpose. That investment will help us to maximise the opportunity created by Brexit as we continue to trade with our European partners and to forge new and exciting trade deals across the world. While the SNP like to reject referendum results—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that it was a narrow gap, but I do not think that 10% is a narrow gap—I take the expression of my constituents’ will seriously. It is a shame that the SNP do not do that for their constituents. My constituents in Eastleigh voted to leave the European Union, and I will support the Government as we make good on our promise to leave the EU and seize the opportunities presented by global Britain. The SNP should focus on the day job to fix the lack of educational attainment that harms Scottish children; to fix their dire record in government and public service; and to stop the political gimmicks. We deliver; they delay. It is time to get Brexit done, and I will vote against the motion this evening.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I would say that it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, but many of my colleagues have touched on the meaningless rhetoric that we have heard from some Opposition Members. However, I want to say at the outset that I agreed with pretty much everything said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—sadly, she is not in her place. In true Liberal Democrat fashion, I agreed with everything that she said, but she U-turned at the end of her speech and is going to vote with the SNP, so she has let me down on that score.
I want to talk about the strength of the Union and reflect on the strength of democracy in this country. There was a referendum on independence—that has been an undertone of the debate. Our democracy and this Parliament had that referendum; we voted for the legislation that created the referendum, which we honoured. Something that is often missed is the strength of this Parliament and this democracy, which is such that we can ask the fundamental question, “Do you still want to be part of the Union?” SNP Members, however, campaigned over and over on the basis that it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I do not know about generations in Scotland, but we have a bit further to go in Wales before our generation is over.
I think it is worth reflecting in this debate on the strength of our Union in the response to covid-19. In my constituency—a Welsh constituency: fellow Celts please pay attention—11,000 jobs have been saved by a furlough scheme. That is above and beyond the billions that have been given to our partners in the Welsh Government. I really woke up to the meaninglessness of today’s debate when the Welsh Labour Government issued a statement saying that they supported the motion—that is what got me on my feet. However, on many aspects of covid-19, they have done a good job—not on everything. Just like the UK Government, they have done a good job and they are partners, but they have been underwritten in that. It has been incredibly important to our response to covid-19 to be a member of the United Kingdom, with that strong support and the deep pockets that we can call on all to support the economy at this time. That will be more important than ever in the coming months.
I caution SNP Members, who are riding high and taking huge comfort from polls at the moment, that I fought in the 2017 election on the back of a very successful polling organisation, and it was not that successful for me. So I caution them about polls and their independence. I also caution them about the prism of any future referendums. In at least a generation, of course, any referendum would be in terms of rejoining the European Union, because we are leaving, and are on course, and have left legally. It would be on rejoining the European Union, presumably for Scotland, and leaving a Union that is 60% of its trade valued at £51 billion, and on joining a union, whatever that looks like then, which would mean adopting the euro instead of the pound. It would mean working with partners such as Spain. I know that SNP Members hold the European Commission in high regard—mainly, I should imagine, because of the seriousness with which it takes referendums; repeating referendums until it gets the right answer—but let us look at the European Commission’s relationship with Catalonia and the questions in Spain. It goes back to my opening remarks about the strengths of this place, and the strength of our democracy, that enables us to ask these serious questions. We can campaign robustly but seek those answers.
I speak in this debate as a fellow Celt, a Welsh Member of Parliament, who has valued no end the UK Government’s support for my constituents’ businesses and my nation of Wales. Underlying that is the fact that the UK and our relationship with the outside world is more important to my constituents than the UK-EU relationship that we currently have. That is ending, and we move on. While I always take heart from taking to my feet and waxing lyrical in his marvellous Chamber, I wish we were talking about something more relevant to my constituents.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who, in his usual manner, gives sage words and even sager advice.
The first thing I would say, without fear of repetition, is where are the official Opposition? Last week, when we were talking about educational opportunities for deprived children, they were absent. They sit there and they carp and they virtue-signal. I represent a community where the majority of kids would fall into that category. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom represent similar seats, were here, and we were having those arguments. The official Opposition were silent, and it is an utter disgrace.
I commend the Scottish National party because it has done the job of an Opposition party. SNP Members have probed; they have debated; they have turned up. I would say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—[Interruption.] They do not want to leave. He might well shimmy over to the Opposition Front Bench, because he would probably be more suitable there.
I want to talk about some of the words we have heard today, particularly the descriptions of people who voted to leave the European Union, as 70% of my constituents did. Some of the words that came to me in conversations on the doorstep were, “I am being called thick”; “I am being told that this decision should not be given to me”; “I am being told that I don’t know what I am talking about.” We have heard that today as well, with words such as “xenophobia” and “cannon fodder”. It is absolutely disgusting. My constituents are not xenophobes. The constituents of my hon. Friends from the Black Country and more widely are not xenophobes. We welcome people from all parts of the world. We built our industrial heritage off welcoming people here, and I take real exception when Opposition Members accuse my constituents of being xenophobic and racist—they are absolutely not. What they are is proud of where they come from. They are proud of the fact that this United Kingdom is a country where—I will say it again—a lad from a council house can sit in this Chamber as a Member of Parliament. Where on earth can we see that? There are few examples. I stand by those values, because it is those values that made me.
I lived for a time in Wales. I taught myself Welsh and can speak it reasonably, conversationally. I was interested by the contributions from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). They are right—there is a cultural history that sometimes gets forgotten. I have long advocated that, as a Union, we need to share the diverse culture that we have internally. Kids in England should be learning about the “Mabinogi” and Welsh history and culture, just like kids in Scotland should. Equally, kids in Tipton should learn about the history of Scotland and come to understand that shared culture and heritage, because that is where we have gone wrong. We have built internal borders, and rather than focus on bringing them down, we have the rhetoric back and forth that has been highlighted today.
As I said, 70% of my constituents voted to leave the European Union. They have waited four years for it, and they have waited 50 years to be liberated from the Labour party. We see it constantly. We see it locally, with the fourth leader of Sandwell Council in about the same number of years and the revolving door leadership that sees my communities shafted. When I was canvassing, I saw grown men breaking down in tears because they realised that everything they had been brought up to believe was a lie. The people who had basically told them their life view, which was ingrained in their blood, had stabbed them in their back and said, “You don’t count any more.” That is what we have heard from the rhetoric today—“You don’t count. We don’t care.” An extension would just reinforce that. We have to get this done, because that is what my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton deserve.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be part of this debate, and particularly the Tory tour de force at the end of it, most powerfully illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey).
When I knocked on doorsteps at the end of last year, the overwhelming view was, “Just get on with it.” That is what this Government are determined to do. I was not surprised to see the SNP table this motion, but I am surprised to see the First Minister of Wales support this revisionist exercise. It shows not just his lack of awareness and his ignorance of the election results, but his lack of influence, because the First Minister of Wales—the leader of Welsh Labour—was not able to persuade one Member on the Labour Back Benches to turn up in support of this cause.
Our future relationship with the European Union is of great interest to my constituents in Brecon and Radnorshire, but I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the Paymaster General—why are we even having this debate? In the thick of a global pandemic, when we could be talking about economic recovery, jobs, green growth and food standards, we are talking about Brexit yet again.
The coronavirus pandemic has understandably posed a challenge to the negotiation timetable. Unlike the Opposition, rather than occupy ourselves with causing further uncertainty and yet more delay, this Government have been steadfast in ensuring that, as we move towards the end of the transition period, the whole United Kingdom is prepared. I hear more and more often how local businesses and those in the farming sector are eager to see the UK being opened up to new markets across the world, while maintaining a close relationship with our European neighbours. It has been greatly reassuring that, despite the challenges presented by covid, five rounds of negotiations between the UK and the EU have already been completed.
Although there are those who seek to test it, the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the strength of our Union. The unprecedented amount of support made available by the UK Government has reached around the entire UK. Just like 11,000 of my constituents, across Scotland more than 600,000 people have benefited from the UK Government’s job retention scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has boosted Scotland’s budget by £4.6 billion through various support schemes, which is yet more evidence that we are far stronger as one United Kingdom in the face of this crisis and as we exit the transition period into a new and prosperous chapter.
The EU is the single largest market for Welsh lamb, and I know it is also a huge market for Scottish produce. There is no room for the uncertainty and small-minded approach that the Opposition call for in again flirting with an extension. My local farmers do not want to be involved in a party political scaremongering tactic, with the worry that accompanies this kind of discussion. They want to be able to take advantage of the ambitious Canada-style deals that this Government are working hard to secure. I am sure that the same excitement felt by Welsh sheep farmers is felt by Scottish fishermen. Rather than continue to demand yet more delay, this Government want all UK fishermen to be able to fish in our sovereign waters. With our promise to take back control, they have every right to be excited. The rising tide that will accompany the end of the transition period will no doubt raise all Scottish fishing boats. Yesterday I received a letter from Wales for Europe urging me to call for an extension, because Wales already lags
“at the bottom of economic league tables”.
After 22 years of Labour running Wales, it is not an extension we need, but a Conservative Government in Cardiff.
This debate is all about our borders. I represent a border constituency, and our economy is being held back by the decisions of the Welsh Labour Government, who see jobs, growth and economic prosperity as an inconvenience. Dan Yr Ogof caves in my constituency are a hugely popular visitor attraction, but they are prevented from reopening today by the Welsh Government, despite their own guidelines saying that they are allowed to do so, simply because the caves are underground. Forty jobs have already been lost and today the owner told me, “We have survived two world wars, depressions, recessions, the foot and mouth epidemic, but at this rate we are not going to survive Welsh Labour.”
I am proud to support the UK’s Government’s resolve. In continuing the negotiations during this international pandemic, it is the strength and power of our United Kingdom that will ensure we prosper, and for that there can be no delay.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Dear oh dear oh dear, it is groundhog day again. We are back to discussing Brexit. I feel almost nostalgic; it is the 2017 Parliament arguments all over again. Why should we delay? What more excuses can we find to hold up Brexit? How can we make working-class communities in Bolsover wrong again? To be honest, I am not so keen on this groundhog day. The people have spoken. We need to deliver Brexit. The argument that we have a pandemic and we need to extend because that will create more certainty is nonsense. It is the wrong end of the lens. The only way in which we can give our businesses and our nation certainty is by sticking to the deadlines we have set out, and I am so proud that this Government are holding firm.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the director general of the CBI that there is no interest in further delaying transition and that business now wants to get on with it?
Mark Fletcher
It is an unusual experience to agree with a director general of the CBI, after so many years in which have disagreed with them, but in this instance it is a delight to agree.
However much I disagree with SNP Members on almost everything, I do at least give them credit for turning up. As I cast my eyes over the Opposition Benches, it is an unusual experience to see only the same number of Members on those Benches as there are in my fan club; they usually way outnumber me on that front. The Labour party has once again abandoned the pitch. Its Members have straddled for so long, trying to keep their true feelings on Brexit hidden. [Hon. Members: “They are hiding.”] They are indeed hiding. Here we are today with three hon. Members sat on the Labour Benches. I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is sitting at the Dispatch Box; I cannot help but feel he will have to summarise all the various Labour opinions that have been expressed today and make them seem like an eloquent argument.
Stephen Farry
For the record, I am just socially distancing; I am not part of the Labour party.
Mark Fletcher
That may be my favourite intervention of the day so far.
The interesting thing is that the Labour party is desperately hoping we forget that its new leader was the architect of its previous policy. We have not forgotten. The people of Bolsover have not forgotten. We remember the stupendous ways that Labour Members weaved through the various ins and outs of Brexit to make it seem they were supportive, but not really—but then where did they end up? On the wrong side of the argument and on the wrong side of the last general election. I am one of many hon. Members speaking from the Government Benches today who would not be here without Labour’s help, so thank you very much for that.
The Opposition’s policy kind of resembles a well-known Swedish furniture store, in my opinion: the instructions from the unions are almost impossible to follow; the policy is taking forever to assemble; they are missing a few nuts and bolts; and there is a very clear pro-European design. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will be better known as Sir Ikea Starmer from now on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the architect of the situation we find ourselves in. At least his predecessor would always make sure that the Labour party put up a fight; the Labour party is not even doing that, now.
In conclusion, today is a wasted day. However nostalgic we feel, the Brexit argument is done: we will be leaving this year. Whether we have a deal or not is to be determined. The European Union needs to create greater flexibility in its negotiating stance—that is the biggest barrier that we have—and this Government need to get on with levelling up all parts of our country. They should start in Bolsover.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher).
It is obvious to absolutely everybody that this debate has absolutely nothing to do with covid and its impact on any EU negotiations and everything to do with the SNP which, true to form, just wants to do everything to stop Brexit happening. It must be galling for all Labour voters in Dudley and beyond to see not a single Labour Back-Bench MP stand up to speak on this matter. Not even the current Labour leader, one of the main architects of Labour’s remain stance, is present.
Marco Longhi
He is indeed hiding.
As a new Member of Parliament, I have watched this place tear itself apart. I have watched it become an object of derision and despair. I have watched it lose the most fundamental element that differentiates our democracy from other Governments: this place acts on the will of its people.
Some Opposition Members might have more in common with people like the MEP Guy Verhofstadt. Just a couple of days ago he tweeted, with a delicate irony that so distinguishes his style and his deprecation of anything democratic:
“In 1988, Margaret Thatcher proudly declared that the barriers to trade in Europe were coming down”,
but, he thinks, with our leaving the EU, that the Conservative party—my party—
“is putting the barriers back up.”
So let us educate Mr Verhofstadt, shall we? We are quite happy to have a free trade agreement with the EU, just as the EU has with other non-EU member countries, and consequently there will be no border checks if that were to happen. However, we all know that the truth is that he, his European colleagues—and, it would seem, Opposition colleagues—want to make it as difficult as possible for us to leave and respect the democratic will of our people. He knows the truth, Mr Verhofstadt does, but he can’t handle the truth. As we forge free trade agreements worldwide, trade barriers will only continue to fall, whatever other patronising statements he might decide to make.
I should probably refer to the effect of covid on the negotiations, even though we know that that is nothing to do with the real merits of this debate. If we are to react quickly to the economic downturn caused by this pandemic, we must keep as much regulatory freedom as possible. We need to turbo-charge our free trade agreements and we need the ability to deliver services at pace. Adopting the so-called level playing field, or even continuing with the European Court’s jurisdiction in the UK, would put the brakes on our recovery as well as being utterly unacceptable, from a democratic perspective, to the people who voted. The people in my constituency of Dudley North overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union. The general election in December last year proved yet again, at the fourth time of asking, that the United Kingdom wants to leave. Leave we shall, whatever agreement is reached, so let us just get on with it.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), and indeed, before that, my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). I thought it was supposed to be an Opposition day debate, but here we are with the last hour taken up by speeches from the Conservative Benches, mostly from new MPs—and MPs who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover pointed out, took seats from the Opposition.
But I do thank the SNP for putting on this debate. Naively, I assumed that we would be talking about the European Union’s openness to extend the transition period for negotiations, but it seems that most of the day has instead been spent talking about Scottish independence—plus ça change. To be fair to SNP Members, I enjoy debating with them because they believe in something: they know where they stand. They know where they stand on Brexit and they know where they stand on Scottish independence. They will not let a referendum get in the way of that, but it is an honest position. Whereas, as many colleagues have said, where are Labour Members? I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is there on the Opposition Front Bench. In fact, he made a good point when he informed the SNP, with regard to today’s motion, that that ship has sailed, as indeed it has. There is no possibility of extending the transition period under the terms that were available because we chose not to do that, because, as the Paymaster General said, we enshrined in law our intention to leave on 31 December. We were elected on that mandate. Why would we go against that? Why would we prolong the uncertainty and hinder our recovery?
Covid makes it even more important that we get things sorted out and leave on 31 December. Businesses are already facing a huge amount of uncertainty as we come out of this terrible pandemic, with all the economic carnage it is causing. We must resolve our situation, one way or the other, with the European Union at the same time, rather than asking businesses to go back to work—putting the people of this nation back to work—and then having further disruption at whatever point we extend the transition period to. It is really very important that we resolve this.
That brings me to my next point about the tactics for negotiation and why this motion is fundamentally misconceived. We saw again and again in the previous Parliament the consequences of Parliament trying to usurp the Executive’s authority to negotiate, and what an awful mess that made. We allowed a situation to develop where the EU chose to pursue parallel negotiations with other Members, including the new Leader of the Opposition. Where is he on this?
Aaron Bell
We are still looking not just for him but for his position. We all remember him standing up at the Labour party conference going against his leader at the time and inserting a line in his speech about an option to remain. We will not forget, and neither will the voters of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I have never been a no-dealer—I would much rather we get a positive relationship with the EU going forward, and I would like a comprehensive free trade agreement—but I will support leaving without one if one cannot be negotiated. It takes two to tango, but we will have to leave on 31 December. We will take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, as we promised.
As we all know, whether we have been Members here for a long time or only for six months, EU deals happen at the 11th hour. What is the point of creating a new 11th hour six months down the line, and then perhaps another one six months down the line after that? That way lies more and more uncertainty. It is resolution we seek, and it is resolution that the Opposition are trying to avoid for the purposes of trying to bind us closer to Europe, even as the people of this country have had their say again and again.
I represent Newcastle-under-Lyme and 63% of the constituency voted to leave, but the areas that people would characterise as left behind—the former mining communities in places such as Silverdale, Knutton and Chesterton—voted even more heavily to leave. They used to be Labour areas and they voted for me in December. I am sure it was partly my campaign, but it was mostly the fact that they felt so disrespected by everything that had gone on since the vote.
We voted to leave in June 2016, more than four years ago—SNP Members would call that at least a generation. The good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have put up with endless delay, wrecking tactics and, regrettably, a Government who were not able to pursue their agenda, partly because of the tactics employed by people on the Opposition side and, regrettably, by the internal opposition on this side. No more: they put up with this with great good humour, but no more.
We will vote against this motion today. I assume SNP Members will divide the House. I am glad to go through the No Lobby. I am sure they will be glad to go through the Aye Lobby. I have no idea what the Labour party is going to do. I cannot wait to find out.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I must admit that I thought we had left this sort of debate behind in the previous Parliament. It has been very refreshing, actually, sitting here through most of this afternoon and feeling a bit like the old experienced hand. For those of us who went through the previous Parliament—the late-night, knife-edge votes, really not knowing what was happening and the whole uncertainty—it has been refreshing to sit here and listen to the new intake of Conservative MPs who have been elected speak with such clarity, passion and commitment to deliver on what the people of this country voted for both in the referendum and in the recent general election. So I commend everyone who has contributed to what has actually been a proper debate. We have not been able to have enough of these proper debates, given the way Parliament is currently operating. Let us hope that, when we return after the summer recess, we can get back to something more like normality and have proper debates again.
I must admit that, although I really hoped we had left these debates behind, it was not a great surprise to see the SNP put forward this motion, because it does have a consistent reputation of wanting to overturn referendum results. It just seems that whatever people vote for in a referendum, the SNP is going to disagree with it and try to reverse it. Let us not pretend this is anything other than once again trying to delay Brexit in order to serve the SNP’s own political agenda, rather than doing what is right for our country. This Government were elected just over six months ago with a very clear mandate to get Brexit done and to deliver on that referendum result, and with a very firm commitment to not delay the transition period and not extend negotiations any further. I believe I owe it to my constituents and we owe it to the British people to keep our promise and deliver on that very firm commitment.
One thing that I know is absolutely clear is that the last thing we need in these negotiations is more time. I guarantee that, if we extended for another year, six months before the next deadline, we would be in exactly this same position and having exactly the same discussions. It is not more time that is needed; it is political will that is needed to get a deal done and to come to some mutually beneficial agreement with the European Union on the terms of what our future relationship will be. Let us be clear. We often seem to forget that we actually left the European Union six months ago. We have left the European Union. This debate is not about whether or not we are leaving the European Union. That has been settled. The only thing up for discussion with the EU is what it will agree with us in terms of our future relationship. That is absolutely clear.
Interestingly, many of those—in fact, I would say most of those—in the last Parliament who chose to try to undermine the democratic decision of the British people and to thwart, delay and muddy the waters of Brexit are no longer here. They paid a heavy price when they came face to face with the British electorate. One thing that the last referendum clearly showed is that the British people have a very clear sense of fair play. They expect that, when they vote for something, it gets done. That is true of the 2016 referendum and it is true of the last general election. They elected this Government to deliver on that promise, to not delay any further, to get Brexit done and to make sure that we leave on time.
We have heard it said a few times that we should handle only one crisis at a time. I do not quite understand that, because I see Brexit not as a crisis, but as a huge opportunity to deliver for the British people. But we are in the middle of a public health and an economic crisis and I respectfully say to SNP Members: if they think that we can handle only one crisis at the time, why are they trying to create another one by taking Scotland out of the Union and creating further uncertainty and disruption? What we need to do is pull together to deal with the challenges that we are currently facing.
It is quite clear that, over the past few months, the Union has been part of our strength in handling this crisis, and we need to continue that. Scotland has benefited hugely, to the tune of billions and billions of pounds from the UK Government supporting its economy. We need to stick together and we need to get Brexit done.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. It is perhaps unsurprising that we have heard from one—or perhaps no—Labour Member in what has been a very important debate. Perhaps this highlights to the whole House, to the country and to the hard-working people in Keighley and Ilkley that, once again, we are seeing, just as we have seen over many months and years, a real lack of decisiveness, a real lack of any decision making and a real lack of any leadership from Her Majesty’s Opposition. I could say lost in action, but there has been no action—so just lost.
I know that Labour Members would rather sit on the fence and see how the wind blows before taking any real stance, so it will be interesting to see how they vote this evening. Will they sit on the coat-tails of the SNP Members, or will they be bold and decisive and back this Conservative Government, who are determined to deliver on the will of the people? Ruling out extending the transition period gives businesses the certainty that they need to crack on. Time and again, people right across my constituency have been telling me that it is even more important now that we get this delivered.
I note that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who is no longer in his place, said that there has been much repetition in this debate, and he is absolutely right. Listening to SNP Members is like listening to a broken record going on about independence. I say to the SNP that, rather than just pressing the case for another extension, for more frustration and for more uncertainty for British businesses through seeking more dither and delay through an enhanced extension period, it should look a little closer to home and focus its efforts on the great failures that its leader and its party seem to be completely incapable of addressing.
It is clear from listening to SNP Members that their party seems to be more interested in promoting the fear factor of exiting the EU, along with its continued insistence on independence, rather than tackling head-on the improvements that are so desperately needed to the education system in Scotland. In fact, one could conclude that the SNP is so obsessed with pursuing independence—to which, I remind SNP Members, people in Scotland said no—that it would rather put this ahead of any young child growing up in Scotland who wants to get on and get the best education in order to go on and thrive.
It gets worse. It is inexcusable that SNP Members here, along with their colleagues in Scotland, cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with education in Scotland. Time and again we see stats, reports and information highlighting the SNP’s failure to tackle the downward spiral in the Scottish education system. Just earlier this year, reports showed that the number of school leavers who had at least one pass at higher level dropped from 62% in 2017-18 to 60% last year. The figures also dropped for advanced highers, and the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students in Scotland is growing again in certain areas.
The SNP has already pulled one education Bill, and on its watch there are far fewer teachers. The results by students in science and maths are down. New ideas and fresh thinking by the SNP are noted for their absence, and the suspicion lingers that, for all its rhetoric, the SNP is still reluctant to accept the true scale of the problem. So I say to the Scottish First Minister and her Education Secretary, and to every hon. Member on the SNP Benches here, that they should get a grip of the situation, because right now they are failing the young people of Scotland, and Scotland deserves much better.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and a whole host of wise, well-mannered and intelligent contributions from these Benches. This debate is primarily about three things: what is best for our economy; broken promises and what is best for our politics; and what is best for our country. Let us talk about the economy. It is undoubtedly true that our economy has been and will continue to be affected by the covid-19 crisis. Peterborough’s economy has been hit by the crisis. Jobs have been lost, and the Social Market Foundation has said that Peterborough is at risk of long-term economic disruption.
But I am fed up of bogus surveys and of people talking down my city. Peterborough is a city on the up. We have a new university coming to Peterborough, which will bring research, innovation and new jobs. We have DALROD, a company that is celebrating 35 years in the fantastic city of Peterborough, creating more jobs. We have new jobs being created by Waitrose, by Aldi and by the homeware retailer URBN. Peterborough is on the A1, and it is 50 minutes from London. Peterborough is a city on the up, and the last thing we need is more uncertainty caused by further Brexit delay and dither. I am afraid that, if we extend the transition agreement, we will be back in this place in just a year or two’s time.
This is also about broken promises and what is best for our politics. My journey to this House came with a bump in the road, and it was called the Peterborough by-election in 2019. I understand what the destination will be if we do not keep our promises, and unfortunately it will be to come third in a by-election behind Nigel Farage. I do not want to be there again, and that is why I am proud that this Government will keep our promises. The people of Bretton, the people of Paston, the people of Werrington, the people of Westwood—the people of Peterborough—are fed up with being called uneducated, thick and unsophisticated because they believed in their country, believed in Brexit and voted to leave.
This is also about what is good for our country. I live in a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a country that includes England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—equal partners in this Union. Do you know something, Mr Deputy Speaker? I speak regularly to Scottish people who have moved to my city, Peterborough, and they weep for the politics of the nationalists on the SNP Benches. They weep for their divisive nature and they weep about what they are doing to them in this great country. It is the strength of this Union that will get us through this covid-19 crisis and power us on.
I almost feel sorry for the Labour party and its activists in my constituency—but the key word is “almost”. I know what the Labour social media trolls will do when they see this video of me talking passionately about my city. They will talk about why their economic policies are best for this country and why they need investment. But where are they? Where is the Labour party? Labour Members may have abandoned the playing field and they may think people are not watching, but I will make sure that the people of Peterborough know that the Labour party has abandoned them when it comes to Brexit.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow so many of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), but that is as nothing compared with my enormous pleasure at seeing the empty Labour Benches, which is the perfect visual metaphor for the party’s absence of a policy on Europe.
Let me turn to the motion and talk about the economy. This week, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that covid-19 could, and probably will, cause the biggest slump in the UK economy for 300 years. In these difficult times, we need to provide business with as much certainty as possible and do everything we can to help the Scottish economy bounce back after the effects of the pandemic. That includes the enormous generosity of the UK Exchequer, which has stretched to largesse of £13 billion across the job retention scheme, bounce-back loans, kick-start, the VAT cut and eat out to help out, funded by the most successful economic union in history.
But more than anything else, Scotland needs an economy that is confident and outward looking. Although I personally have no doubts about the individual commitment of SNP Members to parliamentary democracy, it is a matter of great concern that the activists behind the anti-English, xenophobic and illegal demonstrations say that they took their inspiration from senior SNP figures.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) himself has been reported as having tweeted an image, with an expletive, to the effect that Scotland was shut and that visitors should perform a less polite version of going away. He has slunk away from the debate; perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will tell us the truth about whether any of those involved in setting up those illegal roadblocks were members of his party. Will he give the House a commitment that, if that does turn out to be the case, anyone involved will be expelled?
As a direct result of the SNP’s delay in condemning that behaviour at the border, businesses in the tourism sector, one of the largest parts of the Scottish economy, are receiving cancellations of bookings over concerns about whether Scotland will be open and welcoming to them. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber has returned to his place, but I have to say that, at a time when nationalism globally is on the rise, that is not a good look for his party at all. SNP Members claim to be worried about adding to the costs of covid-19, but they themselves are compounding the damage to the Scottish economy.
SNP Members talk about a power grab from Edinburgh to London. I have much sympathy for the position of a people feeling disenfranchised by decisions taken in a capital hundreds of miles away, but that is why I celebrate the 2016 referendum verdict and am keen to put it into practice with as much haste as possible. Powers held today in Brussels, over which the right hon. Member has no influence, are being returned to Westminster and to the devolved Assembly. Scotland will have over 100 additional powers that it does not currently enjoy. Talk about an erosion of the powers of the Scottish Parliament is fallacious given that that Parliament did not exist until 1999. and our membership of the European Union far predates that.
It is not too late. It is never too late for the SNP to turn around, to be on the side of democracy and to join us on the Government side of the House, seizing back our independence, seizing back control and making a success of global Britain in the world.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Let me be clear that it is because of our United Kingdom that, by the end of June, nearly 900,000 jobs across Scotland had been protected by the UK Government’s unprecedented support, and the Scottish Government have been allocated an extra £4.6 billion for coronavirus funding.
However, today’s debate is really about revisiting two questions that have been answered: Scotland leaving the UK, which was rejected in 2014, to join, if allowed, the European Union, which the UK collectively voted to leave in 2016. Both referendums were once-in-a-generation votes, and it is our duty to respect the people’s voices. The nationalist obsession with separating themselves from our United Kingdom risks at least half a million jobs, throwing Scottish business into chaos with dither and delay while they wait to see whether they are allowed into the protectionist racket, and the opportunity to export the best of Scotland around the world could be lost. The SNP is desperate to rejoin the European Union and would do so at the cost of its own workers and industries, and fishermen and women are a prime example. Remaining in the common fisheries policy would be detrimental to the health and success of the Scottish fishing industry, and we know that the European Union’s oppressive one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work.
The SNP could have talked about topics that are more pressing to the people of Scotland. In January this year, Scotland had the joint biggest fall in the social and economic wellbeing index. Why the decline? Education is one major part of the fall. Since 2006, PISA—the programme for international student assessment—shows that Scotland has dropped from 11th to 23rd in reading, 11th to 24th in maths, and 10th to 19th in science. Teacher numbers are lower today than when the SNP took power.
However, it is not just PISA that points out the failure of the nationalists in Holyrood. A survey on literacy and numeracy, which the SNP set up, came out with damning figures about what is happening, so what was the First Minister’s response? It was to close it down, dismiss it, and tell the professional statisticians they were wrong. Instead of a data-driven approach, they asked teachers what they thought about every pupil relative to a test that may have been taken at any point in the year. That does not allow proper moderation and applies unfair pressure on teachers, causing impartiality to be thrown into doubt. The SNP choose to play party politics over helping to improve the educational outcomes and destinations of the youth in Scotland.
However, before the SNP tells me that positive destinations have increased, let me point out that it happened because the Scottish Government chose to include zero-hour contracts in their figures—a system that SNP Members regularly lambast. The Scottish Government will also praise their flagship curriculum for excellence, but it is to be investigated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—failure after failure after failure. Let us talk about these issues instead, rather than revisiting the same old arguments that the public of the United Kingdom wish to move on from.
On top of educational failure, let us not forget the new children’s hospital in Edinburgh that was meant to be delivered in 2012 and is now mothballed for the remainder of 2020, costing the taxpayer £1.4 million a month. Let us not forget the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, which tragically saw two children die due to water contamination in 2017, and which saw NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde placed into special measures. Scotland is also now the worst place in Europe for drug deaths, after the highest ever rise in fatalities following an 80% reduction in rehabilitation beds since the SNP came to power.
Let me offer something that Members from the Scottish National party and we on the Government Benches can agree on: where is the Labour party? Rather than showing that it has learned the lessons of December 2019, its Members are hiding. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge—they try to avoid discussing Brexit, because in private they want to stop it. It is one of the many reasons that people of Stoke-on-Trent North, of Kidsgrove and of Talke rejected them at the ballot box. My constituents overwhelmingly asked to leave the EU in 2016, but they were ignored time and again by the Labour party.
Let us not forget that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the architect of Labour’s disastrous Brexit policy, said to Labour members in Dudley in March that he wants to campaign to go back in. Then he told the media in May that he wants to stay out of the EU, yet he cannot walk through the Division Lobbies with us this evening to reject an extension. Time and again, Labour is failing the people of Stoke-on-Trent and the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What can one say? It has been an absolutely fascinating debate. We have learned so much about where we are with the Government’s chaotic and tortuous Brexit. I think we have also learned a little more about what Conservative Members feel and believe about Scotland. [Interruption.] Take it easy. Relax. I say to those Members that Scotland is watching this debate. Scotland is observing all the insults, all the disparaging remarks, all the putdowns and all the attempts to take our powers. They have no idea how that comes across in Scotland. They can bawl, scream, shout and disparage. They can shout us down and ignore us, but do they know what it does? I will tell them exactly what it does: it drives support for independence sky-high.
Let me tell them a couple of things in case they have missed them, both to help them a little bit and to help diplomatic relations, because this has all gone badly wrong for them. We in Scotland are now at 54% support for Scottish independence. Let me tell them what else has happened this year. Every opinion poll since the turn of the year has suggested that we are now at majority support. For the first time ever in the history of Scottish independence, we are in the position where there is sustained majority support for the proposition. That has never happened before.
After today, that support is only going to go up. We do not need to do anything in this place. I do not need to get to my feet and make a speech. All we need to do is to show the contributions made by Conservative Members to the people of Scotland. My main job, as a supporter of Scottish independence, is just to get them to make speeches like that, and then show them back to the Scottish people. The thing is it does not matter; they will keep on doing it.
A couple of things are going to happen in the next year. We have a Scottish parliamentary election in less than 10 months. If Conservative Members think that support for independence is bad for them, wait until they hear how well the Scottish National party is doing in opinion polls. Do they know where we are? We are at 55% support. Do the Conservatives want to know where they stand for the next election? They are at 20%. [Interruption.] They say, “Wait for the day.” Absolutely. We will take nothing for granted, and that is why I am getting all the little clips of all those speeches and making sure that they are transmitted to the Scottish people, because support for the Scottish National party will then just go further up.
Aaron Bell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am intrigued to know about the opinion polls in Scotland—they are great—but would he care to answer any of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) made about the record of the Scottish Government?
Pete Wishart
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something about the record of the Scottish Government, because it will come as a bigger disappointment to him. Not only is support for Scottish independence at 54% and not only is support for the Scottish National party at 55%, but does he want to know the satisfaction rating for the Scottish Government? He does not want to know, but I will tell him anyway. It is 74%. That is the satisfaction rating for the Scottish Government. We are a popular Government doing things on behalf of the Scottish people that the Scottish people overwhelmingly approve of.
Pete Wishart
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman as he took half an hour, sorry.
This is where we are in Scotland, and I thank Conservative Members from the bottom of my heart for helping me in my ambition and quest to deliver independence for Scotland.
It is so unnecessary. There are a couple of ways that we could do these things. We could have a separation of the ways peacefully and amicably, respecting each other, or Conservative Members could do the thing of shouting us down, disparaging us and trying to take the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I suggest this to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches: why don’t we do it the friendly way? I will tell them something. They won their Brexit; have it. Please have it. If that is what England wants, please have it. I will be the first person to applaud them, cheer them and wish them all the best. We do not want it. We don’t want it—that is the simple thing. Why can we not both have what we both want? Why can’t they have their Brexit, have their splendid isolation and have their fantastic trade deals that they have in the bag? What we will do is reflect on what the Scottish people want, which is to be an independent nation within the European Union.
I am here to sum up today’s proceedings, so let us see if I can make a little bit of a job just about that. There have been some fantastic contributions. Looking around, even the Tories, with their disparaging remarks about Scotland, have been pretty interesting. [Interruption.] They have been great. They have been fantastic for us and we are so looking forward to putting a compendium together.
The opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was a trademark tour de force accurately summarising the situation in and condition of Scotland: talking about the power grab, the threat to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the devolution settlement, talking about where the Scottish people are in relation to Brexit, and saying why it is necessary to have an extension to Brexit. That is what he laid down so very effectively in his speech today.
We then had some fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). From Glasgow to Aberdeenshire to Lothian, there were fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends. “They do not speak for Scotland.” I do not know which one of the disparaging remarks that was from. But my hon. Friends speak on behalf of nearly every single community in Scotland. We have 80% of the Members representing Scotland in this House. From Ayrshire to Argyll to Aberdeenshire to everywhere, we have SNP Members who will put the views of their constituents. On no issue do they speak on behalf of those people more than on Brexit. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit. Every single constituency in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. What my hon. Friends did here today was to stand up for their community, represent their views, and make sure that they were properly represented and that their voice was heard. They did a fantastic job of that today.
Then, of course, there were the Conservative speeches. I am not going to say any more about them, because that was just great. But there is something I have observed—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Okay. They are saying, “More.” How about this, then? I have been in this House for 20 years and I have never observed a Conservative party quite like it: the new model Conservatives, the red wall Tories, the Commons commandos—how about that one? That is the way to describe them, or Boris’s Brexit bombardiers! How about that one? I cannot tell them apart. They are all the same. They are nearly all male and they are all standing there. They all beat the Labour party and they are all really thrilled about that. Well done. Gosh, we tanked the Labour party 10 years ago! It is not a big deal or a big feat.
The poor hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), sitting there having to take all this. I actually feel sorry for him. The Labour party could not even be bothered to turn up. It was just appalling. For goodness’ sake, they must have something to say about Brexit. Even if they turned up and just asked to open the window or something, at least they would have been on the record, but they could not be bothered to even do that. Does he want to say something? I’ll give way to him.
Pete Wishart
He doesn’t. I do really feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. There is the one Scottish Labour Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who always has lots to say about the Union. He is not even here today—I would have thought that he might at least have turned up.
Paul Holmes
Does it surprise the hon. Gentleman, as it has me, that, according to what I hear, the Labour party are actually on a one-line Whip? Does that not show that although we come from opposing sides of the argument, the Labour party do not take the future of Scotland seriously?
Pete Wishart
Well, they never really have. They are no longer a force in Scottish politics—they been well beaten into third place. But we do not really bother about the Labour party in Scotland, just as we are increasingly not bothering about the Conservative party, who we are now beginning to trounce once again.
Then there are the Liberals, none of whom have turned up. [Interruption.] No—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) may have turned up to make a speech, but she is not here for the wind-ups—which is rather discourteous, Madam Deputy Speaker, though I say so myself. She is not here, and neither are the other Scottish Liberals who made speeches today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I clarify? Due to social distancing restrictions, people are not always required to be here, as previously. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to cast any aspersions.
Pete Wishart
I note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. But there are empty seats; if any of them want to come down, they will still find a few seats where they could sit down and participate in this debate.
The curious thing about the Liberal Democrats and their speeches is that they were not congratulated by these Benches but cheered on by the Tories. They made better Unionist speeches than you Tories! Probably the most thorough Unionists in the whole of Scotland just now are Liberal Democrats. Again, it is no wonder that they are down to God knows how many Members.
Back to the Conservative speeches. There is one that I have to single out, by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). It was absolutely and utterly appalling. He tried to suggest that a constitutional political party that has done nothing other than promote our cause civically and democratically is somehow anti-English and racist. That was an appalling slur, for which he should apologise. He is not here, but I tell him something—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Please—no yelling at each other. It is very unseemly.
Pete Wishart
I will tell the hon. Gentleman something about condemning things. I condemned what happened on the border a couple of weeks ago within an hour. I will condemn any of that type of activity: whether it is Unionists and loyalists protesting in Glasgow’s George Square, or whether it is activists on the border, I will condemn them. I invite the Scottish Conservatives to condemn those other protests too.
We all have great fun observing what is happening with the “negotiations”—these things that the Government turn up to with the EU. We in Scotland, I suppose, are just a bit more dispassionate about these things. We observe what is happening.
On the one side, we see the EU negotiating team, briefed to the eyeballs, with intimate knowledge of every detail of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, negotiating in good faith and determined to protect the integrity of the single market and the institutions that have built up over the decades. Then the UK team turn up, and before they have even had the chance to lace up their clown shoes, the EU are running all over them.
The UK team are clueless—no idea what they want, constantly shifting the goal posts. I will tell the House what it is like: it is like the Scotland team of the 2020s out there on the field against the Brazil team of the 1970s. It is that one-sided. It is no wonder that the Europeans are running circles around them just now. It might all just be a clever ploy: perhaps the Government are setting things up to fail so that they get their coveted no deal, which is exactly what they are after. Nobody could be negotiating as badly and poorly as the UK team just now.
Scotland is making up its mind. A majority of people in Scotland now want it to be an independent nation; we have now reached sustained majority support. The thing is that we are doing well in not just the traditional communities—middle Scotland is joining us now. Do Members know who the most passionate supporters of Scottish independence are now? They are “no” voting remainers, who are flooding to our cause. I thank them for being the biggest recruiting sergeants for Scottish independence that we could possibly get. I thank them for driving many more people to the cause of Scottish independence.
Ian Blackford
Will my hon. Friend join me in giving some friendly advice to the Government? Devolution has been around for only 20 years—it is a relatively short time in our history. We are proud of our Parliament, and we want it to be independent. People have a real sense of pride, right across Scotland, in what our Parliament has achieved. I have to say in friendly terms to the Government that tomorrow they will introduce a White Paper—we know more about that now, and crucially, in that White Paper, they set up an unelected body that will determine whether or not the Acts of the Scottish Parliament are competent within the new framework that the UK is establishing. It is really quite remarkable—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. That is quite a long intervention. Pete Wishart.
Ian Blackford
If you say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the most crucial measure on devolution and it is right that we raise the issue properly. I say to the
Deputy Speaker that Scotland’s voice will be heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I know they are, but there should be—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and spot on to be absolutely furious about what is planned for Scotland. Let me tell Government Members something. They are all bawling and screaming. Put the cameras on them—we want Scotland to see them screaming at us. We want to see them screaming at us—that builds support for us. [Interruption.] Keep on doing it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart
I will not give way, as I have heard enough screaming. Can I say one word to my hon. colleagues over there: super-state?
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman says the EU. The super-state has arrived, and people will not find it in Brussels—they will find it in Whitehall, because the unelected body that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber described is coming Scotland’s way. Remember unelected bureaucrats? Remember that one? We have found their offices. They are not in Brussels, Frankfurt or Paris. They are sitting in Whitehall. An unelected advisory body will determine what type of Scottish parliamentary legislation will or will not be introduced. The super-state has arrived; unelected bureaucrats have arrived. That super-state is not dressed in gold stars on a blue background. It is coming to Scotland, presented in a Union Jack—that will be the arrival of the super-state for Scotland—and God help them trying to get it through the Scottish Parliament.
We have made it clear that we are not going to participate in that. We are going to do everything in our power to thwart it. No longer will they impose their view on Scotland, which has rejected them and their Brexit. Those days are passing. They are leaving—they are in the departure lounge. Scotland is deciding that it wants an entirely different future from the one that they want to project on us. We are going to make up our mind and Scotland will become an independent nation in the next year. Again, I appeal to them—work with us to do this. We could do it two ways. We could do it easily, conveniently and democratically in participation and partnership. We could do that—we could arrange a referendum to make sure Scottish people have a choice, or they can dig in for a process of attrition that will not serve either of our nations and countries. It will end up the same way. Whatever they decide to do, we win. You cannot beat sustained majority support. It is all over. Why do they not work with us to deliver and achieve that result for Scotland, which the Scottish people want?
I have thoroughly enjoyed myself—I think you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am absolutely going to sit down. All that I can say to Government Members is, keep going. Every disparaging put-down is a badge of honour for SNP Members here. Every time you talk down Scotland and try to deprive us of our powers, our support builds. I say one thing to you: keep going.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this important debate. It has been passionate, robust and, on the whole, good-natured. We have had over 40 contributions over the past six hours or so. I will do my best to respond to all the points that Members have made, but if I forget or do not have time to respond to every individual point, I hope Members will accept my apologies.
Let me start with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I do not want to sully his reputation, but I have long admired his passion and humour and the theatrics with which he puts forward his cause. However, on the substance—this will not surprise him, and I do not want to disappoint him—I profoundly disagree.
Let me let me start by debunking this manufactured grievance that the UK internal market proposals, which will be published tomorrow, somehow amount to a power grab or to disrespect for the devolution settlement. That is absolutely not the case. Many Opposition Members have confected another row, before the document is even published and before they have seen it. That says it all.
We have already had some overtures.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have to say to him that I have received a press release from his Government. Why are the Government briefing on a White Paper, when Parliament has not been informed of this? It is a matter of record between the two Governments that a body will be established that will have oversight over the Bills and Acts that come in front of the Scottish Parliament. That utterly disrespects the referendum in Scotland in 1997, and the Minister needs to think about not just the SNP and the Scottish Government, but the people of Scotland, who voted for devolution.
Iain Stewart
A press release! If the right hon. Gentleman bides his time, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will make a statement, quite properly, to this House tomorrow. Hon. Members will have a full opportunity to discuss many of the—
Iain Stewart
How rude of the right hon. Gentleman. That says it all. SNP Members do not have the courtesy to listen to the answers that have been given.
Douglas Ross
Perhaps I could provide clarity for the Minister, because he has been assiduous at the Dispatch Box all afternoon—for six hours. I have also received a copy of the embargoed UK Government press release. I received it from “Newsnight” because the right hon. Gentleman and I are both appearing on it to discuss this issue. This is not the Government issuing things early; this is “Newsnight” trying to help those going on it. If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident in his argument, I would have thought that he would have been willing to have a debate with me, rather than wanting to go on 10 minutes before.
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the publication is made available tomorrow, and this House has its proper opportunity to scrutinise it, Members will see that these proposals are all about helping businesses across the United Kingdom. An internal market is not a novel concept. Any country that has a powerful system of federal arrangements or devolution has an internal market structure. These proposals are about making sure that Scottish businesses can continue to trade throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, unfettered, without additional restrictions, barriers or costs, and that they can sell their goods or acquire their supply chain products. That is what this is about. We will see that these are just tired old claims of a power grab. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the truth is that many more powers will be coming not just to the Scottish Parliament, but to all the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of Plaid Cymru, said in her contribution that there should be more devolution. I am happy to say that Brexit means that there will be more devolution. Let me give some of the policy areas where that will happen: agriculture, fisheries, chemical regulation, food safety, procurement, waste management, carbon capture, aviation—I could go on and on. There is a long list of powers currently residing with unelected bureaucrats in Brussels that will go down either to this House or, more importantly, to the devolved Administrations, where they will be subject to democratic decision making.
Of course, these will complement the strong existing powers that Holyrood and the other devolved Parliaments have. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), among others, moaned that the Scottish Parliament did not get any more powers after the 2014 referendum. Did he not see the Scotland Act 2016, which devolves significantly more taxation and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament? That is the reality, and all we get from the SNP is manufactured grievances that are straight out of the separatist playbook.
Iain Stewart
No, we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman over the course of the afternoon. I am going to reply to some of the points that have been made in the debate.
We have heard the great passion about both referendums in 2014 and 2016. Brexit and Scottish separation aroused great passions, but we have to respect the results of both referendums, and it is deeply patronising to say that people did not know what they were voting for in either case. The SNP says that the people of Scotland did not know about Brexit. I invite it to look at page 217 of its prospectus for independence, where the prospect of Brexit was raised. Is the SNP saying that the Scottish people were too stupid to read it and understand it? We should respect the result of the 2014 referendum, and we should respect the result of the 2016 referendum.
Many of my hon. Friends made this point, but I particularly highlight the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who are absolutely right that they are now representing what their constituents voted for, unlike their predecessors. It is disappointing that there are so few Members from the official Opposition here. What is their Brexit policy now? Are they going to respect the result? Are they going to join us in the Lobby to make sure that we do not extend the transition period at the end of tonight, or is their absence today indicative of the fact that they still secretly want to stop Brexit, but dare not admit it?
Let me turn to the issue of extending the transition. As many hon. Members have said—especially the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—the Brexit debate is over. If the SNP truly believed that, we would not be having this debate today. We do not need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) said, a “neverendum”. Business does not need the psychodrama of the last couple of years to endure. Those who say that we will not get a trade deal with the EU are probably the very same people who said that we would not get a Brexit deal concluded at all. We did, and we will.
Let us imagine if this motion today achieved its aims. What would be the consequences? Cost—what would we have to pay to the EU to support its covid recovery programmes as well as all its other expenditure, and as well as our own? Has the SNP quantified that, and if not, what financial support for business and public services would it be willing to see forgone in order that that bill would be footed? What new laws and regulations over which neither this House nor Holyrood had any say would businesses and organisations have to abide by? What would be the cost for the fishing communities of Scotland of being forced to remain part of the wasteful and disastrous common fisheries policy? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) rightly said, the European Union will not be thinking of the United Kingdom’s interests when shaping its future policies.
Would extending the deadline make it any more likely that we will reach a conclusion of these matters? I very much doubt it. Having a deadline concentrates minds. If we extend the transition period by a year, I would put serious money on our being back in this Chamber for another debate about extending it for another period. Negotiations are ongoing with renewed vigour, and I do not agree with the prophets of doom who say that we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion. After all, we are not asking for something new. There is already a trade agreement between the EU and Canada, which we simply want to replicate.
I reject the characterisation of the UK outside the EU as some insular, narrow-minded, protectionist little island—far from it. We want to be an open, welcoming, tolerant, ambitious and free-trading country with global horizons. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) was on the money when she referred to our generous offer to the people of Hong Kong to find a home here in the face of Chinese oppression. That is what this country is about.
There will be huge trading opportunities for businesses in Scotland and across the UK as a result of the trade deals we strike. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who characterised me as “cannon fodder”, mentioned the wine trade in her constituency. I used to live in her constituency, and I was very pleased that the headquarters of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society was based there—it was my local. I want to see Scotch whisky exports go much further than they currently are, and the trade deals that we strike will enable that. That is the sort of ambition we should have.
While there are huge opportunities, threats remain. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spent much of his speech detailing what he saw as the potential disruptions to trade between Scotland and the EU, but what about the disruptions to trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if he and his colleagues had their way? They have set their face against the internal market proposals without even seeing them. They walked away from the engagement discussions that this Government were having with the Scottish Government. As I have said, these proposals will guarantee the rights of Scottish firms to trade and source their products across the UK. The last thing Scottish business needs as we rebuild post covid are the barriers, costs, division and confusion that another independence referendum and separation would entail.
Of course, covid has posed huge challenges for us all. I just find it astonishing that some Opposition Members seek to trivialise and moan about the support that the United Kingdom Government have given. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said that Scotland got less than 1% of the package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week. Did she not see that Scottish businesses and people will benefit from the job retention bonus, the kick-start programme and many other schemes? Did she not factor that in? I am afraid that I do not accept this whining, moaning trivialisation of the support that this United Kingdom gives. If ever we needed an example to show that this United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, this response to covid proves it. Of course there are challenges, to all parts of the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) told me some concerning things about the impact on Scottish tourism as a result of the measures and announcements of the Scottish First Minister.If we ever needed an example to show that this United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, this response to covid proves it. Of course there are challenges, to all parts of the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) told me some concerning things about the impact on Scottish tourism as a result of the measures and announcements of the Scottish First Minister.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you, I am most grateful. I have received a press release, which has come from the UK Government this afternoon, about a White Paper that will be issued tomorrow morning. It covers the issues of the devolved institutions and the establishment of a UK-wide market. I have to say that we on this side of the House are absolutely furious that this matter has been briefed to the press. I have not, as was suggested earlier, been informed by “Newsnight”, but from elsewhere. Moreover, not only has this been briefed to the press, which I would suggest is discourteous to this House, but none of the devolved institutions has been informed of this White Paper ahead of the media briefings this evening.
Can I ask what mechanisms are open to us, now that we know this is in the public domain—yet the Minister has not sought to inform the House—to summon the Minister to explain this this evening? Moreover, the reason for the importance of this, despite what has been said from the Government Front Bench, is that it will lead, if it is passed, to the establishment of a body that will have oversight of legislation that comes in front of the devolved institutions. We will have to justify, for example, what we have done on tuition fees, or what we have done on the minimum pricing of alcohol. It is an attack on devolution pure and simple, and we must have the opportunity, now that the Government have communicated this to the media, to make sure that we hold this Government to account this evening and without delay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I certainly got the impression that he made his feelings known about this during the course of the debate. I think the House is not unaware of that. With regard to a Minister coming to the House this evening, I have no notice of that, but I believe there is certainly going to be a statement tomorrow on this issue, and I am sure at that point he will have the opportunity to reiterate his views. In the meantime, those on the Treasury Bench have heard what he had to say, and will have noted it and will, I am sure, report back.
Jacob Young
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe it was the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) who previously claimed it was “jaw-dropping” that the Government had not voted on an Opposition day motion, and she described abstaining as cynical. Given that the Labour party has chosen not even to show up to today’s Opposition day debate, can I seek your advice on how the House can know the right hon. Lady’s thoughts on the Labour party hiding from tonight’s vote?
Madam Deputy Speaker
First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have given notice that he is referring to another Member before raising a point of order. Has he done that?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, he really ought to do that. If he is making comments about anybody else or what they have said, they absolutely have the right to be in the Chamber. Before we go any further—because, as I say, it is disrespectful not to have done that—it is very important that each Member of Parliament and each of us has the right to decide which way we vote. Sometimes hon. Members vote Aye, sometimes they vote No, sometimes they abstain. There may well come a point when the hon. Gentleman needs to make such a decision, so I do think it is important that in this House we respect each other’s right to make decisions about which way to vote.
Shaun Bailey
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a relatively new Member to this House, I seek your clarification. My understanding is that it is our basic duty to our constituents to ensure that we turn up to debates and that we vote, irrespective of who instigates those debates. How is it compatible with that duty that the official Opposition both do not turn up to a debate and do not vote?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear what I just said. I can repeat it, but basically it was that I think it is very important that we all respect each other’s right to make decisions on the issue of voting. There may well come a point when the hon. Gentleman is not able to participate in a debate or does not want to participate in a debate, and at that point he may decide that he wishes to abstain. That is his right: it is the right of all of us. That is what I just said, so let us hope we are not going to have any further discussion on this issue.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That at this day’s sitting, Standing Order 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We will have a brief two-minute suspension, just to make sure that the Dispatch Boxes are clean.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister, I ask Liz Twist, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to make an announcement.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will see the note on the Order Paper that says:
“The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.”
However, I can confirm that the Joint Committee met this afternoon, considered the instrument and has nothing to report concerning the draft order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.
That confirmation from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) is very welcome. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the draft order will come into force on Friday 17 July 2020.
The threat we face from terrorism remains significant, but, as assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and national lead for counter-terrorism policing Neil Basu has said, right-wing terrorism is the fastest-growing terror threat in the United Kingdom. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but the Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the danger it poses and keep the public safe.
The nature of terrorism is constantly evolving. There are organisations that recruit, radicalise, promote and encourage terrorism, as well as those that actually commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people with the aim of undermining our democracy. Proscription is therefore an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities.
The group that we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is Feuerkrieg Division, or FKD. This is the 25th order under section 3(3)(a) of that Act. FKD is a white supremacist group whose ideology stands in direct contrast to the core values of our United Kingdom. Its actions, which seek to divide communities, stir up hatred and glorify violence, are reminders of the darkest times in Europe. Proscribing this group will prevent its membership from growing and help to stop the spread of propaganda that allows a culture of hatred and division to thrive. It will also help to prevent FKD from radicalising people who may be vulnerable to extreme ideologies and at risk of emulating the terrorist acts that they glorify.
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned with terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary will then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise this discretion. These include the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. The effect of proscription is to outlaw a listed organisation and ensure that it is unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription acts to halt fundraising and recruitment while making it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material, and advice reflecting consultation across Government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation to the House. It is very important to have it in place so that these groups are outlawed at a very early stage. He mentioned the police. Are there, and will there be, enough resources set aside for police forces to ensure that they can keep an eye on all the people who are involved in these activities?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot get into commenting on particular police operations in relation to this group or any other group that may be of interest for terrorism activities. However, he will be aware of the investment we are putting into the police and the resources that we have made available to counter-terrorism policing more generally, as well as for tackling the rise of far-right extremism.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that FKD is currently concerned with terrorism and the discretionary powers weigh in favour of proscription. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. FKD is a white supremacist group founded in late 2018 that has an international footprint, with members across North America and Europe. The group celebrates the concepts promoted in a collection of essays that advocate the use of violence and mass murder in pursuit of an apocalyptic race war. While the bulk of FKD’s activity is online, members have engaged in distributing violent, racist and antisemitic propaganda. In mid-2019, the group reportedly called for the deaths of a European Parliament politician and YouTube’s chief executive officer.
FKD’s members have been arrested on terrorism charges both in the UK and overseas. In 2019, US authorities charged several individuals with a variety of offences, including weapons charges, plotting to bomb a synagogue and attack members of the LGBTQ community, plotting to bomb a major news network, and distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction. In September 2019, UK police apprehended a 16-year-old on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism. As a result, the group distributed among its members a list of police buildings and an image of the chief constable of West Midlands police with a gun to his head and the words “race traitor” across his eyes, urging members to carry out attacks in retaliation for the arrest of one of its followers. In October 2019, a 21-year-old appeared in court in London charged with terror offences relating to his purported support for FKD. He allegedly encouraged the mass murder of members of the Jewish and LGBTQ communities.
Our strategy to combat terrorism looks at the full spectrum of activity. This includes ensuring that groups who call for violence and mass murder, and who unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts, are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred and encouraging violence. It is therefore right that this House agrees to add FKD to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I want first to make it clear that the Opposition’s overriding priority is, and always will be, to keep the public and the country safe, so we welcome this proscription order before the House today, which will provide clarity and direction in respect of this organisation and its members. It also sends a strong and unambiguous message that condoning or glorifying acts of terrorism will never be tolerated. That is a message with which we on the Labour Benches fully agree. We therefore support this motion and, as with all Government proscription decisions, we will work constructively with the Government and carefully scrutinise it.
As has been outlined, Feuerkrieg Division—or FKD—is a white supremacist group that was formed in late 2018 with an international outreach, with members situated across north America and Europe. Its abhorrent, racist, antisemitic and violent messages were predominantly spread via online networks, where vulnerable and young individuals would be targeted on social media, but also physically, with the FKD disseminating its vile propaganda in person.
We know that the authorities in the UK and the United States have apprehended FKD members on terrorism charges, such as for planning heinous atrocities, including the targeted attacks against synagogues and members of the Jewish and LGBT communities, threatening senior UK police officers and disseminating information about explosives and weapons of mass destruction. We must do everything we can to tackle such repulsive manifestations of extremism and terrorism. As such, we believe that there is a powerful case to be made for FKD’s proscription today.
In her letter to the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the Home Secretary made it clear that the FKD dissolved itself in February of this year. The task now, I put it to the Minister, must surely be to monitor and intercept any FKD activity operating through new aliases and alternative channels. It also leads me to wonder whether the timing of this proscription order highlights that perhaps the current processes are too slow and less effective in the contemporary context—one where organisation names and affiliations are quickly disposed of and regenerated in the dark depths of the online sphere. We want and need these orders to have maximum impact, so we must know, first, that the processes are robust and agile and, secondly, that counter-terrorism policing and their strategic partners have the right resources to deal with these challenges.
Today’s order also reflects the concerning fact that the menace of far-right extremism and terrorism, of which FKD is an expression, is growing at an alarming rate on UK streets and on those of other countries across the globe. It is welcome that the Government are taking seriously this threat, but, of course, there is much more work to be done. First and foremost, that includes having a coherent and comprehensive strategy in place to tackle far-right extremism, which I have called for, and indeed all other such manifestations, which the shadow Home Secretary has called for in relation to commissioning a judge-led inquiry on lone attacker terrorists. I urge the Government to take our proposals on this seriously and work constructively with us on them.
We must also see to it that other groups we know to be promoting violence and terrorism are dealt with in similarly robust fashion, and here I commend the work undertaken by HOPE not Hate in its annual “State of Hate” report, which highlights so clearly the threat posed by groups on the far right. The organisation, the Order of Nine Angles, is a case in point. Disturbingly, it remains active today, using social media channels to inspire people to become terrorists and incite violence, often horrifically using sexual violence as a political tool. Will the Government commit to looking closely at such vile groups in the context of proscription, which is something that will, I suspect, be raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who have done incredible work to raise awareness of this growing threat?
There is also little doubt that covid-19 is being used globally by opportunists on the extreme far right to promote chaos, disorder and violence. We cannot let this crisis become another opportunity for those who seek to divide us, spread fear and promote violence. We need to know how the Government are responding to these defining issues and what their plan is for the future.
In conclusion, our priority is to keep the public and our community safe. Today’s proscription order is welcome in relation to that most important of goals and the official Opposition wholeheartedly support it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I start by thanking the Minister for the advance discussions that we have had about this matter.
The Scottish National party abhors all forms of terrorism and we consider it very important that this Parliament is alive to the risks posed by the far right and white supremacists. We must never forget that one of our own number was murdered by a far-right racist terrorist only four years ago and I pay tribute to the memory of Jo Cox. The risks from these far-right groups persist. During the evidence session of the Committee on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, on which I served, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorist Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, stated that
“an increasing number of quite young people are being caught up in terrorism, including new forms of terrorism—not just conventional Islamist, extremist or right-wing terrorism, but other new emerging forms, such as the incel movement, or even things at the very boundaries of what you might consider to be terrorism that are very violent.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 10, Q15.]
I think his warning was well made. The group that the Government seek to proscribe today seems to fall into the categories that Jonathan Hall warned us to be particularly alive to.
On the basis of what the Government have said, the SNP is satisfied that the statutory test for proscription is met and that the Home Secretary in this instance is doing the right thing in the exercise of her discretion. The Government have our support on this matter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I wholeheartedly welcome this order and endorse the comments by my hon. Friends and from the SNP Benches. Across the House, one thing we all have in common is the view that these groups are utterly despicable and need the strongest action to be taken against them. The tactics, ideology, and methods that the Minister rightly outlined in relation to FKD are deeply disturbing, and are unfortunately shared by a range of other organisations. While this order is welcome, the description that the Minister gave of antisemitism, racism and encouragement of attacks on minority groups, our police and public figures, as well as the use of the online world to groom and radicalise individuals into these organisations, are an all-too-familiar tale. I looked at this issue in great detail during my time on the Home Affairs Committee, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), and other Members. We have also raised the matter in the House on a number of occasions, including in the past few weeks.
I urge the Minister to look carefully at groups that are using similar tactics or ideologies, or that pose a similar clear and present danger to the citizens of this country, and indeed globally. I commend the remarks about the Order of Nine Angles. That group was rightly raised by HOPE not Hate, which does incredible work on this issue. The Order of Nine Angles is a Nazi satanist group that is deeply antisemitic and advocates the use of sexual violence and murder. It was founded by an individual who spent 50 years in satanism and in organisations such as the British Movement, Column 88, Combat 18, and the National Socialist Movement. We must not forget the London nail bomber—we were discussing the anniversary of that tragic event that targeted the black community, the Muslim community and the LGBT community with terror, violence and murder on our streets. The London nail bomber was a member of the National Socialist Movement.
Such groups present a clear and present danger. HOPE not Hate has identified how four people linked to that organisation in the past 12 months have been convicted, including individuals in this country and the United States, where a soldier was linked to providing classified information in order to be able to attack his own unit. Such groups also use the online world that the Minister spoke of in relation to FKD, using a disgusting channel, Rapewaffen, via the channel Telegram, to encourage disgusting sexual violence.
We saw a similar pattern with an organisation that has now been proscribed, and I raised that over many years with the Government, in private and public. The System Resistance Network and the Sonnenkrieg Division were effectively rebrands of National Action, which targeted a Member of this House with severe violence and threats of murder, for which individuals were convicted.
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) about the length of time that it is taking the Government to proscribe these organisations, even in the face of very clear, undisputed evidence about their activities. The system is simply moving too slowly. I know that the Minister has good intentions, and I know that many in the law enforcement community wish to see this move much more quickly. But when evidence has been presented by HOPE not Hate about the Order of Nine Angles and individuals have been convicted, the Government need to act, and they are not doing so quickly enough at the moment.
The online world is a key factor in the way that these organisations groom, organise and spread their vile ideology. It is therefore deeply concerning to have heard in the last few weeks of potential further delays to the online harms Bill. The Government introduced the online harms White Paper, and there is much in it that many of us across the House agree with, particularly in relation to the use of that space by extremists in extreme right-wing organisations, Islamist organisations, organisations involved in terrorism in Northern Ireland and so on. However, the reality is that the voluntary approach has not worked in tackling these organisations online. Every week it is easy to find information relating to these extreme organisations and their ideology. They are not hiding—they are active in plain sight, encouraging people down a dark, despicable well of hatred and on to other platforms where there are direct encouragements to murder, rape and attack minority groups and public figures. Let us not forget that these people want to attack the institutions of our state. They want to attack the police, our armed forces, public figures and those in the justice system because they believe them to be traitors to their sick and twisted ideologies.
The Government must act on platforms such as Telegram, where many of these organisations are organising and sharing information. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon regularly uses Telegram, and these very extreme organisations use it as well. The Government simply have not acted. Channels in the gaming world are being used to recruit and encourage young men in particular. We have seen some disturbing examples of that in south Wales, where individuals have been interdicted. I have seen this in my own community, where an individual was recently convicted for involvement in the System Resistance Network and Sonnenkrieg Division. He spread vile Nazi graffiti around Cardiff South and Penarth, encouraging people to join their local Nazis, with some very advanced imagery being shared to recruit and radicalise individuals. While I welcome the order, there is a clear case for proscribing a number of other organisations, including the Order of Nine Angles, for the Government to move much faster on this and for tackling the way that these organisations operate online.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I would like to begin by welcoming the ban of the FKD. Far-right terrorism is the fastest growing terror threat in this country, and that is why Government action is very welcome. There is, however, an enforcement gap. For proscription measures to have the maximum possible impact, they cannot become an end in themselves. Banning an organisation should be the start of the enforcement process. When National Action was banned in 2016, not enough was done to track the activity of those involved in the National Action network. As recent events have shown, including the charging of a police officer, National Action still had a presence in this country after it was formally prohibited. Today’s ban must mark the beginning of new police efforts to track FKD members and their activities.
While this proposed ban is welcome, I firmly believe that another neo-Nazi organisation already mentioned more than once in the debate—the Order of Nine Angles —represents a greater threat to UK citizens. As parliamentary chair of HOPE not Hate, an anti-fascist campaign group, I co-ordinated a letter from a group of cross-party MPs to the Home Secretary. We called for the organisation to be banned. HOPE not Hate has provided a clear case for the proscription of the O9A. It is active today. Its members make use of largely unmonitored, encrypted social media platforms to incite hatred and inspire people to commit acts of terror.
The recent events in the US outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) show a clear case for the proscription of this organisation. Since we wrote to the Home Secretary in March, a United States soldier has been indicted for plotting with the O9A to murder members of his unit. In the past year, four people linked to the O9A have been convicted of terror offences in the UK. Using social media channels such as Telegram, it radicalises vulnerable people, promoting neo-Nazi, antisemitic, Satanist beliefs and glorifying unspeakable acts of terror. So I, along with many other Members across the House, am calling for the Government to ban the Order of Nine Angles. It belongs, along with other neo-Nazi groups such as National Action and now the FKD, on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations.
Groups like these operate in dark online spaces. Their names, aliases and affiliations can be changed at a moment’s notice. This makes tracking and monitoring their activities incredibly difficult. Will the Minister give me assurances that our police, intelligence and security services have the resources they need to continue to monitor organisations once they take their activities underground? Will he outline what steps his Department has taken, in partnership with social media platforms such as Telegram, to break up these online networks?
The proscription of the FKD comes four months after it dissolved itself in February this year. On that basis, may I ask what recent assessment the Government have made of the performance of the proscription review group and the current proscription process? I urge the Government to follow through with action by targeting other far right extremists. The Order of Nine Angles is active today, and we must act now to stop its members conspiring to commit acts of terror and to protect our communities.
Kevin Foster
I start by welcoming the overall support for this measure from the Opposition Benches and in particular the constructive tone struck by the Labour and SNP spokespeople in responding to my speech. In terms of the process, I hear what the shadow Security Minister says. He will appreciate that, in a democracy, criminalising joining an organisation should be something that we do only where there is significant evidence and intelligence that it has gone beyond holding views that we would all disagree with or dislike and into an area of extremism, violence and inciting hatred. I can assure him that the process to deal with aliases is more truncated, in allowing the Home Secretary to deal with that via a negative instrument rather than the full process of proscription. Again, we welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) hit the nail on the head when she said that this was a growing threat. We see what is happening online, and those of us who were elected alongside her in 2015 in particular will remember the contributions of the former hon. Member for Batley and Spen. We will always remember her message that we have more in common than the values of the person who took her life away.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), a fellow Royal College of Defence Studies alumnus, gave a typically powerful performance. I welcome his overall comments, but I hope he will appreciate that it is inappropriate for me, at the Dispatch Box, to go into any considerations we are making of other groups or the nature of the intelligence involved. We recognise that the methods these groups are using are changing. They are adapting online and using different types of platforms, particularly moving away from some of the larger ones and on to the smaller ones. I can reassure him that we plan to publish a full Government response to the online harms White Paper and to bring in online harms legislation in this Session of Parliament.
I very much appreciated the speech from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), and the work that she is doing to tackle these issues. Again, it would not be right for me to comment on what the police and intelligence agencies may or may not be doing in relation to particular groups or investigations, but we are conscious of these matters. We have the new Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill going through, and other ongoing work. I would just caution her that, although the FKD claimed on one of its social media feeds to have dissolved, the Home Secretary is satisfied, on the basis of the intelligence, that an active group is still engaged in terrorism and that it meets the statutory test. I am loth to take the group’s own proclamation that it has dissolved as the final word on these things. As I say, I cannot go into the intelligence behind the decision, but we are satisfied that it meets the statutory test of being active and that proscription was therefore essential.
As has rightly been pointed out, proscription is just part of the process and, sadly, does not in itself eliminate these types of group and their activities. It is important that we, the police and the intelligence agencies—and the courts, when people come before them—work to ensure that appropriate action is taken, and that the cases are considered fairly under a type of justice that, sadly, they do not believe in themselves. We, as a values-based democracy, must ensure that they receive a fair trial. I welcome the overall support that has been expressed and the constructive nature of the debate. I thank Members for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Railway Station: Gamesley
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
About 2,000 years ago, the Romans built a fort near Gamesley in my constituency; some say that that was the last time central Government put major investment into the area. When residents first moved into their homes on the newly built housing estate at Gamesley, they were told, “Yes, the transport links are poor, but don’t worry: a new railway station will be built shortly so that you can easily get to Manchester or Glossop town centre.” That was in 1968. The world has changed in many ways over the past 50 years, but Gamesley still does not have a station.
Before I was elected, the last time that an MP had even mentioned Gamesley station in Parliament was in 1968. Since December, I have been working hard to get Gamesley back on the agenda. I am grateful to the rail Minister for meeting me several times already to discuss the proposals and for the way the Government have been prepared to listen. The fact that we are having this debate shows how far we have come. The truth is that over the past 50 years, Governments of all parties have failed properly to invest in transport infrastructure outside London and the south-east, and especially in places such as Gamesley.
Gamesley is a great place to live and people are rightly proud to live there. It is a tight-knit community where people really look out for each other. That has never been more clear than during the lockdown, when organisations such as G52 have done amazing work supporting the most vulnerable. But Gamesley is also one of the most deprived communities in the whole country —on some measures, it is in the top 1% most deprived. A huge part of the reason for that is that local transport links are simply not good enough.
The Local Trust has carried out really important research into what it calls “left behind” communities and has identified Gamesley as one of the areas most in need of support. According to the Local Trust, 46% of households in Gamesley do not have a car, compared with the national average of 26%. It takes an estimated 53 minutes for people in Gamesley to travel to the nearest hospital by public transport—that is 36% longer than the national average.
Local bus services are also in a poor state: the 341 bus from Glossop to Gamesley stops running at five o’clock, which is not much help for anyone who finishes work later than that. Many of my constituents end up having to pay for a taxi to get back home to Gamesley after their shift ends. Local bus services are now set to get even worse: Stagecoach has just announced its intention to scrap the 236 bus between Glossop and Ashton, which will leave people in nearby Brookfield and Woolley Bridge without any direct service.
Travel is not the only barrier facing people in Gamesley. The national average broadband speed is 45.1 megabits per second; Gamesley’s is just 28 megabits per second. Low digital connectivity is just another reminder of how places such as Gamesley have been left behind, denied the essential infrastructure that they need to unleash their full potential. The lack of infrastructure and public transport connections to places such as Glossop and Manchester has had a significant and negative impact on the lives of local people. It has led to fewer job opportunities and a real impact on people’s quality of life.
Building Gamesley station will help to transform the life chances of local people. The case for a station is very strong. Transport for Greater Manchester and Derbyshire County Council are currently working jointly on a strategic outline business case, and they have already said: “Gamesley station has a good strategic case and excellent local support.” I can certainly attest to the strong local support. A huge number of local people have signed my long-standing petition in support of the station. As it stands today, more than 30% of the entire population of Gamesley have now signed my petition; by any yardstick that shows pretty strong support.
The strategic case is clear: the cost is relatively low, sidings already exist and trains already pause before going over Dinting viaduct, so a new station would have only a minimal impact on the current timetable of around one or two extra minutes’ journey time. That would be a small price to pay for the huge benefits that the station would bring to the people of Gamesley.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is making an exceptional argument for the need for a railway station at Gamesley in his constituency. Pinxton in the Bolsover constituency is in a similar situation: a train track runs through it but it does not currently have a station. Passenger services to Pinxton could have a transformative effect; does my hon. Friend support such a proposal?
Robert Largan
My hon. Friend and county neighbour is an excellent champion for the people of Bolsover and I absolutely agree with him.
Gamesley station will not just benefit the people of Gamesley. The nearest station to Gamesley is Dinting. Demand at Dinting has grown significantly in recent years as more and more houses are built in the Glossop area, which has led to growing parking pressures at Dinting. Building the new station will help reduce those pressures, shorten commuting times for many people who drive to Dinting and, crucially, get more cars off the road. That would help address the notoriously bad traffic problems in the Glossop area.
Traffic is not a new problem. The need for the Mottram bypass has been talked about for over half a century, and traffic is now worse than ever. For many in the region, Glossop has become synonymous with traffic jams, so I am pleased the Government recognise that and that the Prime Minister recently backed building the bypass. It would not just be a gamechanger for people in places such as Glossop, Hadfield and Charlesworth, but would help address a major bottleneck in the national strategic road network between Manchester and Sheffield. We also need to address the traffic problems at Tintwistle, and I am pleased that the Government continue to study proposals for the trans-Pennine tunnel, which would reduce journey times in the region by around 30 minutes.
To solve the problem in the long term, however, we need not just to build the Mottram bypass, but to get more cars off the road, and Gamesley station would be a key part of that. People in High Peak are serious about tackling climate change, and Gamesley station would play a part in reducing carbon emissions and getting the local economy to net zero carbon. An awful lot of rat running goes through Gamesley and Charlesworth to Broadbottom station, and Gamesley station would remove the need for that. If done right, there is also an opportunity to link the new station to the Trans Pennine Trail, and the station can be linked by footpath to Simmondley.
I said at the start of my speech that Governments of all parties have failed to invest in our transport infrastructure for decades, but we now have a Government who have promised to build, build, build. The political will is clearly there, but we need more than just political will. We need to change our whole approach for infrastructure, and that means sorting out the Treasury Green Book rules and traditional WebTAG approach.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. I agree with what he says about the Green Book, which the Government and the Treasury use in determining the economic value of infrastructure enhancements, particularly for rail. While the coronavirus has been devastating across the country, does he agree that there are many opportunities in terms of infrastructure, levelling up and ensuring that the models to which he refers can be recalibrated to help station projects such as Gamesley?
Robert Largan
My hon. Friend is an expert in rail matters and infrastructure projects and a real asset to this House. He is absolutely right that the current approaches just do not properly assess the true value of infrastructure projects. They fail to take fully into account the wider economic and social benefits of levelling up, and that has helped contribute towards the bias in spending on infrastructure projects towards London and the south-east.
When Transport for Greater Manchester and Derbyshire County Council complete the business case later this month, I hope the Government assess the proposals based on the wider benefits, rather than just narrowly focusing on outdated Treasury cost-benefit ratios. The cost of Gamesley station is modest—perhaps we could call it a rounding error in the Crossrail budget. We can also help to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects by getting the nuts and bolts of delivery right, focusing on things such as our infrastructure industries. The Chancellor’s great announcement about training schemes was welcome, and we should be thinking about focusing that on to the industries we need to deliver infrastructure investments.
Chris Loder
Does my hon. Friend also agree that leaving the European Union gives us an enormous opportunity to shed some of the shackles, rules and regulations that we have had to contend with for decades and that have massively increased the costs of building train stations such as Gamesley?
Robert Largan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are huge opportunities ahead for places such as Gamesley.
By building Gamesley station, the Government can offer a helping hand and send a clear message to the people of Gamesley that they are not forgotten. It is time to deliver on the promise made 52 years ago and build Gamesley station.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing this important debate. It is widely known among his fellow northern MPs that he is a doughty champion for his constituents on a range of issues, not least this important project. In that vein, I wish to take Members on a brief journey, one that I hope will be as enriching and swift as commuters will soon enjoy from Gamesley to Manchester. That journey begins where else but in ancient Rome. In the senates of the Roman republic there was an august member of that body known as Cato Censorius, who was convinced that war was coming between the republic and the city of Carthage for control of the Mediterranean. So convinced of that was he that he began to end every oration with
“Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”
or, “Moreover, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.” It did not matter what the debate was on, be it taxation, agriculture or the most auspicious date on which to go to the Circus Maximus, each and every speech would end the same way. That was helpfully shortened by 19th century historians to “Carthago delenda est”, which is less of a mouthful.
It was another 2,237 years before there would be another orator to match that clarity of purpose and single-mindedness—Robertus Architectus, or Robert the builder. This champion of the people of Alto Cacumen—High Peak to we mere Anglo-Saxons—has skilfully worked the building of Gamesley station into no fewer than eight debates, covering topics as diverse as rail fares, the economy and the Greater Manchester spatial framework. He has mentioned Gamesley station more times in his eight months as a Member of this House than all his predecessors combined.
That might all be to put a humorous spin on things, and I do so because my hon. Friend is a great friend of mine, but it does not diminish the fact that he is doing what we all came here promising to do: to put the interests of those who elected us first. The construction of Gamesley station will, much as the extension of the Metrolink to Middleton, do a great deal of good for the local economy, the environment, jobs and the prosperity of the region he represents. We are all seized with the idea that we need to get cars off the road and improve transport infrastructure, as well as boost our economy in the post-covid era. As Cato may well have said, this is bonum commune communitatis—for the good of the whole community.
It is an absolute pleasure to participate in this debate and I will bring my thoughts to a close by simply saying: ceterum autem censeo Stationem Ardotaliæ esse ædificandam!
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
What do you say after that? I did two years of Latin at secondary school and I hated every second of it—I am sorry Mr Patterson. I just feel sorry for the Hansard transcribers at this point.
It has been a pleasure to listen to this debate on plans to build a railway station at Gamesley, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for securing it. I also thank the other Members who have made contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) never misses an opportunity to remind me that other bids for Government spending on railways are available. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is an expert in rail matters. I am not sure whether he managed eventually to get Gamesley into his contribution, but he proved that he knows what he is talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) has confused me no end with what he said, but he made the point that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak does bang on about Gamesley station a lot. Before he was elected the proposal for a station at Gamesley had not been mentioned in Parliament since 1968, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton said, since he came here only a few months ago it has been mentioned in eight debates. Gamesley is definitely on the levelling up agenda, at least for contributions in the Chamber and, we hope, for development economically as well.
Hon. Members may be aware that I was an MEP for 10 years—this is like Alcoholics Anonymous and we can admit to things in this Chamber—and I represented High Peak, in the glorious region of the East Midlands, and I have been to Gamesley. So not only does the rail Minister know what he is talking about when it comes to stations, but I know exactly the location that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak is talking about. As Members will be aware, this Government are investing record levels in rail funding to deliver the biggest rail modernisation programme for more than a century. We are spending £48 billion over what in the industry lingo we call “control period 6”, which runs from 2019 to 2024, to improve rail services for passengers and freight customers, while maintaining current high levels of safety and reliability.
I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend had supported a bid to the new stations fund to build a station at Gamesley. As I understand it, and as he has mentioned to me on a number of occasions, the people of Gamesley have waited a long time to have a train station. As Members will know, we launched another—£20 million—round of funding for the new stations fund, to open new train stations across the country, in a fresh boost for towns that lost their rail lines in the Beeching closures. Applications for the fund closed on 5 June, and we hope to announce the successful applications in the autumn. The fund was very over-subscribed because, as Members can tell from the contributions in tonight’s debate, there are lots of places that need to be connected to our rail network, having lost their connections in the past.
My hon. Friend will recall that earlier this year the Secretary of State invited Members, local authorities and community groups from across England and Wales to come forward with proposals on how they could use funding to reinstate axed local services, in an initiative called “Restoring Your Railway”, reversing the Beeching cuts. Thanks to the Government’s £500 million fund, long isolated communities across the country will benefit from better rail connections that will level up regional economies, boost access to jobs and education, and kick-start the restoration of lines closed more than 50 years ago. A sum of £300,000 has been committed to an ideas fund to kick-start the process and encourage innovative ideas that would then be considered for future funding. I suggest to my hon. Friend that this agenda fits very nicely with what he is trying to achieve for his constituents.
I have taken note of the fact that the Transport for Greater Manchester strategy delivery plan for 2020 to 2025 outlines Gamesley as a potential location for a new station. The Transport for Greater Manchester new rail and Metrolink study in 2018, which was commissioned in conjunction with authorities including Derbyshire County Council, identified that further work, including a strategic outline business case, should be produced with regard to Gamesley station. I really do think that we are getting on the right track in terms of my hon. Friend’s plans.
Northern trains has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide assurances that it will provide full support to all further work commissioned by Transport for Greater Manchester and Derbyshire County Council and to the development of the business case. With my hon. Friend’s cajoling, a number of key factors have been lined up to get Gamesley station firmly in front of planners.
I would therefore like to reassure my hon. Friend and other Members who took part in the debate that the Government are committed to investing billions of pounds to improve rail services for passengers and freight customers, while maintaining the current high levels of safety and reliability. We are committed to levelling up the country and to build, build, build. That is why we launched the new stations fund to open up new train stations across the country, providing a fresh boost for towns that lost their rail lines in the Beeching closures. I really do hope that the people of Gamesley will be able to benefit from this initiative.
There is some way to go down this route before winners are selected, but the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up opportunity across the United Kingdom, and my hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful case for Gamesley in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Mark Tami |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Mark Tami |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Mark Tami |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Mark Tami |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Mark Tami |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Mark Tami |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dave Doogan (Angus) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Mark Tami |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Lucy Allan |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Mark Tami |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Mark Tami |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Mark Tami |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Mark Tami |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Mark Tami |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Ruth Edwards |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Mary Kelly Foy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Mark Tami |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Mark Tami |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Mark Tami |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Mark Tami |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Sir David Amess |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Mark Tami |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Mark Tami |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Mark Tami |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Mark Tami |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) | Mark Tami |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Mark Tami |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Mark Tami |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Mark Tami |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Mark Tami |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Mark Tami |
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
As we announced last year, we are increasing core schools funding by £2.6 billion this academic year and by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion by 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, compared to 2019-20, including additional funding for children with special needs and disabilities.
[Official Report, 7 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 894.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the debate on Support for Left-Behind Children.
The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
As we announced last year, we are increasing core schools funding by £2.6 billion this financial year and by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion by 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, compared to 2019-20, including additional funding for children with special needs and disabilities.
Petition
Protection of workers in the airline industry
Written Statements
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
College Financial Oversight: Independent Review
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I am publishing today the report of the Independent Review of College Financial Oversight, conducted by Dame Mary Ney DBE.
At the heart of the report is recognition of the contribution of colleges to their local communities and economies—essential to meeting both the skills needs of business and enabling young people and adults to succeed and adapt to the changing economy. Colleges must be recognised as an integral part of each region’s growth strategy with a long-term role in raising productivity and living standards. They are vital to building skills to power our national economic recovery at this time.
The principal conclusion of the report, which I endorse, is that Government must have a strategic relationship with FE colleges. This means not just acting as a regulator, or intervening in the event of failure, but ensuring that every college is part of a coherent plan to meet local and regional need. There are many outstanding colleges, and exceptional college leaders, who are well placed to drive not just the success of their institutions, but wider prosperity working with local authorities, businesses, universities and schools.
The report supports a collaborative FE system. Colleges are critical infrastructure backed over time by substantial Government capital investment. There is a place for competition, but it is also important that colleges work together to meet need and learn from the exceptional practice that exists in the sector. Dame Mary’s report highlights how this collaborative approach has driven improvement through the Strategic College Improvement Fund, and National Leaders of FE—work that is now been taken forward through the new College Collaboration Fund and the expansion of the National Leader programmes. I endorse this approach.
The FE Commissioner has played a critical role in bringing FE practitioner expertise into Government and successfully working to strengthen the leadership and governance of colleges. I intend to maintain the role, reporting directly to Ministers as a public appointment, but strengthening alignment with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), and placing its civil service support team there. This change will further empower and develop the ESFA’s territorial teams and enable them to draw upon practitioner expertise. There will be a regular strategic dialogue with each college board around priorities. This will reduce the perception that support is only available to colleges in trouble, and focus not just on prevention but on building success and outstanding practice.
The review also recommends further action to improve the effectiveness of the financial data collected from colleges. In February, the ESFA took the first step towards adopting a new integrated single data return, working closely with the Association of Colleges. We have also commissioned a July financial collection to assess the financial impact of covid-19 on the sector and individual colleges. This will enable us to continue to work with governing bodies to mitigate financial risks arising from covid-19, avoid failure and help reduce intervention, while remaining ready to act decisively when necessary. This will be supported through additional requirements for colleges to be transparent—including protection for whistleblowers—through our audit code of practice and grant conditions. Starting from 2020-21, they will require all colleges to publish their whistleblowing policy externally. We are also considering the link between the ESFA’s financial assessments and OFSTED judgements—in light of OFSTED’s plans to consider piloting of changes in schools. The report is also right to highlight the importance of funding simplification.
Inspirational leadership, overseen by strong governance, is the ultimate driving force in all our outstanding colleges—providing the structure and culture that supports outstanding teaching and develops exceptional teachers. We are investing in learning and development programmes for those in key governance and leadership roles in colleges through the Education and Training Foundation and Oxford SAID business school. We have allocated up to £4.5 million for the current financial year, which will include a new programme of learning and development for governance professionals. Dame Mary was right to highlight the importance of this role. We will also strengthen the governance guide for college corporations.
Fundamentally, Dame Mary Ney’s report demonstrates that Government must set out a long-term radical vision which places colleges where they belong—driving the success of regional economies and communities. This could not be more opportune. As we renew our economy and society following the historic challenge of covid-19, our young people and adults must have the skills to succeed. The steps we are already taking, particularly with the launch of the first wave of our new, high status T-levels this autumn, are a vital step. We must build on this to create a broad and bold strategy to elevate the role of further education and support our colleges in their vital and transformative mission. Our forthcoming White Paper will set out how we plan to do that.
[HCWS370]
British Overseas Territories: Registers of Company Beneficial Ownership
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
My hon. Friend, the Minister for the Overseas Territories and Sustainable Development (Baroness Sugg), has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Government welcome the statements made by eight overseas territories in which they have committed to greater transparency by announcing they will establish publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership.
The eight territories—Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands and St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands—have all demonstrated good progress and political leadership as part of the global effort to increase transparency in financial services and tackle illicit finance.
This follows an earlier announcement made by the Crown Dependencies to implement publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership within the next few years, and the establishment of a publicly accessible register by Gibraltar, in line with the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.
In line with the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act 2018 the Government will prepare a draft Order in Council before the end of 2020, which will be published. We hope that the British Virgin Islands will also commit to publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership without delay.
The Government consider that the end of 2023 is a reasonable deadline for the introduction of such registers. Meeting this date will be a considerable ask for many overseas territories, given their limited resources; especially those overseas territories that do not currently have a company beneficial ownership register. It will involve significant legislative and operational changes. To provide the overseas territories with assistance on registers the Government ran a technical workshop last July, hosted webinars in November and will be providing further assistance.
It took the UK over three years to introduce its own public register. The 2023 deadline also aligns with the Government’s international campaign to advance publicly accessible company beneficial ownership registers as a global norm. We believe that action on beneficial ownership information in the overseas territories should be complemented by improved public access to beneficial ownership information internationally. This maximises the protection of our national security.
The statements issued underscore the overseas territories’ continued contribution to the global fight to tackle illicit finance. However, it is not the only action they have taken.
All overseas territories with financial centres participate in the Exchange of Notes arrangements. These are bilateral arrangements under which they share beneficial ownership information with UK law enforcement and other agencies within 24 hours, or one hour in urgent cases. They are an invaluable capability for our law enforcement, particularly for the National Crime Agency on money laundering and asset denial activity. Last year’s statutory review found that these arrangements are working well and are providing UK law enforcement with rapid access to information used to support ongoing criminal investigations.
Many overseas territories have committed to global tax transparency standards, including the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard; under which taxpayer financial account information is automatically exchanged for tax purposes. This reciprocal, automatic exchange of financial information addresses the secrecy that facilitates offshore tax evasion and provides evidence of tax non-compliance.
The Government therefore welcome the statements on making company beneficial ownership information publicly accessible and all the constructive action the overseas territories are taking as responsible jurisdictions.
[HCWS369]
Immigration Health Surcharge Exemption: Update
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Following announcements by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), earlier this week, I would like to further update the House on progress made by the Department of Health and Social Care towards implementing the immigration health surcharge exemption for health and social care staff, as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2020.
The Prime Minister’s announcement demonstrated our continued commitment to supporting our health and social care workforce and their families, not least because of the support they have provided to all of us throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
Our election manifesto included the commitment to introduce an NHS visa. As set out by the Home Secretary, next month, we will launch a health and care visa, following the fees regulations that were laid yesterday. This will make it cheaper, quicker and easier for the best health and care professionals to come and work in the UK. The launch of this new visa will also mean that for the very first time, overseas health and care staff on this visa will not need to pay the immigration health surcharge upfront, either for themselves or their dependents.
I am, however, conscious that this visa does not exempt everyone in the health and care sector who has paid the immigration health surcharge, such as the thousands of overseas staff working as direct care workers in social care, or as cleaners, porters or healthcare assistants throughout the NHS. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to reiterate what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed in the House yesterday: that all employees working in the health and care sector that have paid the immigration health surcharge on or after the 31 March 2020 will be eligible for a reimbursement of what they have paid since that date, including those vital staffoutlined above.
This reimbursement will be paid in arrears of six-month increments. This ensures we only reimburse those workers and their families who have worked in the sector for an appropriate period of time. This will also provide an incentive to continue working in the health and care sector. I can confirm that this scheme will be launched by 1 October 2020. This is the earliest date that eligible workers and their families would be able to claim a reimbursement. My officials continue to work with colleagues across Government, the devolved Administrations, representative bodies and the health and care sector to ensure those who are eligible for reimbursement are accounted for within the scheme, and my Department will publish further details of the scheme in due course.
These are significant steps in ensuring that our health and social care workforce and their families are themselves cared for, after they have cared for and supported so many of us in incredible circumstances.
My Department will make further announcements to update the House on the progress of the immigration health surcharge exemption and the reimbursement scheme, and relevant documents will be published on www.gov.uk in advance of the reimbursement scheme launching in October.
[HCWS372]
National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
This is a summary of the main findings from the report by His Honour Brian Barker QC, the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland, covering the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. His Honour Brian Barker concludes:
The overview is a 12-month period of almost constant change and unpredictability. At the core was another year without a functioning Executive or Assembly and no representative capacity for vital decisions on development to be taken.
Throughout the reporting period I have taken the opportunity to arrange meetings with appropriate senior members of the Service and PSNI, and to be briefed on significant events. My visits to both MI5 and various PSNI establishments confirm my view that there is a deep sense of commitment and high level of professionalism in the continuing and unpredictable battle against indiscriminate and violent lawlessness. Relations with An Garda Siochana continue to strengthen aided by the appointment of PSNI’s Deputy Chief Constable Drew Harris as Garda Commissioner in September 2018.
Following the pattern in recent years there have been successes in the containment of dissident groups, but the context in which national security activities are performed remain ‘challenging’ and constant care and vigilance by members of the PSNI and the Prison Service both in relation to personal safety remain absolutely necessary.
Arriving from Cheshire Constabulary, Chief Constable Simon Byrne took over on 1 July and was given little time to settle in before a marching season that was disappointingly violent. I was grateful for an introductory meeting in August, and a fuller exchange took place in November covering many of the difficulties, not least the step change in dissident attacks. An examination of CHIS procedures and control had been satisfactory.
The frustrations of the Policing Board were partially addressed by legislation in November 2018 allowing new membership, followed by effective reconstitution in December. I was able to assess progress at a meeting in May and attended what was a very useful exchange. The Board was now able to discharge their wide range of overseeing constitutional duties and follow the seven principles set out in the 2017-2020 plan to continue oversight of the work of the police and to encourage engagement at all levels. In a meeting with Professor Duncan Morrow and Dr Jonny Byrne of the University of Ulster a valuable perspective was provided by their reflections on the
‘state of the union’ based on years of research and teaching.
The annual statistics issued to mid 2019 show that the powers of stop and search under section 47a of the Terrorism Act 2000 were not exercised. There were 169 premises searched under warrant under section 37 Schedule 5 of the same Act. There were 146 persons detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act and 143 (98%) were held for 48 hours or less. Sixteen persons were charged with a total of 39 offences including four charges of attempted murder, eight charges of firearms offences, six charges of GBH with intent and four charges of possession of offensive weapon. A total of 34 persons were disposed of by non-jury trial, 29 of whom were found guilty of at least one charge. A total of 17 non-jury trial certificates were issued by the DPP, four down on the previous year. There as a total of six persons convicted in the Crown Court under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 or the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, one less than the previous year. There were 1515 examinations carried out by police officers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, 656 of which were examinations of persons, eight of which resulted in a detention. Paramilitary style shootings resulted in 17 casualties, down four compared with 2017, all being aged 18 or above. Paramilitary assaults resulted in 60 casualties, up by six. No compensation or agency payments were made under section 38 schedule 4 of the Justice and Security (NI) Act 2007 where property was broken, destroyed or damaged or other private property rights interfered with.
I wish to note the full co-operation extended to me by both MI5 and the PSNI where standards and commitment, in the face of unpredictable difficulties, continue to be of high order.
Determined attacks from extremists have continued and police and prison officers face unacceptable risk in pursuing their duties as they continue to be regarded as legitimate targets.
The tragic killing of Lyra McKee has robbed Northern Ireland of a ‘rising star’—someone who also believed passionately in social and religious tolerance; but her death generated widespread anger and condemnation of the activities of terrorists. One of her legacies hopefully will be an acceleration along the slow road to normalization.
I have measured performance in this reporting period against the five key principles identified in relation to national security in Annex E to the St Andrews Agreement of October 2006. My conclusions can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-15/HCWS373/ .
[HCWS373]
Northern Ireland Assembly Petition of Concern Mechanism: First Report
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I am today laying before both Houses of Parliament the first report by Her Majesty’s Government on the use of the Petition of Concern mechanism in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As part of the New Decade, New Approach deal upon which the devolved Executive and Assembly was restored in Northern Ireland on 11 January 2020, the UK Government committed to undertaking such a report every six months.
This report covers the period from 11 January 2020 to 10 July 2020, during which no Petition of Concern has been lodged against any motion in the Assembly. During much of that period the normal business of the Assembly has been disrupted due to covid-19. The Assembly has adapted to deal with this by moving to meet frequently as a committee of the whole Assembly.
The fact that there have been no Petitions of Concern since the Assembly was reconvened is a positive reflection on the operation of the Assembly and of the Executive. I know that political leaders in Northern Ireland will share my view that the Assembly should aim to proceed on this basis for the remainder of the current Assembly.
The next UK Government report on the use of the Petition of Concern will cover the period from 11 July 2020 to 10 January 2021.
The report notes that full implementation of the Petition of Concern reforms in NDNA will require Westminster legislation. The Government will bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows, after which the Assembly will be able to reflect the detail of the reforms in its standing orders.
[HCWS371]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Children Living in Poverty
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the number of children living in poverty in working households.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, our current focus is on supporting people financially through this crisis. Our long-term ambition, based on clear evidence about the importance of work in tackling poverty, remains to build an economy that gives everyone the opportunity to enter and progress in work. In 2018-19, only 3% of children in households where both parents worked full time were in absolute poverty before housing costs compared to 47% in households where one or more of the parents worked part time.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, the mass unemployment of the 1980s did not leave just a generation of children—far too many children—living in poverty. It affected them, their children and their grandchildren for decades. Will the Government agree that in what is likely to be a very tough economic climate following this pandemic there is a need for targeted action to ensure that children not only escape the trap of poverty but have the educational opportunities to come out of poverty and have a better life thereafter?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The noble Lord raises a really important point. It is not just about fiscal poverty; if youngsters do not get a good education or their education is interrupted, it can have a real impact on their ability to secure the skills and knowledge they need to make their way in the world. This is—I am not trying to duck the issue—a matter for my colleagues at the Department for Education, so I will ask my noble friend Lady Berridge to provide an update to the noble Lord on those matters.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government like to talk about tackling the causes of poverty. One cause of today’s shameful level of child poverty in working households is the long list of cuts in social security support for children since 2010, which was a policy choice. In this new context, why are the Government refusing to take the simple step of reversing that policy choice in order to reduce child poverty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The Government continue to review all the matters at their disposal to help children not be in poverty. These matters are reviewed continually. As I have said to the whole House before, the Government will continue to look at the issues and the things they have got to deal with poverty and will review them on a regular basis.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s last answer about continual review, in April 2019 59% of families affected by the two-child limit were working, with many struggling to afford essentials. When the new statistics on the policy are released tomorrow, will Her Majesty’s Government finally agree to review and assess the evidence that the two-child limit negatively impacts children in working families and that lifting it is the most effective way to reduce the number of children living in poverty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
As the right reverend Prelate said, we will be publishing the latest annual statistics related to the operation of the policy to provide support for a maximum of two children tomorrow. I cannot speak about what the statistics might show until they are released at 9.30 am tomorrow. However, I can promise that if there is anything about the statistics or trends which goes beyond what we would expect to see, the department will look into them.
Baroness Couttie (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what support the Government are providing to help people who have found themselves in financial difficulties because of coronavirus access food.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
On 8 May, the Government announced up to £16 million to provide food for those who were struggling financially as a result of the coronavirus. As part of this Defra has opened a £3.5 million food charities grant fund and on 10 June the Prime Minister announced £63 million in support for local authorities.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, in her first reply the noble Baroness referred to children in two-parent families. I point out that many of the working poor are single parents and that half the children in one-parent families are in poverty. They are doubly disadvantaged. What are the Government doing to ensure that these children’s futures are not blighted by the scourge of poverty in their early years?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
In my original Answer, I said it was very clear that people in work have a much better opportunity not to be in poverty. The noble Baroness raises the issue of lone parents, who have enormous issues to overcome. The Government are doing everything they can to make sure that people are supported, and the best route out of poverty for this group is to be in work.
Lord Eames (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we emerge from lockdown, certain issues are being identified that require urgent and immediate attention. However, what is being uncovered in the case of child poverty needs both immediate and long-term action. Can the Minister say something more specific about the long-term issue of child poverty, which will continue to challenge our society long after lockdown?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
There is clear evidence of the important role of work in reducing child poverty. I acknowledge that we are in very difficult circumstances, but the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that people can be supported through this difficult time. Huge amounts of support are available. We have a £30 billion plan to support, protect and create jobs, and a £2 billion Kickstart scheme; we are doubling the number of work coaches; there is an expanded youth offer; the work and health programme is being expanded; and we are increasing participation in our sector-based work academies. In addition, there is £150 million to boost the Flexible Support Fund to make sure that people can be given support—and this money will filter into the lives of children.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister keeps mentioning work, but TUC research found that the number of poor children in working households rose by 38% between 2010 and 2018—and that was before Covid. Yet poverty was mentioned just twice in last week’s summer statement document: in the title of an IMF body and in the list of abbreviations at the end. We keep making suggestions, such as sorting out universal credit, increasing legacy benefits and ending the two-child limit, but they are all rejected. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking working poverty seriously and tell us what their plans are to stop more of our kids growing up scarred by poverty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I assure the whole House that the Government take in-work poverty really seriously. Our plan is to build an economy that will support work, as we have said many times. Universal credit is designed to help people to move into work faster, although that can be challenging in the current circumstances. We have also set up the In-Work Progression Commission. As I have said before, people put forward ideas all the time and they are taken to the department. I assure the noble Baroness that we are taking this seriously. We might not be answering at the speed that she would like, but we are very genuine and sincere.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Social Mobility Commission recently published figures suggesting that 72% of children in poverty were in families where at least one adult was in work—a figure that has increased steadily from 44% in 1996-97. It cited mounting evidence that benefit reforms were pushing children into poverty and concluded that the intention of universal credit was to lift more families out of poverty but the DWP appeared to have done little work to ensure that it was not making child poverty worse. What precise work has the department done to assess the impact of universal credit on child poverty, and will it publish its findings?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I come back to what I said before: as a Government, we are always looking at the points that people raise and the issues related to in-work poverty. I think that the Social Metrics Commission said that poverty had been rising but had plateaued. Virtually all the increase in poverty occurred during 2001 to 2008; since then, it has plateaued. Going back to my response to a previous question, we are well aware of the situation of lone parents and are working hard and at pace to help them.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Lord Keen of Elie on 3 June (HL Deb, col 1357), when they will announce (1) the chair, (2) the timings, and (3) the terms of reference, of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we are carefully addressing the scope, terms of reference and membership of the royal commission. In doing so, we will embrace the lessons that we can learn from the present crisis to make the criminal justice system more resilient in the longer term.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I make no apology for asking this Question again, and I will go on doing so until I get an answer. In June, the noble and learned Lord the Minister described the royal commission as an “important opportunity”, about which further announcements would be made in due time. As the royal commission was announced in December and many, including the Law Society, have highlighted that currently the criminal justice system is not working in an efficient or effective way, when will the Lord Chancellor seize the opportunity?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as the noble Lord may be aware, the terms of reference of a royal commission cannot be altered. It is therefore critical that we determine and finalise those terms of reference with care. A small team of civil servants in the MoJ is working to establish the royal commission and it anticipated that they will transition to make up the secretariat for the commission, which we hope to have operational from the autumn.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register. When my noble and learned friend the Minister last dealt with this question on 3 June, he was not able to be very forthcoming but, since then, the backlog of trials in both the Crown Courts and the magistrates’ courts has got even longer. A royal commission will not help, but there are plenty of Crown Court recorders and deputy magistrates’ court judges ready and able to assist. Why are they not being deployed?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, thanks to the hard work of professionals across the criminal justice system, more than 150 courts have remained fully open to the public throughout the pandemic. By the middle of this month, we anticipate that all court centres will have reopened.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick. No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first declare an interest as a retired criminal barrister and the mother of a practising one. It is clear that the report of the royal commission is a very long way away. Will the Minister tell us what is happening right now to clear the trial backlogs, by reopening courtrooms that have been mothballed, opening new ones, using part-time judges—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier has just suggested—overhauling the case-listing system and ensuring that there is adequate technology to tackle the crisis in the criminal justice system, which is the result of a long period of chronic underfunding which far pre-dates the current crisis?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are looking at all the matters addressed by the noble Baroness and we have taken steps to open additional courts across the country. We continue with that endeavour to address the backlog of cases that has emerged since the pandemic.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am aware that soundings have been taken as to the introduction of smaller juries in criminal cases. Whether this is to deal with the pandemic or the backlog of trials, or is for the long term, is it not precisely the sort of issue which a royal commission should discuss publicly and openly before a decision is made?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, at this time we are not intending to make any decision with respect to smaller juries.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a gross imbalance between rising levels of reported crime and a fall in prosecutions to a 50-year low, after a decade of cuts in the police, forensic services and the CPS? Can the Minister say whether the royal commission will consider the growing use of out-of-court disposals when it looks at the workings of the criminal justice system?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we have previously announced increases in the provision for police numbers. With regard to the royal commission, the terms of reference have not yet been finalised; I am therefore not in a position to confirm the precise terms.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the royal commission take into account the importance of strengthening offenders’ family and other relationships to further the aim of reducing reoffending and to prevent intergenerational crime?
Lord Keen of Elie
The matter to which my noble friend refers is one of considerable importance but I cannot say that it is an issue that will be embraced by the royal commission.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, after years of underfunding, our criminal justice system is crumbling. Criminal trials have dropped to an all-time low despite recorded crime continuing to rise. Can the Minister tell us when exactly the terms of reference for the royal commission will be finalised? Also, can he guarantee that the commission will have a comprehensive remit and be able to look at every part of our criminal justice system, and will he ensure that support for victims is put at the top of its agenda?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we anticipate that the royal commission will be able to commence its work in the autumn, having before it a finalised set of terms of reference. We have to be realistic about how the royal commission will operate. We wish it to report within 12 to 18 months; accordingly, the terms of reference will have to reflect that timescale.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a criminal law practitioner for more than 40 years, I warmly welcome the setting up of the commission. The listing and hearing of criminal trials is in a mess and underfunded, and efforts to increase court sittings are belated. Will funding for criminal legal aid be part of the remit of the royal commission?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as I have indicated already, I am not yet in a position to confirm the remit of the royal commission as the terms of reference have not yet been published. Again, I remind noble Lords that we are concerned to ensure that the terms of reference are manageable in the context of our wanting a report within 12 to 18 months.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has announced a White Paper on community sentencing and sentencing more widely, and that is to be followed by a government Bill. A royal commission will not examine those matters because they are already under way. So, having taken out a large chunk of the justice programme, what will be the main focus of what is left for the royal commission to examine?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as I said, the terms of reference have not yet been finalised but, clearly, the royal commission will be addressing some of the more fundamental issues with regard to the delivery of criminal justice in England and Wales.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is clearly a large degree of skill in the House of Lords which could contribute to these terms of reference. Since the Minister has said several times that they have not yet been finalised, is he willing to convene a ministerial meeting of interested persons in the House of Lords to discuss the detail of the terms of reference and what they could—and should not—cover, so that when the terms are announced they have broad support in the House?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, given the stage we have reached in this process, I cannot undertake to carry out such an exercise, which, I suspect, would result in considerable delay. We are in a position where we can finalise the terms of reference and make them public in the very foreseeable future. As I said, we are hopeful that the royal commission will commence its work in the autumn.
The Deputy Speaker
I call again the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick. He is not responding. All supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Metropolitan Police: Racism
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Metropolitan Police Service about the steps being taken to address racism within its ranks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government condemn racism and racists. Racism is abhorrent and has no place in our society. This Government remain committed to working with policing to broaden representation and enhance accountability to help the police make their relationships with the public even stronger. The drive to recruit 20,000 officers over the next three years gives us a significant opportunity to support the police to become more representative of the communities they serve.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation is reported in the Guardian as saying that the reason why black people in London were twice as likely to be given lockdown fines by the police was because
“anyone out in the first four weeks was a drug dealer”.
I checked the accuracy of the officer’s remarks with the journalist before making a formal complaint. The Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards refused to look into the matter. The Metropolitan Police Federation did not reply when I asked it about what the officer is reported as saying. What does this say about the culture of the Metropolitan Police, and what action do the Government intend to take to change it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, several things are happening at this point in time. The NPCC announced its intention to develop an action plan on 18 June, on the back of the Black Lives Matter protests. The College of Policing has also reviewed and applied positive action to the senior national assessment centre and its strategic command course for chief officer candidates. The recruitment of those 20,000 police officers gives us a golden opportunity to increase diversity of representation within the police.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, at a London Assembly meeting last month, my Green Party colleague Siân Berry questioned the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on that very issue of the data showing that black Londoners were two-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested or given a fine. When pressed, the commissioner said, “I have not gone back to them”—her officers—“and said ‘I am concerned about disproportionality’ or ‘Please stop acting in this manner that will lead to disproportionality’ because I don’t see that as an issue.” You have a big problem in dealing with racism if the person at the top of the organisation does not recognise that the issue exists. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police service has worked hard to improve relationships with communities and increase the representation of black, Asian and minority ethnic officers and staff. But I am not going to deny that individual cases of racism do not still exist, because they do. There is far more for forces to do to address the disparities in their workforce and in community relations.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Metropolitan Police service still suffers from a paucity of competent leadership in its higher ranks, and that its ability to correct issues such as racism in the ranks would greatly improve if it were to introduce an officer recruitment programme, similar to that used by the Armed Forces? That might conflict with some of Peel’s original principles, but is it not necessary to provide the kind of policing that our country needs today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think anyone would disagree with my noble friend’s point. On the back of that, HMICFRS has agreed to focus more closely on how forces are performing on diversity and inclusion as part of its next round of Peel assessments. Diversity and ability are not, of course, mutually exclusive and, as my noble friend points out, a far more diverse workforce might help with some of those issues at the top.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that racism in the police service, evident in stop and search and disproportionate disciplinary procedures against BAME officers, arises from ignorance and prejudice? Does she also agree on the importance of education and training in the need to look beyond superficial difference to the reality: that we all have much in common?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We most certainly all have much in common, and we now collect and publish more data on stop and search than ever before. We allow local scrutiny groups, the police and crime commissioners and others to hold forces to account. We also discuss it with relevant National Police Chiefs’ Council leads and forces to understand why disparities arise. Perhaps I might also say that the Home Secretary is chairing the national policing board today, and there is an item on diversity.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday the Guardian interviewed two black retired senior officers, who talked about their experience of racism in the Metropolitan Police and how it had affected them in their careers. How will Her Majesty’s Government address the future of black and Asian minority officers’ careers, going forward?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I say to the noble Baroness that this is key to the success of the police. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the college has reviewed and applied positive action—not positive discrimination but positive action—to the senior national assessment centre and strategic command course for chief officer candidates. However, it also has training in inclusion and diversity at every level now in the police force.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I recall the Brixton riots of 1981 and I regret to say that there was then shocking and very real racism evident and open among some—some—of the police officers there. But since then, over the last four decades, huge progress has been made and I suggest that most people would wish to congratulate the Metropolitan Police on that. I am sure my noble friend will agree that discrimination is unacceptable, be it against black, Asian or indeed white people. Will she ensure that recruitment and promotion policies are entirely transparent, so that we can all see that they are fair and non-discriminatory?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with my noble friend on the positive trend of diversity within the police forces. During the lockdown I think that the police have, in the main, behaved incredibly reasonably in engaging with the public. However, on increasing diversity, training at every level will absolutely be given to police officers and that disparity as people get more senior in the police force will be addressed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the police are one part of the criminal justice system and should be learning from the CPS’s responses, with its evidential tests when cases are passed to it. Are the different parts of the system co-ordinating to address eradicating discrimination, which exacerbates the climate of distrust referred to in the Macpherson report more than 20 years ago?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is absolutely crucial that different parts of the system not only speak to but learn from each other, and that this forms what is best practice as we proceed.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Minister has made a number of references to diversity and to the police being more representative of the communities that they serve. The Home Secretary said in the Commons on Monday that she spoke to police chiefs every single day. What has the Home Secretary been telling police chiefs in these conversations that she expects them to achieve on greater diversity within police officer ranks, and over what period does she expect that to be achieved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can vouch for the fact that the Home Secretary speaks to the police every day because I am on some of those calls. As I said, she is chairing the national policing board today and one item that will be discussed is diversity.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
House of Lords and Machinery of Government: Consultation on Changes
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to consult relevant Parliamentary select committees about the constitutional implications of, and (2) to await the outcome of the proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission to inform, changes to (a) the machinery of Government, (b) the location of their departments and the civil service, and (c) the location of the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to ensuring that the administration of government is less London-centric and to locating more Civil Service roles and public bodies out of London and into the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. No decisions have yet been taken on the form and scope of the commission on the constitution, democracy and rights. We will consult Select Committees about any relevant decisions in the normal way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, if one wants to distribute civil servants around the country, proper devolution for England would be the best way by far to do that. The Conservative manifesto last December declared:
“we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords”
and that they would
“set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth”.
Instead, No. 10 is briefing out piecemeal changes that were not in the manifesto but which only appeared in Dominic Cummings’s blog. Is Cummings’s blog now more authoritative as a guide to government policy than the manifesto?
Lord True
My Lords, at risk to my career, I must say that Mr Cummings’s blog is not on my reading list, and I do not normally consult social media in general. However, I say to the noble Lord that the commission will examine the broader aspects of the constitution in depth and develop proposals to restore trust in our institutions and the operation of our democracy. We will consider the composition and focus of the commission carefully and will provide an update in due course.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I read the debate on this topic yesterday, following the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and noted the imprecise Answer given then by the Minister. I have listened carefully to his answers to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, today, which again have not been definitive. Therefore, I would like to put two straightforward questions to the Minister, and I would appreciate a straightforward answer. Is it the intention of the Government to table proposals for the relocation of the House of Lords, on a permanent basis, to York or any other location outside London? If so, when do they intend to table these proposals?
Lord True
My Lords, I said yesterday, in a straight- forward fashion, that the location of this House is ultimately a matter of its exclusive cognisance. The Government are putting forward a series of ideas—they have done and are continuing to do so—about the relocation of aspects of government outside London. This is ongoing and will continue.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are 79 bi- cameral parliaments in the world. All but one of them have chambers co-located in the capital city, often in the same building. Why does the Minister think that this is the case?
Lord Mancroft (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is important that your Lordships’ deliberations should take place as close as possible to the people? Would he also agree with me that it is even more important for those who actually represent the people to be located even nearer to them than this House? Could he tell your Lordships what plans the Government have for the future location of the House of Commons to ensure that it is situated as close as possible to the people?
Lord True
My Lords, I do not think I am going to be drawn on that one. I think that the Companion says that one is supposed to speak respectfully of the other place. However, I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend Boris Johnson brought the other place close to the people by his devastating victory in the December election last year, which delivered a majority of 80 to the real people’s party.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, Westminster is not only the mother of Parliaments; it is the mother of bicameral Parliaments. Would the Minister agree that, for purely practical purposes, the close proximity of both Houses side by side—whether for APPGs, committees or visiting Heads of State—is important and that they should be together, let alone the fact that the House of Lords has the greatest depth and breadth of expertise of any parliamentary Chamber in the world? Surely, being located in London—the greatest of the world’s great cities—is a huge advantage, as we have our financial capital and our government capital together. That is where the House of Lords should be based. Could he say who is behind this idea?
Lord True
My Lords, I repeat what I said yesterday. Of course, all the factors the noble Lord has mentioned have to be weighed and taken into account in any reflections on the future of our Parliament and the role of this House. At the moment, Parliament is operating remotely—as the noble Lord himself is—and it is not impossible. However, I am sure that all the factors mentioned will be considered.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, all power to the Government’s elbows to distribute civil servants across the country, but yesterday the Minister was absolutely clear that only Parliament could determine its own relocation. Will the Government desist from acting ultra vires and leave it to Parliament to pursue its own conclusions, backed by primary legislation?
Lord True
My Lords, I do not believe the Government are acting ultra vires in any way. It is important that all of us—in this House, in the other place and in the political world generally—reflect on how we may restore respect in the political process and bring that closer to the people. That does not change the fundamental constitutional point which the noble Lord has cited.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, one reason why the European Parliament is subject to criticism is that it sits in two places: Brussels and Strasbourg. The moves to Strasbourg diminish accountability and create problems. Does the Minister agree that, if our bicameral Parliament were separated, it would be much harder to hold Ministers to account and would undermine the British Parliament?
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
Will the Minister confirm to the House whether the decision of the Supreme Court to become involved in the Prorogation dispute last autumn will be considered as part of the review when the commission is established?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the problems of moving this House away from the Commons and Whitehall may be insuperable. However, should we not, perhaps by moving the Moses Room and Westminster Hall to York, try to bring Parliament closer to people from whose views and values it was so clearly estranged during the last Parliament? It would surely strengthen this House, first, if more people saw your Lordships’ excellent work as a revising Chamber and, secondly, if closer contact with people outside the metropolitan bubble made us more respectful of their views.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, if idealistic elements of decision-making advocate decentralisation, why not move the whole machinery of governance out of town, or make it rotational? This may have the added beneficial consequences of strengthening the sanctity of the union and lessening the drain on the Exchequer.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th July 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Jun 2020)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pension Schemes Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, before we move to the technicalities of closing our debates on the Bill in this House and it moves for consideration in the other place, I want to take a moment to reflect on the Bill and its passage through your Lordships’ House.
This is important legislation that will benefit members of the public and will help people plan for their future. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill will have a far-reaching impact for people saving into pensions for their retirement. It ensures that reckless bosses cannot gamble with people’s savings; it transforms the way people get information about their retirement savings; and it introduces a whole new type of pension to the market.
It is clear from the excellent contributions and speeches made as the Bill progressed through this House that many of your Lordships agreed with its principles. Contributions and questions from all sides have been thorough and searching. I would not have expected anything different.
The Government listened to your Lordships’ arguments and concerns as the Bill progressed and made a number of amendments both in Committee and on Report— 73 in total, which I think you will agree have strengthened the Bill. We recognised the concerns of the DPRRC and this House in respect of delegated powers; we listened to your thoughts about a public dashboard; we introduced measures in respect of climate reporting and the Paris Agreement; and we have responded to the threat of scams by tightening the rules on transfers.
Your Lordships made further amendments to the Bill on Report concerning intergenerational fairness, consumer protection and scheme funding. We will look at these carefully along with the strong arguments made in support of them as the Bill progresses in the other place.
I thank all those who have engaged on the Floor of the House and in the many meetings that we have had outside, which I hope you found helpful. I thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady Scott for all the help and support they have given me throughout this process. This was my first Bill, and they have helped enormously to keep me on the straight and narrow. I thank the Whips office, the House staff, my private office, led by Vanessa Drury, and all those involved in helping us through the hybrid proceedings. These have been very testing times for everyone, and the fact that we are here at all bears testimony to the work they have put in.
Finally, I want to thank the Bill team and all the officials across DWP. I thank them for the extensive engagement programme that they helped me with. I thank Jo Gibson, Jane Woolley, Mike Jewell and Debbie Bullen—to name but four—but there are many support people behind them, and I would not want to miss anybody out in trying to name them all. They have put in incredibly long hours to support my noble friends and me during debates, to facilitate briefing meetings, and to provide the updates, letters and briefings that noble Lords have received. They have done this at a time of great uncertainty, with many teams reduced to help support front-line services. I hope that they will manage to get some well-deserved time away over the summer.
On that note, I thank you all again for your patience and support. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks and concur with them. We have agreed on so much about this Bill: we support the new CDC pension schemes; we all want to see financial technology harnessed to benefit consumers and to make the financial markets work more efficiently; and we are keen to work constructively with the Government to bring innovations such as the dashboard to fruition.
Where we have differed is on the extent of the protections needed to mitigate the risk of consumer detriment and poor outcomes. We still believe that the weight of evidence is with our arguments, as are reports from various regulators. I hope that by the time the Bill is debated in another place, the reasoning behind our Report amendments on the head start for the public dashboard, on the risks of dashboard transactions and on questions of fairness will find favour.
The pandemic has pushed many consumers into digital engagement far faster than they may naturally have adapted to it. While that has kept our economy and society functioning, it has also exposed some consumers to greater risk of detriment. We might not see any consequential increase in the number scams until later in the year, but that means that the provisions in this Bill will be timely and welcome. More risks will emerge, including new ones as a result of Covid, so I urge Ministers to keep the House informed as regulators scan the landscape and the Financial Ombudsman monitors new kinds of complaint. Although they are not covered in this Bill, we wait with interest to see how the Government will regulate the newly emerging superfunds, given the economic impact of Covid.
Pensions are very long term, and it will take decades for the full effects of public policy decisions by any Government to be seen. That is why it is so desirable that pensions policy be built on the foundations of political consensus, and it is why I am grateful for the significant concessions that have been given during the passage of this Bill.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Drake, whose expertise and determination underpinned our campaign for the Government to commit to a public dashboard and have it operating from the start. I am grateful for support from across the House for that and for all the shared support for moves to secure commitments on governance, including ensuring that dashboard services will be regulated by the FCA. It was great to see cross-party working on climate issues, led by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, result in an agreed position with government and the first ever reference to climate change in domestic pensions legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for yielding to pressure from many quarters for amendments on transfers and on delegated legislation.
This is a better Bill than the one which entered the House, and I give thanks to all who made that possible. I thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, but I am sad that it will be my last time sharing the Front Bench with him. He has given so much to this House and to our country in his decades of public service. I look forward to his continued contributions from the Back Benches.
I am a grateful to Dan Harris of our staff team, who has done sterling work on this Bill and is a joy to work with, as are all my colleagues who joined in during our proceedings. I am grateful to House officials and the broadcast teams. I am very grateful to the Bill team and all the officials who have met us repeatedly and patiently answered our many questions. I am grateful, too, to colleagues across the House for intelligent and thoughtful debates. I am grateful also to the Ministers: to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his gentle engagement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her co-operative spirit and her willingness to engage and to concede. This may have been her first Bill; I am sure that it will not be the last. I look forward to joining in and occasionally doing battle yet again.
We did the Committee stage of this Bill before Covid, crammed into the Moses Room with not a hint of social distancing. We did the Report stage in hybrid mode. To be honest, I will never get to love voting on my phone or get used to making passionate speeches to my iPad, but it has shown that this process can work. We have thoroughly scrutinised a vital and highly technical Bill, and we have made it better than it was. That is the job of the House of Lords in a nutshell. I am so glad we can still do it.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the very important new amendments concerning transfer rights. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I attempted to do, perhaps rather clumsily, what they do rather elegantly. We live in a time when scams are increasing, people are desperate for any return, online propositions are everywhere and can seem very tempting, and your money—occasionally all your money—is easy and quick to lose. These amendments will not solve those problems, but they will prove a valuable addition to the guidance armoury and to the better protection of consumers, and I welcome them.
My noble friend Lady Janke led the debate from these Benches with real insight and conviction. It is a pity that she cannot be with us today as the Bill concludes its passage through the House. She has asked me to thank, on her behalf, all the Members who have taken part in what has been a constructive and congenial process. She has particularly asked me to congratulate the Minister and her officials on their apparently unlimited patience, their evident willingness to listen and their responsiveness. I join my noble friend Lady Janke in her remarks, especially as concerns the Minister’s patience and forbearance. The Minister’s character determined the character of our discussions. I also thank all Members who joined in those discussions, especially my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Sherlock and Lady Altmann. Their expertise was evident throughout and greatly added to the value of the debate. I believe that, collectively, we have made a good Bill better.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I place on record that I have spoken on this Bill, I have tracked all stages of it and I pay a major tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, in particular for her care and attention regarding the less obvious aspects of a major Bill like this. If this is her first Bill as Minister, she has made an extraordinarily good start.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend, who has managed a complex and important territory most constructively. I also thank the Opposition for collaborating in a constructive way. I could not help thinking, as we come to the end of this bit of legislation, that if we look forward 30 years, we will then be in a very different age where people will live much longer and will retire later. There will have to be an adaption of their pension saving between now and then but, for the present, this Bill has done a very good job of addressing a difficult territory.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I thank everybody for their comments and supportive remarks. What has really come out of this is that we collaborated, we talked, we listened and we made the Bill better. For that, I thank everybody.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply.
We now come to questions on a Statement. It has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement, and we will proceed immediately to questions from the Opposition Front Bench. I ask that questions and answers are brief.
EU Exit: End of Transition Period
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this Statement in fact sets out an enormous number of costs—costs to Parliament, to business, to taxpayers and to consumers.
First, on the cost to Parliament, we learned of these plans on Sunday, via Written Statements and in the Telegraph, rather than in Parliament. So it is not just York that awaits your Lordships’ House; Coventry is clearly being prepared for both Houses. The devolved nations hardly fare better, despite their responsibility for ports, airports, and human, animal and plant health. The First Minister complained of a lack of engagement with the Scottish Government in developing the new border operating model, and the Welsh Government at one point had mere minutes’ notice of an announcement within their bailiwick. That is no way to treat Parliament.
Secondly, on the costs to business, despite the promise of a deal with no fees, charges or tariffs and no new infrastructure, we in fact face significant disruption to trade from new border checks. This will cost business some £13 billion, let alone any loss of orders and increased import costs, in order to handle 200 million declarations a year. There is real alarm at the state of preparedness across businesses, which are already coping with Covid but have their wall diaries all pointing to the rapidly approaching 31 December. All they are promised is a welter of new red tape.
Thirdly, there will be a cost to taxpayers of £700 million for buildings and staff at borders, including new infrastructure, some at new inland sites. If the ports are not ready in time, any failures could break WTO rules, as we have heard from a Cabinet Minister. There are to be 500 extra Border Force personnel; an IT system not yet tested, let alone introduced; a 27-acre parking lot in Kent bought through emergency purchase of land, the Government having forgotten to tell the local council and, we hear, having to hastily hand-deliver letters to residents on a Friday ahead of work beginning on Monday; and an advertising campaign. We must hope that this will be more successful than the £46 million spent on “Get ready for Brexit”, which the National Audit Office found did not result in significantly better preparedness.
The NAO says that any future campaign should focus on what impact is needed and how behaviour change will be delivered, with resources targeted at activities adding the best value, and a consistent focus on key performance metrics from the start. Can the Minister confirm that lessons have been learned from that earlier exercise—or will just friends of those in the know be used for the campaign, without proper procurement, their USP being more in shared belief than proven campaign ability?
Fourthly and lastly, there is the cost to consumers. I have to say that the Statement’s talk of “significant opportunities” is particularly inappropriate for consumers. As the guidance makes clear, there will be extra documents for travelling, including an international driving permit for some countries; a return to the old green card, or proof of insurance; arrangements for pets needed four months before travel; and continuing confusion around which travel rights will continue. The Government, probably quite rightly, are advising people to get comprehensive travel insurance—more cost to consumers. Of course, there will be much more expensive medical insurance with the loss of the EHIC, especially—I declare an interest—for us oldies, or for those with pre-existing conditions. For consumers it will be all costs and no benefits.
There is no doubt that there was support across the country to get Brexit done, but the Government’s approach has been costly, reckless and disdainful of the views of constituent parts of the UK, of business and of consumers. We see symptoms of chaos and some dysfunction even within the Cabinet. Mr Gove wrote on Sunday:
“Leaving the European Union … is a bit like moving house … Taking back control of the money we send to Brussels means we can spend it on our priorities”.
I have to say that it feels more like a messy divorce, with cash going to lawyers and removal men rather than on the kids.
I have four questions for the Minister. The first is about the advertising campaign I have already mentioned. The second is to ask for reassurance that business will be engaged every step of the way in the design and implementation of IT and documentation systems, and that the devolved authorities will be part of the planning, not mere recipients of information. The third is whether consumer representatives will be similarly consulted. The fourth and last, still in hope, is whether the Government will return to the democratic process of making announcements in Parliament, rather than in Sunday newspapers. Let us have Parliament take back control.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government are seeking to put an upbeat gloss on the plans for 1 January, under the strapline, “The UK’s new start: let’s get going”, but getting going anywhere is set to be a very big challenge for both people and businesses. Individuals will lose their free movement, free roaming, free healthcare and freedom to take a pet on holiday abroad at short notice. The Government claim that leaving the EU single market and customs union means that we will,
“regain our political and economic independence.”
It is in fact going to feel like “out of control” rather than “taking back control”.
In the other place on Monday Mr Gove promised
“a free flow of freight”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1275.]
but nothing could be further from the truth. The UK will be moving from a highly integrated relationship with the EU to one in which trading with it becomes much more difficult. There will be customs forms, physical checks, new VAT rules, plant and animal health requirements, export declarations, a lorry park, and a vast new IT system—always a terrifying prospect. This is going to hit businesses struggling with the disruption and economic hit of Covid; perhaps they might just be getting their heads above water by December, at which point they will get hit by the Exocet of masses of expensive new red tape.
The Government have left it until 24 weeks before the end of transition to produce this plan. What have they actually done for the last four years? One sensible move would, of course, have been to extend the transition period, so as to avoid distraction from the pressing issue of dealing with the pandemic, but Brexit ideology, as always, trumped good sense. The complexity facing businesses can be judged by the fact that this government document comprises a dense 200 pages. As the Trade Secretary rightly highlighted in her striking letter of last week, the controls, IT systems and lorry parks will not be ready by the end of the year. This is the real reason they are being phased in over six months. Are we seriously to believe they will be ready by July next year?
Ms Truss urged
“it is essential that my department has a clear view of operation delivery plans, timescales and risks going forward.”
This suggests that the Trade Secretary has not been fully involved in plans for imports and exports. Can the Minister explain this extraordinary state of affairs? Ms Truss also pointed out that if, as predicted, the dual-tariff system is not in place for 1 January
“this may call into question NI’s place in the UK’s customs territory”.
What substantive reassurances can the Minister give us—and, more to the point, the people of Northern Ireland —on this point?
This Brexit burden will force companies to fill in an extra 215 million customs declarations every year, which Mr Gove’s document acknowledged were “complicated”. The cost for them is estimated at between £7 billion and £13 billion a year; this is on top of huge costs for the public sector. So this is where “our money back” will be going—not on the NHS, but on bureaucracy. Many firms will face the expense of hiring customs agents to complete new border formalities on their behalf. It is estimated that 50,000 of these will be needed, a figure that dwarfs the number of officials in the demonised European Commission.
The Trade Secretary, in her letter to Messrs Gove and Sunak, was worried about tariffs being dodged and asked for
“assurances that we are able to deliver full controls at these ports”—
that is, EU-facing ports—
“by July 2021 and that plans are in place from January to mitigate the risk of goods being circumvented from ports implementing full controls.”
What she is talking about, of course, is the risk of smuggling and fraud; this is an astonishing admission, so what is the answer to how these risks will be addressed?
It is clear for all to see that the promises of “frictionless trade” and “an oven-ready deal” were mere empty slogans. We are seeing what my honourable friend in the other place, Stephen Farry MP, called
“the brutal reality of Brexit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1279.]
It is no comfort at all for some of us to say, “We told you so.”
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their welcome for the Statement made by my right honourable friend—with modified degrees of rapture, I must confess to the House, but I always benefit from their comments and, as ever, I will try to listen and learn from them. However, I shall say one thing as a premise—I think the noble Baroness will know that I am going to say it, but I make no apology for it because it was reasserted by the British people last December. The British people twice made a very firm declaration that they wish to go forward as a sovereign nation outside the European Union, and did so in full knowledge of the circumstances that would obtain. No one in this House or in this polity can assert that, over four years of debate on the question of leaving the European Union, any question was not unearthed in that time. The British people resoundingly reasserted their verdict last December, and this Government intend to implement, and are implementing, that. I believe that that is the inescapable, underlying point which we never hear from the other side.
On costs, of course the Statement acknowledges that there will be elements of cost. The Government do not accept the cost estimates that both noble Baronesses referred to, and indeed it has become clear that some of those who made the calculations did so on the basis that every document would be filled in manually. That is not the case; we are moving to a new, modern, smart border.
I make no apologies for the additional expenditure which the Government are undertaking to secure our borders and provide a modern, effective border. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made the point very powerfully—and I agreed with it—that we need to have an eye to smuggling, the abuse of modern slavery, and so on. Part of this package is employing more Border Force operatives and indeed investing in new facilities and IT and opportunities for Border Force to control more effectively our borders and operate against crime. I believe that that is important. The whole £705 million package which has been announced will serve this country well and will be welcomed by most of those involved.
Another point that did not come out in the statements from the noble Baronesses opposite is the welcome that British business has given to the publication of the border operating model. This model was not sprung on business, as was implied, but is the result of lengthy, ongoing discussions and previous documents and conversations, and it reflects the wisdom of many business sectors and operatives. That is why it has had the welcome it has had. Again, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it clear that there was further material— “i”s to dot and “t”s to cross was I think the phrase he used—and I can assure the House that those conversations and that engagement will continue with business in every part of this United Kingdom.
Although border control is a reserved matter, I refute the view that the devolved Administrations are not appropriately engaged. Obviously, I am always concerned when I hear that there is dissatisfaction about that and I take that back, but I can assure the House that efforts are constantly made, and indeed that engagement takes place on a regular basis and will continue to do so.
On the advertising campaign, which both noble Baronesses asked about, again, there has been a very wide welcome for this. Again, the Government make no apology for undertaking this campaign and committing extensive resources to it. It is important that business and consumers and the people of this country should be fully ready and aware. The noble Baroness rightly referred to the importance of consumers, and I can assure her that an eye will always be held to the views of consumer groups. However, I can also specifically answer her question on the NAO recommendations. She makes an important point and those recommendations have been taken on board by the Government. There will be staged monitoring of the effectiveness of the campaign and it will adhere to the proper requirements of government advertising. I give her that assurance in the House; I hope that is sufficient, but if she would like me to provide further details, I should be happy to do so, because it is a valid point and I fully take it on board.
The noble Baroness asked about business engagement, and I hope I have answered that. It is not something that suddenly started or will suddenly stop. Business engagement will continue as the process develops over the next few months. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels what she said about Parliament. I think she knows that I have a profound respect for Parliament, particularly having spent most of my life on the Back Benches and never expecting to be standing at the Dispatch Box. As I understand it, the normal courtesies were followed with the Statement at the other end but, if they were not, I will look into the matter. However, my own view is that the fullest co-operation with opposition parties, and indeed with those of no party, is the best way to get Parliament and this revising House to work at their best.
I think that that covers most of the points that the noble Baroness raised. I do not accept this stuff about a lorry park. Work is ongoing in terms of what kind of infrastructure and facility will be required, not only behind the Dover Straits or in co-operation with the Dover Straits crossing but with other ports in the land. Those consultations are ongoing and the Government intend to provide such support as is needed to ensure that there is the fullest and freest flow of trade everywhere. I can assure the House that other ports, not just in the south-east, are taken care of. I note what the noble Baroness said about my right honourable friend’s contact with local MPs in Kent, and I believe that that represents accurately that those conversations will be taking place.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, she will know that, with the greatest respect, I diverge from her just a little on both the past history and the present analysis. As she knows, it is not the normal custom for this Government, or any Government, to comment on leaked documents, so I cannot pursue her into a detailed parsing of the letter that she has in her hands. She will know, because until recently the Liberal Democrats were also a party of government, that there is constant give and take within government. There is conversation within and outside government. That is how best policy is formulated, and the policy which is on the table and which I present to the House is the collective, agreed and actively supported policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
On Northern Ireland, which the noble Baroness raised, she will know that the union is close to my heart personally and, indeed to that of my principal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The border operating model obviously does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, but a document will be published later this month that will refer to and cover the situation in Northern Ireland. Yes, I can confirm that there is a supported programme to secure intermediaries and customs agents: we have discussed that in the House before. Again, I make no apology for that support and expenditure; it is important to secure the modern and effective borders that we need.
There are great opportunities here not always mentioned by those on the other side. In future, I am certain that, with the help being offered through the operating model and the advertising, our exporters will be ready to take advantage of new free trade agreements that we are negotiating with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Our small businesses will be ready to grow as we regulate our own industries in a way that works for them. Our economy will be ready to attract the best and brightest from around the world as we introduce a new points-based immigration system, and our fishermen, God bless them—fisherfolk —will be ready to flourish as we again take control of our coastal waters. We are ready for the opportunities in front of us and I believe that this Statement carries those forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench Questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that the sums referred to by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are sufficient to ensure the free flow of goods through UK customs? If not, perhaps they could be increased. I also ask my noble friend to urge Mr David Frost to insist to Mr Barnier that the EU pays at least 50% of all the UK’s costs in setting up these customs facilities. These arrangements are only for the convenience of the EU; after all, the rest of the world already has adequate arrangements. The EU has a £90 billion surplus in traded goods with the UK; it should contribute to the cost of setting up something so advantageous to itself.
Lord True
My noble friend has been an indefatigable fighter for the independence of the United Kingdom from the European Union, so I fully understand the direction from which he is coming. He makes an interesting point. Whether, if I sent him into bat as our negotiator, it would improve the temper of Monsieur Barnier, I am not sure, but I am grateful for his comments.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, naturally, I must, because of the time limit, restrict my questions on Northern Ireland and internal trade within the United Kingdom. First, on trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, there is great concern among business and trade unions: what does unfettered trade with Great Britain mean? Can the Government urgently clarify this question for the people of Northern Ireland? As for trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, we accept that there will be new administrative costs. This will hurt the people of Northern Ireland; it will increase their costs as well. Will the Government consider a contribution towards those extra costs? Finally, if there is no agreement during this transition period, will the European Union require neighbouring nations to apply tariffs to United Kingdom trade to those countries?
Lord True
My Lords, on the first question, unfettered access from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is a fundamental core of the Government’s objectives, and I hope that will be reiterated in and around the documents I referred to, coming out later this month. As for some of the costs going over, particularly in relation to agri-foods, which, as the noble Lord will know, raise particular issues, we have discussed this, and the Government will be making a contribution on those elements. On his wider point about the EU, I never comment on EU policy. It is still our hope that we will get a free trade agreement.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, most larger businesses will have the personnel and resources to advise and steer them through the transition period. However, some SMEs are very worried about how they will navigate complex regulations with little support. One feature of the lockdown is that it has often been impossible to speak to an adviser on a helpline and people have been directed to websites that are difficult to use. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be sufficient resources, including helplines staffed by knowledgeable people who can help SMEs as they go through this process?
Lord True
My Lords, unfortunately, I could not hear absolutely clearly. I will say, first, that the advertising campaign will certainly be directed to both businesses and individuals. The right reverend Prelate makes the wise point that specialist advisers will be available to help; it will not be simply a question of looking at a website, although I think the government website is to be commended.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Statement says that the guidance for Northern Ireland is to be published
“in the coming weeks and on an ongoing basis throughout the transition period”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1270.]
We heard a bit from the Minister about “in the coming weeks”, but it is clear that Northern Ireland is far from being in the same position as the rest of the UK. Is it really the case that Northern Ireland business could be receiving vital guidance in December, as the wording of the Statement implies, and will Northern Ireland be able to take full advantage of the phased approach outlined in the Statement, given the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol?
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Earl rightly says that Northern Ireland is on a separate track and governed by a separate protocol. Discussions are ongoing, as I think he knows. There will, as I told the House, be further information later this month. I take note of the points he makes about the timescale. The Government are well aware of the need for clarity and proper dispatch in carrying this forward.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
What preparation has been made for 1 January 2021, when the UK will be out of RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed? Only EU members and EEA states, along with Switzerland, can receive the alerts—up to 10 a day in real time on major safety issues. What is the Government’s plan? The system started in only 1979, so there is nothing from the past to fall back on.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on 27 February a noble Lord, Lord True—I believe it was the same one—was asked in the House about concerns that there would be friction for business in imports and exports. He said that the Government hoped that any friction
“will be minimal or non-existent”.—[Official Report, 27/2/20; col. 286.]
Now that we know that 150,000 companies are likely to have over £200 million in export declarations, why does he believe that that noble Lord, Lord True, was so wrong? If the Minister does not accept the HMRC assessment of business costs—his own document says that HMRC is responsible for business trade data—what is the Government’s information on the business costs of the procedures they are now putting in place?
Lord True
My Lords, I acknowledged in my response that there will be costs. I repeat what I said in the past —it is always pleasant to be reminded: the Government’s intention is that those be minimal. In the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, access from NI to GB should be unfettered. I have given a reason why we do not accept the high end-costs which have been suggested, and I stand by it.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend notice any correlation between those who always accuse us of rushing ahead with Brexit and those who now say we are preparing far too slowly? It baffles me. Much more seriously, has he noticed the recent Centre for Social Justice report which estimates that there are more than 100,000 modern-day slaves in this country? It is an appalling, terrifying figure. Will he join me—I hope the whole House will do so—in welcoming the fact that Brexit will give us not only control over our borders but the tools to help us deal with this evil of modern-day slavery and human trafficking?
Lord True
My Lords, I have noticed some of the correlations to which my noble friend referred, but I will take the more important point he raised. I have indeed seen the Centre for Social Justice report he refers to. This is a profound evil and a profound scandal and, as I think I said in my opening remarks, the Government’s hope and intention is that having control of our borders will enable us to deal with these brutal criminal gangs more effectively.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister mindful that the stricter the conditions imposed on those entering the UK, the harder it will be, reciprocally, for UK workers to operate in our all-important service industries in trading with Europe, our closest neighbour? Whether Canada-style or the Australia model, it will be a disaster for our services trade with Europe if the restrictive commitments of Mode 4 are applied without an appropriate mobility framework. What steps are the Government taking to effect such a deal?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the EU Environment Sub-Committee. We have recently had a number of meetings with Northern Ireland stakeholders, and I am going to refer to a letter we received recently from the Northern Ireland Assembly, raising a number of concerns. I will be brief, but if the Minister cannot deal with all of them, I would appreciate a response in writing.
On EU approval of ports and airports as border control posts, the committee is aware of the need for ports and airports to submit detailed applications to the EU in order to be designated as border control posts. These are needed to check goods arriving from the GB’s jurisdiction. So, the worry is the amount of time that is going to take and whether the Government feel confident about that being dealt with. Designation of goods at risk is another concern, but I am going to focus on the volume of work to be carried out by departments, committees and the Assembly. The committee has been briefed by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his officials on the volume of work required to implement the protocol by the end of the transition period. The department has shared information on what it considers necessary to deliver a minimum viable product by 31 December. Much of that MVP will require legislation being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly alongside UK government departments. Can the Minister be confident there is enough time for this to be done by 31 December, that the lines of communication with the stakeholders in Northern Ireland are open and ready for action, and that the document due later this month will deal with many of these issues?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in his reply to the Front Benchers that no question has gone unanswered over the past four years. Yet, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, among others, the Statement still provides no guidance to Northern Ireland business on the border operating model relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. We know, however, that customs security and transit forms will now be required on all goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. So, can the Minister explain to the House why the Prime Minister claimed during the election that such forms would not be required when he must have known it was not true and was never going to be true, as the Government have now confirmed?
Lord True
My Lords, I again repeat that a further document will be published, but our proposals will deliver to NI businesses unfettered access to the whole UK market. We will ensure no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory. We will uphold our obligations without any new customs infrastructure and we will guarantee that Northern Ireland businesses benefit from new United Kingdom free trade agreements.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I now call the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. No? I shall move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK leaving the European Union provides some fantastic opportunities for this country to build on our manufacturing prowess. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made towards a trade deal that protects and enhances the future of the UK automotive industry?
Lord True
My Lords, significant progress has been and is being made, and some of the dire forecasts for that great industry, which is vital to our future, have not proven justified. So, I can assure the House, and I hope that I or my colleagues can bring to the House, further and continuing good news about free trade agreements.
The Deputy Speaker
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. No?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there is a technical problem. We will adjourn for five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I call the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. No?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It seems that the technical fault has not been cleared.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, this guidance has been developed in consultation with the devolved Administrations and British businesses. Can the EU therefore be confident that goods shipped from, say, Zeebrugge to ports in either England or Scotland, or from Northern Ireland to either country when the protocols are in place, will be subject to identical checks in all regions of the UK—checks that will not be varied by the devolved Administrations?
The Deputy Speaker
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, no longer wishes to speak, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I checked, and Dublin Port has spent €30 million in preparation for the new arrangements after the European Union loses the United Kingdom. I decided to check the other side of the Irish Sea: Holyhead. I phoned a number of people this morning. I asked a couple of the councils, the freight line and a couple of councillors, “What’s happening in Holyhead? Dublin has spent €30 million.” They said, “We haven’t done anything yet.” With just 20 weeks to go, will the Port of Holyhead and the other ports be ready for the new arrangements?
Lord True
My Lords, as the House knows, the arrangements will be phased in until summer next year. We have announced £470 million to build port and inland infrastructure. As I told the House, that will be in relation not just to the Dover Strait. I have said in the House before that we recognise the great importance of Holyhead. I assure the noble Lord that we will pursue that matter.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister clarify his reference to lorry parks, especially in Kent? There is great local concern there. Will he confirm that if there is to be a lorry park in Ashford it will be only temporary? More specifically, what have the Government worked out as the likely time it will take to clear an HGV arriving in Dover, either at the Port of Dover or in a car park nearby, under the new arrangements that will come fully into force in July?
Lord True
My Lords, as I think I said earlier, the specific places for the inland infrastructure are still under discussion, as are the specifics about the site in Kent. However, the purpose of this is to achieve what the noble Lord asks for. A good deal of stuff can be done away from the immediate border so that trade can be processed as quickly as possible. I will not give a specific time in minutes or seconds for any particular activity, but the Government’s objective is to make it as swift, easy and effective as possible.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply. The time limit for the joint debate on this and the two other Motions is one and a half hours.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—particularly my noble friend Lord Lindsay—for reviewing this order and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply) (Amendment) Order 2020. The committee reported on these orders, noting that it considers that policy changes made by them are potentially very significant. I look forward to debating the nature of them with colleagues here today. These orders are being debated together because their causes and their consequences overlap. Both amend the circumstances in which the Government can intervene in mergers and acquisitions. Both respond to a need exposed or magnified by the Covid-19 crisis, and both amend the Enterprise Act 2002, which set the legislative framework for the Government to intervene in qualifying mergers and acquisitions.
I will explain briefly what each order intends to achieve and the rationale for so doing, beginning with the specification of additional Section 58 consideration. Section 58 of the 2002 Act specifies the circumstances in which the Government can intervene in mergers on public interest grounds. There are currently three such grounds: national security, media plurality, and financial stability, the last being added in 2008 following the financial crisis. The order adds a fourth public interest consideration to that list, namely the need to maintain in the UK the capability to combat and mitigate the effects of public health emergencies. In short, it ensures that the Government have the power to preserve critical public health and crisis mitigation capabilities in the UK, and that they can therefore safeguard the welfare of the British people.
The need for such measures has been exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. All Members will recognise the hard work, dedication and commitment of firms up and down the country in responding to the crisis. They have been critical in getting us through the pandemic and will be just as important in rebuilding the economy in its aftermath. However, the very qualities that made these firms so critical to our response put them at risk from opportunistic investors. The vast majority of investors are an immense boon to this country, but an unscrupulous minority use UK capability to advance their own agenda at the expense of the British people.
Recently, we have seen attempts across the world to buy priority access to vaccines, to control the flow of personal protective equipment and to limit the availability of certain drugs. The Government have been clear that we will not allow this to happen to UK firms as a result of qualifying takeovers. The order creates the legislative framework to prevent that from happening.
Companies directly involved in combating public health emergencies, such as drug companies, are those that are most at risk. However, this order also allows intervention to maintain UK capability in mitigating the effects of a public health emergency. That might be necessary if there were risks to firms in our food supply chain, for example, or to companies that allow us to work safely during a pandemic by helping to slow the spread of a virus while allowing us to mitigate the impact on our economy. Such companies may include internet providers, for example, whose fibre broadband allows people across the country to work from home, order food and essentials from their living room and keep in touch with family members.
The second order that we are considering today—the Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply) (Amendment) Order 2020—amends Section 23A of the Enterprise Act 2002. That section includes a list of “Relevant enterprises”, which are sectors where the threshold for government intervention in a merger is lower than that for other businesses. The relevant enterprises listed in the Act are all in particularly sensitive sectors where there is a public interest or a national security case for allowing the Government to intervene more readily. As it stands, Section 23A sets out three such sectors: military or dual-use technologies, quantum technology and computing hardware. The order adds a further three relevant enterprises to the list: “artificial intelligence”, “cryptographic authentication” technologies and “advanced materials”.
Businesses falling within those categories are often at the forefront of research and innovation. They are small businesses producing cutting-edge technology which may not yet be commercially viable, but which can have implications for our national security. Break- throughs in those fields underpin other areas of societal and economic development and are critical to areas such as defence and security. Ownership of businesses in those areas can therefore undermine our national security through espionage, sabotage or exerting inappropriate leverage, and puts us at risk of losing our advantages in security and defence.
I repeat that the vast majority of investors in this country have entirely noble intentions. The order seeks to deal with the tiny minority that invest maliciously with a view to exploit or do harm. The Covid crisis has brought this matter to the fore, magnifying the potential risk to national security. The depreciating effects on sterling and the financial pressures of a decrease in investor confidence all make us more exposed to opportunism. It goes without saying that the Government must be able to mitigate national security risks, and this requires our being able to intervene in mergers in the areas set out in this order, all of which are critical to our nation’s security.
In addition, we propose to make a second instrument before commencement of the share of supply order by the negative resolution procedure. That will allow the Government to intervene in mergers involving the new relevant enterprises where their UK turnover is more than £1 million. That is consistent with the other relevant enterprises listed in Section 23A. The order is a short-term measure that will apply until more fundamental reform can be taken forward in the national security and investment Bill. Such a measure is necessary given the immediate risk that we face as a result of the pandemic.
Having set out what these two orders will do, I will now say briefly what they will not do. They do not affect our commitment to an open economy. They do not alter our appetite or our enthusiasm for investment into the United Kingdom, and they do not change the fact that now, more than ever, foreign investment is the lifeblood of our economy. It created more than 57,000 jobs in 2018 alone. We have no wish to create barriers to business—quite the reverse—and permitting intervention does not mean that the Government will interfere unduly. There have been only 20 interventions under the Enterprise Act and none has resulted in blocked mergers. Rather, these are proportionate, reasonable and necessary measures to maintain capability in public health emergencies and to protect our national security, ensuring that the UK is open for business, but not open for exploitation. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments today in his usual clear way. As he said, these SIs amend the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable the Secretary of State to intervene in mergers on two new grounds: by lowering the jurisdictional thresholds for reviewing transactions affecting UK-targeted companies involved in AI, cryptographic authentication and advanced materials; and by introducing a new criterion for intervention to preserve UK critical health and crisis mitigation, including but not limited to those needed for Covid-19. He stressed that these were short-term measures until more fundamental reform was taken forward in the now long-promised national security and investment Bill.
I tabled a regret Motion which stems from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and relates to four main points. There is a discrepancy between the apparently permanent changes set out in these SIs and the accompanying comment from BEIS that more fundamental change is in train. There is a lack of any information about the timing or content of the national security and investment Bill other than its antecedent, the White Paper 2018, which now seems a very long time ago. The committee suggests that the draft Bill be published forthwith and be subject to comprehensive debate and pre-legislative scrutiny. Further, the committee suggests that a better lens for consideration of the impact of mergers and takeovers would be to include their impact on consumers and consumer detriment. I will briefly expand on those points and look forward to the debates from other noble Lords who signed up to speak.
We broadly welcome the intention behind these reforms, which mirror changes to FDI in other countries, including France, Germany, Australia and Canada. The Minister is right to stress that these do not alter our commitment to having an open economy, which we support, and they are not against FDI, which has done so much to improve the quality of work in this country and the jobs available, and they are certainly not about putting up barriers. The country must remain open for business.
However, experience shows that many new tools must be available if we are to combat action and reaction to pandemics. These reforms presumably reach out, as the Minister said, to pharmaceutical and medical equipment suppliers, but they also seem to extend further. As he mentioned, they look at the effects of the pandemic including on food supply and service providers such as the internet. That is a very wide reach. Will the Minister confirm that this new power could also be used to prevent hostile takeovers of otherwise profitable and stable companies suffering short-term reductions in profitability or depressed share prices as a result of the pandemic or similar emergency? Will he also confirm that notifications to the CMA will remain voluntary, even though the intention remains to mitigate risks in the short term, which suggests that a more direct route of action might be required? Will there be further guidance on what might trigger this power, which has been criticised as being potentially very broad, and, if so, when that will be published?
The Government last lowered the jurisdictional turnover thresholds of the UK merger control regime in June 2018, when we passed an SI concerned with the development and production of military and dual-use technology, computing hardware and quantum technology. At that time, the threshold in relation to UK target company turnovers was lowered from £70 million to £1 million, which is a big change, and the 25% share of supply, which the Minister mentioned, was amended. We supported the moves at that time, but we questioned whether other sectors should be included. But these were described at that time as temporary, short-term reforms, again pending primary legislation. Is that still the situation? Can we expect more changes when the Bill finally arrives? When does temporary and short-term actually morph into permanent?
We now have a proposal to extend these already amended jurisdictional thresholds to three further sectors under quite broad headings—artificial intelligence, cryptographic authentication and advanced materials. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the intention is to cover producers but also researchers, and it covers suppliers to these companies, so the scope is again potentially very wide. There is a promise of further guidance on this. Will the Minister give us some more information on when that will be available? Again, the notification system will be voluntary, and companies will have to take the risk of the CMA or the Secretary of State initiating an investigation. Is that really the most sensible way of proceeding?
The outstanding questions that my regret Motion raises and that I would like the Minister to respond to are as follows. As the SLSC says, it is very difficult to scrutinise these SIs. Indeed, it will not really be possible to do so until we see the National Security and Investment Bill itself. When will it be published? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny? If not, why not? Can the Minister settle the question of whether the changes set out in these SIs are intended to be temporary, in the sense that they might be unwound in the NS and I Bill, once it arrives, or are they permanent? Can he confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to unwind the earlier June 2018 amendments once the new regime is in place, or are they now permanent? Can the Minister confirm whether the new Bill will follow the proposals in the 2018 White Paper? The world is a very different place now, and I wonder whether, for example, the voluntary notification system is really sufficient for national security concerns. Also, will there be turnover cut-offs or sectoral cut-offs? What about regional and place considerations?
Finally, why are consumer interests not given a central part in this process? The CMA, under its recent chair, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, was rightly refocusing work around the prevention of detriment to consumers. Its recent consultation on its 2020-21 plan stressed that competition, particularly in digital markets, was getting weaker in many sectors and that practices that damaged effective competition needed to be eliminated. In a sense, this is the other side of the same coin which is being addressed by these SIs.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the speaking limit.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
I am just winding up. I accept that some mergers and acquisitions affect national security, however it is defined, but all mergers and acquisitions affect consumers, so can the Minister confirm that consumer detriment will form part of it? I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction and welcome these instruments. Although undoubtedly necessary, they are a little late. I note the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the details that he set it out with, but I want to explore how much scope we have to apply these instruments in the rapidly changing world we operate in. In just a few months, the UK will be leaving the shelter of the transition from the EU to full exit on, as yet, unknown terms. The pandemic and the turbulent vacillation over Huawei have brought into sharp focus the weakness of the UK’s competition rules from a strategic point of view.
The failure of the Government to ensure adequate supplies of PPE and the waste of time and money on a predictably failed tracing app exposes vulnerability in terms of both domestic supply and access to global markets. UK research into vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 appear world-class, but they are not exclusive. Trying to ensure that, when suitable developments are secured, the UK population gets early treatment is, of course, justified, but we need to acknowledge that other countries may have more and better answers, and we should not be so protective of our own that we limit our access.
We should certainly facilitate making vaccines and treatments available to poor and vulnerable people across the world. Although foreign investment has sometimes been responsible for UK inventions turning their profit elsewhere, it has also sometimes facilitated extending our global reach, development and application. So, as we start to negotiate new trade deals, caught between not trashing our EU markets while hoping to gain privileged access to non-EU markets, this could lead to arm twisting that may undermine the stated objective of these other orders. In other words, we may wish to apply them, but we may find that it compromises our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries.
Finally, can the Minister give a steer as to whether the legislation that the Government are planning for when we have left the EU will be in place by the end of the year, and whether they will respond to pre-legislative scrutiny, as the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, requests?
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I served on the Standing Committee of the Enterprise Act back in 2002, and at that time the public interest intervention was limited to national security and quite narrowly defined. As the noble Lord said when he introduced these orders, it has been extended considerably since. Frankly, I think it is right to do so and I think that these orders are correct, too. In saying that, I stress that the guidance published in June by the Government very well illustrates that. The point was made that if companies developing new antibodies or a vaccine were to be taken over by overseas entities, the potential loss of control of that intellectual property would be very significant.
Much of the public interest interventions now, in these orders and elsewhere, are really about intellectual property. With our Government quite rightly investing a great deal of taxpayers’ money in IP, we must be sure to avoid overseas acquisitions of UK interests that deprive us of the benefit of that UK-generated IP. The turnover test and the share of supply test should be sufficient—but if, for example, one puts IP into a small company which is not necessarily trading otherwise, we may also need a transaction value test, and I hope Ministers will consider that.
I have one final point that I do not want to be lost. I was involved in introducing the public interest test on media mergers in 2003. There is unfinished business in redefining “media” for the purposes of Section 58 of the Enterprise Act, and I do hope that Ministers will get on with that, too.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has been unable to join this call, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is obviously a heavy element here of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Indeed, both horses have bolted: the Covid pandemic and the cybersecurity issue. But the problem is that even now the stable door has not yet been closed effectively. The new grounds on which the Secretary of State might intervene in mergers are short-term measures until more fundamental reform is taken forward through the National Security and Investment Bill, as the Minister said. But we do not know what is going to be in that Bill, so it is very difficult to judge these changes. As the SL committee says, the House will be able to scrutinise the issue properly only when the Bill is being considered. Incidentally, the committee also asked the department to give a timetable for the introduction of the Bill without delay. The Minister missed that point, and I am not aware that any such timetable has been provided or published.
Secondly, if the Bill that is to come before us is based on the 2018 White Paper, this raises a number of other issues of concern. Are these proposed measures really temporary or are they permanent? Will the Bill unwind these and other recent changes to jurisdictional thresholds made in 2018? Will the new regime be mandatory or, as the White Paper suggested, based on a voluntary notification system? Will there be a turnover or market share threshold applied? I regret that none of these questions has really been answered today. I would very much like to welcome these measures, but I think that the House has been left in a very unsatisfactory position.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government have frequently used the argument that substantial policy changes should not be made as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and that mixing a permanent policy change with a policy designed to deal with the Covid-19 crisis is to be avoided. In fact, this very argument was used by the Government this week in rejecting an amendment to the rules on bounce-back loans in the Business and Planning Bill. Well, here we have the Government making the very opposite argument to the one they made in another measure affecting the future of our economic base.
Also this week, the Government deployed this argument about a no-smoking ban in the spaces outside pubs and restaurants, where pavements are now being made available to these businesses. So next week, when they try once again to resist these amendments, I hope that they will not try to deploy arguments that run counter to those they are using today. I have no issue with the Government seeking to advance these policy changes, even when opportunities arise from the pandemic. I am simply asking for consistency.
The Government say that these regulations are
“brought into focus by the demands placed on the UK by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the economy”
and that
“as a result of the economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic, usually stable businesses may be suffering a short-term impact to their share price or profitability”.
But they go on to say that the measures are
“not time-limited to the current pandemic”
and are therefore permanent. So, despite what the noble Lord is saying about a Bill yet to come, these regulations are permanent until such time as the Government alter them; there is no time limit in these regulations at all. So, in supporting these measures, I hope that the Government will explain their volte-face on policy-making in the same week—in fact, within the space of three days.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, the orders before the House are a considerable intervention to those engaged in or contemplating the acquisition of UK companies. In the context of the specification of additional Section 58 considerations, they seem measured, particularly in the context of Covid-19, and will command support—although it is regrettable that, following the 2018 White Paper, as noble Lords have said, they could not have been considered in the context of the NSI Bill.
However, having lowered the jurisdictional thresholds of the UK merger control regime from £70 million to £1 million in three specified sectors, we are now considering artificial intelligence to become a further sector. I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, despite the Explanatory Memorandum and the information published by government, this could cover all UK businesses involved in artificial intelligence, including providers of components or related services under the share of supply amendment order.
Many of your Lordships and leading lawyers, not least the first-rate team at Herbert Smith Freehills, would welcome the Government making detailed guidance available—quickly—so that sufficient clarity is available to companies either directly involved in artificial intelligence or where artificial intelligence comes within the scope of their business. The guidance needs clarification urgently to avoid unintended consequences away from national security. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I support these orders but, crucially, they depend on the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. I wish to put two specific questions to the Minister, if I may, because there is real concern about the CMA being both weak and leaderless; it is by definition leaderless because its chair has just resigned.
First, can the Minister tell the House when it is intended that the new chair of the CMA will be in place? Secondly, I assume, subject to what the Minister said, that the recruitment process is ongoing. When the Government seek to recruit that chair, what will their response be—because potential candidates will definitely ask about this—to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, in his resignation letter that he sought to set up
“a new type of competition authority, one better equipped to understand and respond to what most concerns ordinary consumers”?
Do the Government agree with that prospectus for the CMA in future? If so, pursuing what the Minister said about having a robust, pro-competition stance, will that approach be embedded in the expectations of the new chair when they take over the CMA, which I think we all hope will be at an earlier rather than a later date?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
I welcome the inclusion of public health emergencies as a public interest consideration under these measures.
I know that other countries have experience of why these measures are needed; take the recent example of the German biotech firm CureVac, which was in the process of launching an IPO on the NASDAQ this month. According to the Financial Times, the German Government, acting on the basis that the US Government had sought to take over the group in order to secure a supply of a Covid-19 vaccine, bought a 23% stake in it—equivalent to €300 million—through KfW, the state-owned development bank. They were able to do so because German legislation from 2017 allows them to intervene in any acquisition of a German company if it endangers “public order” or “Germany’s fundamental security interests”. The House may be interested to know that several Chinese actors had bought out or tried to buy strategic German firms until that point.
I also want to press the Minister on why our categories of these sectors are so relatively narrow. The German legislation now takes in companies that produce software for power plants, energy and water supply networks, electronic payments, hospitals and transport systems, in addition to the normal national security considerations. The German Government widened their legislation because, as they put it at the time,
“German companies are often forced to compete with businesses in countries that have a ‘less open economic system than ours’.”
No prizes for guessing which country that might be, given the Statement yesterday. I hope that the Minister will take a closer look at what can be done to secure our broader national interests in the forthcoming Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. I will come at this from a slightly different perspective but I agree with many of the concerns that she expressed.
In his clear and informative introduction, the Minister expressed what I think many would regard as a surprising faith in the intentions of most investors in this country. He suggested that they are not motivated by opportunism. That is not the perspective of many when they look at the hedge funds, the tax haven-based investment vehicles and the non-taxpaying, faceless, unidentifiable ownership that characterises so many sectors of our economy.
I offer the Green Party’s support to the regret Motion. There are concerns about the process, the way this is being approached and the reach of it, but none the less, it is clear that we need far more control over and focus on the ownership of key sectors of our economy. Does this SI reflect a broader change in the Government’s view and perspective? I do not expect to see it in this emergency action, but in the forthcoming legislation, will the Government consider dealing with crucial issues such as food supplies, transport companies and the companies that supply so many of our outsourced public services?
Taking the example of food, if the Government wish to explore this further, I point them to the excellent work of the Canadian scholar, Dr Jennifer Clapp, who has looked at how the ownership of food companies, agrochemical companies and seed companies has led to a lack of competitiveness, global issues, a lack of transparency and real threats to the global food supply; of course, the same threats apply to the UK. Are the Government looking to deal with those?
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am a strong believer in the virtues of competition and an open economy. I was alarmed to hear of the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. I would like the Minister to follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said.
I am also, and have always been, a long-term sceptic about the so-called free market in corporate control. There seems to be very little evidence of mergers bringing long-term benefits, except for those who take fees from them and for senior managers who benefit from inflated share prices. I support policies that throw grit in the wheels of the M&A process, such as restricting voting rights to long-term shareholders.
There are also public interest arguments where interventions by government can be justified on specific grounds. That is why I support these measures, but with some important qualifications. First, ministerial interventions must be transparent and on the basis of clear criteria, with a published assessment of the reasoning and an assessment of costs and benefits. The Huawei affair has strengthened my scepticism about ministerial interventions. Secondly, this needs a new, strong public body that is independent of Ministers to advise on the public interest. Thirdly, employees should have stronger rights in these circumstances. Fourthly, when we take action on public interest grounds, I urge us to act in concert with our European friends; otherwise, Britain could easily end up the victim of retaliation.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the order, which I support. I note that section 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum confirms that Section 58 is amended to specify an ability
“to combat, and to mitigate the effects of, public health emergencies as a public interest consideration … in mergers and acquisitions”.
The Government already have the power to investigate mergers and takeovers for reasons of, inter alia, national security, market dominance, protecting supply chains and UK financial security.
As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned, France, Germany, Italy and Spain all have in place controls such as this. The EU is worried that foreign investors may try to acquire European companies in order to take control of key technologies, infrastructure and expertise. A focus of the EU regulator is to counter unfair competition from state-owned firms, which are the backbone of economies such as China. European companies have long been in the sights of Chinese rivals, including major state-owned enterprises. In the current public health crisis and economic downturn, they are more than ever vulnerable to hostile bids from overseas. In his response, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to liaise with our European neighbours to benefit from collective conformity?
The priority of any Government is the safeguarding and security of the people. Managing the Covid-19 pandemic is a case in point. Enabling vaccine research and protecting the ownership of PPE manufacturers and similar supply chain organisations are vital. Hostile takeovers instigated not by genuine business progress and development but an intent to damage or otherwise UK interests must be prevented.
The UK has been threatened with retaliation and retribution for the banning of Huawei technology on security grounds. Will the Minister confirm that these extra measures are essential to ward off the threat of asymmetric attacks and cyberattacks which may diminish our Covid-19 response?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying out the Government’s case for the addition of a public interest consideration to the Enterprise Act 2002, with specific reference to maintaining in the UK the capability to combat and mitigate the effects of public health emergencies. I acknowledge that much has been done by the Government to protect UK citizens during these long and weary months of the pandemic, and we must always be on the alert for any loopholes in legislation. The situation as it already stands allows the Government to intervene in qualifying mergers and acquisitions on the grounds of national security and media plurality, and the previous Labour Government added financial stability following the financial crisis.
It must be acknowledged that foreign investment has provided many valued jobs in recent years, especially in Northern Ireland. It is imperative that we keep an open economy, especially when we endeavour to present ourselves to the world as a global player seeking beneficial free trade agreements with many other countries, having removed ourselves from the shackles of the EU.
I accept that many formerly successful businesses of varying sizes have suffered in terms of financial profitability because of the present Covid-19 crisis and may be vulnerable to takeover bids. This addition to Section 58 of the Act allows the Government to intervene to maintain the UK’s capability to stop unscrupulous investors advancing self-interest at the expense of the welfare of the British public. Therefore, I feel the measure proposed is timely and appropriate, and I support it.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome these two orders, but I want to raise an issue that is referenced in paragraph 8 in the accompanying report from the SLSC, of which I am a member. The issue is the lower turnover test threshold of more than £1 million below which the Government cannot intervene. Why is there any lower threshold at all when it comes to protecting the public interest in the relevant sectors?
It is entirely possible that a business with a turnover of less than £1 million could in other respects be of sufficient public interest for the Government to be justified in intervening. Recent new tech start-ups, for instance, or spin-out enterprises, perhaps from a university vaccine research programme, could well have a turnover of under £1 million but none the less meet the public interest criteria.
The £1 million threshold is even more questionable when one factors in the detrimental impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on business turnover and consequently the increased vulnerability of some businesses to predatory and opportunistic mergers and takeovers. A relevant business that had a turnover in excess of £1 million and was meeting the necessary criteria for intervention at the start of the year could now have a turnover of less than £1 million because of the pandemic; hence the simple question I pose to the Minister: why have a minimum threshold at all?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am still struggling a little to work out how the coronavirus crisis directly links into the dangers of malign investment in the artificial intelligence sector, which was cited by the Minister. Nevertheless, I welcome this move.
I have long called for more state intervention in particular in our newer and more vulnerable sectors in the way in which Germany and France have for the past 30 or 40 years been able to protect their industries better than we have. To catch up, as we leave the European Union, will make us more robust and competitive internationally.
The Government are taking a lot of more state powers to themselves—this is an example of that—but that needs to be counterbalanced by transparency. Transparency means not just that things are clean but that things are seen to be clean. It is imperative that the Government show the way in ensuring that there is full transparency of the Government overall and of individual Ministers in relation to every decision made in future in relation to, for example, mergers and takeovers.
Overall, this move to further state intervention is to be welcomed. One could call it rather Wilsonian in its style, and therefore it should be acceptable to everyone across the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s regret Motion. The essence of my noble friend’s Motion is that, while broadly welcoming the intention of these orders, there are grave concerns about the controls available and when temporary becomes permanent in all but name. It all seems very unsatisfactory.
I concur with many earlier speakers’ concerns about our ability to protect the population’s access to sufficient supplies of vaccines and PPE. The record of the Government in the present pandemic is nothing to be proud of. With the horrific death rate, which is the worst in the whole of Europe, the Government have to do much better and should be ashamed of their record. I recall SMEs which produce PPE in the UK being unable to find markets in the NHS and instead selling their goods abroad.
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about the CMA, its perceived weakness and when we can expect its new chair to be appointed. I share those concerns. Will the Minister address those points in his reply and, in particular, comment on the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, from his position as chair? I agree with my noble friend Lord Mann’s comments that many other countries in Europe, such as Germany, have done a better job of protecting their businesses than we have in the UK.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has withdrawn from the debate, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the clear and comprehensive manner in which he introduced these orders. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Lansley apropos the urgent need for an updated and applicable definition of “media” in the Act, and I ask my noble friend how this work is progressing. Will the Government consider looking at the level of public investment in businesses and at whether they would be in need of, and would take a positive attitude towards having, protection against hostile mergers and acquisitions activity? There have been a number of high-profile cases of incredibly successful businesses that have been well run but built largely on public money. Should there not be the potential to block these takeovers, with the Government, in investing in these companies with public money, taking a more direct stake? This could add to potential work on a sovereign wealth fund. I would welcome my noble friend’s comments on that.
Finally, will the Government consider adding to the list of areas that he set out? Of course it should include AI and cyber, but will he and the Government consider looking at distributed ledger technology, nanotechnology and some specific aspects of financial technology—fintech—which I believe would also warrant being included in the list? Not least of those is distributed ledger technology, which is likely to become one of the most powerful forces globally and on which the UK has a real edge, which is worth protecting. Perhaps in conclusion I may gently point my noble friend towards the report that I wrote in 2017: Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good. I would be very happy to discuss this with him and would welcome his comments on these areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords I want to speak to the share of supply order and take one area of interest to me as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee: cryptographic authentication. It is an area where the security services might have a particular interest and might have to intervene in the national interest, and an area where we might be particularly vulnerable.
I believe that, following the introduction of this order, which will survive in one form or another well beyond the Covid crisis, the services should produce a report annually for the ISC to consider, setting out in some detail not only their activities in monitoring this area but their actions which they believe to be countering inappropriate activity. For example, government action arising out of hysteria over China has to be monitored, because it must not go unchecked. It would then be for the chairman of the ISC, following consultation with the services and then the committee as a whole, to decide what material could be included in the annual ISC report to Parliament, with suitable redactions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I want to focus very specifically on facial recognition and other biometric recognition systems. When I led a Question for Short Debate in your Lordships’ House on facial recognition, many of your Lordships voiced concern, or at least expressed the need for wider debate, on this topic. Some drew special attention to the capabilities of the private sector, which are frequently much more advanced than any system used by our police and security services.
For that reason, will the Minister confirm that facial and biometric recognition will fall under the category of artificial intelligence in this order and will therefore be subject to enhanced scrutiny in any potential takeover or merger? Will facial and biometric recognition be specifically addressed in the upcoming national security and investment Bill? In addition, can he make clear what is being done to prevent these technologies being used by state or non-state actors who might wish to do us harm?
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has withdrawn from the debate, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
I support my noble friend Lord Stevenson in his request for pre-legislative scrutiny of the national security and investment Bill. If the Minister cannot reply today, can he write to us all?
As a former member of the ISC, I fully support any efforts by the Government to ensure that British industries relevant for national security purposes cannot be acquired by hostile states. However, I see a potential danger from the wide powers being given to the Secretary of State, which, in a national security setting, are exercised largely behind closed doors, with submissions from the MoD and the intelligence agencies. Therefore, I hope that any national security intervention will come under the scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, enabling, we hope, effective scrutiny of the Secretary of State, even with Chris Grayling as its chair.
Can the Minister ensure that there is no way in which the real ownership of the companies involved will be kept secret by registering them in one of the overseas territories or Crown dependencies, making it difficult to detect potential security threats? Finally, there is a possibility that the Government will use these enhanced powers to implement a “jobs for the boys” approach to mergers and acquisitions. We have seen what can happen when friends of Dominic Cummings are given these kinds of contracts. I hope that we can have an assurance that we will not see that kind of thing in this instance.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, taking part in the Business and Planning Bill has pushed me to venture into this debate, and I add my small voice of support for the Motion of Regret in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we should remain mindful of our international obligations towards developing countries with regard to potential vaccine development.
I also agree with the sentiment that the Government must ensure that they have the capacity and confidence to guard against future threats. I understand their wish to be self-reliant when dealing with current and future public health crises in order to safeguard the welfare of the British people and intervene on grounds of public interest.
The new categories of businesses to be subject to the share of supply test are justified—although I would like to see the list widened—given the terrible complications and supply shortfalls that we have experienced during the pandemic. As a nation, we must be more alert and prepared for any potential second wave and other detrimental advances arising from external hostile forces that might be a peril to our national interest.
I also welcome the lowering of the thresholds, but I agree with noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, about not having any. Indeed, this might have been a factor that led to companies in the UK producing PPE and other medical instruments and making them available abroad while our capacity was drastically low.
I accept that, under these extenuating circumstances, for matters related to the availability of vaccines, essential food products, pharmaceuticals, and internet and communication infrastructures, we should intervene to protect our public interest. At the same time, any interventions must be transparent and beyond retrospective reproach, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Liddle, unless it is a matter of defence and state security.
Finally, a question arises about the financial impact of government intervention and how we safeguard parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight. Should the Government need to assist or rescue companies and intervene in merger processes, they should do so with thorough consultation with relevant trade organisations—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit for speeches.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I give a “better late than never” welcome to these statutory instruments, because protection of national interests, such as security of critical supply, critical infrastructure and defence of our science, technology and intellectual property base, has for too long been neglected and sacrificed on the altar of “We can buy it in” or, worse, takeovers have been celebrated as “evidence that Britain’s low-tax economy could attract major foreign investment”, which I believe is what some said of Pfizer’s proposed takeover of AstraZeneca in 2014.
It is a good thing that Vince Cable did not see it that way, and I recall that the present Prime Minister did not see it that way either. It is a pity that the Government’s public interest powers to cover the pharmaceutical and science sectors were not extended then, as was mooted. After the financial crisis, the financial sector was added for public interest protection. After a health crisis,
“public health and crisis mitigation capabilities”
have been added, and the farrago of Huawei and Hong Kong alerts us to reasons to have threshold-lowering measures for sensitive technology.
I see the creep towards a more comprehensive policy, but we are too slow. Other countries took faster measures to stop the buy-up of companies while they were cheap, a measure more needed in the UK as takeover is easier. I understand the concern not to overstep, but I share the broad sentiments expressed in the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that having good time and opportunity to scrutinise the national security and investment Bill would assist in finding the right balance for strategic economic security, preserving international reputation and even reducing risk of retaliation.
We have had a White Paper consultation already, and reports abound that further changes may be in train. However, there are opponents, especially in those business quarters that make significant money out of the UK’s easy takeover regimes. Do not listen to them: being a global investment and business centre does not have to be on a “UK for sale” basis. Many countries are sprucing up their FDI requirements in the light of experience, and they do not all have minimum turnover requirements, which I also challenge, as did the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Having a broader set of FDI requirements does not undermine the key words from the Enterprise Act that there should be transparent and predictable decision-making. It is important to retain that, and the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle, are relevant to that.
I like the headlines from the new Dutch FDI proposals: ensuring continuity of vital processes; integrity and exclusivity of data and know-how; and avoiding the creation of strategic dependency. We have already ended up with strategic dependency in our energy sector— a matter that has exercised minds in several Lords committees, including the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, in its 2017 report on electricity. I welcome the inclusion of intellectual property in the additional share of supply order. However, like the Dutch, I would have included know-how, which has all too easily been lost in the past. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about IP held in separate small entities. It is of course a subject dear to my heart, as a patent attorney, and I have also had the dubious pleasure of coping with the vagaries of MoD secrecy orders on intellectual property, making me well aware of the difficulty that there can be in assessing relevance—which will be reflected in any government team trying to assess strategic issues.
Although couched in terms of security and investment, these are matters of competition policy, which is a sensitive issue on the international stage. Even for a body as strong, well-established and independent as the EU Commission competition body, it works best when there is political consensus. While I was ECON chair in the European Parliament, I was deeply involved in competition policy, bringing about procedural changes and new legislation. That happened largely because the Commissioner recognised the advantages of parliamentary support, not least in its external representation. Now, as the UK forges an independent competition policy—notwithstanding what may or may not be in a Brexit agreement—and hones foreign direct investment policy, I hope that the Government will draw on support from consensus. Competition disputes can last longer than Governments, and the undermining of strategic interests certainly does.
Lord Callanan
First, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable and well-informed contributions to this debate, with the normal high standard of speeches that we have come to expect in this House.
Both these orders are reasonable, proportionate and essential. As has been said, we live in unprecedented times and it is right that, during such times, the Government reassess their powers to intervene in mergers and acquisitions. This crisis has revealed the need for the powers contained in these orders. Government must be able to act to protect our public health emergency capabilities and to scrutinise worrying mergers in the sensitive sectors we have set out. It is worth noting that many comparable countries have taken similar actions, as indeed was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Chidgey, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and a number of other noble Lords.
In recent weeks and months, we have seen allies such as Australia and Japan, as well as some of our European partners, update their investment screening regimes to ensure that risks around public health capability can be mitigated. Countries around the world, including the USA and Australia, and a number of our European allies, have also taken similar steps to protect their national security from opportunistic investment in sensitive sectors. We are not alone in taking these measures.
As I have said, these orders do not impact on our commitment to an open, international economy. We have always enthusiastically welcomed inward investment and championed international trade, and we will continue to do so.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that we do not expect to need to use these powers frequently, but we will not hesitate to use them if and when the need arises. We have no wish to stifle creativity, nor to burden business with regulatory red tape—quite the opposite. We believe that these measures are a proportionate reaction to the risks before us. We do not intend these orders to deter genuine investment and we do not believe that they will. Indeed, these orders are in keeping with our approach to maintaining an attractive, secure environment for international investors.
I repeat that the amendment to Section 23A of the 2002 Act is a short-term measure that will apply until more fundamental reforms can be taken forward through the national security and investment Bill. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Reid and Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the NSI Bill. It is right that the Government take a considered and evidence-based approach to long-term reform in this area. As was pointed out, the consultation took place in 2018, and for various reasons the Bill was not introduced at the time. It is a top priority for this Government, but it is right that, in the current circumstances and environment, we look again at the policy to ensure that it is fit for purpose. We are of course in a different geopolitical climate from that of 2018, and it is vital that the Bill provides the right protections. It was announced in the Queen’s Speech for this Session and it will be brought forward in due course. I am afraid that that is as specific as I can be on timing.
A number of questions were posed to me and I will try to deal with as many as possible in the few minutes available to me. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether this will allow for intervention on purely economic grounds. The answer to that question is no. The company involved must be able to provide capability in the UK to combat or to mitigate the effects of a public health emergency.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked whether the public health measures would persist once the NSI Bill comes into force. The answer to that is yes. We intend to keep the public health emergency interest consideration as part of the Enterprise Act, so that is permanent, but the national security measure will be repealed by the NSI Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, asked about the threshold. The lower threshold of £1 million is considered to be the appropriate level of turnover to capture those businesses that, although fairly small, have a critical role in matters that may affect national security. We believe that that threshold is right.
The noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Liddle and Lord Kennedy, pushed their luck—as is traditional—and went on to subjects which were not directly relevant to the matters under consideration in this debate. Nevertheless, I always try to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lords, so I will say a few words on the CMA. We already have a highly regarded competition regime and it is the role of the CMA to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, business and the economy. We will be appointing a new chairman in due course; the noble Lord will be the first to hear it about it when we do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked a very good question: why these particular sectors? It is always difficult to define such things but we believe that these sectors are where the risks from mergers that are not covered by the existing thresholds are the highest, and where it is important to act quickly to deal with these issues. Due to the current economic disruption, companies in such sectors may find themselves in difficulty; it is right that the Government are able to step in for national security reasons if required. There is always a difficult balance to strike but we believe that these measures are proportionate and strike the right balance with economic investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked about cyber acts. The measures in respect of cryptographic authentication are indeed intended to help defend against cyberattacks, as are the reduced thresholds on quantum and military. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, talked about state intervention; I maintain the point that the orders do not provide a direct burden on business but rather enable the Government to intervene, if necessary, on a public interest consideration. We believe that this is a proportionate measure to mitigate against the risk.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, returned to one of her favourite subjects: facial recognition. I can tell her that some parts of facial recognition technology will indeed be covered by artificial intelligence and cryptographic authentication. She will be delighted to hear, I am sure, that facial recognition will be covered under the NSI Bill; I look forward to debating the matter further with her then.
To conclude, these orders form key parts of our Covid-19 response and learning. They ensure that the UK can maintain the capability to combat and mitigate the effects of public health emergencies in respect of qualifying takeovers, and they ensure that the Government can intervene more readily in areas of business where mergers implicate the security of our nation. I repeat that they in no way affect our openness to foreign investment; we continue to welcome genuine investment from around the world into this country. Rather, they reflect the fact that our economy can thrive only when the health and security of the British people are protected. With that, I commend these orders to the House.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply) (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That this House regrets that the Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2020 and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2020 include permanent measures while only intended to mitigate risks against company mergers in the short term, and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to subject the forthcoming National Security and Investment Bill to urgent pre-legislative scrutiny so as to ensure that it has appropriate powers to ensure that all significant mergers and acquisitions in all sectors of the economy are subject to comprehensive scrutiny by the competition authorities as regards their impact on consumers.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all speakers who have participated in this debate. It may have been rapid fire and we have had to cover a lot of ground individually but some very good points were made, several of which were noted and responded to by the Minister.
We had several contributions on the need for early sight of, and time to debate, the forthcoming Bill. In particular, my noble friend Lord Reid worried about the inclusion of temporary measures within permanent legislation, something that was also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord German. Other noble Lords raised other issues which ought to be considered in the forthcoming Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, raised the need for lower limit for turnover; this was not welcomed by the Minister but I think the noble Earl made a very good point. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a point that I support entirely on the need to revisit media takeovers; as the last experience shows, there was time for this part of the statute to be reviewed.
My noble friends Lord Adonis, Lord Liddle and Lord Kennedy raised concerns about the CMA as it goes through the transition to a new chair. Perhaps the Minister could write—more fully than he was able to do when he responded—about some of the more detailed questions.
Four issues were raised by my regret Motion. The first was the difficulty of securing scrutiny without sight of the national security and investment Bill—the Minister has said in response that this is a top priority, but we do not have a date; the best we have is that it will be with us “in due course”. I take that as a failure to get anything out of that. We have not seen much of the content of the Bill, even though the Minister has agreed that things have changed since 2018 so we can imagine that there will be some adjustments; so, I failed to get anything out of him on that. On the question of whether there should be pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps he could write to us. I really cannot see the case for not having that in play; it would seem to give the Government a chance to see the sorts of responses to this type of legislation that are necessary without having to make a final commitment; this has always proved useful in the past. Finally, on my fourth point about the role of consumers within the process, all we know is that the new chairman of the CMA is being appointed; there were no answers to the specific questions that I raised.
So, we have not got answers to the regret Motion as tabled, but we have had a very good debate. I think we can say that we have responded well to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s request that this issue be drawn to the attention of the House. It certainly has been.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. Others are participating remotely but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the House is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply. Before calling the Minister, I invite the Whip to say something about timing for this debate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make a correction to today’s list. The timing for this debate is one hour, not one-and-a-half hours. I urge noble Lords to please keep to their four-minute times, so that we can get through everybody within the hour. Thank you.
Competition Appeal Tribunal (Coronavirus) (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before us grants the Competition Appeal Tribunal a temporary exception to Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act and Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, allowing it to broadcast hearings to members of the public via either video or audio link. This draft order is to be made under Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice.
For noble Lords who are not familiar with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, more generally known as the CAT, it is a specialist tribunal whose principal functions are to hear and decide appeals of decisions by the Competition and Markets Authority and other economic regulators concerning infringement of UK and EU competition law, and appeals to regulatory decisions in the utility sector. The CAT is sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but as the power to make the order is conferred on the Lord Chancellor it has been drafted, and laid before Parliament, by the Ministry of Justice.
As noble Lords will be aware, the pandemic means that courts and tribunals throughout this country must adhere to public health measures. To ensure the continued administration of justice throughout this crisis, the Government introduced the Coronavirus Act 2020, which made provisions to allow courts and tribunals to conduct hearings via electronic means, including recording and broadcasting hearings to members of the public. However, given the urgency and speed at which these measures were introduced, the Coronavirus Act 2020 did not make provisions for the CAT but only for the tribunals within the unified tribunal system. The CAT is therefore currently unable to broadcast hearings to members of the public.
The CAT’s rules of procedure state that hearings must be carried out in public, subject to some limited exceptions. The amendments made by this draft order will allow the public to observe hearings remotely, thereby reducing the risk of infection and ensuring the core principles of open and transparent justice are maintained. I conclude by confirming that the draft order is a temporary amendment and it will expire on 25 March 2022, coinciding with the expiration of the Coronavirus Act 2020. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition. The Competition Appeals Tribunal may well be more prominent in the near future, for two reasons. First, if we are facing the economic slump that is predicted due to the pandemic, we are likely to see a number of firms go to the wall unless merged with larger organisations. This may well lead to interventions by the Competition and Markets Authority on the issue of unfair competition or dominance of markets. As the noble and learned Lord said a moment ago, appeals from the rulings of the CMA go to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Secondly, when we finally leave the European Union at the end of the transitional period, in January, the tribunal will lose jurisdiction over cases involving the two competition articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: article 101, on anti-competitive agreements; and article 102, dealing with abuses of a dominant market position. The tribunal will lose the right to refer issues for a ruling by the European Court of Justice.
Nevertheless, British companies or individuals whose activities may affect trade within the EU will still remain subject to European competition law. This will include such sectors as agriculture, fisheries and transport. I assume that any conflicts or problems will be litigated in Europe. I fear this will lead to a loss of our leadership role in developing competition law, not only in Europe but in the world. The tribunal’s excellent president, Sir Peter Roth, has contributed much to spreading principles of competition law derived in this country at forums and seminars worldwide.
The nature of the issues litigated in the tribunal are broad. The tribunal is a specialist judicial body with cross-disciplinary expertise in law, economics, business and accountancy. That is reflected in the composition of the hearings, where two members with diverse backgrounds—in business and academia—sit with a High Court judge as chairman.
Its function is to hear and decide cases involving competition and economic regulatory issues. It deals with some 25 to 30 cases a year, some of which are multifaceted and complex, and others much simpler. The consequences for a firm can be drastic: fines of up to £44 million have been imposed. For the individual it can lead to director disqualification, claims for damages or even criminal proceedings. Many cases require quick decisions: when the viability of a business is at stake, delays may be disastrous. This is recognised by the fast-track procedures within the tribunal’s rules.
I have outlined its scope to indicate that it is obviously highly desirable, on the principle of open justice, that the tribunal sits in public. That is fully recognised. The circumstances in which it can sit without the presence of the public or press are even more limited than in the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal or First-tier Tribunal. Indeed, it is expressly against the rules of the CAT to sit in private, save in exceptional circumstances. However, the pandemic has meant that hearings have been restricted to parties who are specifically invited to attend a virtual hearing—we are used to that. This is obviously highly unsatisfactory and could lead to legal challenge.
This statutory instrument is limited in scope and in time. We welcome it as it will allow tribunal cases to be heard in the most open and transparent way possible and will facilitate public access and scrutiny. We give it our full support.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the making of the order, but I have a couple of questions for my noble and learned friend the Minister for clarification.
We are advised in the Explanatory Memorandum that it is reasonably common for larger cases heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal to attract 100 or more attendees, including multiple parties to the appeal as well as members of the public and journalists. It is welcome, therefore, that the statutory instrument ensures that the tribunal will be able to revert to its usual practice of allowing public access to proceedings, rather than operating on a closed basis of remote hearings using video-link arrangements. Can my noble and learned friend say how this new system differs from the cloud video platform which is being rolled out by Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to all Crown Courts in England and Wales, and why it is considered superior to that?
Articles 5 to 7 of the regulations make provision about when recording is to be permitted in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Who will actually decide the terms of the contract with the broadcaster? Will it be BEIS, as the parent government department, or the tribunal itself? Will those terms ensure that the system is guaranteed to be available at a time required by the tribunal and for a period of time determined by the tribunal chair?
I ask because of the difficulties faced by this House, on occasion, with the availability of the broadcast system through which the public can see our work. The broadcasters are working very hard indeed to ensure that our proceedings are both seen and heard. However, our system has shown how vital it is to ensure that contracts provide for open-ended access to broadcasting.
Monday’s proceedings on the Business and Planning Bill are a case in point. The House had expected to sit until 9.30 pm but was permitted to go beyond that time. By 10.30 pm, we had still not reached the halfway point in the groups of amendments to be debated that day, but the broadcast period was abruptly suspended in the middle of somebody’s speech because the time permitted under the agreement with the broadcasters had expired. It meant that the rest of the debate was postponed to yesterday, and therefore reduced the amount of time available for the Agriculture Bill. As an ex-Chief Whip, my sympathy clearly lies with the current Chief Whip, who is trying his best to ensure that legislation gets debated but can also be passed in time.
Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that there has not been
“any formal consultation in light of the urgency with which it needed to be made and its temporary nature”.
That is entirely understandable. However, does my noble and learned friend think that it would be right to discuss with the tribunal whether it might be useful to convene its user group, after three months or so, to hear from it about the efficacy of the system? The tribunal’s website states:
“The User Group meets twice a year to discuss points relating to the practical operation of the Tribunal.”
However, it does not appear to have met since October 2016. I hope that that is merely a reflection of a failure to update the website and the minutes on it, rather than a reflection of the tribunal’s failure to convene members of the group for well over three years.
I look forward to the responses of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too support this order—how could I not do so?
As the Minister will recall, I took what was then seen as the revolutionary step of promoting the filming and broadcasting of proceedings in the Scottish courts when I was the Lord President. That was in 1992, no less than 28 years ago. I was helped by the fact that there was then—and I believe still is—no statutory prohibition against these things in Scotland. Therefore, it was entirely up to me to decide whether it should be permitted.
I was just as much in favour of the live broadcasting of proceedings in the Supreme Court when the Law Lords moved there from this House in 2009. The success of that venture can be seen every day when that court is in session by logging on to its website. I recall watching the Minister himself presenting an argument, with his usual skill, on behalf of the Government in the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, and enjoying the way the court responded to what he was saying just as much as he did.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was there on my screen when the court was sitting virtually earlier this week. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that these performances are not among the most entertaining things one can watch online. But there is no doubt as to their educational value, and their value in making court proceedings more accessible to the public. Technology has advanced hugely since my first venture 28 years ago, and so has the acceptability of this use of it among judges as well as the public.
Nevertheless, it took me some time to work out why this order was being made. The Explanatory Notes were not very informative. I wondered whether there was something especially compelling about proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal that made broadcasting them especially desirable. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, which I had eventually worked out for myself: that the purpose of the order is to fill in a gap left open by the Coronavirus Act 2020, which permitted during the present crisis, when public access to proceedings is severely limited, the recording and broadcasting of proceedings before various courts and tribunals, but not this one. It is obviously right that this tribunal should not be left out.
However, I have two questions for the Minister, which I hope he may be able to answer in writing if he cannot do so now. First, how much use has been made so far of the freedom to record and broadcast that is now available in courts and other tribunals? Secondly, is thought being given to making this relaxation of the prohibitions a permanent feature of the way we make our proceedings available to the public? After all, in most cases room for the public in courts and tribunals is fairly limited, and travel to these courts is restricted. The limits of that freedom have been carefully spelled out in Articles 6 to 8 of this order, following the wording of the Coronavirus Act itself. The interests of justice are preserved, and there really is no risk that the freedom will be abused.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and today to hear of his trailblazing role, of which I was not aware, in digital transparency both in Scotland and in the Supreme Court.
This is sensible order, which I support. It was an anomaly that CAT hearings were closed to the public and this will remedy it. It is a Covid-related provision and it expires on 25 March 2022—a slightly depressing prospect that we are planning for the impact of the disease to go on that long. My noble, learned and distinguished friend is in distinguished legal company today, and I look forward to his response. I certainly support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Anelay, and in particular her perceptive advice on the management agreements with broadcasters. I know that with sport back on our screens, broadcasters are back in demand.
I take this opportunity to ask for an update on competition matters and any plans the Government have for changing the competition appeal arrangements. I know there is concern that they allow companies with deep pockets to spin cases out, but, as discussed in last year’s insightful debate on competition on 8 May, I am not convinced of the case for change, except in so far as this is needed for Brexit reasons. I have been struck by how competition is omnipresent in so much of regulatory life; now, for example, even the PRA is doing a review. With my wide experience of regulating and being regulated, Issues with tech giants are best dealt with by proper application of the merger rules and in the forthcoming online harms Bill, which I look forward to seeing. I am not convinced that any extra powers should be granted to existing regulators.
I am, however, sure that there is always room for improved efficiency in the Courts Service. I was always struck by how the—to some dreaded—European Court of Justice in Luxembourg used paper to reduce the length of expensive oral hearings. Covid-19—today’s issue—has inspired efficiency through the use of digital, document websites and video, and I am sure that some of that change can be permanent.
I appreciate that the CAT has a low throughput, but I would be interested to hear from my noble and learned friend how the backlogs elsewhere in the justice system are being dealt with and whether there are any problems in the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for bringing this order before us this afternoon. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I understood that agreement is to be reached on what form arbitration on competition and other matters will take after the transition period has ended. Can my noble and learned friend update the House this afternoon on where we stand on competition and other laws arising in tribunals where the case is pleading the EU law under which the competition agreement was entered into? To which chamber will the referral be made?
The next question is not dissimilar, but slightly different, to that raised by my noble friend Lady Anelay, who asked about broadcasting restrictions. We have capacity in your Lordships’ House for a maximum of 50 Members. What is the maximum in any hearing of a tribunal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and how many can attend remotely? There might be appeals regarding the outstanding refunds of airline passenger tickets following multiple cancellations, owing to coronavirus and passengers being unable to complete their journey. Obviously, at the moment it is very difficult for airlines to make good those refunds until we all start flying again.
Looking ahead, when does my noble and learned friend expect the Competition Appeal Tribunal to start meeting as normal? If for any reason these arrangements have to remain in place, will he return to the House to extend the life of this order? The Explanatory Memorandum refers to 10 new locations. Are they just for CATs or for all courts and tribunals? With that, and subject to what I am sure will be my noble and learned friend’s reasonable answers, I very much welcome the order before us.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of this statutory instrument. I agree that this anomaly in the coronavirus legislation had to be corrected to make provision for these hearings in the CAT. I note that the 21st report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee provided a short account of this draft statutory instrument, effectively stating that closed hearings are
“contrary to CAT’s Rules of Procedure”—
an issue that the Minister raised in his introduction.
I have several questions which focus on that issue, and one outside it. Coming from Northern Ireland, I realise that this legislation does not cover the competences of the devolved institutions. Perhaps the Minister could say what arrangements are being made for such tribunal hearings in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Can the Minister say whether there are cases outstanding because of the need to regularise the situation, or are we approving this statutory instrument retrospectively? If cases are outstanding, how many and for how long?
If coronavirus disappears, will this legislation, which will remain on the statute book until 25 March 2022 as provided for in the sunset clause, be brought back earlier for amendment or deletion, or is there a likelihood in the “new normal”, with digitisation, of recording and broadcasting being continued?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I was wondering about capacity issues in respect of broad- casting. Will it be able to take more than 50 participants? Many competition cases have lots of people who are deeply interested in them.
How many cases were held in closed proceedings contrary to CAT rules and procedures, which require hearings to be held in public, but could not have happened in public because they did not meet the current legislative requirements until after the approval of this SI today?
I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said about the economic slump that will probably result from the Covid pandemic, which could lead to many cases of unfair competition and mergers and amalgamations. Will the competition tribunal have the capacity to deal with such issues? If the Minister cannot answer my questions today, perhaps he could write to me at a later date.
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is hard to argue against this measure. It makes sense to widen access to the courts in this way, particularly at a time when we have a huge backlog of cases across the board.
However, there are a number of issues that we need to think about. The problem with a crisis such as the one we are in is that the measures we adopt in an emergency become longer-term without the usual process of thinking through how we use video and such measures in our courts generally, as well as in these kinds of cases specifically. I raised in a previous debate issues relating to terrorism and video. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister how the use of data from feeds will be governed and what ethical frameworks are in place both in this context as well as more generally in an age where one could take the data from courts and train AI based on the outcomes of those cases to spot who is guilty and who is not just from facial movements, which might ultimately deny fair trials and access to natural justice if a future Government decided to use that data. It is important that we know what we are getting ourselves into as we widen the use of this technology in these environments.
I have heard reports about people who are vulnerable who are caught up in cases, particularly in more serious criminal cases, where violence or intimidation is involved. They may struggle to use video in order to operate well in court. Often, facial expressions from their lawyers can provide reassurance. A lot of the things that are not possible in a Zoom format meeting—as we all know—are crucial to enabling somebody to handle emotionally the unfamiliar environment of a court. Whistleblowers and others may be vulnerable in such cases. They may find themselves very alone and very nervous as they give their testimony. I would like to hear from the Minister what safeguards are in place to counterbalance the lack of that reassurance and emotional, social contact in such situations. Will cases where there is a risk of this be given priority over those which are more straightforward and where the performance of somebody testifying over video with a lack of support around them is less important?
It is wise to move forward with this measure, but it would be unwise to leave unanswered these questions and others that have been raised in this debate just because we are in the middle of an emergency.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this order as a way of ensuring that proceedings of the CAT continue to be in public given that the usual public access is constrained by the Covid-19 crisis.
As the Minister has explained, the provisions of the Coronavirus Act provided for broadcasting of a wide variety of court and tribunal proceedings, which has arguably been successful. This SI rightly addresses the anomaly that has been pointed out that proceedings of the CAT are not covered by this legislation. So, at present, hearings of the CAT are proceeding remotely but effectively on a closed basis, which, the Minister seemed to agree, is in breach of Rule 99(1) of the CAT rules to the effect that every hearing should be public except where confidential information is being considered. That breach could, theoretically at least, open the system to challenge.
However, in my view, the arrangements set out in the SI should not be restricted to the currency of this crisis but should become a permanent and expected feature of the CAT subject to the safeguards in this order. Indeed, I would go further. On 8 June, we debated the broadcasting of sentencing remarks in criminal cases and of Court of Appeal hearings in family cases. Along with many noble Lords, I expressed my long-held view that broadcasting of court proceedings should be substantially extended on the ground that open justice is generally better justice.
The same principle applies to tribunals just as it does to court proceedings, and I would argue that broadcasting should be permissible unless there is a countervailing interest to the contrary, whether to protect necessary privacy or legitimate confidentiality, to meet genuine concerns for the protection of witnesses, jurors or others, or otherwise in the interests of justice.
The CAT’s hearings are of widespread and legitimate public interest, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out. Its more important cases often attract the attendance of 100 or more people, from the parties, the press and the public, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, reminded us. Its cases include appeals from decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority and from regulators, particularly in the telecoms, utilities and transport sectors. The CAT also has an important review function in respect of Ministers’ decisions covering wide areas of the economy. By way of example, recent cases have included disputes concerning the merger of Sainsbury’s and Asda, and the sale of a significant share- holding in Lebedev Holdings Limited to International Media Company.
Of course, CAT hearings are in general already public, and the CAT goes to considerable lengths to make its proceedings accessible by publishing transcripts of hearings on its website. However, the availability of broadcasting technology, particularly over the internet, has the potential to make the processes of justice far more accessible to the public and far better understood—points strongly made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who has been a trailblazer in this area.
I regard the safeguards set out in this SI as admirably succinct and sufficient to protect the interests of justice. The requirements for permission, the assurance that copyright will remain with the tribunal and the limits on what may be recorded will enable recordings to be appropriately controlled and monitored, and the tribunals can be relied on to ensure that they are. Of particular interest in this order is that witness evidence may be recorded and broadcast. Although I entirely accept that in many cases witnesses need protection from excessive publicity, I do not see why that should be the case in most CAT proceedings. That goes particularly for expert witnesses. In my view, these arrangements can be expected to work in the wider public interest and in the long term.
We have been reminded that the expiry of the order is 25 March 2022, when the Coronavirus Act expires. By then, we will have had a good opportunity to consider the impact of broadcasting of CAT hearings. My hope is that the legislation restricting their broadcasting, along with the restrictions on broadcasting of court and tribunal proceedings in general, can at that stage be thoroughly overhauled to ensure that much more open justice is achieved.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Coronavirus Act 2020 made provisions for the use of video and audio technology in courts and some tribunals. However, these do not apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result, remote CAT hearings using videolink arrangements are effectively operating on a closed basis, with access available only by invitation to the parties and other persons who have been notified. This is contrary to CAT’s rule of procedure number 99, which requires hearings to be in public. These hearings therefore run the risk of challenge because they have not been conducted according to the rules. The order removes that risk by granting the CAT temporary power to broadcast its proceedings. The order applies to England and Wales and will expire on 25 March 2022, as we have heard—the same day as the Coronavirus Act expires.
This has been an interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the reason for the order. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke very clearly about the threat of a loss of leadership by British courts in competition law because of our withdrawal from the EU. He outlined the wide scope of the tribunals and that there is a large interest by specialist groups that can lead to up to 100 people wanting to view and be attendees at court hearings. He also made the interesting point that the CAT’s workload is likely to increase because of coronavirus, leading to more mergers and issues to do with competition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also supported the order. She raised an interesting question about how this differs from CVP, which currently operates in the criminal courts. I remind noble Lords that I sit as a magistrate in London, so I use CVP quite often, but in the family courts we use a mixture of technologies, including Skype for Business and Microsoft Teams, and we will be using CVP in the very near future. So a variety of technologies are available. Can the Minister say anything about the appropriateness of having the flexibility to use the most appropriate technology? It differs for different legal encounters, if I can put it like that.
We heard about the trailblazing role of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the Scottish courts. He and a number of noble Lord asked about the potential permanence of these types of arrangements. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made a very interesting point when he summed up that this should be used as an opportunity for a wider review of giving better access to justice in our courts system up and down the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised a number of interesting points. He asked who would own the feeds and the information. My understanding is that the copyright holder will be the tribunal itself. He also raised questions about using computer technology to look at facial expressions, and raised concerns about emotionally vulnerable people appearing at these hearings. I am very concerned about this in my work in the family court. It might not be so relevant in the CAT, but it is certainly a very relevant question in the family court. We have to consider the appropriateness of giving judgments to people who are remote. They might be alone when we reach decisions in the family court. So it is a very relevant question in the judicial environment in which I operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also asked interesting questions about what the parallel arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be and whether they would be retrospective and start from the same point that the Coronavirus Act started in early March.
This has been an interesting debate. Some real questions have been raised and there are some real opportunities for further reform in the coming years. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to the debate and shall address some of the points raised. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns asked a number of questions. The first was about the numbers who can attend these hearings. In some instances quite a large number may attend, and it will be for the CAT itself to determine what broadcaster and what technology it chooses to employ. There are a variety, but it cannot be said that it will stick only to one—for example, only to CVP, if it chooses that. If there are limitations from the technology, they will be addressed so that appearances and attendance can be expanded if demand outstrips supply. She also raised the question of consulting user groups. Indeed, there is great merit in that, and I am aware that the High Court has had regular communication with those who use the court, to develop and improve the systems it has in place. I have no doubt that the CAT will want to employ a similar approach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to his directions in 1992 with regard to the Court of Session and the High Court in Scotland, which I recollect. He was quite right to observe that there is no statutory prohibition on broadcasting in that way in Scotland. That brings me on to a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. The CAT is a UK tribunal. It may sit, for example, in Edinburgh or Belfast, although generally it will sit in London. This SI is directed at legislation that extends only to England and Wales, and it is not necessary, therefore, to extend legislation in those other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, a similar position applies in respect of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which has its own provisions on broadcasting and, from time to time, sits in Edinburgh, in Belfast and, indeed, in Cardiff. I hope that helps to explain the position there.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, posed two questions. The first was about the extent of the use of this sort of remote technology in our courts and tribunals. It is too early to give precise figures, but in general it has been successfully deployed and has therefore made it possible for us to conduct hearings during this period of the pandemic with greater ease. As for whether these provisions should be made permanent, a point raised not only by the noble and learned Lord, but also by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Ponsonby, no doubt that is a matter that will be under consideration. I am aware that some of the senior judiciary, certainly, are very enthusiastic about these changes becoming permanent as we go forward, at least in some parts of the justice system.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked for an update on competition law and the role of the CAT. That is an area for BEIS rather than the Ministry of Justice, so I would be slow to make any comment, except to say that the Government have committed to consult on the reform proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, on the competition regime as a whole. No doubt that will come forward in due course. I hope that also meets the point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering about what the position will be after the transition period. We will look at the reform proposals. The position with the EU will of course be the subject of negotiation, and I can say no more than that. As to when we will return to normal, as it was termed by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the position is that this SI, like the Coronavirus Act 2020, will expire in March 2022. We hope, of course, that it may be possible to address matters of normality long before then, but we will have to wait and see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also asked about numbers of outstanding cases. At present the CAT has about 61 cases outstanding. During the period before the SI became available, the CAT conducted four hearings via videoconferencing, but they were compliant with the requirements of the CAT, because they were held in public by inviting journalists to attend and inviting others who wished to attend to register an interest so that they could do so. Of course, that was a demanding and cumbersome procedure, and it will be far easier if we can simply proceed on the basis of the provisions in this SI, which will come into force on the day after the SI is approved.
My noble friend Lord Wei raised a number of points. The first was about data, also addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. He also asked about witnesses and vulnerable people giving evidence. In the context of the CAT, it is unusual for oral evidence to be given by witnesses but, where it is given, they tend to be expert witnesses, whether economists, accountants or others, so the issue of vulnerability that he touched on, and which is very real in the context of other proceedings —for example, family and criminal proceedings—does not arise in quite the same way in this circumstance. I hope I have gone some way to address the questions raised by noble Lords. In these circumstances, I commend this draft instrument to the House.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. Others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply.
Channel Islands Measure
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Channel Islands Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I shall give some brief historical and current background to the Channel Islands Measure, then outline its content.
Until the 16th century, the Channel Islands were part of the Church of France and the diocese of Coutances. In 1496, Henry VII obtained a papal bull transferring the islands to the English diocese of Salisbury, but it seems this was not put into effect. The islands finally became part of the Church of England in 1569, when they were transferred to the diocese of Winchester by Order in Council of Elizabeth I. Since then, the Church of England has been the established Church of the islands.
In July 2018, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a commission, chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, whom I am glad is in your Lordships’ hybrid House today, to consider and report on the relationship between the Channel Islands and the wider Church of England. The appointment of the commission followed a breakdown in the relationship between the Channel Islands and the diocese of Winchester. The origins of that unhappy situation concerned the way in which a safeguarding issue from 2008, involving a vulnerable adult, was dealt with.
In the midst of a thorough analysis, and following wide-ranging submissions and meetings, the Archbishop’s commission, in paragraph 19, covers an investigation by Dame Heather Steel—the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The outcome of that investigation, announced on 23 November 2013, was that no disciplinary action was taken against any member of the islands’ clergy. I understand that was on the basis of legal advice, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester did not, as he originally intended, publish Dame Heather’s review.
The Archbishop’s commission reported in September 2019, and concluded that while there remained
“residual affection for the historic attachment to … Winchester”,
the difficulties in the relationship between the islands and the diocese were such that the breakdown was
“too great for it to be retrieved in the foreseeable future.”
Having considered various options, the commission came to the conclusion that the islands should be transferred to the diocese of Salisbury. It pointed to several advantages: access is relatively easy, via Southampton Airport or by ferry to Poole; the capacity of the diocese of Salisbury, having two suffragan bishops in addition to the diocesan bishop, is sufficient. There are historical connections, as I have mentioned, between the islands and Salisbury: the attempted connection in 1496, and the fact that the first bishop to visit the islands and carry out confirmations since the Reformation was the then Bishop of Salisbury in 1818. The diocese of Salisbury today shares legal services with the diocese of Winchester and, given the particular legal context of the islands, it is advantageous to retain that relevant knowledge and experience.
The commission recommended that a Measure should be introduced to enable the transfer from Winchester to Salisbury. The Measure before your Lordships’ House gives effect to the recommendation of the Archbishop’s commission. It also speaks about some other matters relating to the Church of England and the Channel Islands.
Section 1 is the key provision. It provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, attach the Channel Islands to the diocese of Salisbury instead of the diocese of Winchester, and transfer the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester’s jurisdiction in relation to the islands to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury. I should add that both right reverend Prelates and dioceses are content with that outcome, as are the Channel Islands. Section 2 makes consequential amendments to existing Church legislation concerned with the Channel Islands, so that references to Winchester become references to Salisbury.
On Section 3, as noble Lords will know, Jersey and Guernsey are separate legal jurisdictions. Normally, legislation passed by Parliament, including Church legislation, does not automatically extend to the Channel Islands. However, it is often desirable for United Kingdom statute law to be capable of extension to the Channel Islands with the co-operation with the islands’ own legislative bodies. There are established procedures for extending Acts of Parliament and Church Measures to the islands. In the case of Church Measures, the procedure was originally established in 1931. It is an elaborate and time-consuming procedure and, as a result, there is a backlog of Church legislation that ought to be extended to the islands. Section 3 will enable Church legislation to be extended to the islands much more simply under more straightforward procedures established by their respective legislatures. That should mean that the backlog can be cleared and any future delays can be avoided in extending appropriate Church legislation to the islands.
Section 4 makes updating amendments so that eligibility for inclusion on the islands’ church electoral rolls is on the same basis as for church electoral rolls in England. Those rolls, which are island-wide rather than parochial, identify the electorate in elections from the islands to the General Synod of the Church of England. The changes being made include reducing the minimum age for enrolment from 17 to 16 and, as in England, members of other Christian Churches who are prepared to declare that they are also members of the Church of England will be able to be enrolled. The last section, Section 5, provides for the commencement of the Measure and its Short Title.
The Measure was passed with large majorities in all houses of the General Synod, and the Ecclesiastical Committee, some of whose members I am glad are with us this evening, issued a favourable report, which has been laid before the House. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Ecclesiastical Committee was not given the opportunity to consider the report of the investigation carried out by Dame Heather Steel into the handling of safeguarding issues by the church in Jersey.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have taken the unusual step of tabling an amendment of regret to the Motion moved so ably by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, because it is demonstrably clear to me as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee that a senior and distinguished member of the clergy, the very reverend Bob Key, the former Dean of Jersey, had suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the Church of England during the events that led up to the decision on 9 March 2013 to strip him of his commission over the safeguarding issue to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
That followed publication of an investigation carried out for the Winchester diocese by a psychotherapist called Miss Jan Korris. Her report was highly critical of the dean but contained serious flaws. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, said in his brilliant report on the relationship of the Channel Islands to the wider Church of England:
“That there were flaws may, in significant measure, be attributable to the fact that the draft report was published on the diocesan website before the participants could take advantage of the offer provided by Ms Korris to give them the draft report”
before publication.
Adding to the hurt caused to the dean and to others on Jersey, it remained there until 2016 and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the dean never met to discuss it. The dean was reinstated on 28 April 2013, but not before considerable distress was caused to him and his wife and much damage done to the relationship between the diocese of Winchester and the church in Jersey.
In the next month, a further inquiry was commissioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester under the chairmanship of Dame Heather Steel, a former judge of the High Court of Justice and the courts of appeal on Jersey and Guernsey. A full-page advertisement in the name of the right reverend Prelate was inserted in the Jersey Evening Post on 3 August 2013 about the Steel investigation. It included the words:
“upon receipt the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy of the report ... to the Bailiff of Jersey, the Dean of Jersey and the Ministry of Justice.”
Within three months, the right reverend Prelate was able to say that, based on what he had seen of Dame Heather’s findings to date, he would not be taking disciplinary action against any member of the clergy, but had decided not to publish the Steel report. It was not until May 2016 that the Bailiff of Jersey was told that he would not get a copy of the report, and that prompted the response from him that
“the decision will come as a disappointment to many in and outside the islands.”
As someone who knows the Channel Islands well— I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Channel Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group—I can tell the House that that was quite an understatement. The view on Jersey about how their much-loved and respected dean, who served ex officio in the States Assembly and had a commission under letters patent from the Queen, was one of hurt and outrage.
One example—there are many others—is a letter from Senator Sir Philip Bailhache, a former Bailiff, to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on 4 November 2015. It states:
“It is a sad fact that no pleasure has been expressed, either publicly or privately (to the best of my knowledge), by the Bishop of Winchester that the clergy in Jersey have been exonerated.
Furthermore, no expression of regret has ever been forthcoming for the unjustified humiliation and distress visited upon the Dean and his wife.”
A press release issued on 19 May 2016 by the chambers of the Bailiff, William Bailhache—Sir Philip’s brother—stated:
“Dame Heather telephoned the Bailiff this morning as she too had received notice from the Bishop of Winchester’s lawyers of his decision not to publish her report. She said that she had written to the Archbishop some months ago to say that the Dean and the other member of clergy concerned were good men who should be exonerated. She told the Bailiff that ‘This exoneration should now be made public. It is totally inappropriate that my report should be suppressed without reference to this fact.’”
On the same day, the Bailiff received a letter from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he said that he had
“met the Dean and his wife at Lambeth on 11th May.”
He stated:
“I remain deeply conscious of the enormous personal stress, hurt and uncertainty which Bob and Daphne have suffered”
and referred to Dame Heather’s public statement that
“no blame for the handling of the original complaint … can rightly be attributed to them.”
He also said that he offered
“an apology for the hurt and the treatment which they have received over these past years”.
The most reverend Primate’s generosity of spirt will come as no surprise to those of us in your Lordships’ House who admire him and regard him as a friend. It is a pity, though, that not everyone in the Church hierarchy has shown a similar understanding towards the former dean’s difficulties. Had they done so, it might not have been necessary for this measure to be brought before us and for the Channel Islands to move from the diocese of Winchester to the diocese of Salisbury after 451 years. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for setting out so clearly the background to and information on the Motion. I can see that this is extremely complicated and distressing; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for setting out the distressing background to this measure.
The Church of England, of which I am a member, has some very obscure mechanisms for dealing with its internal operations—something that Trollope would still recognise if he were alive today. I am well used to parishes being moved to different deaneries as the number of worshippers changes and the availability of clergy in post diminishes. I am also used to some deaneries disappearing altogether and the boundaries of others being extended, but this is the first time I have come across a transfer from one diocese to another. Of course, it may be much more common than I imagine and just has not crossed my radar before.
The Channel Islands are a very distinctive community. Guernsey and Jersey have their own legislatures. They are beautiful, interesting and have a good climate. Most of us know this, and know that they are the only UK soil to have been invaded during the Second World War. Therefore, it seems all the more poignant that they should have suffered the sorry tale of the events that we are debating today. Safeguarding can be a thorny problem; if it is not handled well, there are ramifications for a number of people on the sidelines.
There are sure to be differences of opinions on both sides about the outcome, and having read the briefing paper, I believe that moving the Channel Islands from the Winchester diocese to that of Salisbury is the right way forward. Following the report of the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, on 10 February the General Synod Business Committee decided that the measure should pass to the final approval stage, which it did on 13 February. There it was passed overwhelmingly by all three houses: bishops, clergy and laity. I do not believe that engaging in the delay that would have occurred had Dame Heather Steel’s report been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee was necessary.
I am content that this matter has been dealt with properly. I am afraid I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in his Motion to go back through the process of engaging the Ecclesiastical Committee, four members of which are taking part in this debate. Having long been a passive supporter of the disestablishment of the Church of England, especially when dealing with faculties, I am not persuaded. It is time to move on. I support the right reverend Prelate in the Church of England’s wish to move the Channel Islands to the diocese of Salisbury.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, unlike other distinguished Members of this House who have taken part in this debate, and who in some cases have enormous experience of these issues, I have no interests to declare of close connections to the hierarchy of the Church of England, and I have been a not too regular communicant over the years. However, I am a lawyer, and am most interested to see equity and justice.
At one level this is a simple transfer of oversight over the Channel Islands or bailiwicks from one mainland diocese to another—from Winchester to Salisbury—but to me, as a relative outsider, it raises a number of questions, especially now that I have read the papers and reports, from the commission of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, so ably chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, and the Ecclesiastical Committee’s evidence session on 19 June. I have concluded that a set of unfortunate human relations breakdowns and misunderstandings are the basis of these proposals. Is that a good enough reason for this massive constitutional change? There have been a number of problems, not just one, but is this not using a mallet to crack a nut? Can the right reverend Prelate comment on this?
Also, it appears that there has been a long period—some seven years—with no proper relationship in place between the islands and the mainland Church. Was this not detrimental to the care and protection of the islanders? Looking at the historical issues, the link with the Winchester diocese has, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, been maintained since 1569, through war and peace, so simply replacing one diocese with another without the same long connection needs a good reason. As the commission’s report also states, none of this should be agreed without a more thorough examination of the legal and constitutional relationships between the Channel Islands and the mainland in Church matters. Again, the excellent report of the commission highlights that mere understandings going back 400 years were not really sufficient to handle disciplinary matters or changes in international human rights rules, and not sufficiently precise in direction to deal with disputes between islands and mainland, and, more practically, between different grades in the Church hierarchy.
I am interested in hearing the right reverent Prelate’s responses, but I am forced to conclude that we must be very careful not to make such radical changes in institutional structures for what might appear, to the layman at least, to be situations which surely are soluble in some other way.
Lord Chartres (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to follow those comments by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. He raises some very pertinent questions, which I shall attempt to address as someone who chaired this commission, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said in his excellent introduction. I was very fortunate in my fellow commissioners, to whom I pay tribute. One is a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the other is the eminent and learned judge, Sir Christopher Clarke.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, very properly described the painful sequence of events. There had been a breakdown in relations between the diocese of Winchester and the church and deaneries of Jersey and Guernsey. We discovered, through our visits to the islands and interviews with the various interested parties, a desire for reconciliation on all sides, but a general agreement that there was no going back. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, very properly asked what the interim measures were. As a matter of fact, interim oversight of the church in Jersey and Guernsey was given to an assistant bishop in the diocese of Winchester, Bishop Trevor Willmott, to whom I pay tribute and who did some extraordinarily good work.
The hope is that this new structure will enable us to move forward and, in course of time, will lead to a healing of memories. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, suggested, it is clear that much of the difficulty arose because of a lack of clarity about the respective roles of the diocesan bishop and the deans of Jersey and Guernsey in the context of the very particular constitutional and legal traditions of the Channel Islands. It was our task as a commission not to pass judgment on the controversies of the past but to identify a clear way forward that would both recognise the enhanced responsibilities of modern bishops in contemporary culture—particularly for matters such as safeguarding—and respect the particular traditions of the Channel Islands.
As we debate this afternoon, there is a great deal of work going on to amend the canons and to establish a much clearer set of protocols to enable a fruitful partnership between the deaneries and other parts of the Church of England. By supporting this Motion, noble Lords will be creating a foundation for the trust and the certainty that are necessary if we are to learn from the painful experience of the past. This measure will ensure that, as far as possible, there is a structure within which the Church of England in both the diocese of Salisbury and the deaneries of Jersey and Guernsey can flourish.
Lord Addington (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are used to seeing some fairly strange-looking bits of legislation coming from the Church of England and going through Parliament but, when I first looked at this, I wondered what it was and did a quick double take, because it is not usual to move control from one diocese to another. Then a little bit of digging seemed to expose something that was basically—well, the cock-up school of history is what comes to mind. There has been a huge row that it seems could not be resolved except by a huge change in management. I may be oversimplifying it and missing one or two of the finer points, but I do not think so.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, has just give us more background, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell summed up what would probably be my attitude at the end of this—but the questions initially asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, need reiterating. So, when he sums up, can the right reverend Prelate say what lessons have formally been learned and what processes will be brought into place to stop this sort of thing happening again, or at least make it less likely?
If you have something where information is not coming out and people do not know exactly what is going on, reputations are getting damaged and it is going on for longer, that is basically a failure of the system, regardless of the initial complaint. Can we have an assurance that, at the end of this, the Church, which is the established Church and an official part of our nation, will have better management processes in place? That is what we deserve to get out of it, as do all those involved and all the parishioners.
It may be further complicated because of the status of the Channel Islands but, with such a process and knowing that the institution itself has taken these things on board and is looking at them, we can take away from this at least some reassurance that it will not happen again or, at least, if it does, things will be dealt with that little bit quicker.
Lord Elton (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is fairly clear that all this sprang from obscurity of legislation, so it is very proper that we should use these processes to bring legislation into clarity. One thing that must be done is that the ledgers, tomes or articles of recollection that are kept in the bailiwick and the new associated diocese must be inscribed with advice to successive holders of the three offices that they must maintain close communication with each other as a matter of course and immediately bring to light any case where there is disagreement about the meaning of the legislation or the other documents that regulate the procedures.
In essence, the Ecclesiastical Committee seems to have agreed to a new body of law, and that is how it should be maintained. It is deeply regrettable that it was such a painful experience that brought the ambiguity to light. It will be small consolation to those who have suffered that things have now been arranged so that it is unlikely to occur again. However, the debate that we are having now offers them the same solace that the Archbishop of Canterbury has done, and that is the least that can be said now.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is a sad situation. However, when a relationship goes off-kilter, it is sometimes best to move on rather than attempt to repair the irreconcilable. I therefore believe that the pragmatic course has been followed. The detail of why Portsmouth might have been more geographically expedient than Salisbury has already been satisfactorily considered, so this formality should be endorsed.
However, I have broader question. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, put it succinctly but in a different manner. Is there any concern that a precedent will have been established whereby the Synod or any other relevant body regrets this measure as being a mechanism that could disrupt tried-and-tested current arrangements in future, should other independent law-making jurisdictions—I am thinking particularly of Crown dependencies, but it could possibly be extended to the Church in Nigeria and elsewhere—feel so inclined?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
The last church meeting I attended was 40 years ago, when my concluding comment was that Church politics made even the Labour Party transparent in its operations—so it is a bit of a mystery to be participating as a new Member of the House of Lords in working through where the tax avoiders of Jersey ought to be linked in terms of the Church of England. It seems to me that at some stage, just as we give Ministers huge powers without making them come back to Parliament, greater powers, if not the entire power of the Church of England, ought to be given to the Church of England, which should not be required to come to Parliament—whether that requires disestablishment or not.
This issue arose because of allegations of child abuse, and Jersey has a particularly bad reputation for its approaches, systems and attitudes—so it is hardly a surprise to see the Church of England getting itself into such a tangle when allegations are made. However, it should be said that the approach of the Church of England in tackling child abuse over the past 10 years has been better than that of many other institutions in this country. There has been honesty and integrity in the way in which the leadership of the Church of England has faced up to many problems, and that should be part of the context of this debate. Frankly, if the Church of England wants to go in this particular direction, it should be allowed to do so. At some stage, we need to change the law so that it is not required to come back to Parliament to be authorised to make organisational changes of its own choice.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, in almost 50 years on the Ecclesiastical Committee, I have never come across a Measure quite like this. It has my complete support. There was clearly a total breakdown in relationship between the former Bishop of Winchester and the Channel Islands, with regard to the dean in particular, and I believe this is the right way forward as it offers a clean break.
What concerns me particularly is the time it takes for the Church of England to handle this sort of issue. Nobody can minimise the importance of safeguarding. It is, of course, essential that we have a proper system. If somebody is accused of something, it is very important that the matter is dealt with expeditiously, fairly and justly. Here in Lincoln, where I live, we have had an unfortunate period over the past almost 18 months now. I make no comment on details, save to say that I just wish we could have these things handled more expeditiously. One must not forget that it is not just the individuals against whom accusations are made whose lives are turned upside down; parochial life, and sometimes diocesan life, are effectively put on hold, and that is not good.
So I give this Measure my support unreservedly. I hope that there will be good relations henceforth within the now expanded diocese of Salisbury; I hope that one of the suffragan bishops will be given a specific and particular responsibility for the Channel Islands so that he or she can visit regularly and give a real pastoral oversight; and I hope, above all, that we have no more protracted delays within the Church of England when such matters are being discussed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Although the committee did not see the report of Dame Heather Steel, it heard compelling evidence in support of this Measure, which has been strongly supported by the synod. There was unanimous agreement that the Measure was expedient and should pass. I do not, therefore, support the amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this measure. The Channel Islands are very special places. I had the privilege of some responsibility for them as they came under the Ministry of Justice when I deputised for the lead Minister, my noble friend Lord McNally, during the coalition Government. I also have a personal link. My mother, who taught in London in the Blitz, wanted to go abroad after the war—“abroad” meant Jersey—to teach at St Ouen’s primary school, formerly a parish school, where she fell in love with the islands and their people. She took the Jersey Weekly Post throughout her life, as she followed what “her children” then did with their lives.
I therefore read the September 2019 report of the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, with a sense of sadness. The different and independent status of the Channel Islands clearly played a major part in the conflict here. The spark for the problem was a possible safeguarding issue and the apparent desire of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester to respond to concerns in a way that over the years has not always been the case. However, what emerges is the uneasy relationship between the deans in the islands—almost mini-bishops—and their links with the mainland Church.
It is sad that in the end the historic link with Winchester, which dated back to Reformation times, has been severed, but I can see that it makes sense that the islands may now be linked with the equally historic Salisbury. I regret how long this has taken and the breakdown of communication, and I hope that relationships can be mended.
I note that the legislatures in the islands need to approve this change. I am concerned, however, about why the second report, by Dame Heather Steel, which exonerated the dean and after which he received an apology from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, was not made public. I note that the original complainant has said she did not wish the report to be published, but was that right? It is necessary now, more than it ever was, to be so much more transparent. As has been noted, the non-publication of the Steel report further undermined trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made a very compelling case, which I hope will be of some comfort to the dean and the people of Jersey. The unique relationship of the Channel Islands with the United Kingdom made a difficult situation much more problematic, and I hope that the clarity of the 2019 report and the measures it proposes will assist. Human struggles in the Church, as elsewhere, of course echo down the years. I wish the Church in the United Kingdom and in the Channel Islands the very best in resolving this matter.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for giving us a bit of a history lesson in his introduction. That is always a useful addition. However, I hope that what he is proposing is rather more successful than No. 10’s apparent desire to move us to York—a matter that we discussed yesterday.
In the present case, unlike the No. 10 briefings, which so upset your Lordships, there has clearly been much discussion with and involvement of all relevant stakeholders, together with the thoughtful report of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, and his colleagues, and the thoughtful process that followed from that. I regret that any of your Lordships’ committees should not have access to any of the documents that they feel they need to do their work, but, as we have heard from the chair, the committee feels confident that it had sufficient information to make this recommendation, and I fully support this Measure. I hope that its implementation can now flow smoothly and quickly.
If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has some spare time, he might try also to persuade people that we should follow Section 4(2) of what is before us and put all our 16 year-olds on the electoral roll for Parliament and not simply for Church matters.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed care that each of the participants in the debate has taken over what is a complex and sensitive matter. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for bringing forward his concern from the Ecclesiastical Committee. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just said, it is regrettable that the committee does not have access to everything that it thinks it needs. Winchester Crown Court made an anonymisation order on the report in question and therefore it has still not been published.
Referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, it is also right that the former dean of Jersey, the very reverend Bob Key, should be known to have been exonerated and to have had a very personal profound apology for the distress that he and his wife experienced during that time. As we know, for both respondents and complainants in the area of safeguarding in particular, it can be an extremely painful time for everyone concerned.
I am very grateful to those who are wrestling afresh with the Church of England and its mechanisms, both legal and pastoral, for their understanding that a Church governed by the law of the land, as well as by canon law, can sometimes have a slow and laborious way of dealing with urgent and painful problems. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for mentioning that in his remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, got a clear and helpful response to his concerns from the chair of the archbishop’s commission, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who said that this complex set of relationships between the different jurisdictions in the two bailiwicks, and the Church of England and Parliament, needs to be resolved. I think the word “cautious” was used to describe the nature of the approach to it, which is sensible. The depth with which the commission went into the matter shows not only caution but profound understanding that something needed to change, particularly for the good of the Channel Islands.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked that lessons be learned. I am grateful for his challenge on that. As a Church, we are in continuous learning, particularly around the needs of those who are weak or vulnerable. Although the noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned child abuse, in this case, the report of Dame Heather Steel mentioned allegations involving vulnerable adults. Everyone at some point in their life is vulnerable, and the Church and the law seek to make justice work for everyone. In summary, the process we are trying to exercise is that, first of all, everyone is safe, and, secondly, justice is done on all sides. However, deep reconciliation and bringing broken relationships back together can take a considerable amount of time and courage, and this important work may be still ahead of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his great experience, helpfully said that this looked like a clarification of legislation and therefore, although it seems complex, it should enable both the law of the land, and its improvements in safeguarding and the way that discipline is exercised, and the local traditions of the two bailiwicks to come together in a new, transparent and open way, as your Lordships have said.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was concerned that this might set a precedent. I am grateful to him for mentioning this but reassure him that the only other area that the established Church of England has a connection with in this respect is the Isle of Man. There has been a diocesan bishop in the Isle of Man since medieval times. The bishop is a Member of the Tynwald, and there is no possibility of an English diocesan bishop having jurisdiction in that area. The Crown dependencies, which he mentioned, and other countries are not subject to the established Church of England.
I am grateful to those who have spoken in support of this Measure. I hope that those who have thought about it carefully will reject the amendment and support the Measure in its entirety. Before I close, I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to bring the Measure to fruition, in what have sometimes been, as we have heard, very painful circumstances. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who chaired the commission, helped ably by a member of staff, Jonathan Neil-Smith; the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who did his bit in the other place in the past 24 hours; the Ecclesiastical Committee itself, and its members from the other place and here who work tirelessly; and our own Church of England Legal Office.
The archbishop’s commission concluded its report by remarking that the islands draw on a “strong reservoir” of loyalty and good will towards the Church of England. With those who work so hard and those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who have strong family ties with the islands, I pray for the forging of relationships that both acknowledge national policies—such as on discipline and safeguarding, which I have referred to—and release energy for mission in a way that will enable the islands and the wider Church to flourish.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester [V]
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his remarks just now. The most important thing, as far as I am concerned, is that the people who were hurt by the events of the last few years on Jersey will have gained some comfort from the remarks made in this debate tonight, and particularly from the support of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom I referred in my earlier speech.
It was never my intention to divide the House tonight, or to force a vote that would send an issue back to the Ecclesiastical Committee. My purpose in tabling the amendment was to give your Lordships an opportunity to hear some of the background to the circumstances which led to this conclusion being reached and the moving of the Channel Islands from one diocese to another. I have spoken to the former dean, Bob Key, on two occasions—once this afternoon as well as earlier in the last couple of weeks—and I have been in touch with the islands. I can say that everybody concerned is content with the proposal and supports this Measure, as indeed I do wholeheartedly. However, it is important that, when individuals are unfairly singled out for criticism and there is no proper redress or a proper apology given, that should be brought to light; we should have the opportunity to express those views and put those concerns on the record, as we have done in this short debate.
Above all, I support the Measure. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, and I thank him and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, in particular, for the kind of things they said about my contribution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply.
We now come to questions on the Statement on the publication of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. It has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement, and we will proceed immediately to questions from the Opposition Front Bench. I ask that questions and answers be brief.
Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I start with the words of the chair of the review, our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who said when she launched the report last week that she was shocked by the sheer scale and intensity of suffering. She said:
“I have conducted many reviews and inquiries over the years, but I have never encountered anything like this … Much of this suffering was entirely avoidable, caused and compounded by failings in the health system itself.”
I congratulate the noble Baroness on conducting an inquiry over the last two years that has been praised by everyone concerned, particularly the patient groups and those affected.
Some of us have been discussing the problems addressed in this report for many years. We have heard about the hormone pregnancy test Primodos, the anti-epileptic drug sodium valproate and, in recent years, use of vaginal mesh in surgery. It is important to pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of the patients and patient groups, but also to the parliamentarians whose work helped to persuade the Government to establish the inquiry two years ago. The All-Party Groups have been vital, as have Yasmin Qureshi MP, Norman Lamb MP, Owen Smith and Sharon Hodgson MP, to name but a few.
On the surface, the three medical issues are separate. What links the medicines and devices is that they were all taken or used by women—in two cases, by pregnant women. As my honourable friend Alex Norris MP said last week in the Commons,
“these cases reek of misogyny from top to bottom—and ageism and ableism as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/20; cols. 1148-49.]
We also have to look at the reaction of the healthcare system, which, according to the report, failed to monitor the use of these medicines and medical devices, then failed to identify and acknowledge the things that had gone wrong, then failed to work to improve. The review sets out the missed opportunities when something could or should have been done to prevent harm. Instead, there was a culture of denial, disjointedness and defensiveness that failed to listen to patients’ concerns.
Our NHS failed to protect these women and their families. It is therefore right and welcome that the Minister’s first reaction has been immediately to offer an unqualified apology, which is the first of the nine recommendations in the report. The Secretary of State said that listening and humility are in order. That is right, but it now needs to be followed by action to make the process worth while and to address the suffering. I hope that in this discussion the Minister will be able to outline what the Government will do to implement the rest of this report and to what time- scale. The most sensible way forward is the ninth recommendation, which is to set up a task force to implement the other recommendations. Will this be done, and by when?
On recommendation 2, I can see that progress has already been made. But can the Minister explain what legislative underpinning would be needed for a patient safety commissioner? Some of us are very puzzled as to where the delightfully named HSSIB is—the patient safety Bill—and whether that would have been a good complementary vehicle.
Recommendation 3 calls for:
“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices”
to create a new way of delivering redress in future. It suggests that manufacturers and the state should share the costs. Would the Minister care to tell us how that might be achieved?
Recommendation 4 suggests:
“Separate schemes … for each intervention—HPTs, valproate and pelvic mesh—to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm”.
How might that be achieved? I also have one question relating to mesh and all other implants. How will the Government ensure that they are safe to use? A register is obviously a good step forward and is in the Bill that we will discuss in the next few months, but why do the regulations on implants not provide for trials, as with medicines?
On recommendation 6, will the Minister commit to amendments to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to strengthen the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s regulatory regime? On these Benches, we are committed to implementing the nine recommendations in this excellent report. We will seek to use the forthcoming MMD Bill to do so, and we wish to work with the Government to explore how best to achieve that.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her team for such an outstanding report. It is not only comprehensive but blunt in its language, so that no one can misunderstand the failings of all levels of the healthcare system, whether in our NHS or other health and research settings, over many years. We too pay tribute to those women, and their children and families, for continuing against all the odds for years when too many ears, including the Government’s, were deaf. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentarians, including Norman Lamb, who over the years supported them. They pushed for this review in Parliament and raised it in any way they could.
Ministers have apologised for these failings, including for the system not listening and for not acting soon enough, over the decades since patients first started to raise the problems with these three medical interventions. Last week, when I asked the Minister about the timetable for implementing the recommendations, he said that
“it will take some time for the Government to study these recommendations … and to come back on the timetable”.—[Official Report, 9/7/20; col. 1224.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, says in her letter introducing the report:
“Over the past two years we have found ourselves in the position of recommending, encouraging and urging the system to take action that should have been taken long ago.”
She also said:
“Implementation needs to be approached with a new urgency and determination, founded on the guiding principle that our healthcare system must first do no harm.”
When the interim report was published, leaving this House in no doubt about the direction in which the review group was proceeding, many people expected action at that point.
I am grateful to Epilepsy Action for its briefing, which demonstrates exactly why urgent action must be taken now. Epilepsy Action, the Epilepsy Society and Young Epilepsy jointly surveyed over 500 women and girls who had taken sodium valproate since the pregnancy protection plan was introduced two years ago. One in 10 were unaware of the possible risks of birth defects. Almost half said that they had not discussed the risks of taking medicine with their health professional in the last 12 months, and only four in 10 said they had signed the annual risk acknowledgement form. For patients and families who have suffered as a result of these interventions, urgent action needs to be taken on government departments such as the DWP regarding the way it assessed the damage caused, and on how government as a whole compensates them for this gross injustice.
So I ask the Minister again: when will the Government return to those affected and to Parliament with clear recommendations and a timetable to do honour to the report and to all those affected? And when will the various bodies in our healthcare sector be set a deadline to publish the list of recommended actions that they will take that will not need parliamentary action? Last week, the Minister told your Lordships’ House that the Government had moved ahead on one of the recommendations—the creation of a patient safety commissioner—but their version is not independent, as asked for in the report.
So much of this report is about changing cultures: we still have not learned from Mid Staffordshire, East Kent and Shrewsbury maternity care, all of which Ministers have rightly been appalled by. For all the excellence and commitment of the individuals who, singly and collectively, provide our unique healthcare in the United Kingdom, there remains an unhealthy culture in some parts that does not listen to patients, does not understand conflicts of interest and resists change. That must change, it must change soon and it must be led from the top by the Government.
The report quotes Professor Ted Baker, chief inspector of hospitals for the CQC:
“I have to say 20 years later it is very frustrating how little progress we have made. It’s clear to me we still have not got the leadership and culture around patient safety right. As long as you have that culture of people trying to hide things, then we are not going to win this.”
Armed with this blunt and excellent report, I hope that the Minister can demonstrate the Government’s support with firm actions and dates, and not just with warm words that will drift away. The hopes of patients and their families and the future safety of our healthcare system depend upon it. When, Minister, when?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I start by reiterating the tributes from both noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and her team, who have worked indefatigably on a high-quality report that does justice to this important cause. Most of all, I pay tribute to the patient groups, the specialist groups and those who campaigned on these important issues and who have brought attention and a huge amount of official focus to causes that had been overlooked for years and decades. I pay tribute to their patience, their expertise and their stamina in bringing these important causes to attention. It is entirely right that the Minister, my colleague Nadine Dorries, made an apology to those groups, and I reiterate that apology on behalf of the healthcare system to all the families affected by the report, for the time it has taken to listen and to respond to their concerns.
Both noble Baronesses referred to the culture that led to these issues being overlooked. I think that that is one of the most important learnings from this report. As Nadine Dorries said, I thought very movingly, in her speech in the House of Commons, the system has to learn to listen much more clearly. Listening must happen not just from the top but also at the level at which patients engage with the system itself. I think that trying to change that culture is one of the most important challenges facing us today. It is not just a question of bringing in punishment and retribution for those in the professional world who have failed; it is trying to create a culture where mistakes are recognised and accepted and where people address and take on board the concerns of patients themselves—and on that important cause we are hugely focused.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked what we are doing. Already, much has been done. There has been progress in lots of areas. We already have 12 different types of patient safety function in place within the NHS: the Patient Advice and Liaison Service; commissioners of NHS services; the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; Healthwatch; the NHS Complaints Advocacy service; the CQC; the NHS Friends and Family Test; the professional regulators; the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch; the Professional Standards Authority; the National Director of Patient Safety; and the complaint systems within individual trusts.
That patchwork quilt of patient safety and patient advocacy is an enormous function within the NHS. The report teaches us that it has not been enough to identify the major themes of failures—in this case, involving medical devices—and there has not been the patient advocacy necessary to see complaints through when they have really mattered. It is that question which we are turning to: how do we make these considerable and important efforts to put patient safety at the heart of the NHS more effective?
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the regulatory implementation of that response. The most important legal implementation is the registry of medical devices, which was in an amendment to the Bill on Report in the House of Commons, and it has enormous support from the Government. That registry, which is an incredibly important source of accountability and of clinical information, is the key to preventing such terrible events concerning medical devices in the future.
The report was published only last week, and it will take some time to focus on all its other recommendations. I can update the House on the specialist centres that the report quite reasonably recommended should be set up: NHS England is assessing bids from NHS providers to be specialist centres for mesh inserted for urinary incontinence and vaginal prolapse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also asked about the MHRA regulatory review. The MHRA has begun a comprehensive and far-reaching programme of change, which will include enhancing its systems for adverse event reporting and medical device regulation. The MHRA has taken important steps to put patient advocacy at the centre of the work that it does.
There is nothing we can do today to make good the harm done in the past. However, as both noble Baronesses have rightly pointed out, there is much we can do to put patient safety at the heart of the NHS and to ensure that we have the technology, the systems and the culture to make sure that these mistakes never happen again.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We come now to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask again that both questions and answers be kept brief, so that I may call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for such a wonderful and constructive report, and all the members of the committee, especially Professor Sir Cyril Chantler, whom I have known for many years.
I have just two questions. Will the report encourage clinicians to consult the appropriate royal college before designing a new treatment? Secondly, after introducing a new treatment or a new operation, should the clinician be encouraged to wait for an appropriate interval to ensure that no complications occur?
Lord Bethell
I thank the noble Lord for his searching questions. The role of the MHRA on both medical devices and medicines has been massively upgraded, and the review process for new medical devices has been improved. However, medical devices have different criteria from medicines.
One of the most important things that we have sought to do is to include a registry of the medical devices themselves and a registry of the medical devices inserted into individuals. Compliance with both procedures are the most important steps for clinicians embarking on new products.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering questions on this Statement and in so doing remind noble Lords of my registered interests. In her excellent report, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, identifies concerns about the lack of evidence that is required prior to the granting of marketing authorisation for many medical devices, where all that is often required is demonstration of equivalence to an already marketed product. The noble Baroness highlights the striking difference that exists with regard to the situation for medicinal products, where robust evidence of efficacy and safety is required before a medicinal product can be marketed. Are Her Majesty’s Government content with this situation—this difference between the level of evidence required before a product and a device can be marketed as regards patient safety? If there are concerns, what approach do Her Majesty’s Government propose to take with regard to ensuring that there is proper evidence of both the safety and efficacy of a device prior to its broad marketing and use in large populations of patients?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord alludes to an extremely difficult balance that we have to seek to make. He is entirely right that medical devices and medicines operate on different criteria. The most important thing is that the MHRA resources for focusing on the approval of medical devices have been improved and the procedures enhanced. However, medical devices remain an important area of potential innovation, and we are concerned not to suffocate this area of potential improvement as it has been suffocated in other areas. At present, the Government believe that we have struck the right balance, but we remain keenly focused on it and it is under constant review.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I add my voice to the tributes that have been paid to those who produced this report, and especially to the women who persisted in having their voices heard. What came through to me very clearly was that the women themselves had not been listened to. It reminded me—I hope it will remind the House—that the complaints of women who were failed by the legal system were very much the same, about not being considered credible and about somehow exaggerating what they were describing and not being heard. It is about changing professional cultures. We have had this in the law and in policing, and we are now having to consider it in the medical professions and probably all our professions. How will the Government deal with embedded attitudes, and how will we change the training of our young medical professionals and change the attitudes inside our teaching hospitals? I want to hear about how you change cultures.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right: we do not listen to our women clearly enough. The medical health of women is more complicated than the medical health of men, and that point has been overlooked for too long. We are working hard to bring this into the education of young medics and to update the attitudes, procedures and knowledge of those who are already in the profession.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, recognised the importance of regulation in her excellent report. Our regulation system is in a transitional stage. Regarding the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the text of the political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement stated only that the UK and EU will “explore” the possibility of co-operation. Can the Minister confirm what exploratory talks have been made to ensure that the EMA and MHRA remain strong and convergent post Brexit, and that the MHRA is adequately staffed?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right that regulation is important, but so is culture. I emphasise the importance placed by the Cumberlege report on a change in attitude in the healthcare service as much as on a change in regulation. I cannot guarantee that the EMA and the MHRA will be aligned on regulation in all matters, but I can guarantee that the MHRA will be given the resources it needs to do the job properly.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a former Secretary of State for Health, perhaps I may say that I and all my colleagues who have taken responsibility for the NHS over decades should join in expressing our deep regret at the systemic failures laid bare in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Will my noble friend reiterate the point about cultural change? It is not just about implementing the recommendations, important as that is, but about achieving cultural change. I direct that point in particular to patient involvement. By that I mean not just consultation, not just a patient voice, not just decision aids but patient-reported outcomes being a central part of the measurement of the performance of our health service and its accountability.
Lord Bethell
I completely endorse the comments of my noble friend. To embellish his point, it has been very interesting to see through Covid how patients have had to track their own symptoms, take advice on 111 for themselves and, in millions of cases, look after themselves at home, possibly with telemedicine to support them. This may an inflection point in the attitude of many people to their health. I certainly welcome a revolution of patient power and putting patients first in our healthcare system.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, families and dedicated campaigners such as Marie Lyon have told the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, of which I am vice-chairman, that they have unequivocal admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for compassionately understanding their pain and suffering and allowing them, for the first time in more than 50 years, to have hope. Does the Minister agree with the report’s conclusion that, when the first comprehensive study, in 1967, identified a link between congenital abnormalities and HPTs, Primodos should have been removed from the market and that this regulatory failure has seen justice delayed and denied? Will there now be an independent re-examination of the contested conclusions of the report of the expert working group? In implementing the Cumberlege recommendations without delay, what practical help and redress will be provided for families whose lives were irreparably blighted by Primodos?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I completely share the view of the noble Lord and of the patient groups who have unequivocal admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has done the nation a great service with this report. As he knows, the Primodos case is subject to legal dispute, so I cannot comment on it from the Dispatch Box, but no one can read the report without feeling great disappointment that those hardships were suffered by those women. It is of enormous regret to us all.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak today very briefly. I have known the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for years since I worked in the health scene myself. She is widely experienced, and no one could have done a better report. It is very impressive and certainly not to be ignored. The various points that she has made, including the nine major recommendations, are all sound and people are very aware of them. We must realise that, though the health service is much loved by everyone in the country, there are failings which we have to accept and work on. I congratulate the noble Baroness on this marvellous report and hope that, as she urged in her press conference:
“This report must not be left on a shelf to gather dust.”
I am pleased to commend the report and the remarks passed.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right. The report must not be left on the shelf. We have already done much, and in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill we will do more. The other recommendations will be taken extremely seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, this wonderful but deeply disturbing report has so many points to make, but one point that has not been brought out in coverage as much as it might have been is the noble Baroness’s recommendation that the responsibility for ensuring transparency of interests should fall not only on the medical profession but also on manufacturers, who must take responsibility for ensuring that, where they are creating potential conflicts of interests with medical professionals and researchers, they show that. Can the Minister tell me what plans the Government have to make sure that manufacturers are being open, honest and transparent in all their dealings and that, should they not act in that matter, action is taken?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right that transparency is essential in order to have a fair and equitable healthcare system. The GMC has already considered these areas and has moved a long way. The world has changed considerably since many of these horrific events took place, but I am sure there is more to be done and this recommendation, like others, will be considered seriously by the Government.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is so much to be said about this excellent report, but I shall quote one devastating sentence on mesh implants, where it raises the question
“whether the modification of a device so that it required less skill to insert should have been the preferred option rather than improving the surgical skill base.”
Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for a robust surgical training programme for inserting mesh devices and, just as importantly, for their removal? Will resources be put in place for such a programme?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the dangers of the insertion of mesh. It is a procedure that is still taking place within the NHS. We are looking at bids for specialist units in relevant trusts to build up the kind of specialist skills necessary to deal with the problems that have emerged from mesh procedures that have gone wrong.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this is yet another outstanding report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The beginning of the “Implementation” section reads:
“Our recommendations are designed to pave the way for a future healthcare system that looks and feels very different.”
This is not only an outstanding report; it is a revolutionary report. Do the Government accept that this is not just another committee of inquiry but an investigation that found the facts and came back with recommendations? Are they going to set up the task force?
Lord Bethell
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that this is an important report. I pay tribute to my predecessor my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who commissioned it. We take it extremely seriously. No one could possibly read about the hardships suffered by the women described in this report without wanting to move swiftly on it. It has only been a few days so I cannot announce a strict timetable for every measure, but I assure the noble Lord that it is taken seriously and we will be moving on it in the very near future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this important report must become core in every curriculum, because patients must be listened to. It is correct to say that there must be a culture change, but I would like to focus on the third recommendation about establishing a redress agency. How quickly will the Government progress that? Without that, and without changing the whole culture of compensation and complaints, we will not get the openness and listening whereby if somebody comes forward with something they should expect the answer, “Thank you for telling us,” not “Oh well, we’ll look into it.” Until that changes and every comment is welcomed and patient- reported and family-reported outcomes are used to move services forward, we will not get the culture change that is needed.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right about culture change, but we are aware that having a big, clunking fist of financial threat hanging over individuals who are considering the admission of mistakes is not the right combination to create a culture of self-awareness and acknowledgement. We have to move extremely delicately to encourage people and make them feel safe enough to acknowledge the mistakes that might have happened and to embrace the kind of dialogue with patients that is necessary to deal with these results. That delicate balance is one of the most important things to get right in our reaction to this report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
We have heard some of this before. Thirty-four years ago, I submitted to the then Secretary of State—now our Lord Speaker—a patients’ charter prepared by the association of CHCs, which talked about listening to patients, putting them at the centre of every decision, and having a proper system of redress. Since then, every White Paper published by every successive Secretary of State has paid lip service to those principles, as the Minister has today. But the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has shown how shallow the commitment has been. The Minister talked about a patchwork quilt of safety mechanisms; can he convince us that this time it will be different? When will the Government say not only that they accept her recommendations in full, but what robust arrangements there will be to make sure that action and culture change actually follow?
Lord Bethell
Let me reassure the noble Lord that this report is taken seriously. But I acknowledge the fact that some of these issues are extremely complex, and when dealing with issues such as sexism, bullying, racism and a failure to engage with patients, there are not single-shot solutions like patients’ charters that will somehow transform the ecosphere. We have to look at it in the round, and that is why there will be major interventions like the HSIB, the people plan and the focus on fairness in the workplace that will ultimately make a big difference.
Lord Hussain (LD) [V]
The excellent report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, puts patient safety at the heart of everything. I welcome the proposal in theme 3 on patient-informed consent to ensure that patients really understand and are able to co-sign their patient aid decision with the clinicians. Will the NHS ensure that professional translators able to assist patients who have English as a second language will be there at meetings and to discuss consent with them?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is right to focus on this. We have put in place enormous measures to address the issue of translation. Technology is being used in a much more thoughtful way to make sure that translation services can be put into a great many environments. One-to-one translation is also important, and that is why we have emphasised it.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Wednesday 15th July 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2020 - (14 Jul 2020)