Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling this regret Motion, and it is very well-timed given that today was the Spring Statement.

The Chancellor promised that he would stand by people in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, but it seems that this promise does not extend to parents struggling on social security benefits. Instead, I fear it is an attitude of “Let them stand on their own two feet”, and wait a year for “smoothing”, as benefits catch up with inflation—a year when some parents could go under with the strain. For all the talk of “security” in the Chancellor’s speech, there is nothing to address the insecurity experienced by social security recipients. Additional assistance to local authorities for discretionary help is no compensation for the security provided by weekly benefits that meet people’s needs. As the Women’s Budget Group points out in its very quickly produced Spring Statement analysis,

“The Chancellor has left women in the lurch”,


and raising social security would have done much more for those on low incomes than raising the national insurance threshold.

Since we debated the uprating order in Grand Committee two weeks ago—it feels like a lifetime, but it was two weeks ago—three research reports have been published that reinforce the arguments I put then for an additional uprating to match the inflation rate. I am not going to go over everything I said then, but the Trussell Trust pointed to a

“crisis of our social security system, which is failing to support people to keep their heads above water.”

A recent Carers UK survey found that, among carers in receipt of carers allowance or the UC carer element, nine out of 10 are already stressed and anxious about their finances, and generally carers’ financial situation has worsened considerably over the six months since it last did the survey. The findings of a new Covid Realities report published this week was summed up in the conclusion that

“‘There is nothing left to cut back’ - people have reached the limits of their budgeting practices and resourcefulness.”

with implications for their physical and mental health. The report commented on the

“disbelief at the perceived lack of understanding among policy-makers of the scale and severity of the difficulties people were facing.”

I am afraid we have seen all too many examples of this in the last few weeks. When, in an OQ last week, I asked the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, what are parents on benefit, who have already cut back to the bone, supposed to do if benefits are uprated at a fraction of the inflation rate, in response she intoned what the Government are spending in total on benefits but did not answer the question. Following the very disappointing Spring Statement, I ask again: when there is nothing left to cut back, what are parents struggling on an inadequate benefit supposed to do over the coming year? How are they supposed to get by?

I believe that this Minister does understand, to some degree, the difficulties faced, and she cares. Unfortunately, she can do no more, it appears, than take messages back to the department and the Treasury. But she can at least today answer the question. Indeed, I ask her to tell us: what would she do if she had to get by on inadequate benefits that are being eaten away by inflation?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his regret Motion, which I agree with.

It is estimated that one in five pensioners in the UK is living in poverty, that 1.3 million retirees are undernourished and that 25,000 pensioners die each year due to cold weather. As we know, the cost of energy has doubled, and older people are more susceptible to the cold, particularly if they are housebound or suffering from a disabling illness.

The Government failed to accept that inflation was going to rise at an alarming rate when benefits and the state pension were uprated for this April. They insisted on basing the uprating on September’s inflation figure of 3.1%, as usual. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, quotes the Bank of England’s prediction of 7.25%, but that is now being fast overtaken by events, and a figure of nearer 10% is now forecast during the year. It is unthinkable that poor pensioners, at the end of their lives, should have to experience such a sudden change in circumstances. Up to now, they have been protected by the triple lock but, because of what was seen as a one-off adjustment in incomes as a result of a recovery from the pandemic, the Government abandoned the triple lock. Had it still been in place, a rise of 8% would have equalled the predicted rate of inflation in April, when the uprating comes into effect.

Age UK has estimated that soaring energy prices will plunge 150,000 older households into fuel poverty this winter. It has said that the number of fuel poor older households could reach more than 1.1 million by the spring, unless the Government take urgent action.

We have one of the least generous state pensions of any country in Europe, and it is still below its 1979 value. The triple lock was introduced in 2010 in the light of a hugely devalued state pension. Some recovery has taken place since then, but the state pension still does not provide enough support to keep 2.1 million pensioners out of poverty.

For women pensioners, the situation continues to get worse, with one in five now in poverty. Analysis of government figures shows that, in 2012-13, 14% of female pensioners across the UK were living in relative poverty—that is, they were living in households with less than 60% of median average household income, after housing costs. By 2019-20, this had increased to about 20%. That increase comes despite increases in women’s state pension age, meaning that the number of female pensioners in the UK has fallen by about 800,000 since 2012-13.

On these Benches, we think it is essential to protect the poorest pensioners who depend on the state pension and that it is crucial to bring the value of the state pension to a realistic level in relation to earnings and living costs. It is vital to make sure that those already in poverty and dependent on benefits do not become poorer than they already are. As has been said, it is not enough to claim that an upward adjustment will be made next year, because the problem exists now.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to make a short point. Noble Lords have set out the human cost of the cut to social security earlier in the year, the failure to uprate it and to maintain the triple lock on pensions. As I understand it, the Treasury has saved £12 billion in so doing. The Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong but, whatever it is, billions have been saved.

I want to look at the other side of the equation. Those billions that have not gone to the poor people who have been described this evening is money that would otherwise have been spent, because poor people spend everything they receive: on food, on heating, on rent, and so forth. None of it is sorted away in the Cayman Islands; it is all spent money, and spent in the places where poor people live.

Universal Credit (EAC Report)

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss this report from the Economic Affairs Committee. The contributions we have heard from the former chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have explained the detail of what has actually gone wrong with the universal credit system.

First, I am very concerned that the report was issued in July 2020 and that we are discussing it in this Chamber only in March 2022. Given that the Government’s formal response was sent 18 months ago, it is very hard to see what has held up such a debate—and, inevitably, some facts and figures have changed. When the Minister replies, perhaps she might just explain why we have had to wait this extraordinary length of time to have a debate on this absolutely vital matter for so many.

However, we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for enabling a Private Notice Question to be placed on the Order Paper of your Lordships’ House on the very day of the Spring Statement. Doing so has drawn out a number of facts. One is that, as I interpreted the Minister’s response in the Chamber a few minutes ago, the Government have done no affordability assessment, and nor has anything been done as an impact assessment more generally. That is very serious, as in most cases impact assessments are part and parcel of what the House of Lords is asked to consider.

Many responders to the committee’s inquiry said that universal credit was not necessarily broken. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—indeed, the report—says that it commands broad support in principle as a structure, but it does need reform. It is hardly surprising to me that some things went wrong, simply because it was such a major change to the benefits system. Inevitably, some things do not work as well as you want them to. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, identified in his introduction, the rise in the use of food banks is a direct consequence of what has happened with universal credit. The noble Lord was absolutely right in his initial remarks to comment on why the Government said that they were surprised by the recommendations in the report—because so many of those recommendations are absolutely justifiable. So I will add my own surprise that the Government were surprised in their response to the committee’s recommendations.

As the committee said, universal credit should not undermine

“the security and wellbeing of the poorest in our society.”

I understand, as I guess we all do, that the report was issued at a very worrying time for a lot of people as the pandemic threatened their livelihoods. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I recognise that the Government produced temporary and permanent welfare measures to the value of around £9 billion during the pandemic. In the Budget last October, low earners were able to keep 8p more for every £1 earned, and the work allowance increased by £500—and the pressure on the taper issue did have an impact.

The report congratulates DWP on its response to the pandemic and the huge increase in workload that the department had to manage, helped by digital working and automated processes. However, as the committee said, the underlying problems with universal credit remain. Some new claimants are not used to monthly pay. A fortnightly payment option would help them. The five-week wait for new claimants is too long and creates insecurity. The committee’s two-week grant recommendation seemed to me to be a very wise and helpful proposal, but the Government have turned it down. I still do not fully understand the audit reasons they have for so doing, because there are ways around that, which the committee proposed.

The Government say that an applicant may be able to get a universal credit advance if they are unable to manage during this five week-period. I hope that the Minister might be able to tell us in her reply what evidence from research undertaken by the DWP the Government have that that advance system is working fairly and reasonably for those who receive universal credit. As the committee rightly identified, the principle at stake is that the system should not cause shortfalls in income for individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, sanctions should be applied only as a last resort. The DWP should do affordability assessments before making deductions from awards. As a principle, someone’s income should never be lower than their essential needs.

We have heard about the cut of £20 per week; there has been a huge amount of debate around it. In my view, it was a gross error. I was hoping that something further might be done about it today, but I fear that that has not happened. More than 5 million low-income families lost just over £1,000 from their annual income, creating severe financial hardship for many people. What this revealed was that the real problem with universal credit is low incomes; that issue is fundamental to understanding the crisis around universal credit. With the current inflation rate heading towards 10%, an uplift under CPI of 3.1%—the Minister will recall our discussion of that uplift in Grand Committee a couple of weeks ago—simply will not do.

Crisis seems an appropriate word to use in this situation. Rent costs, housing costs, energy costs, food prices and transport costs are all rising. Food bank use has been rising and is clearly going to rise further and further. Household finances are much more difficult for the low paid because they have so little money. We need a real living wage, not the national living wage. The Government talk of the national living wage, but they have to talk about the need for a real living wage. It is true that many universal credit recipients are in work, but many people see adjustments being made to their hours of contract. It does not help when people get their hours cut, never mind a low hourly rate; in the end, this is about the income they receive.

I repeat that the five-week wait is the primary cause of insecurity in universal credit as it

“entrenches debt, increases … poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately.”

Those were the words used by the committee, so there is an opportunity for the Government here. We will not get more than a few months into 2022 without needing to do something further.

In that respect, I ask the Minister about the proposal to close so many DWP offices. I seek an assurance from her that this will not in any way impact the support of clients who need help. A few days ago, there was an announcement that 42 DWP offices were to be closed across the UK. Apparently, 13 will be full closures while 29 are to be closed and relocated. There are offices being closed in Stoke, Southend, Peterborough, Chesterfield, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, Barrow, Bishop Auckland, Doncaster and Burnley—taking jobs out of these communities.

The Minister, David Rutley, said that the closures

“will not impact on jobcentres and the customer-facing interactions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/22; col. 1032.]

Can the Minister explain exactly what a customer-facing interaction is? What are the implications for the agreement and contract that the Government have with Citizens Advice, which comes to an end a year from now, in March 2023? Under the help to claim system that has been running since 2019, Citizens Advice in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland has given people independent advice. I understand there has been an investment in that of £21.3 million. If it would be helpful for the Minister to write later, rather than respond in detail now, I want to be reassured about the impact on people for whom digital or telephone contact may be very difficult. If they were able to go to a local office, will they be able to continue to go to that office to secure help?

That is all I want to say at this stage, but I think we will come back to this matter several times this year. I hope the Government and the Chancellor understand that this issue is profoundly serious. I said that two weeks ago, when we talked about the use of CPI at 3.1% for the benefit uplift, when inflation is heading towards 10% this year. For those on low incomes, that position is simply unsustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I will cover that in winding up; I am conscious of the time.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised food banks. Food banks are independent charitable organisations and the DWP does not have any role in their operation. There is no consistent and accurate measure of food bank usage at constituency or national level.

On third-party deductions, benefit debts and social fund loans can see deductions reduced or deferred as the creditor, DWP, will always try to ensure that government debt is recovered effectively without causing undue hardship.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about an impact assessment. The Government recognise that the public sector equality duty set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is ongoing. As such, a full equality impact assessment was completed prior to the introduction of the uplift to UC, and it was reviewed and updated prior to the implementation of the temporary six-month extension announced by the Chancellor at the Budget on 3 March 2021.

I have already covered cost of living issues, fully cognisant of the difficulties that people are facing. I have heaps of information here. I try to answer all your Lordships’ questions and to treat the Grand Committee with respect. I do not want anyone to think that I am not prepared to answer questions; I will go through Hansard and through all these questions. I will write, and all noble Lords will get a copy of that. I thank your Lordships for the time you have spent listening to me.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I would be happy if she would write very specifically on the closure of DWP offices, some of which are clearly closing and not being replaced by alternatives.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I take the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence. She has every right to speak in the way she does, with the experiences she has had. Our hearts go out her, even as the years have gone on, for what she has had to experience.

In this report, we want to look back and see what we have learned and gleaned. However, as I said on Thursday, it is not what you say, it is what you do, and it is not what you promise, it is what you deliver. I had a session with Minister Badenoch before this Statement. She asked me to make it absolutely clear that she is prepared to meet anybody and hear any points that they wish to make. I know that the noble Baroness has met and spoken with her before, but the door is open. This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this issue. I would like to think that I can help the noble Baroness by making sure that we do what we say.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of chairing the House’s Select Committee on youth unemployment last year; we reported in November. I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 276 to 278 of that report, which make a number of very positive recommendations for addressing some of the issues that have been identified in the Chamber tonight.

Specifically, is the Minister aware of the report of 29 June last year from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:

“Second-generation ethnic minorities are achieving great success in education, but this does not translate into equal success in the labour market … they are less likely to be employed, and some … are less likely to reach managerial/professional occupations, than the white majority.”


A sentence appears in the Statement claiming that

“access to high-quality education from an early age will set a child up for success later in life.”

However, there is a lot of evidence that that is not the case. So can I draw the Minister’s attention to the recommendations, which we have not yet debated on the Floor of the House but which make a number of positive suggestions for addressing that issue?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I wholeheartedly endorse and agree with what the noble Lord says. It is crucial that we ensure everyone is treated fairly in the workplace so that they can thrive and reach their full potential. We recognise that employers stand the best chance of achieving this when they focus their efforts on effective actions that have a proven track record of improving diversity and inclusion. I have spent the majority of my life trying to get people into work, focusing very much on people from ethnic communities. There was a point when we were not doing terribly well on it, but the situation has improved. I am absolutely at one that the best education is the best way for people to get a good start in life. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, our work coaches, are working day in, day out to get people into jobs, to get people into better jobs and to help people have a career, regardless of their ethnicity.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

To conclude, soon a great wave of price increases across the board will engulf the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens. Already inflation stalks the land—and I refer to those of our fellow citizens who are not “just getting by”. We had those noble and thoughtful words from Prime Minister Mrs May outside No. 10, at her lectern, on being elected. She said that she was concerned for those just getting by. I am asking the question also for those who are not getting by—and millions of our fellow citizens now are not getting by. The Minister can be proud that her department is offering help, and more help, but the predicament for so many is massive and the challenge thundering up is even bigger. It is going to happen and it is not necessarily the fault of a given Government. It is going to happen and so I say, like the iconic Oliver: I would like some more. Are these welcome increases to benefits enough? I think that there is an important answer to give.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this uprating order. The problem is that the combination of rising inflation and tax rises is creating a cost-of-living crisis that will affect practically every household in the UK but will be especially difficult for those on low incomes who make use of welfare payments.

Before the crisis in Ukraine, the Resolution Foundation reported that an average family will see household budgets reduced by £1,200 a year through a combination of soaring energy prices, the freezing of the income tax personal allowance and the rises in national insurance and council tax. Those on low incomes will find it hardest to make ends meet, because the major benefits are due to go up in line with a lagged measure of inflation. The September CPI rate had it at 3.1%, whereas the Bank of England expects inflation to peak at 7.25% in April and to average around 6.2% in the course of 2022—and all that is before the impact of the crisis in Ukraine is taken into account. Many commentators are forecasting an inflation rate for the UK of more than 10% later this year.

The Government really must not allow a situation to develop that means a deep cut in benefits year on year for people less able to withstand the impact of the rising cost of living. For example, those who must use meters to pay for their gas and electricity will be put under even greater financial strain because of their high cost compared with other methods of payment.

Even before the impact of the Ukraine crisis on the cost of living, this policy would have led to a £290 real fall in benefit income year on year for the 10 million households in receipt of these benefits. That would be an unacceptable cut in the incomes of millions of people who are already among the most vulnerable. The Spring Statement later this month provides an opportunity for the Chancellor to do something about this crisis, which was unnecessarily deepened by the removal of the £20 per week boost to universal credit.

Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum on impact is hopelessly out of date. The assertion that the

“impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is negligible”

is flawed. The impact will be very great, particularly on charities and voluntary bodies, which will see a huge increase in demand for their help as prices rise steeply and real incomes decline for millions of households.

I hope that the Minister will agree that this uprating order is out of date and that the Spring Statement needs to bring proper solutions to the deepening crisis in our cost of living and its impact on those with low incomes.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these orders and all noble Lords who have spoken. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jones that it would have been preferable had the uprating order been taken in the Chamber. Many of the orders that we deal with are technical; this one affects the incomes of some 20 million people at a time when we have never seen a cost-of-living crisis like this. Had it been taken in the Chamber, we perhaps would not have had a regret Motion, but here we are.

I thank my noble friend for mentioning my late and much-lamented noble friend Lord McKenzie. Every time we gather here, we miss him very much. I just wanted to read his name into the record.

First, a word on the guaranteed minimum pensions order, which is rather more technical. I have raised the question of equalisation in most previous years, but we have had a new development. A new Private Member’s Bill has just arrived in the Lords from the other place that aims to address the legal uncertainty that the current legislative situation can pose when a pension scheme tries to adopt a process for addressing GMP equalisation. The Government smiled on it at the other end. At Second Reading in the Commons, the Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, accepted that what the Bill does is key because it

“gives the Government the ability to set out in regulations the details of how survivor benefits will work for surviving spouses or civil partners of people with guaranteed minimum pensions.”

He also made the point that the Bill

“gives the Government the ability to set out in regulations details about who must consent to the conversion of guaranteed minimum benefits.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/21; col. 627.]

The Minister confirmed, at col. 628, that the Government backed the Bill. However, when the Commons got to Third Reading on 25 February—a long gap—he said:

“The reality is that there is no real way for my hon. Friend’s Bill to get through this House and the House of Lords in the time allowed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/22; col. 659.]


The Government have accepted that there are problems to be addressed on the matter of GMP equalisation, so can the Minister assure the Committee that if that Private Member’s Bill fails to get through, the Government will none the less speedily moved to address the outstanding issues?

I turn to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, which we gather to debate every year, except of course during the years of shame, when the Government refused to update social security benefits as they should have done. I cannot remember a year when the context was so worrying for so many people. The cost of living is rising so fast that even those on middle incomes are struggling and it is a catastrophe for those on lower incomes. People are genuinely frightened about how they are going to manage. Demand for help from food banks is already skyrocketing, as it is for financial advice and debt support. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a good point that the Explanatory Memorandum had not taken account of the impact on those organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I am not giving pay rises, I can assure the noble Baroness.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she raised two matters in response to what I said. Perhaps she would arrange to write about the high cost of meters. That might be able to be adjusted in the interests of those who are paying higher costs. It is the kind of thing that would sit very nicely in the Spring Statement. Secondly, I take up the issue of the impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies. Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that it is negligible, but of course all those organisations will have to employ more staff to deal with the huge rise in queries that they will get.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

As I said, I fully appreciate the issue of people who use keys to pay their energy costs, which are higher. Let me take that back as a special project. I will speak to the Secretary of State, who I will see tomorrow, and she may well have a thought on that. When it comes to the Spring Statement, all noble Lords tell me to speak to the Treasury. I have nothing to tell your Lordships about the Spring Statement; we will have to wait to see what, if anything, comes out in relation to this. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about charities, but that is an indirect effect, if it happens. I cannot add more than that at this stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked about poverty, a subject that we have discussed many times. The Government are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling poverty, and to supporting people on lower incomes. We will spend £110 billion on welfare support for people of working age in 2021-22. With around 1.29 million vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly to support people to progress into work as the best way to substantially reduce the risks of poverty.

I know that there are people who cannot work, and I know the passion with which the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Sherlock, and others talk about us wanting to help that group. Our multi-billion-pound plan for jobs, which has been expanded by £500 million, is helping people across the country into work. I know that our new Way to Work programme has raised some issues. As I have said before, when I opened the jobcentre in Hastings, the staff were alive with the freedom that it would give them to do more, and in more detail, to help people at the lowest point of their lives. I trust those work coaches implicitly to do what they can and, more importantly, to feed back if something is not working so that we can fix it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether I still believed a Statement that I made. Perhaps she can write to me, as I did not quite catch the context. I will be very happy to write back.

Continuity Agreement: Kingdom of Morocco

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

As the case of the UK-Morocco association agreement shows, there is a role for the parliamentary scrutiny of trade treaties which can add value. Just about every other Government in the world involve their parliament; why is the “mother of parliaments” being left on the sidelines? I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this regret Motion. He has raised some very important issues about the process for considering trade agreements with which we would concur.

I say at the outset that I have huge respect for the people of Morocco. Theirs is a wonderful country to visit and it feels very much a part of Europe. But with that international standing comes a responsibility to respect international legal judgments and to respect and promote democracy.

This year marks the 45th anniversary of the occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, who was a Back-Bench Liberal, and then Liberal Democrat, Peer for over 20 years until 1997, and who campaigned strongly to promote the interests of the Sahrawi people of the Western Sahara, many of whom became refugees.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in 1975 an International Court of Justice ruling recognised Western Sahara’s right to self-determination. In 1991, the United Nations promised a referendum for the people in Western Sahara to decide whether they wished to be an independent country or whether they preferred to become part of Morocco. That referendum—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out—has never taken place.

Further, in its World Report 2020, Human Rights Watch stated:

“Moroccan authorities systematically prevent gatherings in the Western Sahara supporting Sahrawi self-determination, obstruct the work of some local human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including by blocking their legal registration”.


Could the Minister tell the House what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with Morocco regarding safeguarding the capacity of NGOs to work effectively in the Western Sahara?

The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that Moroccan territorial jurisdiction does not extend to the territory of Western Sahara or to the territorial sea adjacent to Western Sahara. The consequence of that ruling seems to be that Defra could not lawfully grant fishing quotas to British fishing vessels in waters off Western Sahara. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to this ruling? Will there be robust guarantees that all trade to and from Western Sahara is taking place only with the full consent of the people of the Western Sahara? The Minister will understand that the natural resources of Western Sahara are important in this respect. He will be aware that some 15% to 20% of Moroccan exports can be traced back to Western Sahara.

In the current EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, registered vessels, including some from the UK, are allowed to fish extensively off the coast of Western Sahara. For these access rights, I understand that the Moroccan Government receive a €30 million contribution over a four-year period. This is in clear violation of a 2002 UN opinion on the matter, which stated that any such activities must benefit the people of Western Sahara. Could the Minister tell the House what benefit the people of Western Sahara receive from these access rights?

The European Court of Justice, in a judgment of 21 December 2016, determined that the 2012 agreement between the EU and Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products and fishery products provided no legal basis for including Western Sahara within its territorial scope. This decision was confirmed by the UK High Court in April 2019, yet the UK Government are now seeking to roll over the EU-Morocco association agreement into UK legislation.

I hope the Minister will agree that the UK Government should now enforce the judgment of the High Court so that no goods should be imported into the UK from the Western Sahara under the presumption that they are from Morocco. Only once the people of Western Sahara have expressed their right to self-determination will the UK be able to trade legally in goods produced in the Western Sahara. The UK Government should now use that High Court judgment as a basis to support the UN supervised process of self-determination. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, I admired the stoicism of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as he sat waiting for his eagerly awaited speech in your Lordships’ Chamber for such a long period, while what I can describe only as a lot of wet fish filibustering went on during the preceding proceedings. Then, lo and behold, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gets up and gives us another barrel of wet fish off the coast of Morocco.

All that said, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on his interesting speech, I have decided to make myself his Official Opposition, as noble Lords can see in this crowded Chamber tonight. That is, I regret this regret Motion very much indeed, first, because of its lack of procedural timeliness and, secondly, in case perceived messages coming from your Lordships’ House during this debate harm Anglo-Moroccan relations and the perception of other countries on the north African-Mediterranean littoral which are vital to our security, such as Algeria and Tunisia.

On my first point, Labour did not, I think, at any stage in either place try to force a proper debate or find a way to get the issue raised during the objection period for this excellent UK-Morocco association agreement, which ended on 11 February. The simple facts on the ground are that the agreement, under our procedures, is now deemed to be ratified. The debate on the regret Motion is therefore no more than a bit of interesting virtue signalling and has absolutely no effect on what has happened with this excellent agreement. We must recognise the facts on the ground: the Moroccan Government are in charge of the Western Sahara and have been since the hopelessly failed decolonisation by the Spanish of the area in decades past. What a muddle the Spanish made of that whole process.

It is not just this House that wishes to have a trade association with Morocco; the EU—our neighbours and friends—has also canonised, recognised and re-recognised the reality on the ground in its recent agreements with Morocco. This is despite the fact that the Spanish—I should not have got myself going on the Spanish—still occupy two areas. I am not quite certain what they are properly described as. Enclaves? Exclaves? They are Spanish city states on the north African coast, on Moroccan territory, which Morocco wants back—and quite rightly too. They are called Ceuta and Melilla. The last of those two enclaves/exclaves/city states on the north African shore still has a statue of Generalissimo Franco standing. There is not one of those in Spain, but it certainly signifies the Spanish attitude and pinpoints the strangeness of their attitude to British Gibraltar in comparison.

Morocco says that the disputed territory belongs to it. I have had no connection at all on this with either the Moroccan Government or any special interest groups. The Polisario problem, which is real and which I do not dispute, will take decades, if not generations, to sort out. In the meantime, I do not wish to see our growing bilateral trade with Morocco suffer. It is fast approaching £3 billion a year in visibles, which is a very substantial amount of money, while in invisibles—I work in the City, although I have no interest to declare in this debate—we have excellent and growing links between the bourse in Casablanca, which is growing fast in north African terms, and the London Stock Exchange, which I wish to see flourish. I do not wish to put anything in the way of this growth. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, does not really wish to either.

Secondly, I regard Morocco and its neighbours, Algeria and Tunisia, to be not just important economic partners but also very important strategic partners in defeating terrorism along the north African littoral. Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are, in their different ways, bastions against terrorism, whatever criticisms people wish to throw against their Governments. They should be much valued for that.

Brexit: UK-EU Relationship

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a number of respects. This referendum was a decision to leave the EU but it was not a decision to leave the single market or the customs union. I accept that many people who voted to leave wanted it to be but, as a substantial number of subsequent polls have shown, the thinking is in terms of a future relationship that gives access to the single market outside full EU membership. Membership of the single market is essential for investment, jobs and future growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, explained so fully.

It is now more than five months since the referendum and there is still no clarity on the Government’s strategy. Instead we seem to have a confusion of strategy with objectives. The Government have said on several occasions that they want the “best possible deal” with the EU. However, that is an objective, not a strategy. I am beginning to wonder whether the Government have a strategy at all because different Ministers say different things. The Government have a duty to tell Parliament what they want our relationship with the EU to be and for Parliament then to examine that proposed relationship. It cannot be kept secret. It would be far better to have a Green Paper with options to consider before Article 50 is triggered, and perhaps it is still not too late.

Nevertheless, we need first to secure an outcome that enables us to stay in the single market and the customs union and avoids non-tariff barriers. Secondly, we need an agreement that continues inward investment into the UK from those seeking access in turn to the EU. Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that immigration is important to drive enterprise, growth and productivity while at the same time committing more resources to the training of UK employees, along with an EU-wide review of migration policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just suggested. Fourthly, we need to enable UK citizens to live, work and learn securely elsewhere in the EU, with similar rights for EU citizens. Finally, we have to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. If there is a final decision to leave, it should be with a transitional period of, at the very least, two years to permit some negotiation of individual trade agreements.

I have never understood why the Government chose March 2017 to trigger Article 50. Currently, EU leaders seem to be aiming at a hard Brexit, but it is just possible that that position could change once the French and German elections have been held and the policy of those countries has become clearer. We need to maintain flexibility, but the timing is now not on our side. We should remember that this is not just a trade issue. There is a huge number of issues relating to EU law, justice, agriculture, fisheries, defence, home affairs and the environment among many. Two years’ negotiation will not be enough.

It is vital that we do not end up out of the EU on World Trade Organization rules. The World Trade Organization will require detail of our tariffs and quotas. That process could take several years. Outside the customs union, business and our wealth creators would be bogged down in red tape, coping with the rules of origin and non-tariff barriers. We do not want that.

I have concluded that whenever the Government conclude their negotiations they should give the British people the right to decide in a referendum whether they wish to leave the EU on the terms negotiated. Parliament must have a role during those negotiations, but the British people must be empowered to make the final decision.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with whom I agree on a number of points, but I want to speak about the impact of leaving the EU from the perspective of the English regions. Despite the headline vote being a 52/48 win for leave across the UK, in England and Wales outside London, the gap was a much bigger defeat for the remain campaign. We need to understand the reasons why.

I think that there were three reasons. People wanted to halt an increasing concentration of decision-making at a European level. They felt disconnected from it and unable to influence it. Secondly, it was a clear rejection of the principle that a single market requires free movement of people. Many on lower incomes felt threatened by the prospect of being undercut in the labour market. Thirdly, it was a vote to oppose the impact of reductions in public spending, which have been much higher in the poorer parts of the country than in the wealthier parts—notwithstanding the importance of EU structural funding in those areas and the importance of European markets to them.

I campaigned for a remain vote because I see it as essential to our future growth and our standard of living to maintain access to the single European market. Access to that market has now been put in jeopardy. We must take very seriously the warnings from the CBI that firms are putting investment on hold in the short term because of the uncertainties and because of the current political vacuum as we wait for a new Government to define their priorities. Add to this the reported lack of qualified negotiators in the Civil Service, and we can see that these uncertainties could well drag on.

It is, however, the long-term danger to private sector investment that should really worry us. In my home region of the north-east of England there were 43 foreign direct investment projects in 2015. The risk is that companies from outside the EU wanting to invest inside the EU in future will not choose to invest in the UK if we are outside the single market. In establishing what we are asking the EU for in the forthcoming negotiations, it is essential that we gain agreement to staying in the single market.

It is now broadly acknowledged that we could be on the brink of recession. Our trade gap with the rest of the world is worse than anticipated, and all the economic and fiscal indicators seem to be pointing in the wrong direction. I question whether the Chancellor is wise in his plans for corporation taxes. The proposed cut will either increase the deficit or cut public spending further, which would mean more austerity and less money for individual taxpayers, who will have to pay for that reduction in corporation tax. It looks to me to be the wrong decision. The Chancellor is, however, right to abandon the aim of achieving a budget surplus by 2020. We must instead invest in the infrastructure which generates jobs.

However, Governments cannot do everything, and we need the private sector to step up to the task. Employers need to invest more in training our young people to enable them to take on higher-level jobs, rather than relying on cheaper labour from outside the UK. Further, the private sector needs to invest more in infrastructure outside London. As an example of what I mean, I pay tribute to Legal & General, which is investing a very substantial sum in the construction of a major new scientific research centre in Newcastle upon Tyne, in partnership with Newcastle University and the city council, making it the latest of several urban renewal and infrastructure projects that Legal & General has invested in.

The recent Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review said that by 2050 many more jobs—perhaps 1.5 million—could be created in digital industries, health innovation, energy and advanced manufacturing across the north. That is welcome, and it can happen, if four conditions are met. The first is a clear private sector commitment to invest outside London. Secondly, access to the European single market should be maintained. Thirdly, infrastructure investment as promised by Government must actually happen. Fourthly, and very importantly, Government Offices should be re-established in the English regions. This is an important issue. Whitehall post-Brexit needs to focus much more on the regions of England, because at present its knowledge base of England is insufficient. It cannot do everything from London; it needs a cross-departmental focus at regional level if the full potential of the English regions in growing our economy is to be realised.

In recent days the Mayor of London has said that London wants to be treated as an equal with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It wants more devolution and more control over taxation raised in London. It is understandable to take that position, but it is potentially a big problem, because it is not widely understood across the rest of the UK how much tax income raised in London is spent elsewhere in the UK. If London keeps more of it, there will be less for others parts of the UK. This is not a new issue, but we need to keep it at the front of our minds as we consider the implications of Brexit for public spending across England.

Brexit will have a significant impact on local government. Here I should declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. If there is a recession there is a probability of lower business rate income for councils, the danger of more cuts by the Chancellor, and a possible slowdown in the devolution agenda as the sources of project funding are reassessed. Add to those risks the possible loss of EU structural funding, and there is clearly a need to plan for all outcomes. In the immediate term local government needs a guarantee that councils will still receive all the money expected by 2020—amounting to £5.3 billion in regeneration funding—on which much local growth depends. This, of course, also applies to other recipients of EU funding, such as the voluntary and cultural sectors, and our universities, whose research funding is so heavily dependent on EU support. There is also a need for Government to offer an assurance that the existing legal basis for contracts signed with suppliers and contractors under EU procurement laws will apply for the duration of a contract.

Then there are the implications of Brexit for European Investment Bank funding. Very substantial funds, with long-term borrowing implications, have come from the European Investment Bank—€29 billion over the past five years—and we need to know what might happen to EIB funding in the future.

I referred earlier to a reported lack of trained negotiators in the Civil Service. May I suggest that the Cabinet Office look at the capacity in local government, and in our universities, to help them? It is substantial, particularly in relation to EU law and EU funding. Local authorities need to be engaged directly in the process, because that would be of direct help to Whitehall.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the Private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, I made a number of contributions on matters relating to the franchise. It seemed to me that who would be entitled to vote was a very important matter and that simply to use the parliamentary register raised some questions of principle.

Clause 2 of this Bill confirms that the referendum will use the parliamentary franchise, although with some additions, as did that Private Member’s Bill. A vote will go to: British citizens living in the UK; Irish citizens resident in the UK; citizens of Gibraltar; Commonwealth citizens who meet the residency requirement for registration as an elector in the UK; British citizens who are overseas voters using their entitlement to register as overseas voters for up to 15 years after leaving the UK; service voters; and, now, Members of the House of Lords. In addition, Commonwealth and Irish citizens who would be entitled to vote in European elections in Gibraltar are also entitled to vote in this referendum.

This means that citizens of other EU countries resident in the UK who are eligible to vote in local government, devolved legislature elections and European Parliament elections may not vote in this referendum even though they were able to do so in the Scottish referendum last year if resident in Scotland. To add further complexity, EU citizens from Cyprus and Malta resident in the UK can vote as Commonwealth citizens even though they cannot vote as EU citizens. In addition, Irish citizens resident in the UK can have a vote even though they are not in the Commonwealth.

I have come to the conclusion that all UK passport holders living outside the UK and at the very least those now living elsewhere in the EU should have the right to vote in the referendum, however long they have lived outside the UK. At present, a 15-year limit applies. The reasons for that number of years seem arbitrary. Indeed, the Government recognised this and made it clear that they are committed to abolishing the 15-year rule. I welcome that but cannot understand why the votes for life Bill cannot pass the legislative process in time to enable those restricted by the rule to be able to vote. Surprisingly, I read that a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the 15-year rule will remain in place for this referendum even if the votes for life Bill is passed before the referendum takes place. So the legislation would be in place but would not be implemented for this referendum, which is now likely to take place in 2017—up to two years from now.

I hope that the Minister in replying will be able to explain whether a clear commitment from the Conservative Party manifesto is to be jettisoned for this referendum when there is time to implement it.

There is a further issue of principle. On balance, I think that Scotland was correct to extend the right to vote in last year’s referendum to resident non-UK EU citizens. If I have a criticism of the decision, it is that it excluded all the Scottish voters who lived outside Scotland. That is because the parliamentary electoral register was not used. I should have preferred that both registers were used.

I accept that, in 2013, the European Parliament reported that EU countries did not permit the right to vote to other EU citizens in their national elections. The UK and Ireland were the exception to that, with nationals being able to vote in the other country on a reciprocal basis. The UK was also exceptional given that it permits votes for resident citizens of Cyprus and Malta as Commonwealth citizens. In a further piece of work, the Citizenship Observatory surveyed electoral rights in EU member states, and it seems that other EU member states do not grant foreign nationals a vote in national referendums either. If the UK took the same line, it would of course prevent Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens from voting. As it is not the Government’s intention to do that in the Bill, I find it hard to understand why citizens of some EU countries have special rights. It seems to me a matter of fairness.

Many EU nationals, not just those from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, have settled in the UK. They work here and pay taxes here. They have a real stake in the outcome. We must think very carefully about whether it is fair to exclude them when three EU countries’ citizens are not excluded. The principle that should apply is that those who could be directly and personally affected by the outcome should be entitled to have a say in the decision. The many UK citizens—about 2 million—who live elsewhere in the EU, and the many EU citizens, about 2.4 million, who live in the UK are right to be worried by the possible exit of the UK from the EU. It is no surprise that significant numbers are said to be considering dual nationality. If we left the EU, work permits could return, more people could have to apply for skilled migrant visas, reciprocal health schemes could be reduced, the operation of UK state pensions could be affected and the general ease of mobility for UK citizens across the EU would become much more complicated and uncertain. I wonder whether the Government have calculated the impact if large numbers of UK citizens decided to return to the UK in the event of our exit from the EU.

Finally, the Prime Minister has said that the franchise should remain at 18 for the referendum, but he also said that it was an issue for Parliament to decide. My view is that the Scottish referendum demonstrated convincingly the value of permitting 16 year-olds to vote and, given the implications for 16 year-olds if there was to be a vote to leave, we should lower the voting age. Sixteen year-olds have a right to be involved as their future will be affected.

In conclusion, I hope that it will be possible to explore all these issues in Committee; they matter.

Dresden Bombing: 70th Anniversary

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for enabling us to consider the 70th anniversary commemorations of the bombing of Dresden. I say at the outset that I thought the commemorations were sensitive in their handling and appropriate in tone. They reflected a common set of values between Dresden and Coventry today and, through those cities, between Germany and the United Kingdom.

I think everyone recognises that the bombing of Dresden was a terrible event and that it did not shorten the war. Those two conclusions seem today to be self-evident, but new generations need to understand what happened, which is why we have to keep discussing it. It is very important that the twinning relationships that exist between our country and Germany, in particular between Dresden and Coventry, continue those discussions. However, we should beware the application of too much hindsight to what was happening in the early weeks of 1945. At the end of January 1945, two weeks before the bombing of Dresden, the Russians had entered Auschwitz-Birkenau, revealing its horrors to the world. In the west, allied troops were still trying to cross the Rhine and the Ruhr. Even though it was clear that Germany would lose the war, it was unclear how long it might take and how many allied troops would lose their lives in the process. There was, therefore, an understandable desire to push Nazi Germany closer to collapse as quickly as possible.

Dresden lay in the centre of the land area that Nazi Germany controlled. It had a significant productive capacity, a munitions centre—not that large, but it had one—and it was a major communications centre, with a railway system that could funnel troops to the Eastern Front. It was inevitably, therefore, a target, even though the people in Dresden thought that they were not because of their cultural heritage.

Dresden, as we know, had been left unprotected. All its defensive guns had been moved east on the railway system that it was at the centre of. The bombing on 13 and 14 February 1945 left 13 square miles of destruction, and 25,000 people were killed. Some 200 factories were damaged and, although there was serious damage to goods and marshalling yards, it was only in April that further bombing destroyed the railway system fully.

Because so much damage was done to the cultural heart of Dresden, as we have heard in this debate, it is clear that no real distinction was made at the planning stage between, on the one hand, civilians and their homes and Dresden’s civic and religious buildings, and, on the other hand, industrial and communications installations. For that reason, and given the impossibility of precision bombing in World War II, the destruction of so much of central Dresden must have been understood and accepted in advance. We have to remember that fact and that decision. As we heard in the quotations from my noble friend Lord Lexden, that issue came to the fore in the days after the bombing of Dresden. That is why the remembrance that takes place each year between Dresden and Coventry remains so important.

We can argue, and some do, that we were simply responding to what Nazi Germany had done to us. The problem with that argument is that we were fighting for a set of values that would not target innocent people and destroy buildings for the sake of it. Such destruction is what happened in Coventry. The city of Coventry was bombed 40 times from November 1940. On 14 November 1940, over 500 German planes bombed the city, including the new use of incendiary bombs. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that the Luftwaffe was trying to destroy Coventry and its people. Some 500 tonnes of high explosives were dropped on Coventry and 30,000 incendiary bombs. Over 550 people were killed. This was, at that time in World War II, a new level of attempted destruction. The Germans in fact created their own word for any town or city receiving a similar level of destruction. They said that that town or city was coventriert—coventrated.

My father was an auxiliary fireman during the worst of the attacks on Coventry. Teaching by day in Bromsgrove, he was in Coventry at night. I recall as a child his talking about it occasionally at mealtimes. I realise now that he missed out a great deal of the detail to spare us some of the things that he must have seen.

I think we all would conclude that war is a terrible thing. As we have heard, 55,000 aircrew in Bomber Command lost their lives in World War II. In the months from September 1940 to March 1941, the Luftwaffe bombers launched many raids across Britain, including on Liverpool, Portsmouth and Glasgow, killing over 40,000 British civilians; 14,000 were killed in the London blitz, and London was attacked on 57 separate nights.

In the immediate post-war period, many town and city twinning initiatives were put in place, as I referred to earlier. Most have lasted well. One that has lasted well is that between Dresden and Coventry to remember, through such a twinning relationship, a conflict that had such terrible consequences. I pay my own tribute to the work of the Dresden Trust, which has done so much to help the recent truly impressive restoration work in Dresden. The twinning of the Frauenkirche with Coventry Cathedral symbolises a lasting rejection of Nazi ideology and a love of peace, democracy, tolerance and friendship between peoples. We should thank the people of Coventry and Dresden for the leadership that they show us.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Friday 10th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I led a debate in your Lordships’ House in October on the importance of our continued membership of the EU to our economy and to jobs. I live in the north-east of England, where our regional economy is hugely dependent on exports to the EU and inward investment from abroad. As we know from the warnings of Nissan, Hitachi and others, leaving the EU could cost us thousands of jobs if we lost the benefits of the single market.

I have no difficulty with the principle of referendums. They can give legitimacy to constitutional change, they can clear the air when there are differences of opinion and they can engage voters directly in decision-making. However, they should be used only when there is an identifiable constitutional need, when the question to be asked has been approved by the Electoral Commission and when the franchise applies to all those who could be personally affected by the result. The Bill fails those tests: the timing proposed does not reflect constitutional need; the question needs to be changed because the Electoral Commission recommends a different question; and many people likely to be directly affected by the result will be denied a vote.

I now pursue this latter issue about who can vote. UK voters who move abroad can vote in UK parliamentary elections from their last UK address for up to 15 years after moving, but not after 15 years. So, UK citizens who have lived elsewhere in the EU for less than 15 years can have a vote in this referendum if they have a registered address in a UK constituency. However, what about UK pensioners who may have lived elsewhere in the EU for more than 15 years? They will be denied a vote. Yet their pensions, currently uprated, as in the UK, could cease to be uprated if we leave the EU. They could be treated as UK pensioners living in Commonwealth countries are treated, where pensions are not uprated. These pensioners may have contributed all their lives and they have a right to be involved in a referendum. So do all those working and living elsewhere in the EU, whether under or over 15 years, since they could lose their rights to do so. So do all those from elsewhere in the EU working in the UK and paying taxes here. They should have the same rights in a referendum as they hold for local elections.

It is of great interest to me that, in the referendum on Scottish independence later this year, the test for who can vote is residency. A voter must reside in Scotland, so 790,000 people born in Scotland but living elsewhere in the UK cannot vote. Conversely, 413,000 people born elsewhere in the UK can vote because they reside in Scotland. This is a very different approach, but that difference confirms my view that we need to explore the matter of who can vote in this EU referendum in much greater depth in Committee.