House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make covering three separate matters.
The House was informed before the general election that, following the shocking attack on Westminster bridge and these Houses of Parliament in March, the Lord Speaker and I commissioned an external independent review of how the perimeter of the parliamentary estate, including outbuildings, is secured and protected. At the same time, the Clerks of both Houses commissioned an externally-led review of the lessons learned from the operation inside Parliament of the incident management framework. The report of the first review has now been received and formal delivery of the second is imminent. Both will be carefully considered. I can assure the House that appropriate action will be taken swiftly and decisively.
As colleagues will be aware, Parliament’s IT service was subjected to a sustained and determined cyber-attack over the weekend. Parliament has robust measures in place to protect all of our accounts and systems. In order to protect our core network and systems, it was necessary temporarily to restrict remote access to the network, which meant that some colleagues were unable to access their email accounts. Good progress is being made in restoring remote access. Constituency offices have been given priority so that our critical work in constituencies can continue.
Parliament’s first priority has been to ensure that the business of both Houses can continue. It is self-evident that this has been achieved, and I am sure colleagues will join me in thanking all of those parliamentary staff who have worked intensively over the past few days to ensure that our parliamentary democracy can operate freely.
On Thursday last, I informed the House about arrangements for the election of Deputy Speakers. Nominations are due tomorrow and the ballot will be held on Wednesday morning. I thought it would be helpful to all Members if I informed the House now, rather than late tomorrow afternoon when nominations close, that I have decided, after consultation with the Clerks and in the light of technical advice from the Electoral Reform Society, which is the House’s adviser on ballots, that if—and I stress if—there is only one candidate from the Conservative side of the House and there are more than two candidates from the other side, the name of the sole Conservative candidate will not be on the ballot paper and will be declared in due course as elected as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, in much the same way as happens when there is an unopposed candidate for the Chair of a Select Committee.
I hope that this will help Members in all parts of the House to deal with the perceived complexities of the single transferable vote system to which we are bound by the Standing Orders. If—I recognise that this is in the realms of conjecture—colleagues are in any way puzzled by its operation, they are welcome to seek advice from the Public Bill Office, the Library or, indeed, Wikipedia.
European Council
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council, and on the proposals we are publishing today, which, on a reciprocal basis, seek to give reassurance and certainty to EU citizens who have made their homes and lives in our country.
This Council followed the formal start of the negotiations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU, as well as marking the first anniversary of the referendum that led to that decision. In that referendum, the British people chose to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders, to restore supremacy to this Parliament, and to reclaim our sense of national self-determination, and this Government will fulfil the democratic will of the British people.
But the referendum was not a vote to turn our backs on our friends and neighbours. Indeed, as we become ever more internationalist in our outlook, and as we build the global Britain we want to see, we will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends with all the member states of the European Union. We want to work with one another to ensure that we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through our continued friendship. We want to buy each other’s goods and services and trade as freely as possible. We will continue to celebrate and defend the liberal democratic values that we share, and to project those values that are the foundation of our freedoms and our way of life. In short, we want to build what I have described as a new, deep and special partnership between a confident, self-governing, global Britain and all our friends and allies in the European Union.
That is the positive and constructive spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union began the formal negotiations last week, and it is the same spirit in which the United Kingdom made a full contribution to all the issues at this Council, including on security, migration, climate change and trade.
On security, I thanked our European partners for their condolences and for their resolve in standing with us following the appalling terrorist attacks that the UK has suffered in recent weeks. These attacks have seen citizens from across Europe tragically killed and injured, but they have also seen our citizens standing together in some of the most inspiring ways. At London Bridge, we saw a Spanish banker tragically killed as he rushed to the aid of a woman being attacked. We saw a Romanian baker fighting off the terrorists and giving shelter to Londoners in his bakery. These moments of heroism show that such attacks on our way of life, far from dividing us, will only ever serve to strengthen our shared unity and resolve.
But these attacks also show that we need to respond to a new trend in the threat we face, as terrorism breeds terrorism and perpetrators are inspired to attack by copying one another using the crudest of means. Therefore, building on the bilateral agreement I reached with President Macron earlier this month, at this Council I argued that we must come together to defeat the hateful and extremist ideologies that inspire these attacks, and to stop the internet being used as a safe space for extremists. When one third of all links to Daesh propaganda are shared within the first hour of release, it is not enough for technology companies to respond reactively to extremist content on their platforms. The Council therefore agreed to put pressure on these companies to do more to remove this content automatically, and also to ensure that law-enforcement agencies can access encrypted data. That was a significant step forward. We will continue to work together with our European partners to combat this evil, to defend our values and to keep our citizens safe.
Let me turn to other issues. On migration, the Council recommitted to the comprehensive approach that the UK has advocated, dealing with the drivers of migration while also doing more to stem the flow. At the summit I confirmed a new UK commitment of £75 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs in the central Mediterranean, while also facilitating voluntary returns of migrants making these treacherous journeys.
On trade, as the UK leaves the European Union we will be forging trade deals around the world with old friends and new allies alike, but that will not undermine the EU’s trade agenda; it is not even in competition with it. Therefore, for as long as we remain part of the EU, we will continue to press for an ambitious trade agenda that can deliver jobs and growth across the continent. That is what I did at this Council, where there was a particular focus on the work towards deals with Japan, Mexico and the Mercosur bloc of South American countries.
On climate change, the Council reaffirmed the commitment of all member states to fully implement the Paris agreement. The UK has already reaffirmed its own commitment, and I have expressed my disappointment to President Trump that he has taken a different decision. We will continue to make the case to our American allies to think again.
Turning to citizens’ rights, EU citizens make an invaluable contribution to our United Kingdom: to our economy, our public services and our everyday lives. They are an integral part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of our country, and I have always been clear that I want to protect their rights. That is why I initially sought an agreement on this before we triggered article 50, and it is why I am making it an immediate priority at the beginning of the negotiations.
But that agreement must be reciprocal because we must protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU member states, too. At the Council, I set out some of the principles that I believe should underlie that reciprocal agreement, and there was a very positive response from individual leaders and a strong sense of mutual good will in trying to reach such an agreement as soon as possible. So today we are publishing detailed proposals to do exactly that. Let me set out the key points for the House.
First, we want certainty. I know that there has been some anxiety about what would happen to EU citizens at the point we leave the European Union. Today I want to put that anxiety to rest. I want to completely reassure people that under these plans no EU citizen currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave at the point the UK leaves the EU. We want you to stay.
Second, any EU citizen in the UK with five years’ continuous residence at a specified cut-off date will be granted settled status. They will be treated as if they were UK citizens for healthcare, education, benefits and pensions, while any EU citizens with less than five years’ residence, who have arrived before the specified cut-off date, will be able to stay until they have the five years’ residence and apply for UK settled status.
Third, the specified cut-off date will be the subject of discussions, but it will be no earlier than the date on which we triggered article 50 and no later than the date on which we leave the EU. Fourth, no families will be split up. Family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen here before the UK’s exit will be able to apply for settled status after five years. After the UK has left the European Union, EU citizens with settled status will be able to bring family members from overseas on the same terms as British nationals.
Fifth, there will be no cliff edge: there will be a grace period of up to two years to allow people to regularise their status. Those EU citizens who arrived in the UK after the specified cut-off date will be allowed to remain in the UK for at least a temporary period, and may still become eligible to settle permanently. Sixth, the system of registration that citizens go through will be as streamlined and light-touch as possible, and we intend to remove some of the technical requirements currently needed to obtain permanent residence under EU rules. For example, we will not require anyone to demonstrate that they have held comprehensive sickness insurance.
Seventh, we expect this offer to be extended on a reciprocal basis to nationals of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, and the reciprocal agreement on citizens’ rights will apply to the entire United Kingdom and Gibraltar. Eighth, this is all without prejudice to the common travel area arrangements that exist between the UK and Ireland. We will preserve the freedoms that UK and Irish nationals currently enjoy in each other’s states, and Irish citizens will not need to apply for permanent residence to protect these entitlements.
Finally, the UK will continue to export and uprate the UK state pension and provide associated healthcare cover within the EU. We will continue to protect the export of other benefits and associated healthcare cover, where the individual is in receipt of those benefits on the specified cut-off date. Subject to negotiations, we want to continue participating in the European health insurance card scheme, so that UK card holders could continue to benefit from free or reduced-cost healthcare while on a temporary stay in the EU, and vice-versa for EU card holders visiting the UK.
This is a fair and serious offer. Our obligations in the withdrawal treaty with the EU will be binding on the UK as a matter of international law. We will incorporate commitments into UK law guaranteeing that we will stand firmly by our part of the deal. Our offer will give those 3 million EU citizens in the UK certainty about the future of their lives, and a reciprocal agreement will provide the same certainty for the more than 1 million UK citizens who are living in the European Union.
One year on from that momentous decision to leave the European Union, let us remember what we are seeking to achieve with these negotiations. We are withdrawing from a system of treaties and bureaucracy that does not work for us, but we are not withdrawing from the values and solidarity that we share with our European neighbours.
As a confident, outward-looking and self-governing nation, we know that it is not just our past that is entwined in the fortunes of our friends and neighbours; it is our future, too. That is why we want this new, deep and special partnership, and it is why we approach these negotiations with optimism. A good deal for Britain and a good deal for Europe are not competing alternatives; they are the best single path to a brighter future for all our children and grandchildren. That, I believe, is the future that the British people voted for, and that is the future that I want us to secure. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I join you in thanking all staff of the House of Commons for all the work they did over the weekend to ensure that our electronic systems are safe? I would be grateful if you passed that message on to staff.
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement. Sixty-eight days ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and asked the country to give her a strong mandate to negotiate Brexit. She offered little by way of strategy or plan, but more by way of hollow soundbites and grandstanding. For the past six months, the Prime Minister has stuck to her mantra—
“no deal is better than a bad deal”—
and continued with her threat to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven aimed at undercutting the European Union by ripping up regulation, hacking back public services and leading a race to the bottom in pay and conditions. Well, the British people saw through that rhetoric and the threats and, instead of giving the Prime Minister the mandate she wanted, they rejected in large numbers the deregulated low-wage future that the Conservative party has in mind for this country.
The Prime Minister wanted a landslide and she lost her majority. Now, her mandate is in tatters, but she still insists she is the best person to get a good deal for Britain, and incredibly believes that she is the best person to strike a deal with the very people she spent the past six months threatening and hectoring. The truth is that this country needs a new approach to Brexit that a Tory Government simply cannot deliver. They are taking Britain down a reckless path, prepared to put jobs and living standards at risk just for the Prime Minister to maintain support within her party and to keep her Government in office.
The cracks are already beginning to appear. While some in the Conservative party want to move towards Labour’s approach to Brexit, at least in terms of protecting jobs, trade and the economy, the hard-right voices in her Cabinet and on her Back Benches, are still determined to force Britain over a cliff edge. The Prime Minister needs to ignore them; she needs now to listen. So I ask her, as she has promised to restore supremacy to this Parliament, will she now be more transparent and involve it properly in the Brexit negotiation process? Will she now finally rule out the possibility of no deal being a viable option for the country? [Interruption.] The choice is hers.
The Prime Minister went to Brussels last week to make what she described as a “generous offer” to EU nationals in this country. The truth is that it is too little, too late. That could and should have been done a year ago when Labour put that very proposal to the House of Commons. By making an offer only after negotiations have begun, the Prime Minister has dragged the issue of citizens and families deep into the complex and delicate negotiations of our future trade relations with the European Union, which she herself has been willing to say may result in failure.
This is not a generous offer. This is confirmation that the Government are prepared to use people as bargaining chips. So can the Prime Minister now confirm what will happen to her offer to nationals in this country if no deal is reached? What happens to the rights of family reunion that EU citizens are currently entitled to? Does the Prime Minister envisage that the five-year period that EU nationals must accumulate here in Britain will be the same for British citizens who want to retain the right to live in other parts of the European Union? Were these proposals drawn up to take into account the impact on our public services, especially the national health service, where there is already great concern over falling numbers of nurses and doctors?
What makes this situation more remarkable is what we learned this weekend from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—that immediately after last year’s referendum, the Government were willing to give assurances to EU nationals in this country. However, that was blocked in the Cabinet by the Prime Minister herself. This is people’s lives we are talking about—our neighbours, friends, husbands, wives and children. The Prime Minister clearly did not care about them then. Why should they believe she cares about them now?
The country needs a change of direction; people are tired of tough talk from a weak Government and a weak Prime Minister. The Government need to listen, put the national interest first and deliver a Brexit for the many, not the few—one that puts jobs, the economy and living standards first by building a new partnership with the European Union on the basis of common interests and common values, and one that protects living standards and promotes human rights through new trade deals throughout the world. That is what Labour would do.
The Prime Minister has no mandate at home and no mandate abroad. Is it not the case that it would only be a Labour Government who work for the whole country who could deliver a Brexit that works for all and protects those jobs and living standards that are at risk while this Government remain in office?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talked about a variety of issues. He talked about Parliament and transparency. We have been very clear that there will be a vote in this Parliament on the deal that has been negotiated with the European Union, and we expect that to take place before the European Parliament has an opportunity to vote on it. There will be many opportunities—in legislation and in other ways—in the coming weeks and months for Parliament to make its views known on these various matters.
Let me come on to the position that the right hon. Gentleman referred to in relation to workers’ rights. We are very clear, as I was in the objectives that I set out in the Lancaster House speech in January, and as I have continued to set out, in the article 50 letter and elsewhere, that we want to protect workers’ rights—indeed, we want to enhance workers’ rights.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about there being no plan. I set out our objectives in that Lancaster House speech and in the article 50 letter, and have continued to set out those objectives, whereas the Labour party has had seven plans on Brexit in nine months. We have members of the Labour party Front Bench—the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Chief Secretary and the shadow Attorney General—who want to retain free movement. We have 35 Labour MPs who want to retain membership of the single market. Neither of those, as far as I am aware, were actually in the Labour party manifesto that people stood on at the last election.
Then we get on to the whole issue of the negotiations on EU citizens and their rights here in the United Kingdom. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find it bizarre, if not worrying, that, in the position he holds, he is willing to stand in this House and say he has no care for UK citizens living in the European Union, because that is what he is saying. I said at an early stage that we wanted to address the EU citizens’ rights issue early. The European Union were clear that there was no negotiation before notification. It is one of the first issues that we are addressing after notification. They were clear it had to be undertaken on a reciprocal basis, and they were clear that, whatever the United Kingdom said, the European Union would still be arguing about its proposals in relation to the protection of rights for EU citizens. So people who say that we should not be dealing with this on a reciprocal basis simply do not understand what negotiations are about, because the other side will be negotiating on these issues.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the issue of no deal being better than a bad deal. I will tell him what I worry about in terms of a bad deal: I worry about those who appear to suggest in Europe that we should be punished in some sense for leaving the European Union, and I worry about those here—from what he says, I think the Leader of the Opposition is in this particular camp—who say we should take any deal, regardless of the bill and regardless of the circumstances. He would negotiate the worst deal with the biggest possible bill.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a future relationship based on a partnership of shared values with trade deals across the world. That is exactly what I said in my statement, so I suggest he start supporting the Government on their Brexit arrangements.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Given Brexit and our vital red lines on the European Court, and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, does my right hon. Friend agree that a reasonable framework to protect reciprocal citizens’ rights while making no concession at all on preserving our own Westminster jurisdiction and our own judicial sovereignty would be a tribunal system such as I outlined in the House last week which would be along similar lines to the EFTA Court and a parallel source of law agreement?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an interesting proposal. Of course, we are looking at a variety of arrangements for the enforcement of agreements that we come to. In relation to the EU citizens’ rights, if these form part of the withdrawal treaty, they will be enshrined in international law. But we should also recognise that our courts are world-renowned—they are respected around the world—and what I want to see, and would expect, is that these citizens’ rights for EU citizens in the UK would be upheld and enforced by our courts in the same way as UK citizens’ rights are upheld and enforced by our courts.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
With your forbearance, Mr Speaker, I will make some short remarks on the sad passing of Gordon Wilson, who was Member of Parliament for Dundee East from 1974 to 1987. I am sure that everyone in the House would wish to pass their condolences on to Gordon’s family. Those of us on the SNP Benches were honoured to have Gordon’s wisdom, wit and intelligence with us for many, many decades. Indeed, he spoke with me on Wednesday before I entered the Chamber to respond to the Queen’s Speech. He will be sadly missed by all of us, and particularly by those of us on these Benches.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the Government’s plan for EU citizens. It was more than concerning to open the document designed to settle the lives of many of our EU citizens here to discover that it leaves many more questions than it provides answers. The Prime Minister went to Brussels last week and presented a plan for EU nationals. It fell short of expectations, with Dutch President Mark Rutte stating that there are
“thousands of questions to ask”
about the proposal. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Joint Ministerial Committee was consulted on the proposals she has published today? When will she honour the pledge of a united United Kingdom approach to Brexit and give Scotland a place at the table in negotiations? Has the Prime Minister costed the plan for EU nationals, which she presented to the EU 27 last week, and when will the costings be laid before the House? Will she confirm that EU citizens in Scotland will not have to fill out the 85-page paper form for residency?
In the early hours after the EU referendum result, Scotland’s First Minister called loud and clear for the Prime Minister to unilaterally guarantee EU citizens’ rights. It is therefore shocking to learn in the Evening Standard that the then Prime Minister had pledged to do just that, but the current Prime Minister blocked the plan. Does the Prime Minister accept she was wrong, and will she now do the right and honourable thing and reassure thousands of concerned EU nationals living in the UK today by unilaterally guaranteeing their rights? We created these circumstances; we should be showing leadership.
We welcome the EU summit conclusions, especially those on jobs, growth and competitiveness. The SNP Government were the first Government in the UK to publish a plan for Brexit—we put the single market at the heart of that—and we call again on the Prime Minister to keep the UK in the single market to protect thousands of jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Additional summit conclusions on the Paris agreement are a very welcome step in ensuring that the agreement is implemented following the US withdrawal last month. The Prime Minister must tell the House what the UK’s next steps will be in implementing the agreement in co-operation with our EU friends and neighbours.
I welcome the announcement today of the uprating of pensions for those living in the EU, but will the Prime Minister extend that to pensioners living in other parts of the world who currently do not benefit from uprating?
Finally, on behalf of those on the SNP Benches, I send best wishes to the Estonian President ahead of the European Estonian presidency taking over on 1 July, and give thanks to the Maltese presidency which is coming to an end this week.
The Prime Minister
First, may I join the hon. Gentleman in passing condolences to the family and friends of Gordon Wilson? I am sorry to hear of his passing.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. I reiterate the point about the process of application. He referred to the 85-page application paper. As I said in my statement, the Home Office is working to introduce a streamlined, light-touch approach so that people will not have to apply on an 85-page paper.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the story in the Evening Standard. I have to say that that is not my recollection. What we are doing today is setting out what I believe is a fair and serious offer to EU citizens staying here in the United Kingdom, but we want to have a care—I repeat the point I made to the Leader of the Opposition—for those UK citizens living in the European Union.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the Scottish independence referendum the First Minister told EU nationals that, if an independent Scotland were not allowed to rejoin the EU,
“they would lose the right to stay here.”
We are not saying that to EU nationals here in the United Kingdom. We are saying, “We want you to stay and this paper is the basis on which we will ensure that you can stay, and nobody will be forced to leave.”
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her policy, which will bring many benefits to the UK and the rest of the EU. Can she tell the House a little more about how far we can go in negotiating free trade agreements with non-EU countries before we leave, and when we will learn how we can spend all the money we are going to save?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend will know, we proposed during the election campaign that some of the money that is returned be spent in a shared prosperity fund in the United Kingdom, which will seek to deal with and remove the disparities within regions and nations and between the parts of the United Kingdom.
On trade deals for the rest of the world, of course legally we cannot sign up to free trade agreements with other parties until we are no longer members of the European Union, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is doing much work with other countries around the world, such as India and America, to see what trade benefits we can achieve, before we leave the European Union, by removing some of the barriers that currently exist to trade between our countries.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware that EU citizens living and working here are particularly concerned about the status of their children. Can she confirm that a young person of EU parents who has lived in Britain for four years, who is currently studying at a university elsewhere in the EU and who will be over the age of 18 when she returns will be able automatically to return to her parents, and will her parents be required to meet an income threshold?
The Prime Minister
Yes, that individual would be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. If EU citizens who are living here at the time at which we leave have lived here before the specified cut-off date and have five years’ residence, they will get their settled status. If they have less than five years’ residence before the cut-off date, they will be able to stay to build up that five years’ residence for settled status. For any new people coming afresh to the United Kingdom after we leave the European Union, we will set out those immigration rules in due course and a Bill will go through Parliament, which will enable the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May I urge the Prime Minister to settle this issue as part of an interim deal with the EU, so that those affected do not have to wait for the conclusions of the negotiations?
The Prime Minister
I would very much like us to be able to do that by dealing with this at an early stage in the negotiations and by recognising that we all want to ensure that we give people reassurance and that they are no longer anxious about their future. I hope that the European Union will see the benefits of that and that we will be able to address this at an earlier stage than at the end of the negotiations.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister needs to reassure Members of the European Parliament. I was in Brussels last week and heard petitioners from this country and others talk about their concerns. When I previously asked the Prime Minister whether she would address the European Parliament, she said that she was waiting for an invitation. She must know, however, that she does need an invitation; she can volunteer to address a plenary session of the European Parliament. Will she do that?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will be meeting some MEPs later today to talk about the proposals we have put forward. I have been in discussions with President Tajani about the possibility of my going over to speak to the European Parliament, and we are looking at the basis and a timetable on which that should happen.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons why the British people voted to leave the EU was to reassert the supremacy of this Parliament and the UK courts? Will she confirm that, when we do leave, that will be the position for all citizens resident in the UK, no matter from where they came?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that. One of the key differences between the proposals we have put forward and those of the European Union is that it wants the European Court of Justice to continue to have jurisdiction over EU citizens, even after we have left the European Union. I think people were very clear that they did not want the ECJ to have jurisdiction here in the UK. I believe that we have fine courts in this country. They will be able to uphold EU citizens’ rights, just as they uphold UK citizens’ rights.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister did not answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). If there are French parents whose 19-year-old daughter is studying in Paris and they have been living here for more than five years, will that daughter be able to return to live with them here without them having to pass the income threshold? If those parents have been living here for fewer than five years, will they still have all the same rights as if they had been living here for more than five years?
The Prime Minister
Yes: if the parents have been living here for the five years, their daughter will be able to return to the United Kingdom on the same basis that she would today. So there will be no new rules that would apply. If they have been living here for fewer than five years, they will be able to accrue the five-year status so that they go to exactly the same position with that settled status.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition alleged that many Conservative Members were coming over to Labour’s way of thinking. Just in case I were tempted, does anyone have any idea what that is?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is always known for his plain speaking and he has put the point in a rather plainer way than I did in response to the Leader of the Opposition.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Paragraph 6 of the summit’s conclusions refers to “peace and stability” in the world. Was there an opportunity to discuss the situation in Yemen, where 10,000 people have been killed, where the cholera epidemic has reached a fifth of a million people, and where the Saudis and Qataris are now refusing to speak to each other? Surely if there is a role for the EU at the present time, it is to work with the United Kingdom, which holds the pen on Yemen, to try to bring peace to Yemen.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises the serious issue of the situation that exists in Yemen. That has been a matter of concern for some time and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is a growing issue. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has been able to provide some support. Of course, there are issues about ensuring that that support actually gets through to the people who need it.
I will be open with the right hon. Gentleman: there was not a discussion on Yemen specifically at this European Council, but we will continue to work with other member states of the European Union and through our role on the Security Council of the United Nations to try to find a solution, so that we can see a reduction in the humanitarian problems in Yemen and bring peace and stability to that country.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been attempting to resolve the status of EU citizens since well before the triggering of article 50. What more can EU citizens residing in the UK do to put pressure on whoever is standing in the way of an agreement to resolve this issue, which is causing so much heartache to so many people?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The message has to go across in the negotiations that this is a really important issue. It is about people’s futures, and we want to ensure that we remove anxiety and give people reassurance. When I speak to other leaders within Europe, that is the message I get from them, but we need to ensure that the working group that has been set up under the negotiations recognises that and does its work as quickly as possible.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister accept that the only way to reassure the 3 million EU citizens who work in, but are starting to leave, our hospitals, schools, care homes and businesses, as well as UK citizens in the EU, is for her immediately and unconditionally to grant full rights to EU citizens in the UK—no ifs, no buts? Anything less will leave them thinking that they are nothing more than a bargaining chip in a crude and cruel game of call my bluff initiated by the Brexiteers sitting next to her.
The Prime Minister
We are making clear in the document we have set out today the basis on which we believe a reciprocal arrangement can be made, but we are also making it clear to EU citizens here in the UK that nobody is being asked to leave the United Kingdom. That is one of the most important messages that we can give to people here, because there has been that anxiety. This is a serious offer, and nobody is being asked to leave the United Kingdom.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome the offer to EU nationals that the Prime Minister is making today and the spirit of generosity and pragmatism with which she makes it. Does she agree that carrying forward that same spirit into the negotiations about the rights of future EU workers gives us the best chance of protecting our own economic interests and securing the comprehensive trade deal that we all want to see?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right. We want to work in a positive and constructive spirit, because it is in the interests of both sides—the UK and the European Union—to ensure that we get the right offer for EU citizens here and UK citizens in the EU, and also that we get the comprehensive trade deal we want, which will be to not just our benefit but that of the other member states.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I certainly want the dilemma that EU nationals working and living here are facing to be put to bed so that they can plan for their future, but I also know that my constituents who voted leave wanted the reform of free movement. Will the Prime Minister pledge today to ensure that more of my constituents will be trained to fill any vacancies in both the public and private sectors created by the reform of freedom of movement? If the answer to that is yes, will she commit to come back to the House to explain just how we will do that?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for the references she makes and I can give her the assurance. It is absolutely crucial for this country that we ensure that young people are given the skills and training that they need to take up the vacancies and jobs of not only today but the future. That is why we will be reforming technical education. We will introduce changes to ensure we have proper technical education in this country for what I believe will be the first time. Alongside that, we have an industrial strategy that is about spreading prosperity across the country and ensuring that those job opportunities are available.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for the generous offer that she set out, and I hope that we will see an offer that will also benefit British citizens. I was pleased that, in reply to questions from Opposition Members, she said that EU nationals will get the same rights as British citizens but not better rights than British citizens. Will she take full opportunity of using the process to ensure that EU nationals who sadly have come to this country and abused our hospitality by committing crimes can be removed from our country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend knows very well from one of his previous roles the issue of those who have come to this country and abused, through their criminality, the rights they have been given. I certainly will ensure that we can take action to remove serious and persistent criminals from the UK.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
How can the cut-off date be earlier than the date we leave the European Union, given that EU citizens are living and working here legally at the moment and that the rights and obligations we have as members continue up until the day we leave, even through the article 50 negotiation process?
The Prime Minister
The rights that we have set out and the specified date are about the point at which people are able to qualify for settled status here in the United Kingdom. Of course, as we are members of the European Union, the arrangements that have always existed for us and for those here will continue, but for those who are getting settled status and wish to retain it for the future, the cut-off date is pertinent, and that will be a matter for negotiation.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister chose, exceptionally, to raise this extremely important issue in the Council, but will she confirm that in future all the threads of the negotiations will pass through the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, therefore bringing the negotiation together, in the same way in which the European Council is standing behind Mr Barnier?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is looking at all those threads, which he is going to pull together. We are very clear that at different stages as we go through the negotiations—in the working groups and so forth—a whole variety of people will be involved, but as we saw last Monday, when my right hon. Friend went to the start of the negotiations opposite Michel Barnier, the status and position that he holds is very clear.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that the election has changed everything and that her extreme, damaging Brexit is dead, so why is she making an offer that, as it affects British nationals living on the continent and EU nationals here, is far less generous than the offer that the EU made to us just two weeks ago?
The Prime Minister
There is no “extreme Brexit” that we have been talking about. There is no hard Brexit and there is no soft Brexit; what we want is the right deal for the United Kingdom. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that over 80% of people who voted in the recent election voted for parties that were committed to taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union. We have made a fair and serious offer; I believe it is a generous offer. There is one way in which it is different from the offer that the European Union has made, and that is in relation to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. When people voted in the referendum last year, they voted to ensure that we stopped the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice here in the UK.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the comprehensive offer that she has made to secure the rights of EU citizens in our country, in a bid also to secure the rights of UK citizens in the EU. The next time she meets the Heads of Government in the European Union, can she explain to them that there are rather a lot of remainers in this country who would prefer the Leader of the Opposition to become Prime Minister, but that he says that he would scrap our nuclear weapons in six months, removing part of Europe’s vital defensive shield provided through NATO? Will she make clear the danger of that to them?
Mr Speaker
That was very tangentially related to the matters on which the Prime Minister is reporting to us, but we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I think I will charitably call a cerebral meander.
The Prime Minister
Of course, Mr Speaker, the European Council did touch on defence issues as well, so it is possible for me to report to my hon. Friend that I did indeed address the importance of the United Kingdom continuing to maintain its defence relationship with other countries in Europe. Our relationship through NATO is very important. Obviously, because of our nuclear deterrent, we are one of the key safeguards of the security and safety of Europe.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister keeps talking about the need for reciprocity, so will she tell the House why she chose not simply to reciprocate the genuinely fair and generous proposal made by the European Commission back in April, which would have guaranteed the existing rights of the 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in EU? That would have saved a lot of time, built up good will instead of ill will, and got the negotiations off to a much better start.
The Prime Minister
I think I have pointed out that there are some differences between the two proposals put forward by us and the European Union, through the European Commission. One of the key differences was the suggestion from the European Commission that after we have left the European Union, there should be two classes of citizens here in the UK: UK citizens, whose rights would be guaranteed by the UK courts; and EU citizens, whose rights would be guaranteed by the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that all citizens should have their rights guaranteed through our courts.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that no reasonable person could oppose what she has proposed? The only people who do never wanted us to leave in the first place. The idea that a foreign court should rule on the rights of people living here is akin to the outdated colonial approach taken towards China in the unequal treaties of the 19th century.
The Prime Minister
I always bow to my hon. Friend’s historical knowledge in the references that he makes, but the point is clear: what we want to see when we leave the European Union is that citizens here in the UK have their rights guaranteed and enforced by UK courts.
Mr Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was present himself at the signing of the said treaties. We do not know; we will leave it to speculation.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to speak to the President of Cyprus and express her support for the settlement talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, which are due to recommence in Switzerland on Wednesday?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place in the Chamber. I did indeed have a bilateral discussion with the President of Cyprus about those talks, and about our hope and expectation because they have come so far. I think that both President Anastasiades and Mr Akinci have taken the discussions to a point that is far closer to a resolution than we have ever seen before, and I hope that we shall be able to take it over the line in the talks that will start in Geneva later this month. The UK, as a co-guarantor, stands ready to play its part in that.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When EU leaders say that they want EU laws to prevail over their citizens in the UK, what they are effectively saying is that they do not trust our judicial system. When the Prime Minister next meets her EU counterparts, may I suggest that she gently reminds them that many of the companies in their own countries—the companies that drive their economies—actually use English and Welsh contract law, which is enforced in our courts by our judges, and the reason why they use English and Welsh law is that, globally, our judicial system commands greater respect than the judicial systems of Germany, France, Italy and so on?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and the nub of it is that our courts are respected around the world. As he says, people choose to use our law because they respect our courts, and they also respect the validity of our law. It is important that citizens in the UK are under the jurisdiction of our courts.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I note that the Prime Minister intends to do away with the technical requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance once a reciprocal arrangement has been reached, but people such as my Lithuanian constituent Diementa McDuff are suffering as a result of that requirement at present. Despite having been in Scotland for more than five years, she cannot secure permanent residency because she does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. During the last Parliament, the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence that no such insurance product actually exists. Will the Prime Minister do away with that requirement here and now? It is a technical nonsense because these people are using the national health service anyway.
The Prime Minister
The requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance is an EU requirement, and as long as we are members of the EU, it will continue to be there. Once we leave, we can indeed remove it.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining the “anything but arms” free trade relationship with the least developed countries. Will she say a little more about the Government’s intention to extend free and fair trade to developing countries which are not necessarily on the “least developed countries” list, but which have historically been penalised by the EU’s tariff arrangements?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking for a wide range of trade deals with countries around the world when we leave the European Union. I think that those trade deals are important because they bring prosperity, growth and jobs here to the UK, and also because it is free trade that has lifted millions out of poverty around the world. Ensuring that those free trade deals are in place has huge advantages for not just the least developed countries but others, and their citizens, and that will enable us to see growth, jobs and prosperity spread more widely than they are today.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Prime Minister tell us what discussions took place on co-operation against terrorism? Was there any reference to what happened on the streets of London just over a week ago on al-Quds day, when demonstrators were allowed to shout out blaming Zionists for the Grenfell Tower fire and castigating rabbis and synagogues?
The Prime Minister
There was a significant discussion on counter-terrorism and the need for us to co-operate in dealing with this issue. We focused, as I said in my statement, on issues around the internet and on the way in which it is used to promulgate hateful propaganda and to allow terrorists to plan and to have a safe space. We are united in our wish and our determination to take action with the tech companies to ensure that this cannot happen in the future. On the hon. Lady’s last point, I would simply say that across the whole House we are clear that there is no place for hate crime or hate speech in this country.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Some 3.2 million EU citizens currently choose to live, work and make their lives in this country. They are well aware that we are leaving the European Union. What does my right hon. Friend believe that that says about their perception of our country’s prospects post-Brexit, and what does it say about Opposition Members when millions of EU citizens have more confidence in our country than they do?
The Prime Minister
I think that it shows what a great place the United Kingdom is to live and work in, and what great opportunities we have for the future. I am very pleased that those 3.2 million EU citizens have confidence in our country and want to stay here.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In her statement, the Prime Minister talked about the drivers of migration, which include climate change, conflicts and extreme poverty. As a country, we have a proud record on international development. Does she agree that as this process moves forward, it is vital that we continue to co-operate closely with other EU countries to tackle extreme poverty, especially in Africa?
The Prime Minister
Indeed it is, and I am pleased that we as a country have been able to play our part in dealing with that. As an example, the Somalia conference that we hosted some weeks ago brought together countries from around the world to find ways in which we can continue to support Somalia, which people have been choosing to leave to come to Europe, and to provide greater stability and economic opportunity in that country. The UK has been at the forefront of the compact that we have with Ethiopia to provide economic and job opportunities for people who might otherwise try to migrate to Europe. We will continue to work with our European allies on this.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister believe that our new relationship with Europe will enable us to reduce further the significant numbers of European Union nationals in our prisons, which would give further headroom for our hard-pressed prison officers to carry out the vital rehabilitation work that they do so well?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. We want to ensure that we are able to continue to transfer prisoners from the United Kingdom to their homes states in the European Union, but we also want to ensure that we are able to remove serious and persistent criminals from the United Kingdom, and we will do that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I should like to ask my right hon. and even closer Friend the Prime Minister what reassurance she can give to the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland—particularly its producers and processors—about the rights of workers that will be required so that we can benefit from the increase in trade that that sector will undoubtedly get as a result of Brexit? Will this be marshalled by a work permit system and, if so, will it be capped in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
The rules that we will set for people coming into the United Kingdom from the European Union, once we have left it—that is, those who are not already here—will be set out in the new immigration Bill that we will bring to the House following the repeal Bill. I fully recognise the importance of the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland, and that was made clear to me during several visits I have made there in recent months. We want to ensure that, once we have left the European Union, we see greater opportunities for the agri-food sector not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole United Kingdom, which will bring jobs, and greater growth and prosperity.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the typically warm and constructive response from Mr Juncker to these welcome proposals reinforces the need for her to work ever closer with the European Heads of Government to compensate for the vested interests of the EU institutions?
The Prime Minister
As I said in my statement, the responses received from individual leaders in the European Union were positive to the proposals that we were putting forward. I can cite the Prime Minister of Poland’s positive response to what was said, for example. I think my hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
To follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), the Prime Minister’s new governing partner, the Democratic Unionist Party, said in its manifesto that it would seek to deliver a “frictionless border” with the Republic of Ireland and a
“comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union”.
Is it not the case that neither of those objectives can be secured if we leave the European Union without a deal?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the desires to bring about a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and to have a comprehensive free trade deal are exactly what the Government are pursuing. That is what was said in my Lancaster House speech, and we are doing it. I met the incoming Taoiseach last week and discussed how we can work with the Irish Government to ensure that we can deliver just that.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Violent ideologies from far-right Islamists are increasingly appearing online. Will my right hon. Friend provide some more information on what was agreed at the Council on tackling, fining or holding accountable internet companies that carry extremist content or those that are platforms for grooming?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. With extremism that leads to terrorism, whatever the source, we see that people are trying to divide us in this country. That is why the response to all the terrorist attacks that have taken place in recent months—there being different reasons for those attacks having taken place, of course—has been one of unity and unity of purpose of British citizens to ensure that we drive out this hatred from our country. That is so important. In the discussions, we focused on the internet and in particular the industry-led forum, the setting up of which we and others have been discussing with tech companies. We want to see automatic technological solutions for the removal of material from the internet, because at the moment the process of removing extremist material is too slow and allows too many minds to be infiltrated before it is taken down. We want to see the automatic removal of that material.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has made clear her hostility to the European Court of Justice. What will happen to British citizens living in other EU countries if they are not protected by the Court? Will they become citizens of nowhere?
The Prime Minister
As regards the jurisdiction of courts in the United Kingdom, I have made it clear that we should not be subject to the European Court of Justice and that EU citizens’ rights here should be protected in a different way. I believe that one of the things that people voted for when they voted to leave the European Union was for the ECJ not to have jurisdiction here in the United Kingdom.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I think the whole country will welcome the agreement that the Conservative and Unionist party has made with the DUP. The Prime Minister’s statement referred to the Brexit dividend of over £10 billion that we will save when we are not in the European superstate, and I welcome the half a billion pounds a year going to Northern Ireland. Is that the sort of funding that the Prime Minister thinks will happen in the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I can say that we have to look at how we are going to use the money that we will no longer be sending to the European Union. People voted for us not to be sending vast sums of money to the EU every year, and we will have to look at how we use that money. One suggestion that has already been proposed by the Government is the concept of a shared prosperity fund to remove the disparities between different parts of the UK.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Did the Prime Minister have a chance at the European Council to discuss transitional funding arrangements for Wales? She will surely have to have something to say to the people of Wales, who now feel they are being treated as second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. She can magic up billions for Northern Ireland and yet will not give a guarantee on future funding for Wales.
The Prime Minister
We have already been very clear on various aspects of European Union funding for farmers, and on the guarantees we have over a period of years, but we want to make sure that, when money comes back from the European Union—money that we no longer give to the European Union—we are able to spend it as effectively as possible in driving improvements across the whole United Kingdom.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Before I came to this place, I used to teach effective negotiation skills. Through the Prime Minister, may I invite the Leader of the Opposition to a free trial period?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a most generous offer, though I suspect the first thing he will have to do is explain to the Leader of the Opposition what a negotiation actually is.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I continue the efforts of my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in trying to understand what this will mean for our EU constituents resident here in the UK and their family members. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under her rules, a Polish nurse on a band 5 salary of under £22,000, who therefore will not meet the income threshold required under the current rules, will not be able to bring her child and partner over to the UK; and that a French teaching assistant on under £17,000 will not be able to bring an elderly relative to the UK? If so, what impact does she think that will have on our public services?
The Prime Minister
I repeat what I said earlier. For those EU citizens who are here and who qualify for settled status—either because they already have five years’ residence or because they were here before the cut-off date and are able to build up the qualification for settled status—there will be no extra requirements to enable them to bring family members into the United Kingdom. We are not going to be splitting up those families.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s very clear assurances that, under Brexit, no families will be split up and that there will be no cliff edges for regularising their status. I also welcome the healthcare and pension arrangements. But the impact of Brexit on British businesses that employ EU workers simply cannot be overestimated, especially in the food, drink, farming and health industries in places such as Taunton Deane, so what reassurances can she give British businesses that employ EU citizens?
The Prime Minister
First, I emphasise again that there will be no cliff edges and that people will be able to bring family members here. We are not talking about splitting up families, which is a very important message. Once we have left the European Union, we will of course be putting immigration rules in place, but in doing so we will recognise, as we already do with people who come here from outside the European Union, the need to ensure that our economy can access the skills it needs, particularly in shortage occupations. We also want to ensure that people here in the United Kingdom are trained to take those jobs, hence the very important moves the Government are making on technical education.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said earlier that no families would be split up, but she said during the general election campaign that she intended to cut net migration to this country to the tens of thousands. Well, there is a problem here, because last year 136,787 people came to this country through the family route. If she is to meet her pledge, she is going to split families up, isn’t she?
The Prime Minister
Let me be very clear: EU citizens who qualify for settled status will be able to bring family members into the United Kingdom without any extra requirements.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that Britain will become more internationalist after we leave the European Union. With that prospect in mind, could she give further details of her Government’s discussions with non-EU countries?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to say that we have already had a number of productive engagements on the issue of future trade with countries across the world, notably with India and America, but with other countries, too. We have had discussions with Australia, New Zealand, China and other countries across the world. There are real opportunities for the UK once we leave the European Union, and we will be making every effort to ensure that we take those opportunities.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s offer is a step in the right direction, but it is long overdue. As a former Home Secretary, she will know that it is impossible both to grant the rights she proposes to 3.2 million EU citizens and to fulfil her target of reducing net migration to tens of thousands. Can she confirm today that she has set aside this fanciful target and is going to propose instead to follow the Chancellor’s advice about a Brexit that is rich in jobs?
The Prime Minister
We all want to ensure that the deal we come to with the European Union will ensure that we have the comprehensive free trade agreement that sees growth, prosperity and jobs here in the UK. That is the aim, but also we will be able to see jobs being brought here as a result of the trade arrangements we will be making around the rest of the world.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
May I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for confirming, once more, that the Conservatives will fulfil the delivery of the referendum result of control of our laws, borders and money? Will she give due assurance that any pressure to allow the European Court of Justice any role on immigration or the future indefinite leave to remain status of EU citizens in this country will be flatly opposed?
The Prime Minister
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as I said earlier, we believe that assuring the rights of EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom should be done through our courts, not through the ECJ. I will just reiterate the point I made: when many people voted to leave the European Union, one of the things they wanted to ensure was that the ECJ no longer had jurisdiction here in the UK.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us who did not want this country of ours to leave the European Union took that view partly because we believed that leaving would make us more vulnerable and Europe less stable. Will the Prime Minister assure me that discussions took place at the European Council on the security implications of where we are now in Europe, given the increasing threat from Russia, both militarily and in terms of other activities it seems to be getting up to these days?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a particular set of discussions related to the activities of Russia and the EU’s response; the UK has been one of the countries leading on the requirements in relation to that. We remain clear that the sanctions must stay until the Minsk agreement is fully implemented in relation to the activity Russia has undertaken in Ukraine. We also discussed other security and defence issues, and I was able to reassure the other Heads of State and Government that the UK will retain its role in helping to ensure the security and safety of the European Union. We want to continue to have a defence and security partnership with our European allies.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I return to the Prime Minister’s welcome comments about the discussions on social media companies hosting hate material? We have led the way in this country on requiring employers proactively to make checks on the legality of prospective employees, landlords to check on prospective tenants and banks to check for money laundering. No such requirements or fines are in place for social media companies, so will she now urgently set down a timeline, minimum requirements and the real prospect of significant and meaningful fines for social media companies that continue to act irresponsibly?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is precisely because we want to see those companies acting with greater responsibility in this area that we have been discussing with them this industry-led forum for the automatic take-down of material from the internet and that we have galvanised support, not just in the G7, as I did earlier this month, but in the EU Council last Friday. This was international support to ensure that we can put collective pressure on the companies to ensure that they are not carrying this material and that we see the importance and significance of taking this action. We have also discussed the fact that although the first step will be discussions with the companies about what they can do themselves, there is the prospect of legislation if that fails.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Darren Jones. [Interruption.] He was here a moment ago. I call Mr David Hanson.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that she has made progress on securing our membership of the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and Europol as part of her discussions? In passing, will she also tell me that the UK Government do know when European citizens enter the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
As regards Eurojust, Europol and the European arrest warrant, those will be matters for the negotiations, but I have made it very clear that we want to retain our security co-operation, not just on counter-terrorism matters but on matters relating to crime.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When we triggered article 50, it was very clear that a new immigration regime would be required. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was therefore entirely sensible and appropriate to discuss the cut-off date with the EU Commission?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. New immigration rules will be brought in in the UK for those people who move from the EU to the UK after we have left. It is entirely right and sensible that, in part of the negotiations, we discuss the cut-off date for EU citizens who are here.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent many EU citizens who are fearful and indeed tearful about their future prospects, so I welcome some of the clarity that the Prime Minister has brought to the matter. She talks about a streamlined system for applying for status, but many people worry about how they will pay the costs for an entire family to go through the process in short order. Can she give us an indication of what those costs might be and reassure them?
The Prime Minister
The Home Office will be looking very carefully at ensuring that the costs are reasonable. It wants to ensure that the streamlined system, which will be a light-touch process, will be easy for people to access and that it will therefore be easy for them to regularise their status.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is very important to our economy that business continues to invest and that there are no cliff-edge changes to our trading relationships. As well as seeking a fair deal on exit and a new trade deal, will the Prime Minister seek a two or three-year transitional period to give business a total of up to five years to prepare for the future?
The Prime Minister
Once we know the basis of our future relationship with the EU, it will be important to recognise that not just business but Government as well may need to have an implementation period when they are able to make the necessary adjustments. How long that period will be will depend on what the new relationship is, and will therefore be part of the discussions that take place during the negotiations.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
With tens of thousands of Scottish jobs at risk, will the Prime Minister listen to her Chancellor’s warnings and protect our place in the single market?
The Prime Minister
As regards Scottish jobs, the most important single market is that of the United Kingdom.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Was the Prime Minister able to convey to her European counterparts in the Council the fact that, in the general election earlier this month, 589 Members of this House were elected on a promise to deliver a comprehensive Brexit?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I was very clear about the view of the electorate and about the position taken in the election by the Government and the majority of people who have come into this House, which was to deliver on the will of the British people as expressed in the referendum.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said at the beginning of her statement that she wished the UK and the EU to trade as freely as possible in both goods and services. Can she confirm to the House whether any time was spent on developing proposals for the UK to remain both in the single market and the customs union?
The Prime Minister
We want to ensure that we have a good, frictionless access to the single market that is as tariff-free as possible. That is what we mean when we talk about a comprehensive free trade agreement, and that comprehensive free trade agreement will be part of the negotiations.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
European Union citizens in my constituency of Gloucester and their employers, notably the NHS, our university and many businesses, will greatly appreciate the clarity in the Prime Minister’s statement today. Will she give us an idea of whether an agreement on this crucial issue, which affects so many citizens here and in Europe, might be possible before agreement on other issues, and if so, when?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that this issue is one of the first to be addressed in the negotiations. I hope and believe that there is goodwill on both sides to recognise the importance of this issue for citizens both here and in the remaining 27 European Union member states. I cannot give a timeline, because, obviously, there are aspects that still need to be negotiated, and the European Union has said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I hope that we will be able to give final reassurance to citizens at an earlier stage.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that she wants to see the removal of serious and persistent criminals from the UK, and I am sure that we would all agree with that. Will she say a little bit more about how she intends to do that, bearing in mind that she failed to do it in the six or seven years when she was Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Lady that her portrayal of what happened during the time that I was Home Secretary, and indeed since, is not correct. A significant number of persistent and serious criminals were removed from the United Kingdom. The basis on which it is possible to do that for people who are here as European Union citizens of course is subject to slightly different rules than that for others, and once we are out of the European Union we will be able to adjust that.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
My constituency has proportionately more EU nationals than any other in the country in respect of how recently they have arrived. I know that they, like me, will warmly welcome the statement, which provides real clarity and which, I hope, will be concluded, as my right hon. Friend has said, earlier than the end of this deal. On social media, may I remind her that not that long ago internet companies were saying that the removal of child sex abuse images automatically was simply impossible? Now, it happens routinely. Extremist material is harder, but does she agree that it can be done?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point in drawing that comparison. It did take a while, and hard work, to get the tech companies to the position where they would take the action they have done on child sexual abuse images on the internet. I believe we can do the same with extremism, and that is what we are encouraging them to do.
Mr Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Hello, Prime Minister.
At the Council, did the Prime Minister manage to raise the issue of the Erasmus+ programme and our continuing work in it? In particular, the deadline for the Erasmus+ grants is October. It takes six months for those grants to be awarded, and another year sometimes for them to be enacted. Will she ensure that any academic, student or young person who is awarded an Erasmus programme is able to come here without additional visa burdens?
The Prime Minister
While we are still within the European Union, the current arrangements and the opportunities to apply still apply to the United Kingdom. We have been able to give some certainty over certain programmes and their continuation after we leave the European Union, but even after we have left there will be options for us to find ways in which we can contribute and participate in such programmes.
Mr Speaker
We all warmly welcome the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr Russell-Moyle) to the Chamber and to our deliberations.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I have just returned from the Netherlands with a delegation from the Lords and Commons. On the Dutch Binnenhof tour, I had the opportunity, among other things, to speak to British nationals living and working in the Netherlands. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to them and to other British nationals living and working across the EU that their rights will be protected, alongside EU rights for those living here?
The Prime Minister
The best assurance I can give to those British citizens living in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the European Union is that we have set out a fair deal—a fair offer—to those EU citizens living here, but we are very clear that this must be reciprocal and that those British citizens must have their rights protected as well, and we will continue to argue for that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister mentioned the trade deal between Japan and the EU. She will be aware from leaked documents this weekend that a lot of people are concerned that there is no mention of environmental protections—for example, tackling Japan’s illegal timber trade or whaling—in the draft agreement. Does she think that those protections should be in there and what does this say about the agreements that we will be negotiating when we leave the EU?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, there is still further discussion taking place between the European Union and Japan in relation to that trade deal. Once we have left the European Union and are able to set up such agreements ourselves—Japan is another of the countries we have been talking to—it will be up to us, as part of the negotiations for that trade deal, to set the conditions for that trade agreement.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Returning to the issue of online content, will the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government would be willing to enact legislation should the internet companies not make sufficient progress with the removal of inappropriate content?
The Prime Minister
We are certainly willing to consider legislation; this matter is so important. I believe that, with the international pressure and co-operation that we are now building, we will be able to put pressure on the tech companies such that they do this themselves, but we should not rule any option out.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not know whether it is in order to blow a raspberry in this House, but that was the reaction of constituents—EU nationals—whom I met at the Partick language hub in my constituency on Saturday, when they heard about the reports of this deal. I wonder how many EU nationals the Prime Minister met or consulted in drawing up the proposal she has presented today.
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, like other Members of the House, I have met people in my constituency who are employers of EU nationals concerned about this and people who are EU nationals who are concerned about their position. The detail had not been published at the weekend, but I suggest that he take the detail to his constituents and enable them to see for themselves the fair and serious offer we are making.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister refer earlier to our manifesto commitment to create a UK shared prosperity fund. Even though it was not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, will she confirm that the Government are committed to bringing forward such a fund to replace the EU structural funding that has been so important to places such as Cornwall?
The Prime Minister
We want to ensure that when we are no longer sending these huge sums of money to the European Union every year, some of the money that is available can be used in that way. There is a real need to ensure that we do that as effectively as possible so that the money has the maximum impact across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the problems already faced by our universities and research sectors because of these uncertainties. What discussions did she have at the Council with other leaders about dealing with these challenges, and will she take the opportunity today to say whether she wants us to stay within the Horizon 2020 programme?
The Prime Minister
A number of the programmes and projects that the UK has been part of and benefited from will be part of the negotiations. What I am very clear about—we have made this point consistently with EU circles—is that while we are still in the European Union we should have the same ability to apply to be part of programmes as has been the case previously. One of my concerns is that in some areas, such as university research, I am hearing some anecdotes that universities are finding it harder because of our future. As long as we are in the European Union, we should be able to apply on exactly the same basis as we always have.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The European arrest warrant and its extradition orders have proved a very effective means by which we have seen speedy justice for those who have committed a crime and for victims who want a speedy outcome. What does the Prime Minister envisage as the future of the European arrest warrant? Has she yet discussed that at any point? If not, when does she think it will be discussed?
The Prime Minister
As I indicated earlier to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), those issues will be part of the negotiations. But I am bound to point out that I stood at this Dispatch Box as Home Secretary and argued for the United Kingdom to remain in the European arrest warrant, during a debate in which the Labour party was trying to stop us getting the legislation through.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are chuntering “It’s true” and “It’s not true” from a sedentary position. It is all very well, but it is rather unfair to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who wishes to unburden herself of a series of important thoughts that the nation should hear.
Alison Thewliss
Every week in my surgery I see constituents who are already worn down by the incompetence, intransigence and unkindness of the Home Office. What steps will the Prime Minister take to give the Home Office adequate funding to deal with all the additional EU nationals who will now need to be processed?
The Prime Minister
The Home Office is well able to deal with the issues that it will be addressing, and it will be ensuring, as I indicated in an earlier response, that the process that people will go through will be streamlined and light-touch.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I recently visited a manufacturer in my constituency that exports to the EU. It informed me that it now has to include the risks of Brexit in its export contracts. What advice does the Prime Minister have for manufacturers, such as those in my constituency, that today have to assess the risk that they might end up paying tariffs after we leave the EU?
The Prime Minister
What I say to those manufacturers is that I hope they will work with the Government to ensure that we understand the needs of every part of industry in this country as we go forward into the negotiation on the comprehensive free trade agreement. We want to see a tariff-free ability to trade with the European Union, and we will be considering the views and interests of British industry as we do that.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has twice this afternoon responded to questions about the skills challenges that will be created as a result of the reform of freedom of movement by referring to the reform of technical education, but of course the economy will have much greater needs, such as new dentists, doctors, vets and other professionals. On that basis, will she guarantee the funding necessary to ensure that our schools, colleges and universities will be able to meet the skills challenges of a post-Brexit world?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that we do need to meet those skills challenges; that is why we are bringing in the reforms. The hon. Lady refers to issues within the national health service, but one of the important steps that the Government have taken is to remove the caps on the number of people who can train as staff in the national health service.
Annaliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My question relates to that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). If the Prime Minister truly is concerned about the future of British science and European funding, why is there no mention of British science and European funding in this statement, any of the Brexit Bills or the Queen’s Speech?
The Prime Minister
I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the 12 objectives set out in my Lancaster House speech in January for a negotiated deal with the European Union. We specifically referred to science and innovation.
Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Much play has been made this afternoon about the supremacy of this place in terms of the repatriation of powers from the European Union, yet there has been no consideration of how the whole governance and structure of the United Kingdom is to be developed, post-Brexit. Will the Government give any consideration to a concurrent constitutional convention that would consider how stable and sustainable governance and distribution of power across the United Kingdom is considered after the Brexit process, including the possibility of a federal UK?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; I did not welcome one or two other new hon. Members who have stood up, so I apologise to them for that. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the best way of ensuring good governance and stability across the United Kingdom is maintaining the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who has just served up an interesting hors d’oeuvre. We look forward to his main course before very long.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There are two excellent universities in York, but they are already challenged by the recruitment and retention of EU staff. Researchers and academics need to move seamlessly between UK and EU universities. How will they accrue their settled status under the Prime Minister’s new rules?
The Prime Minister
I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the proposals set out today, which make clear the basis on which people are able get their guaranteed settled status here in the United Kingdom. That will cover people from all walks of life. We want EU citizens who are here to stay. We are not talking about forcing anybody to leave the United Kingdom.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has fielded without really answering a number of questions about the longer-term rights of EU nationals to bring their families over here should the need arise in future. Can she now answer the question categorically? Will she give an absolute guarantee that the minimum income requirement that is obstructing so many family reunions for non-EU nationals will never under any circumstances be imposed on any EU national in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
EU nationals who have been here for five years and have the five years’ residence will quality for settled status. EU nationals who have been here for fewer than five years will be given an opportunity to qualify for that settled status—to stay for those five years in order to qualify. No extra requirements will be imposed on those EU nationals in relation to bringing family members into the United Kingdom. Once we have left the European Union, we will be establishing within the immigration rules the arrangements for EU nationals who then move into the United Kingdom. They will have the same status as those moving here from outside the European Union.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
As part of her recent little tour around Labour-held seats across the country, the Prime Minister stopped for a photograph at a farm in my constituency. Why was there no mention of agriculture in today’s statement?
The Prime Minister
What I was reporting on were the subjects discussed at the European Council on Friday. I reported faithfully on those subjects.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that she was aware of the details in the document on EU nationals wanting to remain in the UK when, during the general election, she promised to cut immigration to the tens of thousands? Are the two compatible?
The Prime Minister
Yes. In the document, we are talking about the rights of EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. We are making a fair and serious offer that nobody will be forced to leave the United Kingdom and that families will not be split up. We want people to stay, and this is the document that will enable them to do so.
Northern Ireland
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Damian Green)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on details of the agreement reached today between the Conservative and Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party, under which the DUP will support the Government on a confidence and supply basis.
Having won the most votes and the largest number of seats in the general election on 8 June by a significant margin, only the Conservative party has the ability and legitimacy to lead the Government our country needs. This agreement delivers the certainty we need in the United Kingdom’s national interest at this crucial time. The agreement means that the DUP will support the Government on votes on the Queen’s Speech, the Budget, and legislation relating to our exit from the European Union and national security. It will ensure that we can govern in the national interest, strengthening and enhancing the Union, keeping our country safe, delivering prosperity for all and securing a departure from the European Union that benefits all parts of the United Kingdom. To support the agreement, the Government will chair a co-ordination committee involving both parties.
As Members of this House are well aware and as our manifesto made clear, the Conservative party has never been neutral in expressing its support for the Union. As this agreement states, Her Majesty’s Government remain fully committed to the Belfast agreement and its successors. This means that we will continue to govern in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. These confidence and supply arrangements in no way affect our steadfast commitment to the re-establishment of an inclusive Northern Ireland Executive by this Thursday. The Government will do everything in their power, working alongside the Irish Government, to bring the talks process to a successful conclusion in the short time that remains.
Both the Government and the DUP recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland’s history, and the effect this has had on its economy and on people from all parts of the community. The Government are resolute in their determination to deliver for the whole of the United Kingdom. In recognition of our commitment to support growth across all parts of the United Kingdom, we have agreed to provide additional support for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope this part of the agreement will play a positive role in the efforts to re-establish devolved government. Funding would go to a restored Northern Ireland Executive in the same way that the £2.5 billion of financial support and flexibility was made available to that Executive through the 2014 Stormont House agreement and the 2015 “Fresh Start” agreement.
The Government support further co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive on infrastructure development in Northern Ireland. The UK Government will allocate £200 million a year for two years. The Government and previous Executives have recognised the integral part digital infrastructure plays in opening up new opportunities for growth and connectivity for businesses and consumers. We will therefore contribute £75 million a year for two years to help provide ultrafast broadband for Northern Ireland, just as we have made funding available for this purpose in communities across the United Kingdom.
The UK Government are committed to working with the Executive and others to work towards a comprehensive and ambitious set of city deals across Northern Ireland to boost investment and help to unlock the full potential of Northern Ireland. This is the sort of targeted, positive intervention the UK Government can make across the UK. It builds on the success of existing deals such as those in Glasgow, Cardiff and Swansea. Since 2014, the UK Government have committed to more than £l billion-worth of investment in Scotland and Wales through this programme along with other projects. This is a continuation of our determination to be a Government for the whole of the UK.
To target pockets of severe deprivation so that all can benefit from growth and prosperity, the UK Government will also provide £20 million a year for five years to the Northern Ireland Executive. We will also ensure that all parts of the UK are properly reflected in the future UK shared prosperity fund as we exit the European Union.
As our manifesto made clear, we are also increasing our commitment to investment in public services across the UK. That is why we have pledged a minimum of £8 billion in additional NHS funding in real terms over the next five years; it is also why we have pledged to increase funding in real terms per head in every year. Our spending on the NHS in England is also translated into extra spending in Scotland and Wales through the Barnett formula. How that is spent is, of course, a matter for the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
To address immediate priorities in Northern Ireland, the UK Government will also allocate an additional £50 million per year for two years to enable the Executive to address pressures in health and education. Recognising the priority given by the Executive to securing a modern, sustainable health service in Northern Ireland, the UK Government will allocate £100 million per year for two years to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s priority of health service transformation.
The Government and the Executive also agree on the importance of support for mental health, particularly recognising the historical impact of Northern Ireland’s past on its communities. [Interruption.] I am glad the shadow Foreign Secretary finds mental health in Northern Ireland amusing—I find that slightly surprising. The UK Government will provide £10 million per year for five years to support the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver this measure.
Our general election manifesto made clear that there would be no change in the pensions triple lock before 2020. As part of this agreement, both parties have agreed there will be no change to the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. We further agreed that there will be no change to the universal nature of the winter fuel payment. The Prime Minister said we would listen to what people said during the election campaign, and this is an example of our doing so.
As the party with the most seats at the general election, the Conservative party had a duty to form a Government. It is right that we talk to other parties to seek to ensure that the Government can provide the confidence the country needs at this crucial time. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
This is a shabby and a reckless deal, which it has taken the Government at least £1 billion pounds to buy, and whose true cost for the future of peace in Northern Ireland could be infinitely higher. The Good Friday agreement is rightly seen across the world as a model for other countries seeking to end conflict, but it is also fragile and relies above all on trust, good faith and the impartiality of the British Government. For the Government to put such an agreement in jeopardy just to prop up this dismal Prime Minister is nothing short of a disgrace. So can I ask the First Secretary what legal advice the Government have received on whether today’s agreement is compatible with their legal obligations under the Good Friday agreement and whether he will publish that advice today?
I will not waste time discussing the so-called policy agreement set out today; after all, it was not the DUP who forced this Government to ditch their plans to hit pensioners’ income—the British people did that on 8 June. No, this agreement is all about the money, so let me first ask the First Secretary for some clarity on the funding. First, how much extra funding will go to support infrastructure, broadband, health and education and tackle deprivation in the rest of the United Kingdom? No one would begrudge the £1 billion extra support in those areas for Northern Ireland, but in Scotland, Wales and the English regions, the needs are just as great, so when will the rest of the country get its share?
Secondly, the agreement says there will be a consultation on reducing VAT on tourism in Northern Ireland. Just a year ago, the current Minister of State with responsibility for security told the House the Government had concluded that the costs of such a VAT cut outweighed the benefits and that it was not something the Government were going to consider. So what has made the Government change their mind? In the light of his commitment to be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom, will he extend this consultation to all parts of the UK, seeking to support their tourism and hospitality industries, and if not, why is he not including the likes of Blackpool, Margate or Colwyn Bay?
Thirdly, and most importantly, can the First Secretary tell us this: where is the extra £1 billion announced today going to come from? During the election he was fond of telling interviewers that there was no magic money tree. So what has happened today? Has he found the key to the secret garden, or is the truth that like everything else that this Government say and do, it can all be ditched if it helps them to hang on to power—no matter who the bedfellows, no matter what the manifesto said, no matter where the money comes from, no matter the unfairness for the rest of Britain, and no matter the consequences for peace? That is no way to lead a Government, and it is definitely no way to run a country.
Damian Green
Let me deal with some of the detailed points that the right hon. Lady has made. She seems to think that providing more money for Northern Ireland health and education, and broadband and other parts of infrastructure, in some way makes it less likely that an Executive will be formed. I can assure her that it makes it more likely that an Executive will be formed. She asked about infrastructure help for the rest of the country. I am happy to repeat some of the things I said in my statement and add to them. We are pledged to provide £8 billion of new money for the health service and £4 billion for education, and we have an overall infrastructure fund of £23 billion, so the rest of the country absolutely will share in the advance in infrastructure spending that we have promised.
The right hon. Lady asks, of course, about how we can afford this. We can afford this because we have a strong economy after seven years of Conservative Government. It takes some nerve for a party that had tens of billions of pounds of unfunded commitments at the election to complain about targeted infrastructure spending and spending specifically designed to help some of the most deprived communities in this country. Labour also had a pledge to nationalise half of British industry and said that it was not going to cost any money because although it would borrow the money, it did not count as borrowing because it would pay it back out of the profits of the industry. I have two things to say to the right hon. Lady: first, if you borrow money it is still borrowing; and secondly, after six months of a Labour Government running an industry there would not be any profits to pay back any of the borrowing.
The right hon. Lady is fundamentally wrong that this does not help, in what is a hugely important week for Northern Ireland, to try to make sure that we restore proper devolved democratic government to Northern Ireland. I think that helping the Executive to be set up will be one of the great achievements of this week. What she has missed is that this extra support—this extra money—goes to all communities in Northern Ireland, run by the Northern Ireland Executive, so that people from all political traditions—all communities—will benefit from it. I would have thought, frankly, that she would welcome that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the discussions with the Democratic Unionists, did my right hon. Friend make any progress on the question of protection for former service personnel who still face the possibility of prosecution many years after fatal incidents in the period of the troubles?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. The answer is yes. We seek to ensure proper fairness in the issue he raises and other legacy issues. I am sure that the agreement that comes out of our talks with the DUP will help advance a balanced and fair solution to those issues.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
This is quite simply a pathetic, grubby little deal demonstrating all the worst excesses of pork barrel politics, designed to prop up a Government without a majority and increasingly without any credibility whatsoever. We now know that £1.5 billion is the price that this country will have to pay to keep this shambolic Government in power. The Government warned of a “coalition of chaos”, but this is much, much worse than that, as the social conservatives in the DUP exact their price from the Government.
This deal is not subject to the normal allocation of funds across the UK, and it will be delivered at the expense of all the other nations of the UK. Only 24 hours ago the Secretary of State for Scotland was categorically assuring us that Scotland would be in line for full Barnett consequentials as a result of the DUP deal. Either he was inadvertently misleading the Scots people, or he is so completely out of the loop that he has no idea what is going on, because we now know that Scotland will get nothing—zero, zilch—out of this deal.
What representations has the First Secretary received from the Scotland Office or from any of the new Scottish Members of Parliament who laughably said that they would stand up for Scotland? If the Barnett formula is to be bypassed, what is Scotland going to get out of this? Why has the Barnett formula been bypassed by this deal? This is a huge test for the new Scottish Tory Members of Parliament. They can either stand up for Scotland and Scotland’s funding interests, or stand behind this chaotic Government and their new best friends.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is so far wide of the mark that it is almost laughable. He says that this comes from the block grant and specifically says that it is outside the Barnett formula. Let me give him some facts about what is happening in Scotland: a city deal for Glasgow, outside the Barnett formula, of £500 million; a city deal for Aberdeen, outside the Barnett formula, of £125 million; and a city deal for Inverness, outside the Barnett formula, of £53 million. Would he like me to go on? There is £5 million for the V&A in Dundee, outside the Barnett formula, £5 million for the Glasgow School of Art and £5 million for the Helensburgh waterfront. Huge amounts of money are going to Scotland from outside as well as inside the Barnett formula. If the Scottish National party does not recognise that, I suggest that its Members go back to their constituencies and find out what is happening in Scotland.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but sadly some have used it to suggest, rather opportunistically, that this means that the Government have changed their policies on equality matters, particularly equal marriage and access to abortion. Perhaps he could use this opportunity to update the House on those issues.
Damian Green
I am extremely happy to reassure my right hon. Friend and, indeed, colleagues on both sides of the House that this deal has no impact on those sorts of issues, particularly equal marriage. The agreement covers financial deals, Brexit legislation, security legislation and the Queen’s Speech. My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen in the Queen’s Speech the Government’s recommitment to equality across all grounds, and that commitment is as strong today as it ever has been.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to that point, will the Government now use this to deal with the huge anomaly whereby Northern Ireland women are expected to be charged for abortions in NHS hospitals in Great Britain? Does the First Secretary agree that that is hugely unfair on women from Northern Ireland who travel to England, Scotland or Wales for an abortion, and that it is unjust for women’s rights?
Damian Green
I appreciate the strength of the right hon. Lady’s convictions. The issue comes under the heading of a health matter and is therefore devolved to Northern Ireland. It is for people in Northern Ireland to decide such issues. It is the logic of devolution that such issues should be decided in the devolved authorities, just as health matters are decided by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Given that we all, I assume, hope that Northern Ireland should have a devolved Executive, it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide these matters.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his personal commitment to ensuring that the imbalances and inequalities that exist in all parts of the United Kingdom are tackled effectively by this Government. Will he say a bit more about how the UK prosperity fund will be used to raise economic output in the poorest parts of the United Kingdom? I encourage him to keep an open mind to some of the ideas that his Welsh colleagues might have for further investment.
Damian Green
I am very happy that my right hon. Friend brings up the UK prosperity fund, which we will introduce once Brexit has been completed. Its purpose is precisely to help disadvantaged communities across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is meant to replace the money that has gone to some of our deprived communities through European institutions. I know, for instance, that communities in Cornwall have benefited in that way. Absolutely, communities in Wales, as well as in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other parts of England, such as the north-east, may well benefit from the UK prosperity fund. I am always open to creative ideas from any part of the UK about how best to spend that sort of money.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me explain to the Minister why there is concern on this side of the House about these women from Northern Ireland. This is not a devolved matter; it is about when they come to our shores as UK taxpayers and their ability to use UK services. I note that the official agreement says that the Government and the DUP are committed
“to providing health services which meet the needs of everyone, no matter who they are or where they live.”
It does not seem like that when it comes to these women. Will the Minister confirm whether the question of their access to abortion in England, or the fact that Northern Irish laws on abortion have been found to violate the UK’s human rights responsibilities, were discussed as part of the negotiations? Did the Government make any commitment to the DUP about when this matter comes to the House? Are Northern Irish women simply expected to pay the price of what feels like a forced marriage?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady and the House that the agreement is what is set out. There are no private or side agreements attached to it—it is completely open. Again, I appreciate the strength of feeling she brings to this matter. It is clearly a political discussion she may wish to bring about in Northern Ireland when we have a devolved Executive there.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s funding for city deals in Northern Ireland and urge them to continue their focus on foreign direct investment into the Province.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes the good point that foreign direct investment is extremely helpful to the Northern Ireland economy, as it is to the UK economy as a whole. It is absolutely the case that we wish to better utilise our embassies and high commissions around the world not just to boost exports, which is traditionally regarded as one of their important roles, but to help foreign direct investment, particularly into those parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, that would most benefit from it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the First Secretary for advance sight of his statement. My first thought on seeing it was that the Government had scraped the bottom of the pork barrel in reaching an agreement, but I suspect he will learn in the months to come that there is probably no bottom to that particular barrel.
The Government cannot be blind to the fact that this agreement places in jeopardy their role under the Good Friday agreement. That agreement can be secured only if the Government commit to transparency—not just today, but at every step of the way for as long as this agreement lasts. Will we get that transparency?
Damian Green
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this agreement hinders the formation of a new Executive and, therefore, the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I think that this agreement will help the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Since the confidence and supply agreement entails support from the Democratic Unionist party for the key areas of the Government’s programme in this House, the transparency will come when he observes people going through the Division Lobbies in a public way, as they traditionally do.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
In welcoming the additional votes that the DUP brings, may I criticise the Government for not being bold enough? As Labour Front Benchers move to the Back Benches, and its Back Benchers move to the Front Bench, a lot of Labour Members are left disaffected, as a number of them do not identify themselves as Leninists or Marxists—and many not even as socialists. Could we send out a warm offer to those discontented Opposition Members to vote with us in the Lobby to deliver this Queen’s Speech?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point. I would indeed extend that invitation. To be entirely serious, there will be large parts of the Queen’s Speech—for instance on economic regeneration and issues such as mental health—on which I genuinely hope that we will get support from all parts of the House. There are many issues to which partisan politics will not necessarily apply, some of which are included in the Bills in the Queen’s Speech, and I look forward to men and women of good will from all parts of the House supporting those Bills.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I warmly welcome the First Secretary of State’s statement? This is a good agreement for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is a good agreement for all the people of Northern Ireland. All the money that has been outlined, particularly that for mental health and hard-to-reach areas, is for every section of the community in Northern Ireland. This is a deal that delivers for all the people of Northern Ireland.
We commit to transparency—we are very open to that. Some day, I like to think we might publish all the correspondence and conversations we had in 2010 with Labour Front Benchers, and in 2015 with Labour Front Benchers and indeed also the Scottish National party, because some of the faux outrage we have heard is hypocrisy of the highest order.
We look forward to working with the Government over the next five years to deliver a strengthened Union of the United Kingdom, to deliver Brexit, to deliver prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom and, most of all, to protect and defend our country at home and abroad.
Damian Green
I, of course, welcome completely my right hon. Friend’s words. He and I have spent more time together over the past few weeks than has been our wont in the past, and I assure him that it has been a life-enhancing experience at all times. I very much welcome the support of him and his colleagues so that we can, as he says, strengthen the Union and the economy in all parts of the country, get a Brexit deal that works for the whole country, and provide a confident Government for the next five years.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I welcome what my right hon. Friend has set out? The most important thing that he mentioned in his statement was getting the devolved institutions back up and running. If this deal, together with the money that was promised under the previous agreements, can help that, it is to be welcomed. That will strengthen the United Kingdom and the partnership of all the countries within it. I welcome what both he and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) said.
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend is right. To repeat a hugely important point, the money will go to all parts of Northern Ireland. It will benefit all communities in Northern Ireland, and that should be a significant step towards ensuring that we have a successful conclusion to these vital talks about the re-setting up of a devolved Executive, which I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is the Minister concerned that his performance today is likely to bring crude hypocrisy into some disrepute? The Government have just lost an election. They made themselves and the country more unstable and weaker than they were before. In order again to correct problems within the Tory party, they are using this crude bribe. Is not the answer today that MPs who represent Wales and Scotland have to put our countries first, and is not the result of this that the Government are making the United Kingdom more divided than ever?
Damian Green
The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis is his starting point that our party lost the election. No, we did not; his party lost the election—it lost its third election in a row. We all know that Labour won more seats than most of its own Members thought it would—there are people sitting on the Labour Benches who assumed that they would be out of a job now. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I welcome them back to this House but, nevertheless, the idea that the Labour party won the election is a fantasy that I think is dying out even on the wilder shores of Momentum.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Given that the DUP’s well known hard-nosed negotiators have generally done deals for about £1 billion when they need arrangements from the United Kingdom Government, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fabulous value for money that he has obtained in a confidence and supply arrangement that will last five years and deliver Brexit? That compares rather well with the arrangement in 2008, when for about the same amount of money the then Government got one vote on 42-day detention—we were joined in the Lobby by the current Leader of the Opposition, shadow Chancellor, shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Home Secretary—only for it to be reversed in the House of Lords three months later. This deal therefore looks like spectacularly good value for money for the United Kingdom.
Damian Green
I think that I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to agree with him that this is indeed a very good deal, not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the north-east of England is one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom. We have not got a Barnett formula and the Government have only four or five MPs there—at least the last time I counted—so obviously we are going to get nowt, but is he giving our money away? Will we get what we are getting or are we going to get nowt?
Damian Green
If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to us about a deal, I am sure that he, and indeed his constituents, would be very welcome. I can absolutely assure him that this does not involve diverting money from any of the various programmes that we use. Indeed, the UK prosperity fund will be able to help some parts of his area. He is more than welcome to keep an eye on that. As he knows, there are many city deals across England, and I am sure that the metro Mayor in Teesside will also do great things for that area. We are committed to all parts of the United Kingdom, including the part that the hon. Gentleman represents with such distinction.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I do not think that the First Secretary of State mentioned defence in his statement, but will he confirm what I think I have read elsewhere: the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative party have agreed that we will spend a minimum of 2% on defence?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is right. I am sorry; I did not read out the entire agreement because you might have objected to that, Mr Speaker, but he is absolutely right. One of the things on which the DUP and the Conservative party are completely united is making sure that we meet our NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. I hope my hon. Friend would also welcome the first sailing of the new aircraft carrier today, which shows that this party, and indeed the DUP, are very serious about defending our country.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the fantastic family event on Saturday, when this Chamber was full of the sound of children and joy? You handled it with grace. I would encourage all Members to take a look at the coat of arms for our much loved Jo Cox and to enjoy the symbolism of mountains, the Thames, women’s suffrage and, of course, the Yorkshire rose.
Global goal 5, which we agreed to, states that there has to be reproductive rights for all women. Will the deal with the DUP mean that we have stopped our progress towards that goal, losing our position as one of the global leaders fighting for equality for all?
Damian Green
May I first associate myself with the hon. Lady’s very apposite remarks about the Jo Cox memorial? It was indeed very good to see it in this House on what was obviously a very sad anniversary.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is, as I said to her hon. Friends, a matter to be decided in Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland politicians and the people of Northern Ireland, and that is where she should be making her arguments.
Andrew C. Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone from every nation and region of our United Kingdom is able to share in the proceeds of continued economic growth? As has already been mentioned, one way of doing that has been through the successful city deals, and my constituency has benefited greatly from the Aberdeen city deal. What will the Government do to boost investment in Northern Ireland and spread the benefits of such mechanisms?
Damian Green
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is completely right to point out the benefits of the investment that has been made in his constituency thanks to the Government’s strong economic progress over the past seven years, which enables us to afford regeneration and investment that those who would run the economy down would not be able to afford. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland, that that same strength of the economy can and will be used to regenerate communities all over the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I hope that I pronounced correctly the surname of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew C. Bowie). If I may be permitted, I hope even further that the hon. Gentleman is as devoted an admirer of the late and great David Bowie as I have been for the last 40 years.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the First Secretary of State confirm that, constitutionally, the extra money that he has announced today is for the Northern Ireland Assembly, not one particular party—great negotiators though I know its members to be? Will he confirm that the money has been agreed, and that its priorities have been agreed, by all parties that may form the Executive on Thursday?
Damian Green
As I have said a number of times during these exchanges, absolutely. This is money for Northern Ireland—for the whole of Northern Ireland. It is not for one party in Northern Ireland and it is not for one community in Northern Ireland. It is for the whole of Northern Ireland, and it will benefit every community in Northern Ireland. As I said to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I am quite surprised that Labour Members are not welcoming this extra money, particularly that for disadvantaged communities in Northern Ireland. There was a time when the Labour party purported to care about disadvantaged communities.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while much has been said in recent weeks about the importance of working with others across the aisle in the national interest, not everyone seems to like that in practice? Does he agree with the words of Ronald Reagan, I think, who said that someone you agree with 80% of the time is 80% friend and ally, not 20% enemy?
Damian Green
I confess that I had never heard that extremely good quotation before. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will use it shamelessly.
My hon. Friend is quite right. Having sat for four years in a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to admit that there will be times when one has very strong disagreements with people in another party but can still work alongside them in the interests of the country as a whole. That is a duty that we should all take on board.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I am sure the First Secretary agrees that it is a rather remarkable day when the Labour party criticises investment in schools, investment in roads, investment in housing and investment in jobs on the grounds that that threatens the peace process. It really is bonkers to suggest that that is the case. Perhaps some Labour Front Benchers might now want to reflect on their past equivocation when it came to supporting the IRA, and the message that that sends to young people today in Northern Ireland who might be thinking about taking up arms in the future.
Damian Green
I am happy to agree with my right hon. Friend. It is clear that anything that aids investment, particularly for disadvantaged communities, ought to help to produce a more positive political atmosphere in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Labour Front Benchers heard his other thoughts with interest.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
In welcoming this deal and the increased role of Northern Irish MPs in Westminster affairs, does the First Secretary agree that it is time to look again at the donations to the Northern Irish parties to ensure that they are consistent with the rules on the mainland, both in terms of transparency and of being sourced from outside the UK?
Damian Green
That is not part of the agreement, so it is not directly relevant to my statement today, but I am sure that the House will have heard my hon. Friend and will no doubt wish to discuss those matters further.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The First Secretary of State said that the funding would go to a restored Northern Ireland Executive. If the Northern Ireland Executive are not restored, will the money still go there, or not until the Executive are restored?
Damian Green
At this stage, with three days to go before the deadline, the sensible thing for me to point out is that the Conservative party is completely committed to getting the Executive re-established, as is the Democratic Unionist party. We both believe that decisions about the funding of public services in Northern Ireland should be taken by politicians in Northern Ireland. That is the logic of the devolution settlement that we have with the other countries in the United Kingdom, and that is the position we want to get back to in Northern Ireland as well.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Spreading infrastructure development, bringing stability to Government, delivering the Good Friday agreement and helping to implement a soft border with the Republic of Ireland are all good for Northern Ireland and for the United Kingdom. If none of that is welcome to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and his party, would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government would be happy to receive back from the Scottish National party the moneys received for the Scottish city deals?
Damian Green
I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend, but I disagree with him on that point. I do not believe that the SNP speaks for Scotland on this matter. I am interested in the prosperity and future of the Scottish people, just as I am in the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the logic of being a Unionist, and I will preserve that logic to the end.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Hospitals, schools and other public services in my constituency continue to face unprecedented cuts, so how do the Government justify finding £1.5 billion in order to achieve self-preservation? Is there any money on the magic money tree for the Dewsbury constituency?
Damian Green
As I have explained to the shadow First Secretary, this Government are committed to spending an extra £8 billion on the NHS in this Parliament, as well as an extra £4 billion on education and an extra £23 billion on infrastructure as a whole around the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope and expect that the people of Dewsbury will be able to benefit from that like everyone else.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Twenty per cent. more of my constituents voted Conservative in 2017 than did so at the previous opportunity. No one else will blow that trumpet, so I thought I should. Many of them did so because they were inspired by the vision for Brexit that was laid out by Theresa May. Can the First Secretary reassure me that this deal will strengthen Theresa May’s hand when it comes to Brexit and ensure that we can deliver control of our borders and our laws, as was promised at the general election?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was in election campaign mode for a moment there. I gently remind him that no hon. or right hon. Member should be named in this place—perhaps least of all the Prime Minister. It was to the Prime Minister that he was referring; no name is required.
Damian Green
First, I should praise the perspicacity of my hon. Friend’s constituents for massively increasing his vote at the recent election. I am happy to assure him that this deal does indeed make it clear that the vision of a Brexit that works for all parts of this country is reinforced and strengthened by the agreement that we are discussing today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister and the DUP pride themselves on being champions of this supposedly precious Union. While the Prime Minister is busy bribing the DUP to stitch up the seams of this threadbare Administration, she continues to neglect the people of Wales and treats us like third-class citizens in this so-called family of equals. My party has always been at pains to prove that the Barnett formula is not fit for purpose, and the Government’s disregard for it today seems to indicate that they now agree. If this Government can hand out £1 billion to Northern Ireland in times of such austerity, I ask on the behalf of the people of Wales, “Where is the £1.7 billion which is now so evidently our right?”
Damian Green
I am happy to remind the hon. Lady that, under the new funding formula agreed last year, public spending in Wales is roughly £120 a head for every £100 a head spent in England, so the idea that this Government are in some way neglecting the people of Wales—my homeland—is wide of the mark. That figure arises from the Barnett formula and, on top of that, the two city deals involve funding of up to £540 million, which should release private sector investment totalling £4.7 billion. As the hon. Lady can see, the people of Wales are being well served by this Government.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Be in no doubt that this deal has everything to do with the Conservative party and absolutely nothing to do with the country. If it had anything to do with the country, the First Secretary would come to the Dispatch Box and tell me how much money Scotland will get as a result of this deal being signed.
Damian Green
Since this deal is about Northern Ireland, Scotland will benefit in the way that it has in the past. I am quite happy to repeat the figures that I repeated to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the SNP spokesman, but I would not want to embarrass him further. Scotland is doing extremely well out of city deals and other things, and it benefits from the Barnett formula as well. Scotland’s problem is that it has a Government in Holyrood that are not very good at running public services. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I probably ought to agree on that.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There has been much reference to the national interest this afternoon, and I commend my right hon. Friend for doing a deal with the DUP in the national interest. However, given this crucial time in our history and the challenges that lie ahead, does he agree that now is the time for Labour to work constructively with the Government for the greater good of the nation, not to seek to score political points?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend’s wise point. It is never too late to repent, and if the Opposition Front-Bench team want to adopt a more constructive attitude, I would very much welcome that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the First Secretary view with utter despair the comments and implications from the Opposition Front-Bench team today that people will in effect go back to war because we intend to spend £1.5 billion on services that people so vitally need? A bit of rationale surely needs to be injected into this debate. This is a good deal for Northern Ireland and a good deal for the entire United Kingdom.
Damian Green
I agree that the extra £1 billion of new money in this deal, which will, as I have repeatedly said, be spent in the interests of developing the prosperity of all the people of Northern Ireland, is hugely welcome both in itself and in this crucial week for the devolution process. I am genuinely surprised that there is not a greater welcome for it among those on the Labour Benches.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the First Secretary agree that it is perfectly sensible that there should be a consultation on VAT rates in tourism in Northern Ireland? Uniquely within the UK, it has a land border with another country that has a lower VAT rate on tourism—9%—and is therefore currently at a competitive disadvantage.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are various things about Northern Ireland that make it unique within the United Kingdom. The history is one, and the land border is of course another. That is why it has a specific type of devolved government, which we hope to see restored, and why we will be consulting on various other policy areas as well.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am a little surprised by the First Secretary’s statement, because he left out the most important part of the agreement. He said that the DUP will support the Government on votes on the Queen’s Speech, the Budget and so on, but he left out the only bit that the Government really care about, which is that the DUP will support them on all motions of no confidence. That is what the Government have bought with this money, isn’t it? They have bought continuing support on all motions of no confidence, because the only way to bring down a Government under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is a motion of no confidence. All the rest is irrelevant. Now that the DUP has effectively become a party of government, and not a party of opposition, surely, surely, surely it should surrender its right to Short money.
Damian Green
I am quite surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that the addition of large sums of money for promoting infrastructure, for helping people with mental health problems and for helping particularly disadvantaged communities is the most important part of this agreement. It seems to me to be the most important part of the agreement because it will actually help disadvantaged people in Northern Ireland. If he does not accept that that is important, he will lose some of his socialist firebrand credentials, which he loves to parade.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
We were told by Ruth Davidson, no less, that the 13 Scottish Conservative MPs in this Parliament would operate as a separate bloc, would put Scotland’s case forcefully and would make sure that they deliver for Scotland. Can the First Secretary tell us, with reference not to the last Parliament but to this Parliament, what additional targeted investments the 13 Scottish Tory MPs have secured for Scotland in return for supporting this deal?
Damian Green
I refer the hon. and learned Lady to what Ruth Davidson has said today. Ruth Davidson is completely in support of this agreement, and she makes the point that, just as Scotland benefits hugely from the strength of the economy that a Conservative Government have provided and that allows us to make all the investment in Scotland that I have already detailed—I am more than happy to detail it again, if the hon. and learned Lady wants—and just as we have treated Scotland fairly, we should treat Northern Ireland, Wales and other parts of England fairly, too. That is what this Government will continue to do. If she wants any new money, I refer her, as I have done repeatedly from this Dispatch Box today, to the UK prosperity fund that we will be introducing after Brexit, from which I hope many communities in Scotland, as well as in other parts of the UK, will benefit.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I recognise that abortion is a devolved matter, although I deplore the resulting legislative framework in Northern Ireland. Women are prosecuted and convicted in Northern Ireland for seeking to procure abortions, which forces them to come to England for terminations. This is the question we are trying to ask the First Secretary: will his Government fund those terminations, those procedures, in English hospitals because those Northern Ireland women—UK citizens—cannot get them in their own country?
Damian Green
If we accept the logic of devolution, as I have said in answer to previous questions along these lines, this is a matter to be resolved by politics in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As a Belfast Member of Parliament—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly)—I commend the First Secretary of State for the content of the city deal commitment that forms part of this arrangement and for the huge opportunities for the city of Belfast and the wider region. Will he engage in organising meetings as soon as practicable so that we can get on and make sure that we get the best benefits of the city deal for our constituents in Belfast?
Damian Green
I am very pleased that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, talks have already started on the Belfast city deal, which I hope can be concluded as fast as possible so that Belfast can enjoy the benefits that other cities, including Glasgow and Cardiff, already have. Apart from anything else, it would be a good symbol of the United Kingdom Government acting in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned an extra £1.5 billion for Northern Ireland, and under the Barnett formula that should mean an extra £2.5 billion for Wales. Does the First Secretary of State agree that if the Welsh Secretary refuses to find that money for Wales around the Cabinet table, once again the Tories will have betrayed the people of Wales?
Damian Green
The new money of £1 billion in this deal is of course outside the Barnett formula. As I explained to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), under the Barnett formula every person in Wales receives approximately £120 for every £100 of public spending for every person in England. It is clear from the figures that Wales is not doing badly out of this formula.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
During seven years of austerity, which left north-east working families on average £1,000 worse off per year, Tory Governments refused to invest in smart growth for good jobs, but now they have found £1.5 billion to bung at the DUP. Does the First Secretary therefore acknowledge that unless he immediately invests an equivalent amount in the north-east, and undertakes an air passenger duty review, the Government’s reputation for economic competence will be on a level with their reputation for Brexit negotiations, where they are the laughing stock of Europe?
Damian Green
I point out to the hon. lady that over that period—indeed, over her period in the House—unemployment has consistently fallen in her area, as in other areas, until it has now reached its lowest level since the mid-1970s. I would have thought she would welcome that; more of her constituents are in work than ever before.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Why do this Government not do the right thing and deal with these women who have no option but to travel from Northern Ireland to seek termination services in England, Scotland and Wales? Why do the Government, of whom the First Secretary is a leading member, not do the right thing and say that those women should not be charged for accessing NHS services, which, as taxpayers, they contribute to through the tax they pay on their wages?
Damian Green
The hon. Lady knows that the NHS is a devolved function in the devolved Administrations, so if we accept the logic of devolution, this is clearly a political issue for the people of Northern Ireland.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The House is disappointed this afternoon that the First Secretary of State has been so vague in explaining exactly where the money to pay for this deal is coming from. It is therefore incumbent on him to ask his Chancellor to come to this House to explain how it is that the period of austerity which we have suffered for so long has so abruptly come to an end and how it is that if we now have the “proceeds of growth”, areas such as Yorkshire, the north-west, Newcastle and Cumbria are not also allowed to enjoy them?
Damian Green
All the areas that the hon. Lady talks about have benefited from an economic policy that has reduced unemployment to its lowest level for more than 40 years. I am happy to assure her that the money in this deal is well within the confines of the fiscal targets we have set ourselves, so we are still able to hit those targets of eliminating the deficit by 2025—by the middle of the next decade—and reducing the structural deficit to no more than 2% by 2020-21. This does not affect our fiscal targets at all.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Speaking as the new Member for Stirling, where there is a new city region deal in the offing, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm for the benefit of Opposition Members that all city deals in Scotland and Wales since 2014 have sat outside the Barnett formula?
Damian Green
I welcome another of my hon. Friends to his place. He is exactly right. The city deals and the city region deals have proved one of the most successful innovations of this Government. I look forward to the people of his constituency benefiting from them, as people in constituencies across the UK already have.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland is not in his place—no doubt he is off somewhere polishing his brass neck—so I will have to tell the First Secretary of State that the city deals arranged in Scotland have come at a cost to local government and the Scottish Government. The UK Government are paying only £678 million, whereas the Scottish Government and local government in Scotland have put in £1.3 billion. How much are local authorities in Belfast and in Northern Ireland as a whole expected to put into the city deals?
Damian Green
Only an SNP Member could idly talk about “only” £678 million; soon we will be talking about real money. [Interruption.] It is a Geoffrey Howe quote. The UK Government and the Scottish Government have joint responsibilities to help the economy of Scotland, and certainly the UK Government are already demonstrably meeting those commitments. I hope the SNP-led Scottish Government continue to do so.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I welcome this agreement, but does the First Secretary of State agree that the injustice—because that is what it is—of women from Northern Ireland who seek terminations being charged to have them on the mainland by the NHS is nothing at all to do with this agreement? It is an entirely separate matter. To that end, does he agree that the Government should consider this matter, because it is not fair that women from Northern Ireland seeking terminations should be charged by the NHS here in this country?
Damian Green
I can only say to my right hon. Friend what I have said to Opposition Members, which is that this is clearly an enormously sensitive political topic, and the best place for it to be resolved is within the democratic politics of Northern Ireland itself.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Tonight, many of my constituents in Glasgow East will be wondering why our local jobcentres are being shut when the pavements of Northern Ireland are being made of gold. Was the Secretary of State for Scotland consulted as part of this grubby deal and the finances involved in it, or was the Cabinet’s man in Scotland once again frozen out?
Damian Green
Like all Cabinet members, the Secretary of State for Scotland plays a key role in all decisions made by the Government. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of this deal is, as I hope I have shown over the past hour or so, completely wide of the mark.
Grenfell Tower Fire/Fire Safety
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and our safety inspections of cladding in other buildings.
I know that I speak for the whole House when I express my heartfelt grief at the Grenfell Tower catastrophe. Almost a fortnight has passed, but the shock has not subsided. I have visited Kensington and witnessed the terrible anguish of those who have lost so much. In some cases, people have lost literally everything. I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members have returned from their constituencies today with the anger and the fears of residents still ringing in their ears. It is anger that a tragedy on this scale was ever allowed to happen in 21st century Britain, and fear that it could happen again. It is this fear that I want to address first.
I know that the entire country is anxious to hear what we are doing to reassure residents about fire safety in similar blocks around the country. My Department has contacted all councils and housing associations in England to identify all tall residential buildings with potentially similar cladding that they are responsible for. We estimate that number to be around 600. On 18 June, we wrote to those councils and housing associations and asked them to start sending samples. On 21 June, our combustibility testing programme for aluminium composite material started. It is run by the Building Research Establishment—BRE. On 22 June, the Government provided advice to all these landlords about interim safety measures where a building has ACM cladding that is unlikely to be compliant with building regulations. This advice was recommended by an independent panel of experts and includes advice based on the emerging findings from the Metropolitan police investigation into Grenfell Tower.
I can inform the House that, as of midday today, the cladding from 75 high-rise buildings in 26 local authority areas has failed the combustibility test. Members will rightly want to know whether their residents are affected, and my Department will publish regular updates on gov.uk.
The combustibility test has three categories rated 1 to 3, and it is judged that cladding material in category 2 or 3 does not meet the requirements on limited combustibility within building regulations. I can also confirm to the House that, so far, on that basis, all samples of cladding tested have failed. The fact that all samples so far have failed underlines the value of the testing programme and the vital importance of submitting samples urgently.
The testing facility can analyse 100 samples a day and runs around the clock. I am concerned about the speed at which samples are being submitted. I urge all landlords to submit their samples immediately. Landlords and local fire and rescue services are alerted to every failed test, and we are supporting and monitoring all follow-up action, including by dedicated caseworkers in my Department.
Landlords for all affected buildings have informed, or are informing, tenants and are implementing the interim safety measures needed, working with fire and rescue services. At this time, the safety of people living in these buildings is our paramount concern. I am determined that residents have as much peace of mind as possible in such worrying times. Landlords must keep residential buildings safe for their tenants. Where they cannot satisfy that obligation with appropriate mitigating measures, we expect alternative accommodation to be provided while the remedial work is carried out. That is exactly what happened in Camden, and I pay tribute to the residents for their brave response to such a distressing situation.
It is obvious that the problem of unsafe cladding may not be unique to social housing or residential buildings. We have asked other owners, landlords and managers of private sector residential blocks to consider their own buildings, and we have made the testing facility freely available to them. My Department is also working with the Government Property Unit to oversee the checks on wider public sector buildings. Hospitals are well prepared. Each one has a tailored fire safety plan, but nothing is more important than the safety of patients and staff, so, on a precautionary basis, we have asked all hospitals to conduct additional checks.
The Government will continue to work closely with fire and rescue colleagues to prioritise and conduct checks based on local circumstances. The Education and Skills Funding Agency is contacting all bodies responsible for safety in schools, instructing them to carry out immediate checks to identify any buildings that require further investigation. We will have more information this week.
Across the wider Government estate, 15 buildings have been identified as requiring further investigation. While that work continues, it is vital that we offer every assistance to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As of this morning, 79 people have been confirmed dead or listed as missing, presumed dead. Sadly, it is believed that this number will increase.
As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the initial response of the emergency services was exemplary, but the immediate support on the ground was simply not good enough. A remarkable community effort sprang up overnight while official support was found wanting. That failure was inexcusable, and it is right that a new team and approach is now in operation. We have activated the Bellwin scheme and sent significant central Government resource, including a single point of access into Government provided by the Grenfell Tower victims unit, operating from my Department. Staff from six Departments are offering support at the Westway assistance centre and a family bereavement centre in Holborn.
The Government have also set aside £5 million for the Grenfell Tower residents discretionary fund, with more than £1 million already distributed. Each household affected is receiving £5,500 to provide some immediate assistance, and so far 111 households have received payments. The British Red Cross is operating an advice line for anyone affected or in need of support. It is just one of many charities, faith organisations and businesses that have provided invaluable assistance to victims. I can announce to the House today that the Government will contribute £1 million to support their efforts. That money will be new money. It will be distributed to a local consortium of charities, trusts and foundations that are working together to respond to this tragic event.
Our other priority has been to find survivors a safe and secure place to live. The Prime Minister made a clear commitment that a good-quality temporary home would be offered within three weeks to every family whose home was destroyed in the fire. Every one of those families will also be offered a permanent social home in the local area. That work is under way and the first families moved into their homes over the weekend. Last week I also announced that the Government had secured 68 homes in a new development in Kensington to rehouse local residents. We will do everything we can to support the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire, now and in the future, and I will regularly update the House on our progress.
As the Prime Minister said in her statement to the House last week, the disaster at Grenfell Tower should never have happened. There is an ongoing police investigation and there will be an independent, judge-led public inquiry to get to the truth of what happened and who was responsible. Building regulations and the system for ensuring fire safety in buildings have been developed over many decades. Until the Grenfell Tower fire, many experts would have claimed that that system had served us well. But now we have witnessed a catastrophic failure, on a scale that many thought impossible in 21st century Britain. It is clear that that failure must be understood and rectified without delay, and the Government are determined to ensure that happens. As an initial step, I can inform the House today that I am establishing an independent expert advisory panel to advise the Government on any steps that should immediately be taken on fire safety. Further details about the panel, including its members, will be released shortly.
This tragedy must never be forgotten. It should weigh heavily on the consciousness of every person tasked with making decisions that ensure that it can never, ever happen again.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, and for what he has told the House. As he has said, the shock from this truly terrible, tragic fire at Grenfell Tower has not subsided, and neither has the fear. As the Prime Minister said in her statement last week, the Government’s response, both national and local, was not good enough in the early days. Nationally, it is still not good enough. Hundreds of residents of Grenfell Tower and their relatives are still struggling to keep their lives going in the face of this gravest loss, and hundreds of thousands of residents in 4,000 other tower blocks across the country are still wondering whether their homes are safe, worried about sleeping at night and want to know what the Government are doing to ensure their safety.
Trust is so low in the local community around Grenfell Tower that I welcome the local Gold Command leadership. I welcome the key workers who are in place to provide each household with support and advice, and I welcome the £1 million paid so far in immediate assistance payments. However, the Secretary of State has made a promise to rehouse all Grenfell Tower residents in the local area within three weeks. It is now nearly a fortnight since the fire. How many people are covered by that pledge? Two weeks on, is it correct that 370 households are still in emergency accommodation? How many have so far been found permanent new homes, or even the “good-quality temporary” homes mentioned by the Secretary of State? By what date will all residents affected by the fire be in a permanent new home? Finally, as those residents move, will the Government guarantee that the children will still be eligible to attend their same schools?
More widely, Ministers talk too loosely about the buildings that have been tested so far. The Prime Minister said last week:
“We can test more than 100 buildings a day”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]
Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that the Government’s “testing” is only of cladding samples sent in by councils and housing associations? The Government say that more than 600 tower blocks with cladding need safety checks, so why, five days into the programme, have only 75 tests been done so far? Why have all failed? Importantly, will he confirm that cladding is just not the whole story? We know this from both coroners’ reports in 2013, into the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires. We may well find that from investigations into Grenfell Tower, as the fire there broke into almost every floor of the building.
We need from Ministers a much more thorough review of fire safety in all the country’s residential tower blocks, a total commitment to action to deal with any problems, and a guarantee that the Government will help to fund the costs. That also applies to other public buildings such as schools and hospitals, over which similar doubts may hang.
The issue of costs is crucial because some significant work and alterations have to be done, and quickly. Will the Secretary of State make funding available up front—not after the event through the Bellwin scheme—for any council or housing association that needs it for recladding or the installation of sprinklers and other fire prevention measures, starting with the highest-risk high-rise blocks and those with sheltered accommodation? Will he lift the central cap that he currently places on local authorities’ housing so that they can borrow and invest to ensure that their residents are safe?
I welcome the independent expert advisory panel, but frankly the Secretary of State is wrong to say that many experts would claim that our buildings regulation and fire safety system serves us well. Many experts have said exactly the opposite, especially since the two coroners’ reports four years ago into previous tower block fires. Will he now act on the recommendations in those reports?
There really should be a triple fire safety lock around buildings and works on them. First, the materials must be fit for purpose and meet safety specifications. Secondly, fire safety systems must be in place and fire risk assessments done regularly. Thirdly, building regulation and control must make sure that design, construction and any further works are fully safe. Instead, the update that the Secretary of State has given us this afternoon suggests a collapse of the fire safety control and check system. It is not working and it must change.
Finally, what is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that when the Prime Minister said that we simply had not given enough attention to social housing in this country, those were not merely empty words? What is he doing to make sure that this terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower means a profound change of course on housing in this country?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments—in particular, his support for Gold Command and the relief effort on the ground in Kensington.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. I can give him some updated numbers on rehousing the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The commitment that we have rightly made is that every single one of the families whose homes have been destroyed—both at Grenfell Tower and in the neighbouring Grenfell Walk: together, some 144 units—are guaranteed an offer within three weeks of temporary housing in the local neighbourhood; we have defined “the local neighbourhood” as Kensington and Chelsea, but also the neighbouring boroughs.
So far, some 373 hotel rooms are being occupied; that represents 153 households from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk and 220 households from the cordon area. Individual housing assessments have been done for almost all those from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk; the work is led by Westminster City Council, with support from a number of other councils across London. If any have not been done, that has been through choice: people have asked that their assessment be delayed because they are not ready. We are, of course, respecting their wishes. In respect of those whose assessments have been done, there have already been 59 offers of temporary accommodation.
As I am sure hon. Members will understand, we are finding that some families want to take their time to make a decision on the temporary accommodation. In a number of instances, some of the families have quite understandably first asked for something in Kensington as close as possible to where they lived, but when they have been shown the home and seen what is left of the tower they have understandably changed their minds and asked for some other options. We are working with them at their pace. Our commitment is that they will all be made offers within the three weeks, although they will not all necessarily be in the temporary accommodation within that time. We have to respect their choice when they are made offers. If they change their minds, we want to accommodate that.
The other issue is that some families actually doubted us when we said that the initial accommodation is temporary. One family I met in the Westway Centre on Friday said, perfectly understandably, “How do we know temporary is temporary? How do we know that you’re not just going to leave us there and not find us better quality, more suitable and permanent accommodation?” When I probed a bit further, the family said they were told that Grenfell Tower would be temporary accommodation when they first moved in, but they were still there 17 years later, so I absolutely understand their concerns. In that case, I had to make a personal commitment to that family. That worked; they are now in temporary accommodation. We want to work with each family at their pace to get them what they deserve and need as best we can.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the testing facilities. I can confirm that the testing facility operated by the Building Research Establishment is testing the cladding material only. That is so important because, besides the whole building structure, the material itself has to meet minimum combustibility standards. The test tries to achieve that. So far, 75 tests on samples have taken place and all 75 have failed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that cladding is not the whole story, as it goes much further than that. One example is what has happened in Camden. The result of the cladding test for Camden triggered further investigations by the local fire service and the London fire commissioners. When the commissioners went into those tower blocks in Camden, they found, in their own words, multiple fire safety inspection failures, which, frankly, should not have happened in tower blocks of any type, and certainly not in those tower blocks in Camden. There were problems with gas pipe insulation, some stairways were not accessible and there were breaches of internal walls. Most astonishingly, literally hundreds of fire doors were missing. Camden Council itself estimates that it needs at least 1,000 fire doors because they were missing from those five blocks. That has nothing to do with the cladding. Something has clearly gone drastically wrong there. These issues need to be looked at very carefully to find out why this is happening in this day and age in our country.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about costs. We have been very clear that local authorities and housing associations must not hesitate at all. As soon as they learn about any action and necessary steps that they need to take to ensure public safety in terms of fire risk, they must take that action. If they are not able to pay for that themselves, we will of course work with them and put a financial support package in place with the individual organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about what more we can do now. I am sure that he understands that we can do some things now in this immediate and urgent situation, but that there are also longer-term lessons to learn. Some will come from the public inquiry, but we cannot wait for the final results of that inquiry. Hopefully —it is up to the judge—there will be an interim report, but work can be done much sooner than that. That is one reason that I am putting the independent expert panel in place, and I would be very happy for the right hon. Gentleman to meet and have access to that panel.
The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was about social housing. I absolutely agree that there are very big lessons to learn about the quantity and quality of social housing. There has been massive investment of record amounts in social housing over the past six years. More than 330,000 new units have been created, and more council housing has been built in the past six years than in the 13 years before that. We can do a lot more, but it is much better if we work together.
Mr Speaker
There will be no more tragic matter treated of in this House in this Parliament than that which is before us now, in consequence of which I want every Member who wishes to contribute to the exchanges to have the opportunity to do so. It might, however, help the House if I point out that there are a would-be 52 contributors in the debate to come. As a result, there is a premium upon brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, now to be brilliantly exemplified by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith).
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the action he is taking, the urgency with which he is seeing this process through and the way he wants to drive it through, but to return to the points raised by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, there is one issue we need to revisit in parallel and to get on with as fast as we can. My main concern is that, as we look at the cladding and all the other issues, such as the windows in these tower blocks, which can explode into flames if they are made of the wrong type of glass—that is often overlooked among the other things, such as the fire doors—we should really ask ourselves the simple question, and have a real review into, whether it is necessary any longer in many cases to have these older tower blocks, and whether we would not be better off taking a very strong decision to bring some of these tower blocks down and to provide much better, much more family-friendly low-rise, or even council house, accommodation. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks— he makes a very good point. Our most urgent work right now is to make existing tower blocks safe, but there are also longer term consequences, and that includes looking at our whole approach to social housing and the quality of social housing.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sympathies and those of the SNP to those who have been affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy and those who face worry as they wonder about their accommodation tonight. I am glad to see the proposal to give funds to local charities, which is very welcome, but I would like to ask a few more questions on the statement.
First, will there be funding from central Government for mitigating measures and alternative accommodation where local authorities face expensive remedial work? That work may take a significant time, and residents will need to be housed and perhaps compensated during that period. Will there also be additional funding for the fire service, which was clearly not able to carry out fire safety work on, for example, the blocks the Secretary of State mentioned in Camden?
Will the tenancy agreements for those moved into temporary and more permanent accommodation be equivalent to, or better than, the tenancy agreements they had in Grenfell Tower?
It was clear—the Minister’s response acknowledged this—that the official response was not good enough, although I make these points in the spirit of helpfulness and not in any way on a party political basis. In Scotland and in Glasgow, we have a well-developed resilience strategy involving all local authority bodies. Will the Secretary of State look at the way it is implemented at local government level? Will he also look at how building regulations in Scotland compare with building regulations in England?
Is it possible to have Scottish representatives on the advisory panel the Secretary of State mentioned, so that they can share some of that experience and that different approach? Lastly, the Scottish Government have already established a short-term ministerial working group on building in fire safety. Will there be a means for it to report to the inquiry?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for all her important points and questions. On funding, we have made it clear that all the local authorities and housing associations absolutely must do all the necessary work, and we will work with each of them to make sure they have the funding they need if funding is preventing them from doing that work.
On the tenancy agreements for the Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk residents, the terms will be the same or better, whatever housing they eventually receive—whether it is temporary or permanent.
On Scotland, the hon. Lady made a good point. Scotland has already identified around 500 high-rise buildings with cladding, but none of them has ACM cladding. Scottish building regulations certainly deserve a closer look, and as we do a wider review, we should certainly take that into account.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The most worrying thing in the Secretary of State’s statement was when he said that none of the examples of cladding so far had met the requirements in the building regulations but had clearly been fitted to buildings. May I urge him to make that the first thing he asks his independent expert advisory panel to look at? If we have widespread non-compliance with existing building regulations, that is the most urgent thing we need to deal with to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy elsewhere in the country.
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. That is a very urgent question that is already being looked at. Once we have the independent panel established, which will be from tomorrow morning, that is one of the first things it will be tasked with.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
I have heard some very ill-informed comments about tower blocks here. As the only architecture expert in the House, as far as I know, I am happy to give a lecture about the safety of well-maintained tower blocks. Concrete-framed tower blocks are safer than Victorian terraces, for example. But that is for another day.
I have heard this morning, shockingly, that people who have concerns about their immigration status or lack of documentation are still not coming forward, and are sleeping rough, and some have been told that they may not be eligible for housing and medical services, and may be reported to the Home Office. Will the Secretary of State please make a firm commitment now, and communicate it widely, that immigration status will not be a barrier to help from medical and housing services, and nor will they be reported to the Home Office, so that traumatised and frightened people have no fear in coming forward?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank the hon. Lady for the reassurance that she has been providing to her constituents, many of whom are looking for support from across Government and elsewhere. She has been a very reassuring figure locally, and I thank her for that.
On her particular question on immigration, I can absolutely give her that assurance. We have already made it clear that any information that anyone coming forward provides either to Government or local government will not be used for any kind of immigration check. That has been put in a letter that has been given to every affected family. If the hon. Lady has some further suggestions about how we can get that message out, as I think we should follow up on those, I would be very happy to listen.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the rapid pace of testing of the cladding. It is shocking to hear that so many tower blocks are unsafe. We have heard about the situation in Camden, where tower blocks are being evacuated. Does my right hon. Friend expect other councils to manage evacuations of tower blocks?
Sajid Javid
Thankfully, no other councils have come forward so far with a need to have an evacuation. There are many more tests to take place, so I do not want to prejudge them, but hopefully what has happened in Camden will be a rare occurrence. As I said earlier, in the case of Camden, in particular, the cladding was a trigger for further fire safety inspections, but it was the massive failure of those further fire safety inspections that caused the evacuation.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for rightly commending the bravery of the 3,000 residents who were evacuated from their homes in my constituency on Friday. In the past few days, residents have repeatedly brought up the closure of Belsize fire station, which was 500 metres away from the tower block in question. Will the Secretary of State give his support to reopening Belsize fire station, which was closed by the former Mayor of London in 2014, so that my residents can feel safe in their homes again?
Sajid Javid
Of course, local fire and rescue services must have the resources that they need, but in the assessment that was done with Camden in recent days, there is nothing to suggest that that was the issue that might have led to an evacuation. As the hon. Lady is rightly concerned about her constituents, I am sure that she will be hugely concerned with what has come out of the fire inspection report on the towers in Camden, particularly the issue around the fire doors. I am focusing my efforts right now on making sure that Camden can get all that remedial work done, with significant help from Government to ensure that those fire doors are in place as soon as possible.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Regrettably, it would appear that unsafe cladding is widespread. It exists where there are Labour councils, Conservative councils, and councils of other colours; it was put up during Labour Administrations and Conservative Administrations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern and regret, therefore, to hear some party politicisation of this tragedy, and hope that we can all work together across parties to make sure that it never happens again?
Sajid Javid
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. As I said in my statement, clearly some things have gone drastically and catastrophically wrong. It has happened over a number of decades. If we are going to put that right, we can do it if we all work together.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State inform us whether any samples of cladding have been received from Coventry for evaluation? Has he taken up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of making money available from the central Treasury contingency fund, which is usually very large and was established precisely for this sort of disaster?
Sajid Javid
I will first attend to the question about Coventry. As I have said, 26 local authority areas have done tests that are public, but not all of them have told the residents of their respective towers. Coventry is not on the list of those that have gone public. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if Coventry were one of those, it would contact its local MPs individually. On funding, local authorities also have reserves for unforeseen circumstances. Some local authorities will certainly want to use their reserves.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for his extensive statement to the House? All our thoughts must still be with those affected by these dreadful events. I welcome the systemic testing of cladding material. What would be the legal ramifications if landlords failed to make use of that service or, indeed, to ensure that their property is safe? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should review the use of high-rise accommodation for disabled and very elderly people?
Sajid Javid
Let me start by addressing my right hon. Friend’s final point about disabled and very elderly people. Of course, special circumstances will be required in situations such as evacuation in case of fire. That should certainly be taken into account by local fire services looking at those buildings and carrying out a further inspection. On the legal ramifications, if a landlord does not submit something for testing when there is good reason to do so, it is the legal responsibility of every landlord in the country, whether the property is social or private, to make sure that it is safe in every way for tenants, and there will certainly be action.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Although I welcome the announcement about an independent expert advisory panel, the Government have historically had the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. It has not met for five years, but it sounds as though the independent advisory panel will do the same job. What is the difference between the two?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over a number of years to promote fire safety. He has secured this evening’s Adjournment debate, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, will respond. I am sure that will enable the hon. Gentleman to further explore his question and others. In the light of the tragedy, this particular panel will possibly have a broader remit, and its membership might also be broader, including through taking on international experience.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The horror of Grenfell Tower will remain with victims and their families and friends for generations. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the role of the victims unit, in particular the work it is doing with children who have lost a parent and those adults who have lost the English-speaking member of their family?
Sajid Javid
The victims unit, which is now based in my Department, has a number of officials from at least six Departments. The idea is that if any victim, family member or friend has any issue that central Government can help with—it might relate to immigration, tax and benefits or housing—they would have to deal with only one individual, making it much easier for them.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am grateful for the statement and share the Secretary of State’s grief, anxiety and shock at the Grenfell Tower catastrophe. When tower blocks fail fire safety tests, and when urgent mitigating measures cannot be done to make those buildings safe, what he has said to date does not reassure many Members, because local authorities and housing associations will need funding support to help them provide new housing for those residents affected. What consideration has been given to declaring this a civil emergency, so that central Government funds can be provided to housing associations and local authorities trying to rehouse local residents?
Sajid Javid
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that funding is already being provided by central Government in certain circumstances. We have made it clear that if there is an issue and the remedial work to make a property safe cannot be done immediately, as was the case in Camden, the local authority should not hesitate but should take action immediately, regardless of cost, to make residents safe. When the local authority needs funding support, we will work with it and provide that support.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his full and detailed statement. I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House are united in their determination that the horrific events at Grenfell will never happen again. I am enormously encouraged by the announcement that there will be a full public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that that inquiry will not be allowed to drag and that it will happen as soon as possible? We need answers, and quickly.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend refers to the public inquiry that was announced by the Prime Minister last week. It will be a judge-led fully independent inquiry. We should not prejudge the terms of the inquiry because they will be set by the judge. The issue of timing is important, but it is also important to ensure that the victims are properly represented, as the Prime Minister has promised that they will be.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State referred to cladding but not to insulation. He will know that the police and the fire service have raised serious concerns about the way in which the insulation spread the fire at Grenfell Tower. What is being done about insulation? Is it now time to require that insulation materials are tested as well? Will there be transparency about what insulation materials were used in Grenfell Tower, and should those materials be banned in tower blocks and other properties?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and the police report on Grenfell Tower rightly focuses on it. I will not say anything more about Grenfell Tower, as it is important that I do not get involved in that, but, more broadly, it is possible that a test could show that cladding was category 1, which is the correct type, but that the insulation was the wrong type. Since the police report, we have worked with the Local Government Association to update the advice that is going to local councils. We are looking at what is the best way to respond and to ensure that insulation is also looked at properly.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that this tragedy has been politicised so heavily by senior members of the Labour party? How long does he think the public inquiry will take to come to conclusions? Is there any evidence that the panelling has been used in countries other than ours?
Sajid Javid
What the public want to see—this is what they are seeing today in this Chamber—is everyone working together. The timing of the public inquiry will be up to the judge, but it is hoped that the judge might see fit to produce an interim report that we can act on much more quickly.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on funding for local authorities. Most of them do not have vast reserves but are struggling with 40% funding cuts. There is still not sufficient clarity on exactly where and when the Government will step forward with funding. It is needed not only for places that need sprinklers and to get rid of cladding but, crucially, for rehousing. Will he say exactly what the national Government will fund?
Sajid Javid
I can only repeat what I said earlier: whether it is removing cladding, taking other necessary action to improve the fire safety of buildings or rehousing, local authorities should get on with it, just like in Camden. The first thought there was not, “How exactly are we going to fund this?” The council rightly got on with action and made the tenants safe. The Government will then work with those local authorities that cannot afford that to provide necessary support.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
As someone who previously worked for Shelter, may I thank that organisation and all the other charitable organisations that are working so hard in the constituency to do what they can for the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire? What is the Government’s timeline to rehouse all the displaced Grenfell survivors from temporary accommodation into long-term, stable homes in their local community?
Mr Speaker
We welcome the hon. Lady to the House and look forward to her bringing the benefit of her experience in that and other sectors to our deliberations.
Sajid Javid
On the timeline, the offer of temporary accommodation will be made within three weeks. On permanent accommodation, we have already found a number of units. Some people are starting to look at them, and my expectation is that we can hopefully do that within months and move very quickly, as long as that is what the tenants want. I, too, welcome the hon. Lady’s experience at Shelter. She may be aware that Shelter is giving tremendous help on the ground in Kensington to a lot of the tenants who have concerns over whether temporary really means temporary, and I hugely welcome that.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On funding, basically the Secretary of State has said that the Government will work with local authorities and housing associations to provide funding if they cannot afford to carry out the work. Will he explain precisely what that means and what criteria he will use? Is it not fundamentally wrong to expect other social housing tenants to pay for this work through either increased rents or less maintenance of their properties? Will the Government bring forward a comprehensive finance package that provides not merely increased borrowing for organisations, but the actual cash to pay for this work?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as we speak, it is a legal requirement for local authorities and housing associations that they ensure that the homes they offer to tenants are fit for habitation. They should be meeting those requirements already. I gave the example of Camden; it should already have been meeting those requirements. Despite that, if authorities and associations are not able to do that from their current resources, they should get on with the job and meet those requirements, and we will work with them and give them the support they need.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
It is good to be back, Mr Speaker.
Ann Jones, the Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd, has brought forward her own legislation to introduce sprinklers in all new-build houses in Wales. I am a firm believer in the dictum that out of badness comes good. What happened at Grenfell Tower was bad—it was a tragedy. Can we use this disaster to open a complete review of fire safety across the UK, not just on the issue of cladding, but on insulation, containment, emergency lighting and especially sprinkler systems, and for not just high towers but other vulnerable housing, such as houses of multiple occupation?
Sajid Javid
As I said in my statement, there will certainly be a need for a complete review across the UK.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Approximately one in three properties in Westminster towers is leasehold and I am sure the same is true for other blocks. Does the Secretary of State have the power to require leaseholders to install fire doors and other internal fire safety measures? If not, what is he going to do about it and who is going to pay?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. This is often the case, although not exclusively. Many leaseholders have removed fire doors, which is clearly not acceptable. I believe that all the legal powers are in place. Certainly, one of the lessons of this tragedy—this is certainly what we have seen in Camden—is to make sure we take a much greater interest in enforcement.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement, “Landlords must keep residential buildings safe for their tenants.” The experts all agree that sprinklers save lives. Sympathetic words are simply not good enough. Fitting sprinklers would cost far less than the deal the Government have stitched together with the DUP. Let us have no more excuses. What is more important to the Secretary of State: clinging to power or preventing fire deaths?
Sajid Javid
When the local fire and rescue service recommends sprinklers, they should be installed.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Was the Secretary of State’s Department aware of the fire at the Lacrosse tower in Melbourne in 2014? It had cladding similar to that at Grenfell Tower. What lessons did the Department for Communities and Local Government learn from that fire? Should it not have prompted a review of the cladding of tower blocks in this country?
Sajid Javid
The important point that the hon. Gentleman highlights is that we can benefit from international experience, whether that comes from Australia, Europe or elsewhere. That is certainly one thing we should look at as we learn the lessons.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be familiar with tower blocks in my constituency. I would like him to explain now why he will not simply use this opportunity to pay for the sprinkler systems that were recommended by the coroner after the Lakanal House fire.
Sajid Javid
It is important that we are clear on this. The coroner did not say in her 2013 report that all high-rise buildings should have sprinklers; she said that they should be considered where they are appropriate.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I want to follow on from the point made about immigration status by my very welcome hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad). Having worked with people with a very fragile immigration status who have suffered a trauma, I know that until people have a stable immigration status, they will never feel safe to speak out. The Secretary of State asks what we can do. We could give those people a message today that we will fast-track them for indefinite leave to remain, with access to public funds, so that they can go through the inquiry without fear or favour. Will he agree to that?
Sajid Javid
It is a very important point. I think we can show appropriate sensitivity to victims who feel that they have challenges with their immigration status and treat them more favourably.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Public inquiries are slow, lumbering instruments of change, as we found with the Chilcot report and the Savile inquiry, which took nearly a decade. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that we will not wait until we have inquiry reports for remedies, but that as soon as remedies are obvious and required, we will act instantly, because the danger is so high and the anxieties are so widespread?
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that profound lessons need to be learned from this tragedy, such as why fire service checks on high-rise blocks have been cut by 25% since 2010, but in the here and now, urgent action is necessary. There are 10,000 households in 213 tower blocks in Birmingham where rightly anxious tenants want action. Birmingham City Council has pledged that it will retrofit sprinklers to all those blocks. That will cost £31 million, but the council is suffering the biggest cuts in local government history and therefore urgently needs Government support. May I therefore ask for a straight yes-or-no answer? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that Birmingham City Council can go ahead and carry out that work, and that it will be refunded in full?
Sajid Javid
Birmingham City Council, like every other council, has a legal responsibility to its social tenants, so it should do whatever it believes is necessary. As I have said before, if there is an issue with funding for necessary works, we will provide the support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May I praise the swift response of the Welsh Government and Cardiff Council in responding to the concerns of residents in Cardiff South and Penarth, which has more than 14,000 apartment units, and urge Vale of Glamorgan Council to come up with some answers as soon as possible?
Will the Secretary of State look at the issue of estate management companies? I have seen very variable records of action on fire safety and response to concerns across many privately owned tower blocks in my constituency. Quite frankly, some of them are not living up to their responsibilities in terms of staffing, resourcing and looking at issues such as fire door, sprinkler and fire alarm safety.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the lessons from this tragedy and what we are learning now is that we should look at the private sector much more carefully, including estate management companies.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Thirteen Group owns most of the social housing across Teesside. It paid for fire-retardant and non-toxic cladding for the balconies at Kennedy Gardens in Billingham in my constituency but ended up with flammable, toxic material, which is now being removed. One thing was paid for and another dangerous alternative was provided. Does the Secretary of State agree that frauds such as those ought to be investigated and those responsible prosecuted?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said nothing about the cause of the fire. I realise that product safety is a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but given that this is his statement, will he say when the tests of the fridge-freezer model that caused the fire will be complete, whether other fires have been caused by this model and whether he will immediately change the advice that owners of this model can continue to use it, pending the outcome of the tests?
Sajid Javid
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and his Department are speaking to not just the manufacturer of the fridge-freezer concerned with regard to Grenfell Tower but a number of other manufacturers of white goods, some of which already have products on recall. The pace of recall is, frankly, far too slow, and my right hon. Friend is taking that very seriously.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Between 2010 and 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government reduced its staff capacity by a higher proportion than any other Department—almost 40%. As a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament, I saw that in many areas the Department is clearly very stretched. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of staff in the Department is being increased, so that it can co-ordinate the national response to all aspects of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in an efficient and timely manner, including providing emergency support to any council that requests it?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to echo what colleagues have said about the need for certainty on funding coming into councils. As the Secretary of State will know, Bristol is facing £104 million of cuts over the next few years. We need to know whether we have to make other cuts. May I press him on a couple of changes that would help us to raise our own finance? One is scrapping the annual rent reduction rule, and the other is allowing us to spend all right-to-buy receipts on new housing, which would free up other money for investment. Will he talk to Bristol City Council about being able to do those two things, which would help us to pay for this work ourselves?
Sajid Javid
In the light of the pressures on local authorities, it would make sense to look carefully at policies that may help them to meet some of the challenges, and that is something we have already started doing.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister informed us that the DCLG would write to us with an update on safety tests of all tower blocks. There are 63 tower blocks in Lewisham, Deptford, but I have yet to receive any information, despite writing to the Minister and requesting the promised update. Will the Secretary of State provide an update now, and will the Government, having been asked umpteen times, commit to fully fund the fitting of sprinkler systems and any associated costs, to ensure that people’s homes are safe?
Sajid Javid
Following the Prime Minister’s statement, I sent a letter to every Member of Parliament and every Member of the other place on Friday; it has gone out. I believe I have answered the question on funding.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
In the wake of the awful disaster at Fukushima, the German Government shut down all their nuclear plants, fearing that a catastrophe such as that could happen on their soil. Surely after an event like the Grenfell Tower tragedy, we should be looking to put sprinkler systems in all our tower blocks.
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should certainly do whatever is deemed necessary by the local fire and rescue service—the fire safety experts—and ensure that we take all the action they recommend to keep our citizens safe.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that what happened at Grenfell Tower was a national disaster. The Treasury contingency fund exists exactly to provide funding in these sorts of disasters. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor about releasing money to ensure that all remedial work and accommodation on an emergency basis is funded directly by central Government for local authorities and housing associations?
Sajid Javid
The conversations I have had with the Chancellor reflect what I have said at the Dispatch Box today. If any local authority or housing association needs funding help for any necessary works, we will support them.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
May I praise the staff, officers and leader of Ealing Council, who stepped in to run the relief effort at the Westway centre when Kensington and Chelsea was overwhelmed? I am informed that standards at Ealing are higher than at RBKC. I do not know whether that is the case, but surely any inconsistency needs addressing, with minimum stringent requirements that apply across tenure, even to student halls of residence—we have a lot of high-rise halls in my seat—and that are in place well before the inquiry ever sees the light of day.
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s praise for the leader of Ealing, in particular for the help provided at the Westway centre. Ealing has taken this seriously in its response, like every council across London, but it is important that other councils do the same.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have been contacted by many constituents concerned about our local hospital. Hull Royal Infirmary is a tower block and had cladding put on a couple of years ago. I note that the Secretary of State said that additional checks are being made on NHS properties. Are we likely to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health about the outcomes of that investigation?
Sajid Javid
I will certainly pass on that request to the Secretary of State for Health, but I know that the whole Department of Health is taking the issue very seriously and is absolutely prioritising any buildings in the NHS estate that may have been clad.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I note from the Secretary of State’s statement that he has asked owners, landlords and managers of private sector residential blocks to consider their own buildings, but there are around 150 such privately owned residential blocks in Nottingham alone. What is he doing to ensure that those owners, landlords and managers do not just “consider” but act to ensure the safety of their residents? What is he doing to support local authorities, such as Nottingham City Council, that are working to secure such reassurances on behalf of their citizens?
Sajid Javid
First, we are reminding all the owners of those properties of their existing legal responsibilities. We have done that through their trade organisations, letting agents and other bodies. Secondly, we have made our testing facility available to all of them free of charge. We will keep monitoring that, but right now my absolute priority has been the more recently clad buildings held by local authorities and housing associations that have cladding similar to what was at Grenfell Tower.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Five tower blocks in my constituency were found on Saturday lunchtime to have this dangerous cladding. By Sunday lunchtime it had all been removed. I praise the housing authority, the local authority and the fire and rescue service for working together. That work was done quickly and the buildings are safe, but obviously more work needs to be done to put them into a good state. Can the Secretary of State assure me that funding will be made available not just to local authorities—the local authority in my area does not have properties; there was a total stock transfer—but to the smaller housing authorities with that responsibility? Will the correct funding be made available to put right those works? Also, when tower blocks or other buildings are retrofitted, they might comply with building regulations at the time but things change, so will the building regulations be looked at to ensure that when that happens more checks take place?
Sajid Javid
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that our commitment on funding and providing support where necessary for those who need it also applies to housing associations.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the problem of unsafe cladding might not be confined to residential buildings. It is also not necessarily confined to high-rise tower blocks. There is a particular concern about sheltered housing, which was described to me as, in many cases, a tower block turned on its side. Will the facilities for testing where cladding has been applied to those buildings also be made available?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The truth is that we in this country have for far too long tried to do social housing on the cheap, and in the end that decision by this country has killed people. I fully understand why the priority now is primarily residential property, but my hon. Friends are absolutely right: there are workplaces, too, that are probably dangerous. Indeed, the fire at the Glasgow School of Art showed that very old buildings are sometimes in the most danger, because they have lots of timber walls and floors that can easily spread fire from one part of the building to another. This building is one such. We have had hundreds and hundreds of warnings, but we have not acted on them. We have a fire alarm system so antiquated that it no longer works. When will the Government make sure that we do the work that this building needs?
Sajid Javid
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and I will take it up with the Leader of the House.
Points of Order
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Queen’s Speech last week failed to include the much expected local government finance Bill, the omission of which has called into question the switch to local retention of business rates replacing the revenue support grant, causing financial uncertainty and concern to many local councils. Has the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government given any indication to you of whether he intends to come to the House and give an oral statement, so that hon. and right hon. Members may question Ministers on this important issue? If not, Mr Speaker, is this a matter on which you will look favourably for an urgent question?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has chanced his arm. In respect of the first part of his inquiry, my response is a conclusive no. The Secretary of State has not given me any indication of an intention to make a statement on that subject. He could do so now, but it is not compulsory. He can preserve a Buddha-like silence if he prefers, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to spring to his feet, either to offer his reassurance or otherwise, he can.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a debate on the Queen’s Speech tomorrow about local services, so perhaps the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) would like to bring the matter up then.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. So far as the matter of urgent questions is concerned, if memory serves me correctly, during my tenure to date I have chosen no fewer than 369. I am therefore certainly not averse to selecting urgent questions and there is plenty of scope for them, but the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is a seasoned enough contributor to our proceedings to know that we are not supposed to mention them on the Floor of the House—or at least a Member thinking of submitting such is not supposed to—and I am certainly not going to pre-announce them. I think there is a lot to be said for the worldly wisdom of the late Lord Whitelaw, who famously observed, “On the whole, I prefer to cross bridges only when I come to them.”
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a new Member, I wonder whether the Chair can advise on the most effective way of raising the worrying news from my constituency today that the Royal Bank of Scotland has announced more than 400 job losses, to ascertain the potentially serious economic implications and whether this is in any way connected to the uncertainties surrounding Brexit.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady is undoubtedly a new Member, but she is clearly not a novice in finding very public opportunities to air her concerns on behalf of her constituents. The short answer is that she has of course already aired that concern through the device—or ruse in this case—of a perhaps slightly bogus point of order. However, my advice to her is that she should seek to question Ministers either orally at the appropriate time—there are many such opportunities, on which her colleagues can advise her—or through written questions. If, however, she wishes to dilate on the matter more fully and to hear a Minister do so in response, the mechanism available to her is an Adjournment debate. She should wend her way to the Table Office, where she will find highly qualified and very conscientious staff, who are only too happy to advise her. I just have a sense that we are going to hear further from the hon. Lady on this matter, and probably before very long.
Debate on the Address
Brexit and Foreign Affairs
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
May I start by commending the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for learning the ropes quicker than the rest of us did? I hope she has success with her Adjournment debate.
The negotiations over our exit from the European Union are fundamental to our future. It is no exaggeration to say that they will shape everything we want to achieve as a country over the coming years and decades. We are doing nothing less than refashioning Britain’s place in the world. Our success or failure will determine and shape all our futures, so it is obviously a great responsibility but also a great opportunity, and it falls on all of us in this place—every one of us in this Parliament—to make a success of it. If we work together and we succeed, we can ensure a strong and growing economy that spreads prosperity and opportunity around the country, underpins well-funded public services and secures a better future for us and our children.
I have always made it clear that after Brexit the United Kingdom will continue to be the outward-looking global nation it has always been. Indeed, it should be more engaged in the world than ever before, for I firmly believe that last year’s vote to leave the EU was not a call for retrenchment—a call to look in on ourselves. The UK has the means, the ambition and, now, the freedom to play a more positive role in the world.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I believe that the opportunities provided by Brexit will mean a global Britain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that leaving the customs union and the single market will allow us to forge trade links with countries such as China and the United States, which we cannot do on our own while we are members of the European Union?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, to which, if he will forgive me, I shall return a little later.
As I was saying, we have the means, the ambition and the freedom to play a more positive part in the world, which is demonstrated by our commitments on defence and international aid. The UK is the only country in the world that meets both its NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defence and the UN target of devoting 0.7% of our gross national income to development spending. That ensures that we defend our values, work to tackle poverty and conflict, and help to protect the most vulnerable in the world.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about our commitments to defence and our commitments to the rest of the world in respect of international aid, and I agree with what he has said about both, but what about the Government’s commitment to Wales? Before the Brexit debate, Andrew R. T. Davies said:
“I will make it my mission to ensure that Wales continues to receive at least every penny of the aid money it has historically received via the EU—we deserve and are entitled to no less.”
Will Wales get what it deserves?
Mr Davis
Of course. Indeed, Wales is represented on the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has met several times, and that issue has arisen in the committee. The main funding streams for Wales stem from the common agricultural policy and structural funds, both of which have been underpinned by the Treasury until the end of the current financial round.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
Not for the moment. I will make some progress, and then give way again. I must be fairly disciplined about giving way, because we have a very tight timetable.
After exiting the European Union, Britain will still be a country that steps up to its role as a world leader, and that means continuing to help to protect and secure our wider European continent. We want to deepen co-operation with other European states, and to bring European Union policy into a wider global framework. As we have said, we seek a deep and special partnership with the European Union: one that reflects our shared values and history, one that works for all parts of the United Kingdom, our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and one that delivers for the special circumstances relating to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because no one wants to see a return to the hard border. It should be a partnership like no other. It should be underpinned by ambitious agreements on free trade and customs, covering goods and services and seeking the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade.
Graham Stringer
There has been much talk about transitional arrangements. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that if such arrangements are put in place there will be legally binding agreements on trade and customs arrangements, as well as the removal of those arrangements from the remit of the European Court of Justice?
Ian Paisley
I appreciate what the Secretary of State has already said about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Does he accept, however, that if security information indicates a radicalisation of people in the Republic, security considerations will always predominate in respect of the border issue?
Mr Davis
Security considerations pretty much always predominate when it comes to the control of immigration and control of migration generally, and there will be no difference in this case. We obviously treat the security of all our citizens, and all our allies’ citizens, as paramount. There should be, for instance, a broad security agreement covering all aspects of our current collaboration, including defence, foreign policy, justice, home affairs, law enforcement and counter-terrorism, which should be supported by continued co-operation and open access in highly regulated areas such as aviation, financial services, data, transport and nuclear.
We recognise that such a wide-ranging partnership will require fair and uniform implementation. It must also be long-lasting. That is why we must ensure that mechanisms exist to manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment and minimise non-tariff barriers.
Stephen Doughty
At the weekend, the Secretary of State said that he was “pretty sure” that he would get the sort of trading deal that he wants. Does he think that language of that sort provides the assurances that our businesses and our economy need?
Mr Davis
The question that was put to me was whether I was 100% sure. The first thing that one ought to learn in this business is to be honest about such matters. I do not think that saying at the beginning of a negotiation that one is 100% sure of exactly what the outcome will be would give confidence to anyone. It certainly would not give confidence to me, even if it was said by the hon. Gentleman.
Charlie Elphicke
The whole point of a negotiation is that one must be prepared and ready not to do a deal, because one can then ensure that one has strength in the negotiations. To that extent, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for us to be ready to “do customs” at places such as my constituency of Dover, deal or no deal?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Davis
No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make some progress.
A large part of my job—almost the invisible part—is ensuring that we are prepared for contingencies, and that is happening as we speak.
We have also made it clear that the new partnership must be overseen by a new and independent impartial dispute mechanism. That cannot and will not be the European Court of Justice. No nation outside the European Union submits to the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ, and neither will the United Kingdom. We will start to move towards the new partnership by securing the rights of citizens on both sides. I know that everyone in the House will agree with me that European Union citizens make a huge contribution to our society. We have heard today from the Prime Minister about what the approach will entail, but the overarching principle is that European citizens living in the United Kingdom will continue to lead their lives in exactly the same way as British citizens with the same rights and responsibilities.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
I have given way quite a lot so far. I am going to be disciplined. No! I am practising being masterful.
Not everything in these negotiations will be easy. They will be complex, and I have no doubt that at times they will even be confrontational. However, I am convinced that both sides want to secure close co-operation and a deep new partnership.
Mr Davis
No, not for the moment. In a moment.
Last year, in the referendum, we received a national instruction, which we will undertake in a way that serves the national interest. The instruction from the British people was for us to take back control of our borders, our money and our laws. Both the Conservative party and the Labour party campaigned on manifestos that promised to exit the European Union and end the free movement of people. Those two manifestos received more than 80% of the popular vote, so failing to deliver on that instruction is not an option for those of us who count ourselves as democrats. Ending the free movement of people means leaving the single market, as the EU has made abundantly clear to those who have cared to listen.
Mike Gapes
The Secretary of State said that countries outside the European Union would not be directly within the remit of the European Court of Justice, but several countries outside the EU indirectly have arrangements with the European Union whereby the European Court of Justice or an equivalent body is established. Is that what the Secretary of State is aiming for?
Mr Davis
No. What the hon. Gentleman is describing is something like the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States—the EFTA court—where there is a parallelism. That is not the aim. The aim is to have an independent arbitration arrangement, as is normal. For instance, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement does exactly that. It has nominees from either side, and an independent chair. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind.
Mr Davis
No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to learn some discipline at some point in life. I thought discipline was his thing, but there we are.
Ending the free movement of people means leaving the single market, as the European Union has made abundantly clear to those who have cared to listen. We all accept the need to protect existing UK businesses in the European Union. Leaving the single market does not mean losing access to that market, which is why we are proposing a new, ambitious free trade agreement. But this is not just about protecting existing markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said. To deliver the national interest, we must seize on our new freedoms in terms of trade to create jobs and lift living standards. Britain must get out into the world, forge its own path and be a true beacon for free trade.
Mr Davis
No.
That means leaving the customs union, so that Britain will, for the first time in over 40 years, be able to take full advantage of growing markets across the world and determine a trade policy that is fashioned not around the interests of 28 countries but around those of one country. We will have a trade policy that suits this country and this country alone.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
No.
The European Commission itself says that 90% of the future growth in world trade will come from outside the European Union. This has already been reflected in the long-term decline in the share of British goods that go to the European Union, while our global trade has increased dramatically.
Vicky Ford
I have just come from the European Parliament. Does the Secretary of State agree that many colleagues across Europe want a deep trading partnership with Britain, based on keeping strong standards for consumers and other such standards, and therefore a special, bespoke relationship for our trade?
Mr Davis
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what I think is her maiden intervention. It was delivered brilliantly, as I would expect, and she is exactly right. We want a deep, special, bespoke arrangement to maximise our trade opportunities.
As I was saying, the 90% growth outside the European Union means that our relative share of trade in the EU has gone down. In services, for example, we are now 60% outside the EU and 40% inside it, and all of this is without preferential trade agreements for much of our trade. Just so that the House understands, the best academic data that I could find show that creating a new trade agreement increases the amount of trade by about 28%. If the House wants an individual parable, in the first seven years of its operation, the North American Free Trade Agreement increased trade by 40%. These are really significant items of policy that we can exercise.
Mr Davis
That research would depend on what the actual deal was. It is madness to make an estimate without knowing what the deal is. If the deal involves a comprehensive free trade area with no tariffs and no non-tariff barriers, there will be zero effect. It is rather daft to try to cite some non-existent academic issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I think the hon. Gentleman needs to accept that.
Mr Davis
If the House wants a Brexit deal that drives prosperity and living standards and if it really wants a Brexit for jobs, it must put its faith in free trade and ensure that our exit means that we can embrace the opportunities to the full. Let us move beyond the platitudinous propaganda of hard and soft Brexits. Let us instead discuss how we shall fashion our new place in the world and start to act together truly in the national interest. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) now.
Chris Bryant
This is obviously the start of a very special relationship. The Secretary of State will know that the Prime Minister earlier published a document about EU citizens living in the UK. The one thing she failed to mention in the House was that all those EU citizens would not be functioning exactly as they are now. They will have to have documentation with them; they will effectively have to have an ID card. I am surprised: surely this Secretary of State is not going to support ID cards for EU nationals living in the UK.
Mr Davis
You know, I was right not to give way to the hon. Gentleman in the first place. He has got it wrong; it is not an ID card. We are talking about documentation to prove that people have the right to a job and the right to residence, but they will not have to carry that around all the time. It is not an ID card; it is rather like your birth certificate. It’s not an ID card! Good heavens!
I shall turn now to the legislative agenda—
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give way, just before he does so?
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend not think that those, such as the Liberal Democrats and others, who want to remain in the European Union should ask their constituents whether they really want the United Kingdom indefinitely to remain part of an undemocratic system that is governed by majority voting that takes place behind closed doors and that is moving towards integration with a common defence policy, a common Finance Ministry and further moves towards a political union in which we would be in the second tier of a two-tier Europe dominated largely by one country?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. I know that that intervention was short by the standards of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but by the standards of an intervention it was very long.
Mr Davis
Nevertheless, it was a crisp characterisation of an argument that my hon. Friend has been making for many years, Mr Deputy Speaker, and he is as right about it today as he was when he first made it.
An extensive legislative agenda is necessary to prepare the UK for its new place in the world. Working together in the national interest will be crucial as we go through the process in this House and the other place to put the necessary legislation in position to ensure that our laws work effectively on the day we leave the European Union. For my part, I am willing to work with anyone to that end. The sheer importance of this issue makes that essential. The eyes of the country will be on us all, and we will all be judged on our willingness to work pragmatically and effectively together to deliver the verdict of the people in last year’s referendum.
Nothing is more central to this than the so-called great repeal Bill. The principle is straightforward: it is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and to transfer existing European Union law into UK law. To answer a question that my opposite number, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has raised, these rights and freedoms will be brought into UK law without qualification, without limitation and without any sunset clauses. Any material changes will be dealt with by subsequent primary legislation.
I cannot stress enough to the House and to the nation the importance of this Bill in ensuring that we have a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union. Every part of the United Kingdom needs to prepare its statute book to ensure that it can function after we leave the European Union. The repeal Bill will give the devolved Administrations the power to do just that, to ensure a smooth and orderly exit for all. As we have also said repeatedly, we expect there to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration once we exit the EU. That is why, given that the Bill will affect the powers of the devolved institutions and that it legislates in devolved areas, we will seek the consent of the devolved legislatures for the Bill. We would like everyone to come together in support of the legislation, which will be crucial to delivering the outcome of the referendum.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
In an earlier incarnation, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, assured the people of Scotland that Scotland could expect to have devolved power over its immigration policy after Brexit. Does the Secretary of State still agree with that undertaking?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State talks about an extensive legislative agenda, but he is still missing out anything to do with the environment. There is no environment Bill here. Simply saying that we are going to transfer environmental legislation in the repeal Bill does not work, because the legislation will need to be updated and it will need to be enforceable. Without the Commission and the ECJ, there will be no clarity as to how that legislation would be enforced. Why is there no Bill?
Mr Davis
With respect, when it is transferred across, there will be stages in this, as I have explained, in which we will create—through statutory instruments or primary legislation—the relevant administrations and regulatory bodies to run the new legislation. Of course, development beyond that will come later, but at the moment we are talking about bringing the whole corpus of EU environmental law into British law. That is not nothing, by any stretch of the imagination.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
No. I have some progress to make.
When we designed our approach to the repeal Bill, we endeavoured to strike the right balance between getting our statute book in order for the day that we exit the European Union and ensuring full parliamentary involvement and scrutiny. Indeed, it is the only viable plan that has been put forward in this House. While I have heard the Opposition raise some concerns, I have heard no alternatives or any detailed proposals on how they would approach this crucial matter. As I said to the Opposition spokesman when I presented our White Paper on the repeal Bill, if in the next two years we find that we have missed something, we will put it right, and that offer still stands not only to the Opposition, but to the entire House. We must get this right. We must be able to deliver a functioning UK statute book by the day we exit the European Union. When the House of Lords Constitution Committee examined the issue, it found few alternatives, and its recommended approach aligns closely with that which we have set out. It is vital for businesses, workers and consumers across the United Kingdom that this House undertakes the difficult but eminently achievable task of working together responsibly in the national interest to provide certainty and stability.
Mr Davis
No, not for the moment.
While the repeal Bill is the centrepiece of our approach, it is far from the only piece of exit-related legislation that we will be putting through. The Government are bringing forward a first tranche of Bills—I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that it will not be the last—on areas affected by our exit from the European Union, including trade, customs, immigration, international sanctions, nuclear safeguards, agriculture, and fisheries. I have told the House several times that we will not make significant policy changes without first passing primary legislation, which will be thoroughly debated and voted on in both Houses. Those Bills deliver on that promise.
This initial tranche of Bills also has a further purpose. I am sure that many across the House will agree that it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all eventualities. I make it clear yet again today that we want a close new partnership with the EU that works for everyone, as mentioned a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). However, we must also ensure that we have a functioning statute book and functioning national systems—no matter what and for all outcomes. The Bills will help to provide that. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) put it when he was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, not doing so would be a “dereliction of duty”. We must and will be prepared for any outcome.
However, I remain confident that we can get the right deal from the negotiations. Doing so is fundamentally in the interests of both the UK and the EU. A strong and prosperous EU, capable of projecting its values and continuing to play a leading role in the world, is in the United Kingdom’s best interests, just as a strong and prosperous United Kingdom is the European Union’s best interests. The task ahead will no doubt be challenging, but it is a task that the British people set us in last year’s referendum—a national instruction. It is our duty in this House to pull together and deliver on that instruction in the national interest. If we do, we can deliver a better and brighter future for the entire United Kingdom—a future in which we step on to the world stage as a champion for free trade, a firm advocate of the rule of law, and a true beacon for democracy.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
When Britain voted in the referendum one year and four days ago, the question on the ballot paper was narrow and technical—to remain in or to leave the European Union—but the vote was far from narrow and technical. People saw different questions behind those boxes. Above all, the referendum was a vote on the state of the nation, just as the general election turned out to be. The nation is fed up with inequality, fed up with low wages, fed up with under-resourced public services, fed up with the imbalances between our nations and regions, fed up with austerity, and fed up with politics and politicians. If ever there was a need for a Government capable of transforming the country both economically and politically, it is now. Britain needed a transformative Queen’s Speech last week, but this Government are too weak to deliver it. The Queen’s Speech is threadbare and lacking in ambition. There is no detail, and there cannot be, because the Prime Minister gambled and lost. A majority has become a minority. All bets are off for the future. Just when we needed strong government, we have uncertainty and fragility, and I suspect that history will be a harsh critic.
It does not end there. When the Prime Minister made her statement calling for the general election, she said:
“Every vote for the Conservatives will make me stronger when I negotiate for Britain…Every vote for the Conservatives will mean we can stick to our plan”.
She wanted a landslide; she ended up in a mess—her own description. She now has no majority, no mandate, and no authority, and it tells.
The outcome of the first round of negotiations showed how unrealistic the Government’s rhetoric has been. The Secretary of State promised before the election that there would be the “row of the summer” over the Commission’s proposed timetable and schedule for the negotiations. By lunchtime on Monday, he had folded. The Government have also managed to get on the back foot in relation to EU citizens. Had they acted quickly and unilaterally, as Labour repeatedly said that they should, they could have set the agenda. The EU did so instead and stated its position in April: full rights as they are currently enjoyed to be guaranteed and underpinned by the European Court of Justice. The Government’s position is now seen by the EU as an inadequate response.
Although the Prime Minister struggled to give an adequate answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State and I know, and our EU partners know, that the rights of family reunification currently enjoyed by EU nationals will change, and they will be subject in future to financial and other qualifications that apply more generally. The rights will change, and that is perhaps why that question was avoided. I hope that we get an agreement on EU citizens and on UK citizens, and I hope that we get an early agreement to settle the anxiety, but the Government’s approach to date has made that harder to achieve than it should have been.
Mr David Davis
On a point of information, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman—congratulations by the way—whether it is now Labour policy to support the rule of the European Court of Justice within the United Kingdom?
Keir Starmer
Let me deal with that in relation to EU citizens first. I will discuss it more generally when I get to that part of my speech.
As far as EU nationals are concerned, we need to understand the worries of our EU partners. Whatever agreement is put in place, they recognise that it has to last for the lifetime of EU nationals here—the lifetime. In some cases, that will mean 50-plus years. They know how our system works. They know that no one Government can bind the next. Their concern is understandable. What is given in good faith and assured today can be taken away in a year, two years, five years or 10 years, yet their citizens want to live their lives here for decades. That is why they want some mechanism, external to our parliamentary regime, to underpin those rights. It is no answer to their concern simply to say, “We have the best judges; we have the Supreme Court,” because, as the Secretary of State understands, if the law of this country changes in five years and these people’s rights are reduced, our Supreme Court will have to apply the legislation as it is then rather than any agreement that is reached now. That is their concern.
When pressed on the matter last week, the Prime Minister made it clear—I think this is in the document that was produced today—that this will be an international agreement and will therefore be subject to international enforcement. It is a pretence that this can all be done within our courts and our own jurisdiction. I will come to the wider question later, but if we are talking about honesty and proceeding in a grown-up way, it would be far better if the Government recognised the EU’s core concerns and found a way of ensuring that they are met, because this is about the lives of real people for decades and decades.
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress, if I may.
Back home, the divisions are obvious. The Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last week was clearly an attempt to spike the Prime Minister’s Brexit approach. Thus he spoke of a “jobs and prosperity first” Brexit. That reflects the Labour party manifesto, in which we spoke of a “jobs and…economy first” Brexit. The Chancellor also spoke of an
“early agreement on transitional arrangements”
and no “cliff edge” for the economy, and that is in the Labour party manifesto, which said we would
“negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’”.
He has clearly been reading about our position.
The Chancellor spoke of a “management of migration”, not shutting it down. The Labour party manifesto spoke of
“fair rules and reasonable management of migration.”
Was his speech a personal view, the Government’s view, or the view that he hopes the next Prime Minister will take? Clearly we cannot go on like this.
Keir Starmer
I will in just a moment.
This approach is damaging our reputation abroad and weakening our position. Like the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I was in Brussels last week. The talk in Brussels is, “What is going on? How long are this Government going to last?” We have put ourselves in the worst possible starting position.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
While we are on the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s manifesto, will he clear up an important point? Directly after the general election, having fought on a manifesto that made it clear that the Labour party would take back control of the borders, his leader, the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made it clear that Labour’s position was to take back control of our borders, and to leave the single market and the customs union. Subsequently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone out and said that leaving the single market and the customs union are not absolutes and are on the table. Will he clear up what the Labour party’s position really is?
Keir Starmer
That is not an accurate reflection of what I said. I will come to that in due course—[Interruption.] I will come to it when I get to that part of my speech.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State need to acknowledge the effect of the general election on their Brexit strategy. If the general election was an attempt, as the Prime Minister said, to strengthen her hand on Brexit, the outcome is a powerful case for a rethink. It is time to press the reset button. First, the tone and approach have to change. The belligerent, hostile attitude to date has alienated our allies and left Britain isolated. We need a more constructive and responsible approach. We share values with our EU partners, with whom we have a shared history. We will continue to share values, and we want a shared future: not membership of the EU—that was decided last year—but a full and meaningful partnership, based on principles of co-operation and collaboration. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary does not understand. I am talking about tone and approach, which is particularly pertinent for him. Anyone who has been backwards and forwards to Brussels knows very well how badly some of his comments have gone down with our EU partners. This is about building an environment in which we can get the best deal for our country, which is in all our interests.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Speaking of tone and approach, may I request that the right hon. and learned Gentleman changes his tone and approach to something a bit more positive? Brexit is an opportunity for our country to grasp, not a crisis to manage. It is hypocritical and arrogant of him to look behind what the British people voted for last year.
Keir Starmer
One of the biggest risks to these negotiations is utter complacency—the failure to realise the risks and complexity of the negotiations. It is quite right for the Opposition to challenge the Government at every twist and turn to ensure that these negotiations go as well as possible.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress.
In addition to tone and approach, the second thing that needs to change is that we need to drop the “no deal is better than a bad deal” mantra.
Keir Starmer
I will make my point and then I will give way.
No deal would be a miserable failure. As the Chancellor said last week, no deal would be a very, very bad outcome indeed, but it is what happens automatically on 29 March 2019 if we do not reach agreement—we will be gently pushed over a cliff. Threatening to jump does not kid anyone. No deal means no agreement at all—no agreement on trade, no agreement on security and no arrangements for passing on information, because that is all done according to an EU framework.
Keir Starmer
Not all, but most of it. The Secretary of State knows this very well and he should not belittle it. If we do not reach agreement, we will have nothing in place to replicate current arrangements for passing across security, intelligence, counter-terrorism and counter-crime information—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Foreign Secretary giving that pained expression. No agreement will also mean that we have not reached an agreement on aviation, the Northern Ireland border or EU citizens. That is what no deal is; no deal means no agreement.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that we must be honest in this debate. He must know in his heart of hearts that no deal is an untenable position for the United Kingdom to find itself in in 2019, so let today be the day when we bury the phrase, “No deal is better than a bad deal.”
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
For the shadow Secretary of State to be balanced in his view on no deal, he also needs to talk about what no deal means for the EU27. We looked at this on the Foreign Affairs Committee and, actually, the experts say that no deal is as harsh for the EU27 as it is for the United Kingdom. A bit of balance in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s words would go down well in developing a common policy on this issue.
Keir Starmer
I readily accept that not only do we need a deal but that the EU needs a deal, which is why we should not talk up no deal as a viable strategy or adopt the Foreign Secretary’s position that no deal is perfectly okay. No deal is not a viable or tenable option. No deal means that we have not agreed anything.
Ian Paisley
Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that by adopting a narrative that is so wholly uncritical of the European Union, he leaves himself and his party open to the charge that they wish to subvert the will of the British people? Does he hold to page 6 of his own manifesto, which says we wish to leave the European Union?
Keir Starmer
I do not think that shooting the idea that no deal is viable, tenable or, honestly, a position we could possibly arrive at in 2019 is adopting the position of the EU. It is actually adopting the position of the UK. The UK needs a deal to safeguard its interests. This is a point made in the national interest.
Mr Jenkin
It is realistic to imagine that we will not get a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU when we leave and that interim arrangements will persist under WTO rules, which may well be zero-tariff rules, but we would have to believe the EU was seriously insane if it wanted to ground all flights between the UK and the EU, if it refused to offer the products and standards arrangements it has with 100 or more other countries—whether or not it has a free trade deal with those countries—or if it wanted to check every Mini exported to the EU to see whether it fits the EU’s definition of a car. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think the EU is so insane that it would want to do that?
Keir Starmer
This mischaracterisation of the point I am making does not help. This is not the EU demanding here; if we do not have a lawful basis for these activities in the UK, we do not have the authority to do this. It is no good talking up a “no deal” as if it is a viable, tenable option.
Keir Starmer
I am going to press on to my third point about the reset: we need a razor-like focus on how we retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union. The Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box on 24 January and promised this House that we he would reach an agreement that provided the “exact same benefits” as single market membership and the customs union. He knows, because we have raised it repeatedly since then, that we will hold him to that; it is one of the six tests I set out for the Government to meet in the final agreement.
Mike Gapes
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the best way to get the benefits of the single market is by staying in it? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will be heard, and if that means people being removed from Chamber, that will happen.
Keir Starmer
Our manifesto was absolutely clear about retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union. As for membership, although almost everybody who wants a progressive new relationship with the EU wants to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union, almost everybody accepts that that cannot be done in an unreformed way, because of the rules of the single market as they now are. The question of whether we start from reform of the single market or from a bare agreement and then work up is secondary to the outcome we want to achieve. The outcome we want to achieve is: no tariffs for goods going across from us to the EU, and vice-versa; no new red tape at customs, including rules of origin; and a deal that works for services as well as for goods.
We have to recognise the concerns of the EU, and two in particular. First, the main concern is that if we are released from all obligations of a regulatory nature in relation to moving goods and services across Europe, we will be able to undercut EU countries economically. Secondly, if we strike free trade agreements that are released from any of the standards and regulations that they apply, there is the prospect of flooding the UK with goods and products from other countries which do not meet those standards and/or go into Europe. Those are the issues we need to negotiate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I want to deal with this point, because I know it is an issue of real concern to my party. We have said that the outcomes are what matter, not the model for achieving them.
Keir Starmer
I have said on a number of occasions that we should leave being in the customs union on the table. What the Government have done is to sweep these options off the table without evidence, without facts and without assessing the risks. We have said that what we should do is focus on the outcomes. One of the best ways to achieve tariff-free access across Europe is to have the customs union on the table at least as an option to consider.
Mr David Davis
I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s flow, but the leader of his party said a couple of hours ago in this House, when I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the Chamber, that he wanted to strike free trade deals around the world. How is that possible if we remain a member of the customs union?
Keir Starmer
The Secretary of State knows very well what I said, and I said it carefully—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. I am not quite sure what all the hilarity is for. This is a very serious matter and it should be debated in a serious manner.
Keir Starmer
I am just considering how I respond to a cry of “chaos” from a Government who two months ago had a majority but now have a minority and are going into a grubby deal with the DUP. The Secretary of State will have heard exactly how I put it: we focus on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union—the exact same benefits, to use his phrase. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. The Secretary of State talked about the “exact same benefits” of the customs union. How is that to be achieved? [Interruption.] You did. You know you did, because we have put it to you several times since. My answer was not a fixed position saying, “We must have this model when we start the negotiations.” My answer is: focus on the outcomes and leave options on the agreement until we have some assessment of the risk and costs of the different options. One thing we do not have from the Government is any assessment of the risks and costs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to press on to dealing with transitional agreements—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not sure what part of the words “I am going to press on” right hon. and hon. Members do not understand. The Opposition spokesman has made it clear that he intends, for the present, to press on, and that should be respected until such time as he changes his mind.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If we are to obtain the exact same benefits of the single market and the customs union, it would be a good start if the Government now accepted that the negotiations will not be complete by March 2019, that transitional arrangements will be needed if we are to avoid a cliff edge and that transitional arrangements must safeguard our economy and jobs, and provide certainty for business. This also means that by the time of the final agreement at the end of transitional arrangements, a model or framework will have to have been agreed which truly does deliver the exact same benefits as the single market and the customs union. We also need a recognition—if we are being honest—that in the end, if we are going to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship with the EU, a court-like body will be needed to settle disputes. I refer not just to state to state disputes, but business to business disputes and individual to individual disputes.
We need to address a further issue on reset: the involvement of Parliament. For the first six months after the referendum decision, the Government fought in the courts to prevent this House having a say even on the triggering of article 50. They then called a general election to crush the opposition to their Brexit strategy, and that approach has to change. There needs to be a much stronger role for Parliament; we need to strengthen scrutiny and accountability, not push it away. Let us start in the following way—I hope and believe this will be agreed: this House needs a formal statement from the Secretary of State after each round of the negotiations, so that we can hear how he reports on progress and we can ask questions. I ask him to set that precedent now and agree that he will come to this House to report in a formal statement.
Mr David Davis
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the answer is yes, I will. The only reason we did not do this today is that we had a statement from the Prime Minister on, in effect, the same subject and, I was hoping, a whole day’s debate on it now.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that, and I understand the point he makes about what happened today—we had a discussion about it earlier. I am grateful that he will set the precedent for the future rounds, the dates of which we know, to come back to this House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement so that we can debate it and question him here.
Let me turn to the repeal Bill. We recognise the need to entrench all EU rights and protections in our law—I said that when the White Paper was published and I say it again now—hence our manifesto proposed an EU rights and protections Bill designed to that end. How it is done matters. As proposed, the repeal Bill would contain sweeping powers for the Executive, with no enhanced safeguards. The statutory instrument procedure has no enhanced safeguards. That is far too sweeping to be accepted across this House. I hear what the Secretary of State says and I take him at his word when he says that there will be no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses. I hope that that message is getting through to his Back Benchers, because many of them campaigned to leave the EU on the very basis that those rights should either not exist or be much reduced or limited. I look forward to seeing a strong three-line Whip through this Bill, making sure that there are no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses.
The repeal Bill does not include the Charter of Fundamental Rights—I hear what the Secretary of State says about that—or any future proofing to ensure that we do not fall behind our EU partners as standards evolve, particularly in the workplace. There are at least seven other Bills, but there is no detail about them because no agreement can be reached on what to put in them.
The Prime Minister called a general election saying that it would provide “certainty and stability” as we enter the Brexit negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need a deal, and a deal that works. We have started the negotiations in the worst of all circumstances. Britain deserves better than that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. Before we move on to the next speech, may I announce that, to begin with, there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches? Almost inevitably, that will have to be reduced still further later in the debate.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Where I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is on the fact that the decision that was taken just over one year ago was probably the most momentous political decision taken in my lifetime and that it will have profound consequences for this country. Obviously, it is essential that we should try to get the best possible deal. Unlike him, though, I campaigned in favour of a leave vote and I continue to believe that the decision that was taken is in the best interests of this country and offers huge opportunities for us both to reassert the supremacy of Parliament in our becoming an independent self-governing nation again and to take advantages of the opportunities that are opening up to us around the world.
Negotiating many of the detailed issues will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the talks are just beginning. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he says that no deal is necessarily worse than whatever bad deal we may get. It would be crazy for us to go in at the start stating that we could not contemplate not reaching a deal. That is a guarantee of not getting the best outcome. I do not want to spend too much time on the negotiations. I hope that, if I am successful in re-joining the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—if he is chosen as the Chairman—we will be seeing a great deal of the Secretary of State.
The opportunities that come from our decision are set out very clearly in the Queen’s Speech, and the first is the repeal Bill. I would have thought that everybody in this House welcomed the fact that, as we are going to leave the European Union in two years’ time or thereabouts, the repeal Bill will give certainty as it ensures that European law, which currently applies, will be transferred into British law. It also gives us the opportunity to consider at our leisure each of those individual measures to decide whether they are most appropriately framed and whether we could reduce some of the burden, or, in some instances, perhaps even increase the protection if we think that that is the right thing to do. The repeal Bill is not necessarily about reducing regulation— although there may well be plenty of examples where it is sensible to do so—but about giving us back the control to decide for ourselves the most appropriate level of regulation.
The immigration Bill will allow us to design our own system of determining whom we should welcome into this country and to whom we should say that we simply cannot accommodate them given the need to reduce the overall level. It means that we can create an immigration system that is fair to all and that does not discriminate in favour of European citizens against non-European citizens. We can judge everybody on the basis of what contribution they can make.
The agriculture Bill will allow us to design a system of support for farmers that is tailor-made for the benefit of British agriculture. It is not a one-size-fits-all system, which has to accommodate Greek olive growers just as much as it does wheat farmers in Essex. I hope that it will mean that we can deliver more support to British farming, and at a cheaper price as we will not have to be sending the money across to Brussels to have it judged, recycled and sent back to us.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
On that point, my right hon. Friend will surely agree that the common agricultural policy is one of the most environmentally destructive pieces of policy in the history of policy. Repatriating the common agricultural policy gives us an opportunity to ensure that, as we dish out vast quantities of taxpayers’ funds to landowners, we get something in return, including biodiversity and general benefits for our natural environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir David Amess)
Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, let me make this appeal to the House. There are 37 speakers and a number of Members waiting to make their maiden speeches. If there are lots of interventions, we will be down to a three or four-minute time limit. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to reduce their interventions.
Mr Whittingdale
I accept your stricture, Mr Amess. I agree completely with my hon. Friend, whom I am delighted to see back in his place in the House of Commons. British farming is already doing a great deal to support the environment. In designing a new system of support, we should emphasise that farmers need to be rewarded for what they are doing to conserve the landscape for future generations.
The fisheries Bill allows us to right a wrong that was done about 40 years ago. Many fishermen in this country feel that they were sold out when we joined the European Union and were the price that we had to pay for membership. This Bill will allow us to restore their traditional fishing rights.
The trade Bill allows us now to reach new agreements with the countries that offer the greatest opportunities—the countries that are experiencing the fastest growth and where there is the most likely demand for British exports and British goods. It is no coincidence that there is no European trade deal with China, India, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, or the United States of America, and yet all those countries want to do business with us and trade with us, and this gives us the opportunity to do so.
This debate about hard Brexit versus soft Brexit is a complete fiction. Soft Brexit does not exist. Apparently, it means remaining within the single market and customs union, which means that we will not be able to set our own immigration policy or our own trade policy and that we will still be subject to the European Court of Justice. Frankly, soft Brexit is worse than remaining a member of the European Union. The reasons that we wanted to leave the European Union require us no longer to be a member of either the single market or the customs union. Therefore, I strongly support the approach taken by my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister.
I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place. He may know that I have taken a long-standing interest in events in Ukraine, and I am delighted that he will be meeting the Prime Minister of Ukraine next week. Ukraine may have passed out of the headlines, but the conflict going on in that country is still raging. About 2,700 troops have died since 2014 and nearly 10,000 have been wounded. This is a country on the mainland of continental Europe, part of which is still under occupation in Crimea by Russian troops. In another part, a separatist movement supported by Russia is waging war. We support the Minsk process to try to put that right, but we do have a responsibility as one of the original signatories to the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I very much welcome the attention that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is paying to this, and I hope that he will take the opportunity next week to express once again the very firm support of the British Government for the people of Ukraine.
I welcome the counter-terrorism review that has been initiated, but there is one aspect that I want to highlight in the hope that my right hon. Friends will draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary. Many people were quite distressed to see in the streets of London very recently the flags of Hezbollah in the al-Quds day rallies. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. The military wing is already proscribed in this country, but there is frankly very little distinction between it and the so-called civilian wing, the political wing. I know the Home Secretary has said she will look at this. It is already proscribed in many countries such as the United States, Canada and the Netherlands. Given the distress that was caused by seeing the flags paraded through London, and people calling for the extermination of Israel and supporting what is a terrorist organisation, I hope she will look at that matter urgently.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I start on a European theme, which is apt. The Prime Minister called the election because she was concerned about the opposition to her ideas on our future relationship with Europe. In response, the electorate made politics in this place that little bit more European: no one party holding a majority and parties being forced by the electorate to work together is common in other European legislatures and it is an idea that we certainly welcome. At long last, this place seems to be catching up with ideas that have caught on elsewhere in the UK, with minority Governments in both Edinburgh and Cardiff at the moment. Once again, Westminster appears to be playing catch up with both the devolved Administrations and our European partners.
No party in the House, not least mine or others, has a majority of wisdom or all the good ideas. Big decisions will be made that impact on us all and are the responsibility of this place, devolved Administrations and local government. I have said before that democracy no longer begins and ends here, and the same should be true of decision making, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks earlier about a legislative consent motion. If I may say this to him, I do not expect the devolved Administrations to give the Government a blank cheque, and nor should he expect one.
Only two parties in this Parliament won a majority of the seats in which they stood at the election: the Democratic Unionist party and the Scottish National party. I hope that they will be listened to in equal measure on these issues. In spite of our clear mandate, we are prepared to listen and work with other parties.
I also recognise the loss of some our finest parliamentarians at the last general election. After all, Angus Robertson—I have heard the chuntering from those on the Labour Benches, but they could learn a thing or two from him about providing effective opposition to that lot—was a parliamentarian who managed to show up the Prime Minister long before the Labour party managed to do so.
Alex Salmond is a political giant and one of the few parliamentarians with extensive experience of minority government. The UK Government may wish to reflect on the fact that the former First Minister led a Government for a full term, passing historic measures on free education, world-beating climate change measures and measures on universal services that remain the envy of the rest of the UK, with just 47 out of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is something that they will perhaps reflect on.
We on these Benches stand on the shoulders of giants, and if I might be permitted to say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, that includes our former leader and former Member for Dundee, East, Gordon Wilson, who passed away yesterday. It is easy to forget in these days when some in this Chamber claim that a majority of Scottish seats is somehow a failure that our former leader sat in a group of two. In spite of those numbers, he provided Dundee and Scotland with a powerful voice. We on these Benches, and I think elsewhere, owe him a huge debt of gratitude. We think of him and of his wife, Edith, at this moment.
Given the dynamics of Parliament, the SNP group will use its position to work with others where we can. That will be especially important in terms of our future relationship with our European partners. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of those negotiations to each and every one of us. It is fair to say and abundantly clear that this Government do not have all the answers on our future relationship with Europe. They have taken up the “whole lotta nothing” provided by Vote Leave and built on that with a year of not much in the way of progress. I am afraid to say to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the talks have not got off to the best of starts, as the Labour spokesperson, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said. The Secretary of State promised us the “row of the summer” over whether trade talks should start at the same time as talks on agreeing the cost of Brexit. That has turned into the “sound of silence”—the new quiet man, indeed, of Conservative party politics. It would be comical if it were not so serious.
The whole Government must have some culpability for the vacuum that has been left in our relationship with Europe, and none more so than the Foreign Secretary, who sat at the heart of the leave campaign and has spent a year in the Foreign Secretary’s chair giving us not much more detail than we had previously.
A minority Administration leaves all of us in this Chamber, not least those of us on the SNP Benches and Members across the Opposition Benches, with an opportunity. May I give credit to my colleagues from across the political divide who have put aside political differences to table amendments such as that which stands in my name and that of other colleagues, and I include in that the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? We will not agree on everything, but where we can agree we should try to come together.
We certainly agree that we should try to retain our membership of the single market and the customs union, and provide both a role for devolved Administrations and security for EU nationals, which, frankly, they deserve and which we should have given them long before now. That respects the referendum result. In fact, in July last year, just after the EU referendum, the Secretary of State for Scotland, no less, argued:
“My role is to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market.”
We had a referendum that delivered a narrow win for leave and a general election in which no one won a majority, but there was certainly a rejection of a hard Tory Brexit, so where we can come together we should do so. There has to be—I will say it clearly—a four-nation, cross-party and cross-institutional approach. That is the clear mandate that we have been given from the electorate across the UK.
In terms of the devolved Administrations, it is important that the Government do not turn the great repeal Bill— or rather the repeal Bill now—into the power grab undermining devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) pointed out, whatever happened to the promise from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that it would be “for Scotland to decide” its immigration levels? For the avoidance of doubt, and there seemed to be some from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, that came from the DEFRA Secretary just before, on “Good Morning Scotland” no less.
I am a passionate pro-European and our relationship with the EU is one that gave me many opportunities. It has made us all safer, healthier and wealthier, and the UK’s departure is bad news for our EU partners, but worse news for us in the UK. In fact—I see the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) in his place—it was our Foreign Affairs Committee report that found that although no deal would be bad for our European partners, it would be much worse for the UK. That was the conclusion that we collectively came to.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I would not want the hon. Gentleman accidently to misrepresent our report. What we precisely said was that there would be mutually assured damage if there was no deal and that in absolute terms the damage would probably be greater to the 27 than to us, because that is where the balance of trade and the money flows sit, but that in relative terms the damage would be greater to the UK. I think that is a full summary of the conclusions of our report, which we fairly reported.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the, at the moment, former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for that intervention, but what he makes clear and what we came to a collective decision on was that this will be damaging for the UK. It is damage that we are causing to ourselves, and that we can do something about. We are willing to compromise. The Scottish Government’s publication, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, provided a route towards a mid-way option. That openness, despite the fact that Scotland and my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU, shows the way we have to go.
I want to touch briefly on a couple of other issues apart from Europe. We are undergoing the worst refugee crisis in European terms and global displacement stands at almost 60 million people—its highest ever level. UK foreign policy must bear some responsibility, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will reflect on some of the measures that we should be taking. Not least, we have those fleeing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the open door that is the failed state in Libya. In Syria, which is so closely linked to the refugee crisis, we need a coherent, long-term strategy. With regard to Yemen, we on the SNP Benches will continue to ask questions about arms sales to those involved in the conflict.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mention Ukraine. On Russia, we must continue to work with our European partners, not least in relation to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Caucasus and elsewhere. I am grateful to him for making those points.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
All the party manifestos committed the UK Government to retaining the 0.7% aid target, but does my hon. Friend share my concern about some of the language in the Conservative manifesto, which seemed to suggest that the Government could simply redefine aid and spend it on whatever they wanted?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. In this Parliament we will seek to build on the good work he did in his previous role as our international development spokesperson, especially with reference to the 0.7% commitment. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will also mention that.
In conclusion, my appeal is that we continue to work together. Our European neighbours remain our closest partners, not just geographically, but economically, culturally and politically. That reality needs to start seeping in. We will work as constructively as we can with colleagues in other political parties, but there must be an openness and a willingness to do so.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak so early in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins); I enjoyed listening to his speech and appreciate the spirit in which he made it. I think that many Members on both sides of the House will wish to return to the theme of working together pragmatically. It will certainly inform some of the remarks that I make in the next few minutes.
I have not taken many of the opportunities that we have had in this House over the past 12 months to speak about Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. In part that is because I had campaigned strongly for us to remain and on referendum day found myself part of the minority in the country, and certainly in my constituency, which voted strongly to leave. I have spent part of the past year trying to understand what drove that vote, not least in my constituency and across Wales, and how the debate is evolving. I have one or two observations to make.
First, I have been deeply impressed by the pragmatic and assiduous approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the past 10 months. I think that it has been appreciated on both sides of the House and, judging by what people on the continent tell me, deeply valued in the discussions with our European counterparts. Listening to his remarks today, and to those of the shadow Secretary of State, the newly right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), I was struck by the fluidity and room for manoeuvre that exists in both Front-Bench positions.
That fluidity might reflect different shades of opinion within the Government, and certainly within the Opposition, on how we should take forward the Brexit negotiations, but it also reflects a level of pragmatism. Listening to both Front Benchers this afternoon, I asked myself whether a pragmatic centre ground might be emerging around which Members on both sides could coalesce. One of the things I took from the general election campaign is that the country remains hopelessly divided on this issue. If we in this Chamber are to do anything over the next two years, it should be to provide some kind of leadership that helps bring the country together.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
No tariffs; frictionless trade; the best possible access to, but not membership of, the single market—is not the truth that there is vanishingly little difference between the strategic priorities of those on both Front Benches? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would help our constituents, and indeed our negotiators, if all parties were to make that clear?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir David Amess)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I appeal again to the House, because the more interventions there are, the less time there will be for the very many Members who wish to speak, including those who wish to make their maiden speeches.
Stephen Crabb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was about to say that I was also struck by how similar the strategic objectives of both Front Bench positions actually are. The outlines are emerging of what I hope will be a pragmatic, sensible Brexit deal that can command widespread support across the country. The Government and the Opposition are united in wanting to prioritise jobs and prosperity and to protect workers’ living standards and the interests of our business community—I do not think that there is any dispute about that. However, getting an outcome that actually delivers will require more direct honesty about some of the trade-offs that need to be made.
In particular, we need to be far more honest with the public about the trade-off between maximising access to the single market—that is not the same thing as retaining membership of the single membership—so that we can enjoy as many of the benefits of those trading relationships that we currently enjoy, and the posture we adopt towards future EU workers wishing to come to this country. We had a good discussion earlier today about the offer being made to EU citizens currently living here, and we debated it at some length. Again, the point needs to be made that, despite the acknowledgment that clearly important details have yet to be resolved, we have the outlines of a deal with the European Union, which is a big step forward. If we carry the same spirit of pragmatism and generosity that has informed that offer into our negotiations on future EU workers, while also keeping an eye on the economic importance of people coming from overseas to work in this country—we do not debate that enough—there is a deal to be done that will give us a good chance of maximising trading access to the single market and protecting our economic interests as far as possible.
Over the past year I have looked at different economic sectors and asked myself which group of EU workers, whether in the NHS, the road haulage industry or our agri-food sector, should not be here in a post-Brexit scenario. The truth is that one cannot put one’s finger on any significant group of EU workers currently here and contributing to our economy about whom we would say, “It would be better for this country if they weren’t here, and actually we should design a Brexit that will stop them coming here.”
By focusing on our economic interests and being honest with the public—there is a particular challenge on my side of the House to us to debate this with our constituents in a more direct and honest way than we have perhaps been willing to do in recent years—I think we can move some of the opinion in the country that undoubtedly opted for Brexit a year ago because people thought that that was the change button for reducing immigration. The truth is that it is not, and we need to be honest about that.
I am optimistic, having listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, that there is a pragmatic and sensible centre ground that can emerge and around which we can coalesce, that will command the support of the business community—which at the moment feels that its voice needs to be louder in the Brexit discussions—and trade unions, and will reassure British workers and give us the best possible chance of enhancing, not diminishing, our prosperity in the years ahead.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was characteristically confident about the Brexit negotiations when he spoke, but even he would recognise that things are rather different now. Following recent events, the Prime Minister is clearly weaker than she expected to be, and the EU is stronger than many thought it would be. The non-appearance of the “row of the summer”, referred to a moment ago, reminded us all about who is actually in control of these negotiations as we listen to the ever-insistent ticking of the article 50 clock.
In her speech on Wednesday, the Prime Minister promised that she would seek to “build a wide consensus” on Brexit. The words sound good, and our divided nation certainly does need to come together on this great matter. But let us be frank—the last 12 months have been spent doing anything but forging a consensus. Quite the contrary: we got no running commentary when people asked about the Government’s negotiating objectives; it took a recommendation of the Brexit Select Committee to get the Government to publish a White Paper; there was resistance to the need for transitional arrangements, although now almost everyone recognises that these will be necessary; and there was an initial reluctance to concede that Parliament will have the final say on any deal. I would like to think that this new commitment has come because Ministers have reflected on their behaviour and listened, but I suspect that it has much more to do with the outcome of the general election and the chaos that has ensued.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State, I cannot understand why we continue to hear the argument that the Government would be prepared to leave the EU with no deal, given that we now know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with that proposition. He made that absolutely clear in his interview a week ago, when he talked about leaving with no deal as
“a very, very bad outcome for Britain”.
He is right. I gently say to Ministers that the chances of this Parliament’s agreeing to leave the European Union with no deal have melted away, along with the Government’s majority. The question is how this consensus can be built. I echo what the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said a moment ago.
I welcome the greater detail announced today on EU nationals, although the families affected still need answers to questions, including about what the new simplified system will look like, the cut-off date and how family members, including children, could join them. Earlier, the Prime Minister said:
“After the UK has left the European Union, EU citizens with settled status will be able to bring family members from overseas on the same terms as British nationals.”
In responding, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that in such cases, after March 2019, that will involve meeting an income threshold? That is what British citizens currently face. On the oversight of the arrangements and the rights of UK nationals, which we must of course protect, I personally think that a court made up of UK and European judges would be a very sensible way forward.
But let us be clear—the issue of EU and UK nationals is meant to be the simplest, to be sorted out at the start of the negotiations, compared with all the fundamental questions so important to the future of our economy and our country: our trading relationship with the EU; access to the single market; how we will ensure that we continue to have the skills we need for economic growth; public services and the tax revenue that we need to pay for those services; the future of co-operation on foreign policy, defence, security, the fight against terrorism and science and research. On that latter issue, I do not understand Ministers’ reluctance simply to say that they wish to remain part of the Horizon 2020 programme.
Given that the Government’s central aim—indeed, it is the aim of the Opposition—is to maintain tariff-free and barrier-free trade, I also do not understand why the Government have turned their backs on the simplest means of achieving that, which is to remain within the customs union, especially as that would solve the problem of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Perhaps the Government have chosen this path because in practice they know that Britain will probably remain a member of the customs union for some time to come. The Chancellor’s speech at the Mansion House gave a strong indication of that.
No one I have met, Ministers apart, believes that negotiating a new trade and market access agreement will be completed between now and next October. The best that we can look to is an agreement in principle to negotiate such a deal and then transitional arrangements that will cover the period from the end of March 2019 to the conclusion of these negotiations. In the meantime, as the Secretary of State knows, all this uncertainty is profoundly bad for business confidence, as is talking about leaving with no deal.
On the great repeal Bill, Parliament faces a huge practical task in transposing the regulations and decisions, but Ministers need to understand, in the spirit of the new consensus, that the House will enable that to happen only as long as it is crystal clear that no attempt will be made to remove, erode or undermine any of the workers’ rights, consumer protection or environmental standards that the British people have come to value.
Despite what the Prime Minister said, we have to be honest and recognise that there is not currently a consensus on the type of Brexit that we should seek, so the Prime Minister’s commitment will have to be given form through the Government’s actions. I urge Ministers to start demonstrating this new approach to the House, the British people and British businesses. I urge them to listen to the voices of the many and not just those who shouted loudest for leave during the referendum. I urge them to be flexible in their approach. Since we all want tariff-free and barrier-free trade, why do they not at the very least leave the prospect of remaining in the customs union on table, given that the Secretary of State—with, as he described it, his characteristic honesty—said on Sunday he is pretty sure but not certain that he will get the deal that he wants? I also urge Ministers to understand that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State said so eloquently, if their confidence is misplaced, the unhappiness—indeed, the anger—that gave rise to the referendum result will return as people discover that the things that they were promised fail to materialise.
If Ministers do all the things I have mentioned, we may find a way forward. If they do not, this Parliament, be it long or short, is going to be very hard work for them. That is not where we should want to be, given the scale of the task that we face as a country as we all seek to get the best deal that we can on behalf of all the people who so recently sent us here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir David Amess)
Order. Unfortunately, I now have to drop the time limit to four minutes.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Our great country is about to embark on a journey of national self-determination, rediscovering and building our identity as a great trading nation, an outward-looking nation and a nation that has every reason to be confident in its future. The Government have rightly rejected staying in the customs union and the single market. If we are to realise our aspiration of becoming a self-governing, global-facing democracy, we cannot remain signed up to the single market or customs union.
Contrast the Government’s position with what we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State today: confusion and an illogical position, as he stated that membership of the customs union remains on the table. Contrast that with what the shadow Attorney General said this weekend: we will not necessarily be able to control our immigration policy. But that was what people voted for last year. If Brexit is to mean anything, it must mean control of our borders, our immigration policy and our trade.
Why has the customs union not served our purposes? There are four main reasons. First, it has not served our country’s trade interests. The EU has a laughable track record on securing trade agreements with the more flourishing parts of the world. Since 1999, our trade deficit with the EU has grown from £12 billion to £71 billion. That is in contrast to our growing trade surplus with the rest of the world—we have gone from a deficit of £4 billion in 1999 to a surplus of £34 billion in 2016. There is therefore an amazing opportunity for our country to forge trade links with the rest of the world, rather than being reliant on the declining market of the EU.
We will be able to strike new trade deals only if we are out of the customs union. The alternative is impossible because of the common commercial policy, which binds all its members. The Labour manifesto says that it wants to
“work with global trading partners to develop ‘best-in-class’ free trade and investment agreements that remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards”,
but that is simply not possible as long as we are members of the customs union.
Secondly, EU protectionism harms British consumers. We are denied products such as cheaper sugar from developing states because protectionist tariffs favour less efficient farmers in northern Europe. The EU customs union has pushed up the price of food and clothes by an estimated £500 a year for each household. By opening the market and lowering barriers to entry for new competition, prices will fall and consumers will benefit. Choice and quality will increase as producers will no longer have a captive market or a monopoly.
Thirdly, the EU’s trade agreements have focused too much on goods. When 80% of our GDP is from services, we need to realign our trade policy. Lastly, the customs union severely penalises farmers and workers in developing countries when they export to the EU. The tariffs are unequal and discriminatory, and that really is an enemy of fair trade. If we want to, we can develop more opportunities to support African countries to become more sustainable and to industrialise.
In conclusion, Brexit is not a crisis to manage, as the Opposition would have us believe. It is a golden opportunity for us to seize. I implore them to get behind the Government and support Brexit in all its forms.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech is not a plan for a Government at the height of their powers with a refreshed mandate. It is a legislative programme for a Government in a holding pattern, led by an isolated and humiliated Prime Minister who has been shorn of her authority after a bruising encounter with the electorate in an election that she chose to call three years early. She flunked the test spectacularly, hobbling her premiership, and weakening rather than strengthening her hand in the EU negotiations in the process. Far from gaining the landslide victory that the polls indicated would be hers when she called the election, the Prime Minister has managed to turn a Tory majority into a hung Parliament. Her much vaunted deal with the DUP has only just been concluded in the nick of time, 18 days after the general election. Meanwhile, No. 10 is beginning to resemble the Mary Celeste.
Anyone who doubts the truth of the Prime Minister’s predicament need only peruse the weekend’s front pages to see the unseemly jockeying for position that has already begun in this most weak and wobbly of Administrations. The programme is defined more by what has been missed out than by what it actually contains. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his speech that the Tory election manifesto has disappeared in its entirety from the party’s website. That gives us an insight into the real motivation for the Government introducing a new right to be forgotten in the data protection Bill.
There is no mention in the Queen’s Speech of the triple lock on pensions or the abolition of winter fuel payments. The Prime Minister’s highly divisive personal pet project—introducing new grammar schools—is not referred to, nor is the possibility of allowing a free vote on fox hunting any time soon. The dementia tax proposals have gone, as have the police cuts.
The election result destroyed any mandate for an extreme Brexit. Parties holding extreme positions on Brexit—whether the UK Independence party or the Liberal Democrats—were rejected emphatically. For the first time in decades, the Tories and Labour together received 80% of the votes. There is no appetite for the hard Brexit that the Prime Minister has tried to pursue since the referendum. She interpreted the decision in the referendum as giving the Government alone the power to decide how to proceed. The Supreme Court rightly interpreted the constitutional reality and disabused her of that vanity. She then asked voters to give her a free hand to drive though her own personal hard Brexit, and the British people disabused her of that vanity.
Two things must now happen. First, we need a cross-party council, comprising expertise and experience, to advise the Government on how to progress. Scrutiny benefits from a plurality of opinion. Good decisions require managed dissent. Secondly, the Brexit council should work out what a baseline acceptable deal would be and put that in place. That deal might look something like the Norwegian model—that is, to agree to Britain entering the European economic area. We could then work out which incremental elements we need to get a deal to strengthen that base. Working from a baseline, we can build a genuinely successful deal with the best chance of safeguarding jobs and building prosperity for the future.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
This is a defining Parliament for Britain’s place in Europe and in the world, and Parliament will fail in its duty if it does not preside over the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and doing so in as good order as our 27 partners and negotiators enable. This entails the historic amount of legislative activity announced in the Queen’s Speech to convert the acquis communautaire into UK law. Much of the work will be detailed and technical, and it is important that we get it right, but hopefully it will not be controversial. However, the diplomatic activity that we undertake in the coming months and years will be important for Britain’s future and must not play second fiddle to our legislative challenge.
I welcome the commitment in the Queen’s Speech that Ministers will ensure that the UK’s leading role on the world stage is maintained and enhanced as it leaves the European Union. Few in this House, regardless of their position on the referendum question that we resolved a year ago, want the United Kingdom to be anything other than open and internationalist in its outlook. Now more than ever, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have a central role in maintaining our networks and alliances, and in developing our political, security and economic ties around the world.
In the previous Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I chaired, as I hope to do again in this Parliament, repeatedly called for the FCO’s capacity to be boosted. Immediately after the referendum, we reported that there was an urgent need substantially to increase
“the funding available to the FCO commensurate with the enormity of the task it now faces.”
Since then, the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade have been created, but the diplomatic task required in all European capitals and beyond will outlast the withdrawal process and is discrete from the trade agenda. I reiterate that just protecting the FCO budget is wholly inadequate for the task in hand.
Events will continue to develop with serious consequences for our interests. The current crisis in the Gulf and the potential for a hot or protracted cold war on the Arabian peninsula threaten the stability and prosperity of key British partners and have undermined the effectiveness of the Gulf Co-operation Council. There are calls for the United Kingdom to play a role as a third party in the implementation and monitoring of any future agreement. We should do so, particularly by offering our expertise in auditing any counter-terror financing measures, and indeed on what the ground rules might be for political Islamists to take part in developing democracies. That would be in the interest of all parties. It is vital that we are ready and properly resourced to carry out such work if requested.
Inevitably, I would like to be able to say much more in this debate about: our current operations in Syria; the future of liberated territory in Iraq and Syria; the authorisation of the use of force; a new sanctions regime as we leave the European Union; our involvement in the European Union’s future common foreign and security policy, and common security and defence policy; and, importantly, possible Brexit transition options. Finally, I want to make the point that 2020 would be a suitable date for the state visit of President Trump, which was notably omitted from the Queen’s Speech. I regret that people will now have to look at my website to see the full text of the remarks I had hoped to make in this debate.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech shows the extent to which Brexit will dominate our legislative agenda. We have the repeal Bill, and Bills on trade, customs, fisheries, agriculture and more. No matter what outside events may say, we now have a single-purpose Government and a single-purpose legislative programme. The Prime Minister called the election because she said that she could not get Brexit through Parliament. How ruefully she must reflect on that statement now. Before she said that, the article 50 Bill had gone through this House with a majority of 372 votes. The other place had not tried to block it. Given that that legislation went through, the election was never called because Parliament was blocking Brexit. It was called because the Government wanted to cash in on big opinion poll leads.
The backfiring of that political gamble has left the Prime Minister leading a minority Government, dependent on the deal with the DUP that was announced today, at an immediate cost of £1.5 billion. When I was a child, we had a programme on television called “The Six Million Dollar Man”. I thought that that was a lot of money at the time, but the DUP has guaranteed far more than that for each of its representatives in this House. We enter the most important negotiations the country has conducted since the war weakened, not strengthened, with the authority of the Prime Minister shot to pieces, her Cabinet divided and her position sustained by nothing other than fear of another election.
As these negotiations begin, we are reminded of a salutary fact. We have discussed Brexit far too often in the past year as though it was something Tory Ministers could define—we have heard that it would mean this, it would mean that and it would mean the next thing—but this is actually a negotiation between the two parties around the table; it is not a Tory wish list.
When the Secretary of State was asked yesterday what he thought of Mr Barnier, he gave an insight into the level of preparation undertaken when he said, “He’s very French.” With that level of preparation, it is perhaps no wonder that the first demand, repeated four times in the article 50 letter—that the future trade negotiations take place alongside the article 50 negotiations—did not survive the first meeting on the first day. That reminds us that this is a negotiation between two parties, not a Tory wish list.
In substance, what does that really boil down to after the election? As other colleagues have said, the thing that should go is this mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal would be damaging for the European Union, but as the past and perhaps future Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, it would, relatively speaking, damage us more. We know the consequences: tariffs on cars and bigger tariffs on agricultural produce. It would make it impossible to have no hard border, at least in economic terms, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is, in relative terms, a gun held to our heads, not to the European Union’s head.
Ultimately, this negotiation will come down to a choice for the Prime Minister: will she do as the Chancellor wants and put economic interests first, or will she put the hard Brexiteers first? In other words, will it be the national interest first or nationalism first? That is ultimately the choice that faces us.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a great honour and pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I agree with much of what he said and, indeed, with the excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). As ever, I also endorse much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
People right across this House, and indeed this country, have to be utterly realistic and honest about this and accept that everything has now changed. In my constituency, I found very few angry remainers—I know there are many angry remainers, but it tends to be a London-based thing, and the results in London for the Conservative party say it all. However, in my constituency, there are very few angry remainers. What there is is an acceptance of the result and almost a sense of resignation—it is not agreement, and it is not a welcome. That is especially true of constituents who run their own businesses, who did not welcome the result and who do not welcome the fact that we are leaving the European Union. However, people have accepted the referendum result, and their message and their plea now is that we should come together and get the best deal we can in the national interest.
That is why I am so pleased that we are already seeing changes in the approach being taken, and many other hon. and right hon. Members have expressed that view. I repeat much of what was said from the Opposition Front Bench about the need to change the tone. Those on the Government Front Bench need to wake up and understand that things have now changed. The rhetoric has to be dropped. The slogan that no deal is better than a bad deal is nonsense, and it has always been nonsense. The British people know that, and that is why they voted as they did on 8 June.
Nobody likes somebody being very smart, but I am going to have to say this: I stood up in this place—on this spot—on two occasions, and I warned hon. and right hon. Friends of the dangers of ignoring the 48%, and the young in particular. The expression I used was that many young people who voted remain believe an older generation have stolen their future, and the result was there on 8 June. I hate to have been proved right, but I was. Look at the demographics of the results; they almost mirror those from the referendum. The older people were, the more likely they were to have voted Conservative; the younger ones—obviously, in my terms, that is anybody under the age of about 50—did not. More people under the age of 45 voted Labour in the election.
Of course it is profoundly ironic that people who voted remain then voted for the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition—a man who gave remain a very lukewarm seven and a half out of 10. If I may say so, Opposition Members, too, now have to wake up and accept the reality of the situation, because they have promised many of these people things they may not be able to deliver on. When they talk about the customs union, the single market and immigration, they now have to say what they mean, and they should stop being cowards about it: if they think they want the benefits of the customs union, they should have the—I nearly said a very unparliamentary word—courage to stand up and say that. They should make the case, and make the argument, just as we now need to make the case and make the argument about the benefits of immigration.
Finally, this is a great country. We still have a very good economy. We have a great and bright future. That is not because we are leaving the European Union, but despite it. We now need to make sure we have the education and training to seize those opportunities.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today.
It is a privilege for me to follow Craig Williams as the Member for Cardiff North. I know how hard Craig worked to represent the constituency over the past two years.
The recent election campaign was punctured by a number of tragic events, from Manchester to London. In Wales, there was another sad event, which brought together the nation. The loss of our former First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, was felt in homes across Wales. Some may remember his time here representing Cardiff West, as well as his wife, Julie Morgan, who represented Cardiff North, and who still represents the constituency in the National Assembly. Julie and Rhodri were a team for over half a century. Rhodri was always a close friend and wise counsel. He is much missed, and I am sure Members will join me in extending our love and sympathy to Julie and the family.
The history of the modern Cardiff North is a history of how industry and people changed and revolutionised the city and the whole of south Wales. But it is industry that has defined the modern part of the capital that I represent. It was the wealth created by the traditional industries of south Wales that created the gothic splendour of Castell Coch, and it was this same industry that brought people to create Cardiff and that led to the growth of Whitchurch, Rhiwbina, Llanishen, Pontprennau, Heath and Llandaff North, to name only a few of its communities.
That industry also created a cosmopolitan, multicultural city that is home to Cardiff’s first Welsh-medium secondary school—a school where my daughter learns through the medium of a language that is growing and that will be spoken by 1 million people in the coming decades.
It is the people of Cardiff who voted to remain in the European Union. The vote in many parts of Wales was not a vote against Europe or the concept or the reality of the European Union; it was a vote against politics—against the reality of the decisions taken here. The cumulative impact of benefit cuts and reductions in public spending has hit the poorest hardest, so I intend to use my time here to speak up against a failed austerity where the richest people have forced the poorest people to pay the price. The UK Government seem to have abandoned austerity for Northern Ireland today: what about the rest of the UK? The UK is weaker and less united this evening than it was this morning. I also hope the UK Government understand that it is important that the whole of the UK is represented in these talks and negotiations. At present, the UK Government are in danger of losing the argument not only in Brussels but in Cardiff as well, with a disunited kingdom where jobs and livelihoods, workers’ rights and action on climate change are sacrificed in the pursuit of an impossible imperialist fantasy.
During the business statement last week, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were kind enough to allow me to raise the issue of the loss of over 1,000 jobs in my constituency because of the closure of a Tesco customer care centre, and I am grateful. Since then, I have had the opportunity to spend time with and speak to many of the workers who have been told they have lost their jobs. They are devastated; many have two or three members of the same family working there. Over the weekend, one of them wrote to me. Her words speak for everyone affected there. “Please fight for us”, she said, continuing:
“Each and every single one of those 1,100 people are heartbroken and terrified as we face uncertain futures for ourselves and our families. Anything you can do, anything at all—we all will be forever grateful”.
Those are her words, not mine, and they are a challenge to us all. It is those people and their voices that are in my mind today and will be guiding me.
My fear is that if this Government are allowed to drive through a Brexit where the jobs and livelihoods of the people we all represent are treated with disdain and indifference, then these will be the stories we hear every day, every week, and every month. I intend to use my time to stand up against failed austerity measures and for a more prosperous, fairer and more equal society. I look forward to working with my colleagues here. Thank you.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for her contribution today. It is a pleasure to follow her, and to thank her for her kind and generous remarks about her predecessor, Craig Williams. I am sure that we all wish her every personal success serving in the House of Commons.
As the UK leaves the European Union, the British people and Parliament will again have the right to make our own decisions in our own national interest. With our freedom restored, our nation will boldly make its own way in the world just as our forebears did throughout the centuries. The benefits of trade and the sharing of culture should not require the United Kingdom to be locked into a political union. On the contrary, upholding every essence of our sovereignty and democracy is what the people of these islands have fought for for nearly 1,000 years. The measures outlined in the Queen’s Speech will lay the foundations for a better future for all parts of our nation. All of us must now accept that the ultimate ambitions of the European Union do not run with the grain of the British people; our historical development and approach have always been different. Our energies must now surely be focused on working to construct a new British-European bilateral relationship that I certainly believe is not only possible but will eventually prove to be the right path for our nation.
Our future lies, as it always has, beyond the shores of Europe, with the rest of the world, and particularly the Commonwealth and the English-speaking nations. I speak as co-chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly when I say that the very special and enduring relationship between the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland must be secured in any new arrangements—most particularly, the common travel area and access for trade, hopefully unfettered, across the two borders. It is possible to be outside the European Union and at the same time have beneficial bilateral relations without compromising sovereignty, as our Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have demonstrated, and Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility to defend and secure their rights and interests. The same applies to the subjects of the British overseas territories who depend on the United Kingdom to look after their wellbeing, and we have a duty to defend their rights as well.
However, the people of Gibraltar are, I have to say, rightly nervous at this time. I welcome the announcement that His Majesty the King and the Queen of Spain will soon come to the United Kingdom on a state visit, but there was nothing in our Queen’s Speech that gave any public reassurances that Gibraltar’s economy and sovereignty will be safeguarded. I therefore call on Her Majesty’s Government to do just that. We must never let down the people of the Rock, who have time and again demonstrated their undying loyalty to the British Crown and the United Kingdom.
Let us embrace the fortunes that this historic moment offers by securing an agreement that exemplifies the bold ambition of our nation to be a great economic and cultural centre of the world again. This is what the British people expect of Her Majesty’s Government, so let us all unite behind that great vision for our United Kingdom.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who ended on the subject of Gibraltar. I am glad that he did so, because I want to highlight the fact that there is a major problem with not only Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic but with what will happen to Gibraltar. It is quite possible that there will be a real problem getting any agreement because of disagreement with Spain over Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar interpret clause 24 of the guideline document produced by President Donald Tusk of the European Council as potentially leaving their position uncertain and unsettled after any deal. The question will be whether the British Government are prepared, in order to get an agreement, to sell out Gibraltar and its interests, or, if they do get an agreement, whether it will be worth anything after we have left the EU, when we will no longer be able, within the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, or through other measures, to protect the interests of Gibraltar, and when there will be a member state in the EU that has another agenda. Similar issues would apply elsewhere, but Gibraltar is a fundamental sticking point and problem in these negotiations. The Foreign Secretary and the British Government need to come clean and state publicly what their position will be.
We have heard reference to the state visit by the King of Spain but there was of course no reference to the state visit of President Trump. I draw attention to the early-day motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and I, and others, tabled on this issue. If the British Government are serious about being honest and open, they should say now whether the hand-holding is over, and whether President Trump will be welcomed here this year as was originally intended or his visit is put off indefinitely. The former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), said that it should perhaps take place in 2020. I suggest that it would best take place after the presidential election in which Donald Trump’s successor has been elected, during the period in November to December before the inauguration of his successor.
Mike Gapes
In the interests of others, it is not fair that I take an intervention.
As other Members have said, there is a fundamental problem in the Government’s approach: our country will be poorer, weaker and less influential on the world stage if we leave the European Union. We have seen, in the past few days, a vote at the General Assembly of the United Nations relating to the Chagos islands and Mauritius where EU countries did not line up alongside the UK. That is pretty unprecedented. Usually, EU countries work collectively in the General Assembly to defend each other’s interests. That did not happen and we will see a lot more of that in the future. I pledge to fight this hard Brexit and I will do so throughout this Parliament.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
It is an incredibly humbling experience to have been elected to this place. I hope that, however long or short my time here may be, I will be able to serve West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine with the same dedication and purpose as my predecessor, Stuart Donaldson, did for two years.
I am fully aware that I walk in august footsteps: Sir Robert Smith held the seat for 18 years; George Kynoch sat here and represented the equivalent seat of Kincardine and Deeside for five years; and, of course, the still much respected and fondly remembered Sir Alick Buchanan-Smith held Kincardine and Deeside and, before that, Angus North and Mearns from 1964 until his death in 1991. That was 27 years, and I am only on day 18.
Members will, I am sure, get fed up with my 12—yes, 12—Scottish Conservative colleagues insisting that their patch of God’s own country is the most beautiful in the entire UK. Although I do, of course, sympathise with them, it is quite clear that the most beautiful, unique, attractive and downright brilliant constituency in the entire country is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine—from the Cairngorms National Park around Braemar, down through the Dee Valley and Royal Deeside, to Ballater, Aboyne and Banchory, skirting the edge of the granite city itself, taking in Blackburn, Westhill, the subsea capital of Europe, and down to the North sea coast at Portlethen and north Kincardine. There is also the picturesque, pastoral Donside, Corgarff, Strathdon, Alford and Kemnay. Stonehaven and the villages in Howe of the Mearns were made famous, of course, by Lewis Grassic Gibbon in what was the favourite novel of my grandfather, an English teacher, “Sunset Song”.
In the old rhyme,
“the twa peaks you can see frae the sea, Clachnaben and Bennachie”,
are both in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, although I should admit to having to share the latter with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark).
What other seat has such history? I could—but I will not, because time will not permit it—tell the gripping tale of how the Honours of Scotland were smuggled out of Dunnottar castle in a creel basket by a minister’s wife, to save them from the clutches of the marauding army of Oliver Cromwell; or of the romantic but ultimately doomed 1715 Jacobite rebellion, which began at Braemar with the raising of the standard of James VIII and III; or of Victoria, Albert, John Brown and how Deeside became Royal Deeside; or of the Monymusk reliquary, thought to be 1,300 years old and which held the bones of St Columba and was carried in front of the victorious Scottish army at Bannockburn. I could tell those tales, but I will not.
It would, of course, be entirely remiss of me to speak today without mentioning how I, in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, now have the immense honour of representing Balmoral castle. In fact, as Members from Scotland will be aware, the residence in the north-east of Scotland is now represented by a Conservative not only in this place, but in the Scottish Parliament by my friend and colleague Alexander Burnett. With Ruth Davidson herself representing Holyrood palace in Edinburgh, Her Majesty will, I am sure, be delighted to know that she now has three elected Conservative representatives on whom she can call. It is an honour to represent Balmoral, even when, if canvassing, it is an extremely long drive to walk up only to find that the resident is not on the electoral roll.
I have 33 seconds left, so I will canter through the rest of my speech. Today we continue to debate the Queen’s Speech, specifically how it relates to Brexit and foreign affairs. The speech last week stated that a Bill would be introduced to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and provide certainty for individuals and businesses.
Last Thursday I attended the royal highland show in Ingliston. I met many farmers, including from West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. In between lamenting how appallingly poor the Scottish National party has been at managing the common agricultural policy system north of the border, they wanted to make one thing abundantly clear. What farmers and all in the agriculture sector require—what they need now more than anything else—is certainty and stability in our country and our economy, and a clear way ahead so that they can plan and grow their businesses, not just for the next five years, but for the next 10, 15 and 20 years.
What the farming sector and, indeed, this country do not need is further uncertainty in the shape of another referendum on Europe or another general election, and they certainly do not need another referendum on Scottish independence. Why not all come together, in the national interest of the United Kingdom, and support the Government this week? That is what my constituents need me to do, and that is what I will do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. I congratulate the hon. Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on their maiden speeches.
This will obviously be one of dozens of debates on Brexit during this Parliament, and the brevity of the Queen’s Speech is evidence that the plethora of necessary Brexit legislation is already detracting from the day job of governing. It will also undoubtedly detract from our ability in this place to debate and address vital issues that will continue none the less to affect people’s lives, regardless of Brexit. I propose that the suggested Brexit legislation even fails to respect the interests of this House, the constitutional framework of our country and the concerns of real people, and it is on that that I will focus my comments.
As the Government have now acknowledged, they do not want to create even more uncertainty and risk derailing the Brexit negotiations further. They must respect all of the opinions represented in the House, from all of the UK’s nations. In the Queen’s Speech, the Government committed to working with devolved Administrations, as well as others, to build the widest possible consensus on the country’s future outside the European Union. For a decision of that magnitude, which affects almost every aspect of the way in which we live our lives and will affect generations to come, that process and approach seem eminently sensible. The four-nation approach is what Plaid Cymru has insisted on since the beginning.
I note, however, that there was not a single piece of proposed legislation in the two-year Queen’s Speech that specifically delivers for Wales. In actuality, the proposed Brexit legislation seeks to take power away from Wales, shredding our constitutional settlement. Pursuant to the Sewel convention, the UK Government have a duty to gain the consent of all the devolved Administrations before legislating on a matter that is already devolved. As powers are repatriated to Westminster from Brussels through the repeal Bill, those powers that sit within the framework of the National Assembly for Wales must be presented to the Welsh Assembly to be decided on. The democratic voice of Wales should not and will not be weakened by Westminster.
It is vital that the National Assembly for Wales is provided with the right to give or withhold its consent in relation to legislation that is so central to its constitutional position and to the future of our country. Wales has unique needs during the Brexit process and beyond. Our economy, agriculture, funding and public services are our own, and it must be up to us to decide how they are governed outside of the European Union. A real four-nation approach to our exit from the European Union means genuine input and tangible representation from the devolved nations.
I noted the Secretary of State’s commitment earlier to seek the consent of the national Parliaments of the UK on the repeal Bill, but I make it clear to him that Plaid Cymru will not support any legislation that hordes powers, taking them from our devolved areas and back to Westminster. Will he publish full details of how each UK country will be involved? Will he also confirm that he will ensure the support of all the four nations before signing the final exit deal with the European Union?
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
I welcome the fact that most of the legislation in the Gracious Speech was devoted to equipping our country for its departure from the EU and to the forging of a new place for us in the world. I am proud that the Government are fully committed to delivering on the will of the British people, so that our laws may now be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.
We can no longer doubt the instructions given to us by the electorate. The Secretary of State rightly spoke of the 52% who voted to leave the EU last June and the more than 85% who voted for Brexit parties at the election. There are, of course, lessons that the Government urgently need to learn from the outcome of the election, but one thing I hope we can all take away is a commonality of purpose on the part of all Members across the House who were elected to this place on a manifesto pledging to make Brexit a success. We must deliver on that because, with two successive mandates for leaving the EU in under a year, the damage that would be done to the reputation of elected politicians if we were seen to undermine the electorate’s wishes would be severe.
It is no secret that the current parliamentary arithmetic is not what I wanted to see in the wake of the general election, but the Conservatives are the largest party by a considerable margin. However much the Leader of the Opposition defied expectations on 8 June and however much he might preach this to the crowds at Glastonbury, he did not win and is in no position to form a Government. It falls to the Prime Minister and her team to take to the negotiating table and make Brexit a success.
Given the Parliament the people have chosen for us, I refer once again to the commonality of purpose I spoke of earlier. If we are to make Brexit work for all our citizens, whether they voted for the Conservatives, Labour or any other party, we need to show a united front in this House and give the Brexit team the backing they need. I am not saying at all that Members across the House should desist from offering the Government constructive criticism at this most vital of times, but a Parliament that offers opposition for opposition’s sake, rather than well intentioned advice is one that will undermine our position in the eyes of our interlocutors and harm the negotiation process.
If Members will not take it from me, I invite them to listen to the comments made by the former EU commissioner and ardent remainer, Lord Hill, before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament. He said that the best chance we have in these negotiations is if we show a united front and band together around the Prime Minister. So I put it to the House: do right hon. and hon. Members care more about opposing the Prime Minister and her team, whatever they do, than about pulling together to ensure there is a successful Brexit deal? For me, the priority will always be a successful Brexit, so I hope that as many colleagues as possible join me in refraining from undermining the negotiations in the hope of short-term political point scoring and get behind our team.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to give my maiden speech.
Being elected as the Member of Parliament for my home constituency of Bristol North West is deeply humbling. It is humbling for me personally, as a working-class kid from a council estate in Lawrence Weston in my constituency. To be able to speak here on behalf of my friends, my family, my community and, indeed, my country is a great honour.
Let me pay tribute to my predecessor, Charlotte Leslie. The Member of Parliament for seven years and a candidate for three further years, Charlotte’s decade of local leadership was held in warm regard by my constituents and by me. We thank Charlotte for her public service.
From the earliest evidence of human habitation in these British Isles on the shores of the River Avon near Shirehampton to the eighth-century monastery of Westbury-on-Trym, granted by King Offa of Mercia, to the Roman settlements at Sea Mills and Lawrence Weston, and the Domesday reference to the parish of Henbury, and now, so I am told, to the first ever Darren elected to this House of Commons, Bristol North West is an historic and fascinating constituency.
But the successes of my home and its people, from jobs at the port and advanced manufacturing, to research and development, to the professional services, rely on our trading relationship with the European Union. That is why my first priority during this Brexit Parliament is to fight for Britain’s membership of the European single market. Because in times of peace our first priority must be prosperity for all. That is why the politics of holding on to power for power’s sake, or political positioning to win internal ideological battles, must stop. We are all here to do what is right for the country. For if that is not the case, I do not know why we are here at all.
So I stand here humbled by my election, with a sense of urgency to tackle a hard Brexit but also with a sense of sadness—sadness because the world feels more fragile than it has in the past, with Britain seen as weak and uncertain in high-risk times, and with fast-paced technological change, shifting geopolitical power, young people frustrated by the country, old people increasingly left alone and public services allowed to slowly die by a thousand cuts.
Politics is hard work, but it is the only forum through which we can provide hope. Whether I am an MP for four months or four years, and whether my actions bring success or failure to my own political career, I will always put my constituents and my country first. In this mother of Parliaments, let us do all we can to show that a modern and just Britain can rise from the ashes of our current dismay. We are merely shepherds of the nation, standing on the shoulders of giants, tasked with leaving a country to our children that we can be proud of.
This Brexit Parliament will define the future of our country. Let us not self-harm and cause pain, but let us instead unite and act with sense, as well as with patriotism in our hearts, for a national renewal after the dark years of austerity, for the birth of a new British chapter that works for the many, not just the few, and for a new dawn for a new Britain. It is for us now to seize that opportunity and to avoid the risks of failure, but we can do it only by working together in this Brexit Parliament—leavers and remainers—in the national interest.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on his maiden speech. Like him, I am fortunate to represent my home constituency, which is a great privilege, and I wish him much personal success in his career. As a committed Brexiteer, I will not agree with him on everything, but I would like to discuss an issue on which I feel there is much common ground.
As Members, we all sit here thanks to our constituents engaging in the democratic process and putting their faith in us to represent them in this Chamber. Over the course of this Parliament, however long it might be, we will do our utmost to make our constituents’ voices heard, to help fight their battles and to provide reasoned and hopefully enlightening additions to these debates. However, when all is said and done, after our most impassioned efforts and earnest contributions, that may not be enough, and those same constituents who gave us this great privilege may opt to bestow it on someone else. That is right and proper; it is the democratic process working as intended.
I believe, with the Brexit negotiations occurring as we speak, that democracy is our greatest export. My admiration for the principles of democracy that the House upholds—representation, accountability and liberty—is what lies behind my support for our withdrawal from the EU. I am sure that all Members would support those principles and fiercely defend them, but where is the same vigour when it comes to the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, to whom we have ceded more and more of our sovereignty with each passing year? These unrepresentative bodies are not in the habit of giving back powers once they have taken them, and as recent history has shown, the EU has strived and will continue to strive to become bigger, more centralised and more powerful.
As we begin the process of our withdrawal, it is vital we ensure that whatever deal arises, there is a clean cut from the shackles the EU has attempted to hold us in and that we take back ownership of our laws, leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and remove the excessive bureaucracy that has been strangling business here. There has been an endless tide of regulation emanating from Brussels, and it should be no surprise that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation does not work, as there are 28 different countries, all with differing needs and wants.
Now we have the time and opportunity to design policies tailored to our specific needs and remove rules that are holding Britain back. For example, the agriculture Bill will provide an amazing opportunity to develop our own legislative framework that will provide support for farmers who need it most, incentivise farmers to work in a way that further safeguards the environment, help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the food and farming sector and protect our important rural communities.
Leaving the customs union will create opportunities for relationships with global markets and for trade agreements to be reached. In doing that, it is important that we ensure that our farmers and businesses operate on a level playing field. Brexit presents great opportunities for the growth of global trade. These must be seized with both hands—hands that would otherwise be tied with red tape from the continent.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and also three fantastic maiden speeches, which were powerful, lyrical and passionate, from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). It is a real honour to follow them all.
As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, when it comes to Brexit, everything has changed. All of us in this place need to recognise that. That is why I greatly great regret that the Gracious Speech did not rule out withdrawal without a deal, did not give a categorical guarantee on a parliamentary vote or, indeed, a role for our devolved Administrations, and did not set out transitional arrangements that would give some certainty and guidance to our businesses and all of us in this country. Instead, we get: “Pretty sure we’re going to achieve some sort of deal.” What sort of certainty is that for businesses and all those striving in our economy? The Gracious Speech does not set out proposals to remain in the customs union and the single market, which is what I fervently believe would be best for businesses and the people in my constituency.
Nor does the Gracious Speech set out or respect the competences of our devolved Administrations, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, whether that is to do with their competences under the devolution settlement or with regard to funding the needs of our devolved Administrations. I spoke about this earlier today, but it seems remarkable that the Government can find £1.5 billion and possibly more for Northern Ireland in the DUP deal, yet we in Wales cannot get guarantees of what the funding for Wales will be after Brexit happens. There is great anger in Wales at the deal that has been done today.
The Gracious Speech does not provide categorical protections. We have heard all sorts of mixed answers today about the situation of EU nationals and UK citizens abroad. This matters to the people of Cardiff South and Penarth, particularly all the young people who voted in the recent general election. What will their opportunities be in the future? What will the future be for businesses in my local community? Where will we get the fairer funding deal for Wales? Will we keep the crucial labour and environmental protections? Will the rights of EU citizens in my constituency—a very diverse constituency—be respected or will those individuals be merely pawns in this game? I welcome all efforts and the cross-party co-operation of those across the House who seek to put this minority Government on the spot on those issues over the weeks and months to come. Everything has indeed changed.
What matters abroad matters for all the people in Cardiff South and Penarth and all of us in this country. I have said it in this House before, and it is not just about Brexit and the future nature of our trading relationships. It is about the family links and concerns of the many diverse communities in my constituency; the care that many show locally for those fleeing conflict and persecution and for the human rights of others around the world; the care that they show on global issues such as climate change; their opposition to the threats posed by extremism and the undermining of our values; and, indeed, the concerns of the many locally with family members who are serving or have served in our armed forces bravely around the world, in many different contexts.
That is why the issues that I intend to raise in this Parliament and in the debate about foreign affairs include the situation in Yemen and our continued sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, helping to fuel that conflict; the situation in Syria, where we must continue the fight against the barbarous Daesh operatives, but also seek to protect civilians; and the situation of Somaliland, a country that has many connections with my constituency. Will Britain and other countries finally recognise Somaliland and also provide crucial support for the upcoming elections later this year? Will we continue our spending commitment of 0.7% on international development? Will we stand up for our principles on climate change and oppose those such as President Trump who would undermine them? Will we do right by our armed forces and support a strong Army, with the right levels of recruitment, the right deal and the right armed forces covenant, which it so fully deserves?
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a privilege to be able to make my maiden speech and to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who spoke with his usual eloquence.
I am honoured and humbled to have been elected by the residents of Mansfield as the constituency’s first ever Conservative Member of Parliament. The seat has been held by Labour since 1923, so that is a huge vote of confidence and faith that I must strive to repay in full over the coming years.
In this my first speech, I must pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Alan Meale. Sir Alan was the MP for Mansfield for 30 years. That means that he was its MP for longer than I have been alive, which, in itself, is some achievement. As his knighthood would suggest, over those years Sir Alan contributed to many causes, including the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and also played a role in the Blair and Brown Governments. Between them, the last three MPs for Mansfield represented the area for a total of 76 years, and I can only hope to be able to emulate their longevity.
I am sure that I am not the only new Member sitting on these green Benches to have wondered at some point over the last few weeks how on earth I have ended up here. Looking back, I have realised that after working as a landscape gardener and as a recruiter, I actually found my calling and inspiration—as so many people surely do—in the bin. I was so frustrated by the local council’s failure to empty my household bins for a full month because of just one day of snow that I simply had to act. I could not rest until there was action on the issue, so I stood for the council myself. I was duly elected and have been banging on about household waste management ever since to the limited audience who will listen.
Mansfield is an area that has been sustained over centuries by great industry. The first cotton mills and frame-knitting factories sprang up many centuries ago, and many of the landmarks that exist today are named after them. There is the hospital, King’s Mill, the football stadium, Field Mill—although it is currently known by a sponsor’s name—and many other examples. Legend tells that, in the 12th century, King Henry II got lost in the woods while hunting in Sherwood Forest and found his way to one of the local mills. The miller and his family thought that he looked a clean and decent kind of chap, and offered him a bed for the night. In the morning, when the King finally announced himself, the family dropped to their knees to beg forgiveness for being so familiar. He promptly knighted the miller, there and then. The Sir John Cockle pub now stands as a landmark to that event, and was a favourite haunt of mine during the election campaign—for that purely historical reason!
If the end of the old mills and factories led to unemployment and decline, so did the end of the mining industry through the 1980s and 1990s. Coalmining was the centre of local communities throughout much of the 20th century, not just for work but for all kinds of other support. It is a heritage of which people are rightly proud, and I shall be supporting calls for the creation of a new museum in the town centre to protect that heritage and ensure that future generations know and understand it. The regeneration that the area desperately needs has been slow in coming. Market Warsop no longer has the kind of thriving market that gave the town its name, while empty shops around the town centre are prevalent, and it has taken far too long to revitalise.
Having said all that, I firmly believe that in recent years Mansfield’s potential has been heading steeply upwards. Now, huge collectives like Maun Valley Citizens, bringing together schools, churches and countless other groups, are working towards united and shared goals such as reducing homelessness and improving the lives of vulnerable people. Fantastic institutions like West Nottinghamshire College—one of Europe’s largest colleges, offering everything from technical and vocational courses to university degrees—are providing opportunities for young people in Mansfield to gain new skills and qualifications, and to improve their prospects for the future.
If I may, I will end where I began—with the election campaign. Of all the many factors that were prevalent on the doorstep during the campaign, the one about which I heard most often was Brexit, and that was why I chose to make my maiden speech during today’s debate. My constituency voted 72% in favour of leaving the EU, and in favour of Britain setting its own course in the years to come. What has been made very clear is that residents of Mansfield simply will not accept any deal that does not involve taking back control of our borders. That is a red line that must not be crossed. It is not about individuals who usually contribute to our society; it is about the sheer weight of numbers, which affects our local services and jobs.
The other key message from the campaign has been that no one has been speaking up for Mansfield down here in Westminster, and banging on the doors of Ministers looking for support. My pledge during the election was to shout up loud and shout up often, and I intend to fulfil that promise.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate all those who have used today’s debate to make their maiden speeches. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), and I look forward to finding out even more about how the bin collections are going in the months to come.
There has been much discussion about the eight Brexit Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but a Bill on environmental protection is conspicuous by its absence. Given the significance of the EU’s role in environmental protection, I think that that is a particularly grave omission on the part of the Government’s Brexit team. Effective and robust environmental protection relies on well-funded and well-staffed institutions to monitor compliance with environmental law. It also needs powerful regulators and courts to ensure that breaches of the law are challenged and the law is enforced. For the past 40 years, that system of enforcement has been grounded in the legislation and institutions of the EU, notably the Commission and the European Court of Justice. That structure has meant that the UK Government can be held to account for their actions, and there are countless examples of that taking place. For example, since 1981, the Commission has received more than 200 complaints about the UK under the nature directives, thus protecting wildlife and habitats across the country. Let us be under no illusion: it is precisely the threat of fines from Brussels that has finally concentrated the Government’s mind on acting on issues such as air pollution. Domestic legislation simply did not go far enough to do that.
It is therefore rather astonishing that, beyond a few offhand comments from Ministers, we currently have no details of how this important system of checks and safeguards for the natural environment will be replaced. We do not yet know if the Government intend to rely on existing regulators to fill the gap, but if they do, let us remember that those agencies have seen their budgets slashed over recent years and their capacity to hold the Government to account has been greatly diminished.
When it comes to the repeal Bill, let us be clear that the process will be a lot more complicated than simply cutting and pasting a whole set of EU legislation into UK law. When the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee, she acknowledged that fully one third of environmental legislation would be extremely hard to transfer in that way. Moreover, once that material is transferred, it will become effectively unenforceable— so-called zombie legislation—due to an absence of monitoring and enforcement. Without the Commission and the European Court of Justice, we will not have the necessary legal architecture. People say, “Don’t worry, we’ll rely on the UK courts instead,” but we must recognise that the threshold to access UK courts for judicial review is very high and involves considerable expense. That system will simply not be as effective as the current one.
Let us also be honest about the fact that a small but vocal part of the right wing sees Brexit as an opportunity for mass deregulation. A fight is coming, and it feels particularly necessary given that the new Environment Secretary has previously suggested that we scrap vital EU environmental protections and described one of the centrepieces of that legislation, the habitats directive, as “absurd”. The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) also has a track record that involves voting against measures to halt climate change and attempting to wipe the subject from the education curriculum. I hope I will be forgiven for not having much confidence that the environment will be safe in his hands post-Brexit.
That is why the amendment that I have tabled to the address asks for an environmental protection Act. Such an Act would cut through the political ideology on the right and the left that all too often sidelines the environment, and would instead require a long-term evidence-based approach. Crucially, it would do so via primary legislation, thereby guaranteeing a proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. No one voted on 23 June last year to scrap our environmental legislation, yet there is a real risk of that happening unless we enshrine it in a new environmental protection Act.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the four superb maiden speeches that we have heard today. I am quite pleased with the progress that the Government are making in the transition from being part of the European Union to leaving it. First, they held the referendum. Then, seeing the right result, they committed to delivering on Brexit. They triggered article 50 and are now setting a clear, strong agenda in the Queen’s Speech.
It is important to reflect that when we had the referendum a year ago, the result was that we should leave the European Union. There was no lack of certainty in that, yet to hear people today, we might almost think that the general election had cancelled out the referendum result. We still need to leave the European Union, yet elements of the political establishment seem to be doing whatever they can, in a kind of war of attrition, to undermine the decision of the British people. It is a deliberate redefining of what Brexit means, and we have seen the invention of the notions of hard and soft Brexit, which never existed before the referendum. There is no such thing.
This reminds me of when the British people voted in the referendum in 1975 to remain in the European Economic Community, which people understood to mean the common market. Since then, year in and year out, more power has been accrued to what is now the European Union, which seems to be on the verge of becoming a united states of Europe. Just as the European Union’s identity and nature have changed profoundly, the nature of the argument and debate in Britain has also changed, but the decision of the British people has not changed: we should still be leaving the European Union.
However, some people have worked to undermine the views and opinions clearly expressed by the British people. One argument is that people did not know what they were voting for, as though the British people are ignorant. Some people say that it was all about immigration, but that was just one of several different reasons. Despite that, there has been a clear inference that anyone who voted leave is a racist and that people were unable to distinguish between and understand the arguments. So much of why people voted was based on their lived experiences over the past 40 years, not the few weeks of the campaign.
The Queen’s Speech builds on the positive attitude and outlook of the leave campaign. We have a positive vision for the future of the country. We want to go out to the world. We want a fantastic relationship with the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have that. However, the continuity remain campaign seems to be a rather depressing place, full of depressing arguments. Other than dumping the Members of the European Parliament, it seems as though it wants no change whatsoever—remain in all but name.
I would like some clarification on the Horizon 2020 programme. We are still part of it and will be part of it until the end, but we need clarification on the successor programme. The British people voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, and that is what we have to deliver.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great privilege to stand here on behalf of Plymouth. Plymouth is my home. It is where I was born and it is where I live. I stand here mindful of the political greats who have contributed not only in this Chamber, but to my city. Nancy Astor, the first woman to take her seat in this Chamber, represented Plymouth, Sutton from 1919 to 1945. Michael Foot represented Plymouth, Devonport from 1945 to 1955, rebuilding our city after its devastation in the second world war. Then there was David Owen and his defection, and Alan Clark and his diaries. More recently there was David Jamieson, Linda Gilroy and Alison Seabeck, to whom my city owes a great deal. I have a lot to live up to, but luckily there is a lot to do to get Plymouth its fair share.
I want to thank Oliver Colvile, my predecessor, for his service. Mr Colvile represented Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for seven years. In that time, he always conducted himself well, with decorum and generosity, describing himself as “jolly Olly”. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Mr Colvile a speedy recovery from his time in hospital since the general election. Many hon. Members will know of his passion for hedgehogs. I hope that someone will pick up the protection of those little prickly creatures, but that will not be me. There was, however, one campaign on which he and I co-operated and worked together. In 2014, we joined forces to campaign for one of the new Type 26 frigates to be named after Britain’s ocean city—an HMS Plymouth—and I intend to continue that campaign.
As the son of a Devonport-based submariner, I grew up knowing how important strong defence is to my city and our country. Plymouth is home to Devonport, the largest naval base in western Europe, the nation’s amphibious assault ships, the submarine and surface fleet re-fit facilities at Devonport dockyard, and the Royal Citadel and the historic home of the Royal Marines at Stonehouse barracks—two bases that are facing closure. With the aircraft carriers coming on stream soon and the enormous demand that they will place on the Royal Navy, with regard to both personnel and escort frigates, it is time for us to think again about how many frigates our nation needs. Brexit and international uncertainty mean that we need a larger Royal Navy. Orders for Type 26 frigates have been cut from 13 to eight, and the new Type 31 frigate is still early in the design stage. The 1997 strategic defence review called for 32 frigates and destroyers. We now have just 19, so I want the Government to increase orders not only for frigates, but for offshore patrol craft. More frigates, modularly constructed and supporting marine engineering and shipbuilding businesses, large and small, in Plymouth, across the south-west and across our nation, are exactly what our country needs.
During the Prime Minister’s statement on Grenfell Tower last week, I received the news that tests showed that the cladding on the Mount Wise tower blocks was combustible. I immediately called for the unsafe cladding to be removed, and that will happen. There can be no compromise on safety. I am pleased that we now have cross-party support for that in Plymouth, with the hon. Members for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) joining me in asking the Government to pay for that emergency work.
Plymouth is one of the UK’s great cities, a grand bastion of parliamentary democracy from the Sabbath Day fight during the English civil war on Freedom Fields to the modern day. Plymouth has seen the pilgrim fathers setting sail on the Mayflower, a fleet setting sail to defeat the Spanish armada and Captain Cook setting sail on his voyages, and there are many more examples. As a base for marine research and expertise, we are second to none. That is why I want not only a ministry of maritime affairs to be set up in Plymouth after Brexit, but Plymouth Sound to be designated as the country’s first national marine park.
Plymouth’s great contribution has not always been matched by us receiving our fair share. The poor deal that we have at the moment as a city is not one that I will accept or vote to cut further. Progress towards Plymouth achieving its fair share has happened, but not quickly enough. It must now up a gear.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). We have a shared interest in the voyage of the Mayflower, on which I look forward to working together. I like to think of Boston as where it started. Some people would say that Plymouth was merely a stop on the way across the Atlantic, but we can have that debate later.
Brexit defines not only the election we have just endured but the state of my constituency over the past 10 to 15 years. It is right that Brexit is, in large part, the focus of this Gracious Speech. Thinking back over what has happened to my constituency over that period, we have seen huge changes. In some ways, the agricultural industry has been supercharged by the huge number of new migrant workers and by changes in industrial practice, but we have also seen huge changes to the town of Boston, in particular, and to Lincolnshire as a whole.
Those changes did not come with the democratic consent of my constituents, and the changes placed huge pressure on the public services in my constituency. It is a testament to all previous Members of this House that we did not even have an argument about the benefits of being in the European Union, never mind win it. Now, the fact is that if we were to seek to vote down this Gracious Speech, or indeed to undermine much of its content, we would be undermining democracy itself. I do not say that in a bid to ask people not to oppose it, but, overall, the fact that we are leaving the European Union was not only in the manifestos of both major parties but is very much on the minds of my constituents. Seventy-six per cent. of those constituents turned out to vote in the referendum, with 76% of them voting to leave. We must respect that result as we look to the future.
With that in mind, I pose two questions. First, what will the future of our country outside the European Union mean for the farming industry? That is closely linked to my second question, which is, perhaps unsurprisingly, on what many of my constituents tell me was the No. 1 issue when they voted to leave the European Union: immigration.
I plead that we acknowledge that the process we are going through will, in part, supercharge an ongoing process of mechanisation. I believe that the changing availability of labour will see more and more farmers in my constituency invest in more and more machines that enable them to be infinitely more productive and require less labour, but the fact is that they will require significant amounts of labour in the future. Before being a member of an expanded European Union, we had a successful seasonal agricultural workers scheme, and I hope that that work permit scheme can, in some form, be quickly reconstituted to provide stability for the agricultural industry, just as today we heard the Prime Minister seek to provide stability for the many of my constituents who came from eastern Europe to make their home in Boston and Skegness. I hope that today they find themselves in a better position than they were in earlier this week.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the five Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate: the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). They spoke with good humour, giving us an insight into everything from the history of their constituencies to the best tourist spots and pubs. I am sure we will agree on some issues and not on others.
One issue on which I particularly agree with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is the need not to have a second independence referendum. Although I will disagree with him on many issues in this place, I welcome the fact that the election result in Scotland means a greater diversity of voices in this place; it is a truer reflection of the diversity of views in Scotland.
It is two years and three months to the day since my last contribution in this House, and I am delighted to be back. In the intervening period, John Nicolson spoke from the Scottish National party Benches for East Dunbartonshire, and although we had profound disagreements on Scotland’s place in the UK, I pay tribute to his work, particularly on equality issues—and LGBT rights especially. I know he would share my concerns, as many of my constituents do, about the Conservatives’ deal today with the DUP and, in particular, what it might mean for LGBT rights, climate change and women’s rights.
At the start of the general election campaign, Brenda from Bristol struck a chord with many when she said that there was “too much politics”. If she had lived in Bearsden or Bishopbriggs, she might have had even more cause to say that, because in the past three years there have been no fewer than seven elections or referendums in Scotland. However, in East Dunbartonshire we still have great enthusiasm; in 2014, we had the spectacular turnout of 91%, with 61% of people voting to keep Scotland in the UK, and two years later 71% voted to remain in the EU. East Dunbartonshire wants a Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU, and that is what I will advocate as its representative in this House.
Brexit will, of course, be the overarching issue for this Parliament. From my time in government, I can well imagine the treacle of Brexit that civil servants and Ministers will be wading through. There is a real risk—indeed, it is probably a near certainty—that Brexit will divert attention from other important issues. The Government’s response to this election result is very disappointing; there is no mandate for that extreme vision of Brexit. Instead of looking at this balanced Parliament and reaching out in a spirit of compromise to try to find genuine cross-party agreement and consensus, the Government are sticking rigidly to their mantra of “No membership of the single market or the customs union.”
Recasting our relationship with the EU throws into sharp relief our relationship with the rest of the world. It is a volatile world and we will discuss in detail the global developments, risks and threats. I do not share the rose-tinted view of the Brexiteers that it is all going to be jolly wonderful, because on the cross-cutting issues of human rights, democracy and climate change it is often our EU partners who most closely share our values. This is the worst possible time to be loosening ties with our European neighbours, as we have a White House so at odds with UK interest. We are forced to roll out the red carpet for President Trump, a man who demonises a whole religion, shows disrespect for others in the words he uses about women and poses a real danger to the world by withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. I urge the Government to think again and to look for genuine cross-party consensus as they approach the difficult issues we face.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and how lucky we have all been to have listened to so many outstanding maiden speeches, from Members from all parts of the House? They have all described their constituencies with passion and poetry.
I am also honoured to be returned to this House to represent the people of Witney and west Oxfordshire on whose behalf I pledge to vote in the time ahead. There is a great deal to mention in the Gracious Speech, but, sadly, time will not permit that today. I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the Brexit negotiations. It is a fact of the election that 85% of the people who voted supported parties, which, in their manifestos at least, support withdrawal from the single market and the customs union.
In the brief time available to me, I would like to focus on the important matter of the customs union. It is important to remember how the European Union, which should be a beacon for free trade, operates as a protectionist bloc, and it is that that troubles me the most because I believe in free trade. I do so because of the power that it has for our economy and because of the help that it gives to the poor across the entire world. It is for that reason that we must have independent control of our own trade policy. In that way, we can focus on the great and emerging markets of the world.
Six members of the G20 have already expressed an interest in having talks and a possible free trade agreement with us in the future. They are: Australia, South Korea, India, Brazil, China and our greatest single trading partner, the United States. It is a fact that British trade has been moving away from the European Union for many years to the extent that we now have a trade deficit, particularly with regard to services. Markets worth only $4.8 trillion have been opened up to the UK by the European Union, but $35 trillion have been opened up to Switzerland in free trade arrangements. These smaller groups tend to be more favourable to services, and, as we all know, services are a very important part of the UK economy. We are talking about only 68% with the European Union, but up to 90% with these smaller bespoke agreements.
Free trade is not just about the interests of finance—important though that is to the UK economy—but about helping the poorest around the world and in our society, too. It is anticipated that free trade, which is the greatest tool for reducing poverty that history has ever seen, could reduce the annual food bill for people in the United Kingdom by up to £361 per household. That is a prize worth considering. It may be that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I urge the Government to look around the country and the world to see whether there are existing arrangements that we may be able to accede to. It may well be that the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership would welcome a dynamic, outward-looking free trading Britain, and we should seize those opportunities if they are out there.
Although I am very aware of the challenges that exist—in west Oxfordshire, there are challenges with regards to agriculture, defence and finances—I wish to emphasise the positives, such as US components, and the fact that we can take the brightest and the best from all over the world and that we can replace the common agricultural policy with a policy that works for us to improve the environment. There is everything to play for. I urge the House to be positive and support the Queen’s Speech.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I wish to start with a statement that will cause anger and disbelief on the Conservative Benches:
“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. In other words, he has admitted that the notion of taking back sovereignty to this Parliament is nonsense. Some of us have a much more democratic tradition. We believe that the sovereignty that is exercised in this place belongs not in this place, but in the people who have sent us to represent them here. For me, that principle of the sovereignty of the people is a red line, on which neither I nor the SNP will ever budge an inch. That is why 62% of our sovereign citizens say that they want to stay in the European Union. It is not about being defeatist, remoaner or continuity remain, but about respecting the will of the sovereign people. If the nearest we can come to that is to retain our membership of the single market and customs union, then that is what we will do. If that has to mean Scotland looking for a differentiated deal, as has already been guaranteed to Northern Ireland, or having to ask for a special deal as well, that is what we will ask for.
I have one ask for when the Government sum up: will they tell us exactly what is going to happen now with the Joint Ministerial Committee, because there seem to have been two JMCs operating since the Brexit vote? The Government have attended a JMC that was wonderful and so constructive—everybody had a great time and thought that it was very helpful—but the Governments of the devolved nations have attended a JMC that was a total and utter waste of time, for they went and spent 45 minutes being told what the UK Government had decided, and if they were very lucky they might get the chance to decide whether they wanted milk and sugar in their tea or coffee. That is the extent of the consultation we have had so far. It is not enough.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) insist in her maiden speech that the Government of Wales must be part of these negotiations. I look forward to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), using her maiden speech to make the equivalent demand on behalf of the people of Scotland.
Membership of the single market is not the same as access to the single market. Anyone who does not understand that difference really needs to get themselves better informed before they take part in this debate. Those who understand the difference but deliberately try to pretend that they are exactly the same thing have no place in this House or in any other House of politics, because they are simply trying to con the electors.
Access to the single market means you can sell your tomatoes, plums, beer and whisky in Europe. Membership of the single market means the Europeans have got to accept your produce on exactly the same terms as everybody else’s. The difference between membership and access is exceptionally great. As my dear friend the former Member for Gordon, Alex Salmond, used to say, the international guild of Patagonian shoemakers has access to the single market, but that does not do it any good.
Access to the single market on its own is worthless, so unless we can retain membership of the single market and of the customs union, we could be looking at 80,000 job losses in Scotland. That price is not worth paying simply to meet this Government’s continued obsession with immigration. They tell us that we cannot be in the single market or the customs union because we have to get immigration down, but not a single word has been spoken in this debate to explain why cutting immigration is essential. Cutting immigration to the levels that the Tories are obsessed with will cause immense damage to our health service, our public services and our economy. Worse, it will make these nations far less attractive and far less pleasant places to live.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The people of Bristol West are, mostly, remainers and proud of it, and we want the closest possible relationship with the EU, but my constituents also want me to press the Government on global concerns—climate change, trade justice and the refugee crisis. Climate change is a clear and present danger, and global temperatures have risen to 1° warmer than pre-industrial revolution levels. Change across the world is accelerating and our commitment under the Paris 2015 agreement is to limit further rises to no more than 1°. We need carbon dioxide emissions to peak before 2020 and fall to zero by 2070 by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, and we need to press our international ally across the Atlantic also to honour its commitment.
An unprecedented 63.5 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide due to conflict. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, I spend a lot of time on refugee policy: only a fraction of refugees ever come to the UK and the global system is broken because, designed for cold war circumstances, it leaves refugees either trapped in their own country or stuck for years in camps in neighbouring countries, without work. Small wonder that some will, out of desperation, risk very dangerous journeys to other shores.
This is also economically and geopolitically dangerous. If refugees are not allowed to work, they cannot provide for themselves. They also lose skills and experience, which will be necessary to rebuild their own countries post-conflict to help return them to stability.
In Uganda, refugees are allowed and supported to work or to start businesses. We have much to learn from other countries about responding to refugees, and we also have much to contribute.
The Secretary of State referred earlier to doing trade deals for the benefit of one country only. On behalf of the people of Bristol West, I urge him and his colleagues to think more widely and about least-developed countries in particular, and to integrate environmental protection, workers’ rights, human rights and the impact on developing countries into all trade deals.
In conclusion, we in Bristol West want the Government not to become so distracted by Brexit that they neglect vital action on climate change, we want reform of the international refugee system, and we want trade agreements to contribute to, not detract from, social justice, because this beautiful planet and everything and everyone on it, from humans to microbes, cannot wait.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I was about to call Ian Paisley, but I cannot see him in the Chamber. We are impoverished by that. In the meantime we will hear from Kate Green.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; the Chamber’s loss is my gain. Before turning to the main topic of the debate, may I say what a pleasure it has been to listen to the maiden speeches of so many hon. Members? I congratulate them on their lucid and articulate speeches and look forward to hearing many more such contributions in the months and years ahead.
I want to take a moment or two to touch on another aspect of the Gracious Speech. The issue of schools funding is particularly important to my constituents. Trafford has traditionally been an underfunded authority, so I initially welcomed the Government’s intention to develop a new funding formula. But the formula brought forward towards the end of the previous Parliament has been holed below the water line by the lack of overall funding in the pot. Trafford stands to see real-terms budget cuts of over £14 billion by 2019-20, which will mean the loss of teaching and support jobs. I say to Ministers that rearranging the deckchairs by treating the deprivation funding as in some way double funding simply will not do, because it will put schools in my constituency with very disadvantaged intakes under very significant pressure. We need to ensure that there is enough money in the total pot and then have a new funding formula that meets the needs of all pupils in all schools, especially those who are disadvantaged.
Let me turn now to the main topic of the debate, which is Brexit and foreign affairs. Over the weekend I asked my constituents what they thought the main focus of this Parliament should be. Overwhelmingly, those I spoke to were clear that the focus should be getting the best Brexit deal we can. I am not surprised that they considered that to be of such significance. After all, our constituency has a long history of manufacturing, distribution and trading. We recognise the jobs and trade that have come to us from our membership of the European Union. Many businesses in my constituency have integrated, EU-wide operations. Goods are manufactured in my constituency and then transferred to the Republic of Ireland for packaging, and then they come back to the UK for distribution. Those are integrated operations that cannot face the costs and difficulties of new barriers and tariffs being placed in the way.
In the year since the referendum, my constituents have also spoken, as have many businesses across my constituency, about the importance of being able to access the widest possible labour pool. Industries in my constituency, from paper making and hospitality to health and social care, need to be able to access an international labour pool. Indeed, I have heard the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union acknowledge on many occasions the importance of not shutting the door on the European labour pool, and of the time it will take us to build up the skills and capacity we need in our own labour market.
All of that tells me that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said, we need to keep the option of remaining in the customs union on the table. Indeed, I would go further and say that we also need to remain in the single market. If those are the benefits that across the House we think are important—and I think we have heard tonight that by and large we do—why not just take on board the fact that we already have structures in place within the European Union that would deliver them? I hope that we will not knock off the table ideas that can continue to work or that can be made to work simply out of a misreading of the referendum result or a misreading of what is in the interests of the Conservative party but not those of the country as a whole.
Finally, I was pleased to hear that legislative consent will be sought from the devolved Administrations.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I add my congratulations to Members who have made their maiden speeches this evening—particularly those who have hung around and listened to the rest of the debate.
I once drove through a snowstorm to get from Darlington to Jedburgh. I clearly remember driving up Carter Bar, which leads over the border between Scotland and England. When I reached the top, I was chuffed to bits: I had manoeuvred a rear-wheel-drive automatic through difficult terrain in a snowstorm. Then the reality dawned on me: the second half of the journey would be the hard bit. A steep decline, twisting and turning with no road markings and every chance of running off the road—that is what lay ahead, and that is my Brexit allegory.
The Prime Minister and her cohorts, blinded with power, have marched us to the top of the hill, only to discover that in this case it is a cliff edge. Over time, plenty of people have negotiated difficult journeys but I fear that the Brexit journey that lies ahead will be particularly dangerous. Those leading it will not admit just how hard it is going to be. They should be seeking out every pitfall and identifying all the hazards—instead, we are being fed a diatribe of jingoistic clichés.
The situation was a mess before the Prime Minister called a general election but now her selfish actions have complicated matters beyond anyone’s wildest nightmare. No one will form a coalition with this precarious Government; the Democratic Unionists have chosen to provide their votes when it suits them, supplying a billion pounds’ worth of tissues when it all goes wrong.
This brave new world seems to be based on an, “We did it before and we can do it again” empire mentality, flag waving and patriotism. As we turn our backs on the European Union and seek to create new trade agreements, we will require diplomacy and negotiating skills, which so far have been conspicuously absent in the whole Brexit mess. That is one reason why I have been delighted to hear that politicians across the EU have in increasing numbers been prepared to add their support for Scotland to remain in the EU and the single market. While the UK was committed to the EU, those same voices remained silent: they respected the UK and its position. However, by serving article 50 to leave the EU, the UK has turned its back on the EU and the single market. As a result, the loyalty of previous partners has been lost.
Where is Scotland’s influence in these negotiations? While Scotland makes up only 8.6% of the population of the UK, the Scottish fishing zone represents over 60% of UK waters—the fourth largest sea area in EU core waters. Scotland has 32% of the UK’s land area. We provide 40% of wind, wave and solar energy production; 47% of the open cast coal production; 62% of the timber production; 65% of the natural gas production; 81% of the untapped coal reserves; 92% of the hydro-electric power; 96.5% of the crude oil production; and 100% of the Scotch whisky industry. Yet we have no voice. If these negotiations are to have any credibility, the Scottish Government must have a place at the negotiations. Anything less is a flagrant disregard of the democratic standings of the United Kingdom.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
When the Foreign Secretary makes his concluding remarks, I hope he will make it clear that the discussions are not going to be contingent on what the devolved Assemblies do. He will certainly take their view, but they will have no veto over the will of the British people across the entirety of the United Kingdom.
A lot has been said in this debate about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and in the next three or so minutes I want to focus my comments on the Republic. It stands to lose most out of Brexit—not Northern Ireland, as some in this debate have tried to imply. I agree that we must have a frictionless border, which is good for Northern Irish trade, but the border must not become the weak link in security terms. We must not sacrifice the security of any of the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland —or, for that matter, the people of the Republic of Ireland —for an open border that does not protect our people.
Last week, I informed the House that security analysts had made it clear that levels of radicalisation are worryingly high in the Republic of Ireland. If that is the case, let us face up to it and address the matter. The five issues that President Tusk and Monsieur Barnier wish to agree with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—a unique relationship between our two countries; the avoidance of a hard border; keeping the common travel area in place; no harm to the Republic’s trading relationship with the United Kingdom; and the maintenance of the peace between our two nations—are almost exclusively within the gift of Monsieur Barnier. The House should recognise that. He can do more to ensure that those five things are maintained than anyone else in the discussion. I urge the Republic of Ireland, therefore, to take the same position as the United Kingdom because it cannot afford to remain uncritical of the EU. The EU should not blackmail the Republic of Ireland, as it should not be allowed to blackmail Northern Ireland.
The director of social policy at Trinity College Dublin said in a letter to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party:
“If the Government of the Republic of Ireland is so foolish as to seek to stay in the EU when Northern Ireland and Britain leave, it is the Republic, not the UK, that will be putting the Common Anglo-Irish Travel and Trade Area at risk.”
Those are very important comments because the onus is actually on the Republic of Ireland to address its problems with Europe. It is not for Northern Ireland to address those issues. Since 2014, the Republic of Ireland has been paying €1.7 billion to be a member of the EU.
Andrew Rosindell
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that there is another border between the European Union and the UK, and that is between Gibraltar and Spain? What is his view on that one?
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman knows that I fully support Gibraltar, but I do not have time to deal with that issue at this point.
Post-Brexit, the Republic of Ireland will be required to pay even more to make up for the UK leaving the EU. All the trading issues between the Republic of Ireland and the UK show very clearly that the Republic of Ireland can do far better by leaving the EU along with the UK. I hope that the Republic of Ireland gets that message loud and clear, and recognises that it can do more for our common citizenship by leaving the EU along with us.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure this afternoon and this evening to take part in a debate with such excellent maiden speeches from both sides of the House.
A year ago, the country voted very narrowly to leave the EU. The Prime Minister has spent the past year trying to articulate her version of Brexit. In calling the election, she sought very explicitly to strengthen her mandate to deliver a hard Brexit. The country looked at the Prime Minister’s version of Brexit and did not support it. On her own terms, she failed, and she has no mandate to negotiate the hard Brexit for which she sought support. My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, and I stood in the general election on a firm promise that, if re-elected, I would continue to be a strong voice for their firmly pro-remain views. I am pleased that my constituents gave me that mandate. More than 50% of the total registered electorate returned me to this House, and I stand firm in my commitment to represent them and to speak up for a continued relationship with the EU that reflects our values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism, protects our jobs, public services, environment and rights at work, and enables the UK to play the fullest possible role in working for peace and security in an increasingly unstable world.
Although the country voted to leave the EU, not a single person in the UK voted to become poorer, to damage our public services or to live in a country that is less fair or less safe. Yet we are seeing those impacts in the fall in the value of the pound, increasing inflation and the calamitous drop in the number of EU nationals applying to fill nursing vacancies in our NHS or study at UK universities. Brexit is harming the UK. It is the duty and responsibility of this House to scrutinise the Government’s approach to it and to call a halt to any aspects of the process that will result in material damage to our country.
I have some clear questions for the Government. Will they accept that leaving the single market and the customs union are not inevitable consequences of leaving the EU, and put them back on the negotiating table? The single market and the customs union are vital for British jobs and businesses because they provide tariff-free access to the largest international market for our goods and services. They are also important, however, because they are based on shared values and are governed by a framework of rules that create not only the largest, but the fairest, international market. They provide a basis for trade that ensures protection for workers in relation to employment rights and health and safety at work, and that ensures protection for our environment.
Will the Government provide assurances that, in seeking to negotiate additional trade agreements with other economic communities, they will place environmental protection, employment rights, and health and safety centre stage, or will they sacrifice our high standards in a race to the bottom to enable the UK to compete in markets where costs are lower because key protections are not in place?
Finally, the Prime Minister made it clear today that EU nationals living in the UK are still pawns in the Government’s negotiating strategy. The Government should make an unconditional commitment to EU nationals, who make a vital contribution to our economy and our communities. Even if the Prime Minister is able to secure a deal along the lines she has set out today, it is still not clear on what basis the EU nationals we urgently need to work in our economy and public services will be able to come to the UK in the future. I call on the Government today to urgently set out a positive and welcoming approach to immigration and to explain how the key workforce needs of the UK—of our NHS, construction industry, agriculture and scientific research—can continue to be met in the future.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I start by saying how delighted I am that the Foreign Secretary is actually taking part in this debate on foreign policy? During the election, I turned up to a number of foreign policy debates—one at the Royal United Services Institute, one at Radio 4 and another at Sky—and he was nowhere to be seen. Chatham House, Channel 4 and “Newsnight” had to cancel their debates because he refused to take part. However, I saw him having regular debates—indeed, wrestling matches—on television with my good friend the shadow Communities Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and I have to admit that I felt what can only be described as a pang of jealousy, because I thought to myself, “When is Boris going to try and wrestle me?” But I am very glad that he is involved in the debate today.
It is also good to see so many new Members present for this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions from those making their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) spoke with great eloquence about the Brexit Parliament. I have always believed that this House could do with more lawyers—particularly those from council estates—and he has clearly showed why.
My new hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) delivered a speech of great passion, talking about the importance of frigates to our national defence, and demonstrating his pride in his home town. I think the people of Plymouth will be equally proud to count him among their MPs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) showed what a powerful voice she will be in this House, not just for her constituents, but particularly for the heartbroken and, as she said, terrified Tesco workers who have lost their jobs. She also spoke on behalf of citizens of the whole world when she dealt with the reality of climate change—a theme I will return to in my speech.
We also had maiden speeches from the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who gave a confident and entertaining performance, and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who told us about his passion for bins. In my current spirit of generosity, may I also—I never thought I would hear myself say this about a Liberal Democrat—welcome the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) back to this place?
I congratulate all the new Members. I only wish that their maiden speeches had been made debating a Queen’s Speech that was truly worthy of its name. Let us be honest: this was not one. The Prime Minister promised us a Government that would tackle the big issues facing Britain; instead, we got a Queen’s Speech that ducked every one of them. It is timid on domestic policy. It is vacuous on foreign policy. And on Brexit, we have just a bunch of Bills whose titles we now know, but whose contents remain a mystery.
However, I do want to praise the Foreign Secretary, because at least he was the only member of the Cabinet who had the foresight to put absolutely no policies in his section of the manifesto, so he was not in the embarrassing position of having to abandon them later in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, in the 2,285 words in the Tory manifesto devoted to “Global Britain” in an “Uncertain World”, only one nation was actually mentioned by name, and that, of course, was Donald Trump’s United States. Russia? Korea? China? Not a word. Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Yemen? Syria? Daesh? None of them mentioned.
I hope Conservative Members realise how unprecedented that is. This was only the second Tory manifesto since the Yom Kippur war not even to mention the middle east. In the same sections of the 2015 Tory manifesto, separate policies were set out on 23 different countries. Now the Government are down to just one. The question is why. Why is the Tory manifesto and this Tory Queen’s Speech such a blank space with regard to foreign policy? The answer, of course, is clear: their sole foreign policy ambition is to stay in lockstep with Donald Trump, whatever hill he chooses to march us up next. That means we are left with a Government who no longer know their own mind on foreign policy because they are beholden to a President who keeps changing his.
Nowhere was this more pathetically exposed than on the Paris agreement on climate change. In November, two weeks after Donald Trump’s election, I stood at this Dispatch Box and urged the Foreign Secretary to make Paris the first priority in talks with him. What did he say in response? He said that my concerns were “premature”. At the end of March, I stood here again and said that we must tell Donald Trump that Britain would not stand by in silence while he wrecked the Paris agreement. What did the Foreign Secretary say? He said that I was being “far too pessimistic”. He said:
“We have heard the mutterings of the right hon. Lady; let us see what the American Administration actually do. I think she will be pleasantly surprised.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 116.]
Well, we have now seen what Trump has done. I was not very surprised, and it definitely was not very pleasant. What made it so much worse was this Government’s frankly spineless response. Rather than join the legion of world leaders, US mayors and governors, and business chiefs around the world in condemning Trump’s withdrawal from Paris, our Prime Minister would say only that she felt “disappointed”. The Foreign Secretary explained that it was not for Britain to “wave fingers” at the US President. Well, if he gets a chance to organise Donald Trump’s state visit, he will see how British people feel about waving fingers.
This whole sorry episode prompts the question that is at the very heart of today’s debate: “If this Government cannot persuade Britain’s closest ally to stick to the Paris agreement, and if they cannot even stand up to him when he refuses to do so, what chance have they got of getting the rest of Europe to give us the deal we want on Brexit? The answer is, “None.” If they continue down their current path, the inevitable result will be Britain crashing out of Europe in just over 600 days in a state of total chaos, with millions of jobs and half our trade in jeopardy. I have absolutely no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will stand up in a moment and tell me that I am being premature, that I am being overly pessimistic, and that I will be pleasantly surprised. All I have to say to him is, “That’s what you said about Paris.”
If we are hoping for a different outcome on Brexit, with this Government, with this Queen’s Speech, and with the same crack team of negotiators sitting on the Government Front Bench, we might as well give up now. Yet it does not have to be this way. We could have a Foreign Secretary and a Brexit Secretary working night and day to get the best deal for Britain, not fighting like cats and dogs about who is going to be the next leader. We could have a Government leading the country to a better, more prosperous future, not a Queen’s Speech devoid of ideas, hope or vision. We could have a Prime Minister of principle and strength able to stand tall with European leaders and stand up to Donald Trump, not a hopeless Tory leader just trying to make it through the summer. With all that in place, we could have a Britain that actually has a foreign policy of its own—a Britain ready once again to be a beacon of strength and security, prosperity and values for every country around the world. This Queen’s Speech does nothing to advance that. This Government are doing nothing to advance that. They are too weak, too shambolic and too divided to take this country forward, and it is about time we had a Government who can.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
This excellent debate has been landmarked by a succession of first-rate maiden speeches. I single out the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who spoke passionately in the cause of social justice for her constituents; my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who showed exactly why he is the first member of our party to capture that seat for 100 years; the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who spoke movingly of his predecessor’s campaign for hedgehogs, as well as a rather important matter relating to that great port; and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who spoke for many in this Chamber, and many in this country, when he said that it was time for the whole House to come together in the national interest and get Brexit done.
I have to say that, after about 37 speeches, my abiding impression is that there is far more that unites this House—both sides of the Chamber—in our approach to Brexit than divides it, and there is more confidence in this country’s future than we would expect given some of the coverage in the media. I was particularly pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who I am delighted to see in her place, saying that we have a great economy and a bright future. She is entirely correct. My hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), for Witney (Robert Courts), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and many others, raised their voices in favour of free trade and free trade deals.
Not a single Labour voice—not the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) nor the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), and certainly not the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—dissented from the point made so powerfully earlier by the leader of the Labour party, who said that it was his ambition to make sure that Brexit delivered new free trade deals around the world. None of them dissented from that, and of course the logical consequence of that is coming out of the customs union. There is far more agreement—[Interruption.] Well, this chap—the hon. Member for North East Fife—is not a Labour MP, as far as I understand the constitutional position. None of them dissented from that essential and fundamental understanding about Brexit. There is far more that unites us than divides us.
I think that confidence is right and justified in our country, because the ideal of and belief in free trade continues to lift billions of people out of poverty around the world. In 1990, 37% of the world’s population lived in absolute poverty. That figure has now gone down to 10%, and it is falling.
Wherever there is a crisis in the world—wherever there is terror or conflict—we will find that it is the United Kingdom that is at the forefront of trying to tackle those scourges. In Iraq and Syria, we should all be proud that the RAF is delivering more airstrikes against Daesh than any other air force apart from that of the United States. In the face of a revanchist and resurgent Russia, it is the UK that has kept up the pressure for sanctions over what it has done in Ukraine, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) rightly pointed out. In the face of the blood-curdling threats from North Korea, it is this country, in the UN, that has helped to marshal a coalition against what Kim Jong-un is doing. I am delighted to say that that coalition—hon. Members may have followed this—includes, for the first time, the Chinese, which is an important and hopeful development for our world.
In one of the most grizzly conflicts currently taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, it is this country that is sending 400 peacekeepers to South Sudan. We can be proud of what they are doing. If we think about the crisis that has just broken out in the Gulf—an unwelcome dispute between some of our closest friends—I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that it is to the United Kingdom that the world is looking to help to resolve it. That will take some time, but I have absolutely no doubt that we will get there. It is because the world looks to Britain, and it is because the work of the UK overseas is so vital for global security and stability, that it is absolutely vital that we resist the temptation to run down our defences and abrogate our responsibilities to our friends and partners around the world.
Caroline Lucas
Does the Foreign Secretary feel equally proud of the UK’s role in selling arms to Saudi Arabia that then find their way to Yemen? He did not mention that.
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Lady knows very well, the United Kingdom holds the pen at the UN in trying to bring a resolution to the crisis in Yemen. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, of course a humanitarian disaster is taking place, but it is folly and an illusion to believe that that humanitarian disaster is in any way the responsibility of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, the policy the hon. Lady advocates of disengagement and not being involved at all would void us of any influence or any role at all in bringing about a peaceful resolution in Yemen, although I understand and appreciate the point that she makes. We can be justly proud of the work that has been done in the UN and elsewhere in trying to solve the Yemen crisis.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) pointed out in his excellent speech, we should be proud of our entire diplomatic network and our superb armed forces. Members on both sides of the House spoke well about the strength of our armed forces, including the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Of course, our intelligence services are also admired around the world.
The Queen’s Speech said that we will take new powers to set our own sanctions policy. I have alluded to the importance of sanctions in respect of Ukraine and other areas. I trust that that Bill, in the spirit of unity we have seen for much of this debate, will attract cross-party support.
Do not forget that this country is the second biggest military power in NATO, with a new aircraft carrier putting forth to sea today that is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence acknowledges, the biggest ship ever built in this country—I believe it is longer than the Palace of Westminster. But even more important than our military role—do not forget that our military forces are engaged in, I think, 33 countries around the world, which is far more than any other European country—
Stephen Doughty
Is the Foreign Secretary willing to commit to the level of 82,000 for our Army? What does he have to say about the chronic under-recruitment in the Army at the moment? Surely with all those commitments abroad, we should be boosting the numbers in our Army, not cutting them.
Boris Johnson
I have already congratulated the hon. Gentleman on his remarks about our armed forces. I am glad that he at least among Opposition Members supports our armed forces. He will know that we are committed not only to spending 2% of our GDP on defence, but to a further 0.5% increment every year until 2020. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has pointed out, we will maintain the size of our armed forces, which are superb and the best in the world.
Even more important than our military firepower and throw-weight, however, and even more important than our vast aid budget, is Britain’s soft power—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) interjects from a sedentary position to suggest that our aid budget is not vast. Having spent a year in this job and having flown around the world, I can tell her that the world is lost in admiration for how much this country spends on international development and for the efficacy of British aid spending. She should be proud of what the Department for International Development does. It is a huge, huge sum of money. By the way, the only question is how we can ensure that that wonderful aid budget is used so as to deliver the political and economic objectives of this country more effectively, and that is what we are working on.
Even more important than our vast aid budget is our soft power—the sometimes invisible network through which this country’s ideas and values are projected around the world. It can be seen through our partnerships and friendships in Europe, and with the overseas territories and dependencies. A couple of hon. Members asked about the future of Gibraltar. Let us be absolutely clear that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is inviolable and will remain so for as long as this Government are in power.
Emily Thornberry
The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the question for Gibraltar is not sovereignty, but what its trading relationship will be, and how people will be able to move backwards and forwards from Gibraltar to Spain and continue to trade. It is the continuing economic position that is important.
Boris Johnson
As the right hon. Lady will understand, we are absolutely bound to protect the economic interests of the people of Gibraltar, not least—this point can be made in respect of the whole argument about Brexit—because of course a strong Gibraltar and a robust Gibraltar economy are in the interests of Andalucia and the rest of Spain. We will get that done.
We have many networks around the world, not only in the territories and dependencies, but in the 52 Commonwealth nations that will come to London next year for a landmark summit, and through our languages, universities and broadcasting. It is a stunning fact that we sell £1.3 billion of TV programmes abroad. That is almost 10 times as much as the French, I am delighted to say—without in any way wishing to be chauvinistic about this. Indeed, our biggest single market for UK TV programmes in Europe is France. I am absolutely delighted that it is.
We project ourselves through our music, and the broadcasting of that music and great musical festivals, in which this country specialises. When this weekend the BBC broadcast Glastonbury around the world—[Hon. Members: “Glahstonbury?”] It is “Glahstonbury”; it is in the south-west. Of course, I know it was perhaps different for the people who spent £285 to go and be among the crowd there to watch elderly people such as Kris Kristofferson, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that when those extraordinary scenes on the stage at Glastonbury were broadcast, friends and admirers of this country around the world were genuinely alarmed that at a time of such uncertainty, the leader of the main Opposition party in this country should have exercised such an orphic spell on those who had previously been his opponents that they have meekly acceded to his desire not just to run down our defences but, as he said on the stage of Glastonbury—“Glahstonbury”—to scrap our nuclear defence. That was what he said, and it will have gone around the world.
It will have gone around the world that the leader of the main Opposition party in this country is actually committed to getting rid of the fundamentals of our nuclear defence, imperilling—this is the crucial point—not merely our own safety, but the safety of our friends and allies. That is not this Government’s way, and that is not the right way for this country. That is why we need a strong, open, confident, outward-looking and global Britain—for the good of our people and for the good of the world. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
If Members insist inexplicably upon leaving and denying themselves the opportunity to hear the Adjournment debate, perhaps they will do so quickly and quietly, so that the rest of the House can attend to the words and messages of Mr Jim Fitzpatrick.
Grenfell Tower Fire
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the tragic Grenfell Tower fire and to put on record a number of questions for the Government, most of which are on the record already, especially after the statement today by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I will not be covering the awful response by the authorities locally to the survivors—that is well documented—but I do want to pay tribute to all those who tried to help, volunteers and officials, and to my new hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who has performed admirably in the service of her constituents.
Because I was in the London fire brigade for 23 years and I am a former Fire Minister, I have been asked to make many comments on the fire. I need to say that I am no fire prevention expert. I was an operational fireman for 13 years and an elected Fire Brigades Union lay official for 10 years, acting as a safety rep, as well as performing other duties. I am therefore no expert, but I know many who are—those who work with the all-party group on fire safety rescue and in the field of firefighting, fire protection and fire prevention, and of course I had my departmental officials, who were also very knowledgeable.
Armed with that assistance, experience and common sense, there are many questions that I want to ask or, rather, that I want the public inquiry to address. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave the House any details of when more might be known about the inquiry, which will face many questions on many issues. They include: the source of the fire; the rapidity of the spread of the fire; the catastrophic failure of all the fire protection features that the building should have contained; the building’s refurbishment, including the original specifications and the materials actually used, as well as the quality of the work and the finish; the monitoring of building control; the inspection of the completed job by the council, the designated responsible person and the fire service; and the recommendations of the Lakanal House coroner’s inquiry concerning a review of building regulations guidance in Approved Document B and the role of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. I will finish with the question of the Government’s decision not to equip new schools with fire sprinklers, reversing the upgraded advice that they should have sprinklers, published in 2008.
Mr Speaker, you may know—I would be surprised if you did not—that my original bid was for an Adjournment debate this week on the subject of the governance and accountability of registered social landlords, or housing associations, but obviously matters changed shortly after and I retendered my bid. When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 2 million homes below the decency threshold in our social housing sector. We tackled that challenge aggressively, spending billions on new kitchens, bathrooms, double glazing, central heating and security. The de-municipalisation of much housing brought many pluses in recent decades, but also problems. Those wider problems need examination, as we have heard with the many challenges in recent days, in connection with how we provide social housing in the UK. How we address that question sets the perspective for how we approach the build, maintenance and safety of those homes—the kind of housing I lived in for decades.
In respect of the questions I want to raise, I would like to thank Jon O’Neill OBE of the Fire Protection Association, London fire brigade, Sir Ken Knight, Ronnie King, the Fire Brigades Union, the Commons Library and the Lakanal House coroner for their assistance with material for my remarks this evening. Let me take the questions in turn.
The police have apparently identified the source of the fire as white goods on the fourth floor. London fire brigade and the Electrical Safety Council, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who I am pleased to see in his place, have been leading the Total Recalls campaign for such faulty white goods—dryers and the like—and for improvement in their design. Initially, the Government seemed well disposed to this. I am pleased to see the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service in his place, as he responded so positively and has had a number of meetings with colleagues about the campaign, which would have required compulsory product registration at the retail point of sale and better manufacturer marking of goods to allow them to be identified after a fire and traced back to source. One person has already died and there have been a series of serious fires, including one in a Hammersmith tower block. Fortunately, the fire integrity of that block was better than at Grenfell. If the Minister responding to the debate has any information about the campaign from his colleague, I would be very pleased to hear it.
As for the fire integrity of the Grenfell block, it is difficult to know where to start. The public inquiry, assisted by fire investigators, forensic specialists from the Metropolitan Police Service and the Building Research Establishment, will pronounce on the cladding and the insulation, why the fire spread so rapidly and what other contributing factors there may be. There will be questions not only about the fire resistance specification of the material used for the refurbished block, but about whether the architect’s original plan was followed, as well as the finish. Those, along with compartmentalisation and correct fire doors, are the basis of the “stay put” policy about which so much has been written. I am sure that the public inquiry will look again at that as well.
The failure of all the cladding panels tested since the fire, allied to the Secretary of State’s startling information from Camden earlier today about fire doors, indicates a complete systemic failure. Many decent local authorities and housing associations are under scrutiny in relation to how they manage their housing stock, and many good construction companies are as well. Questions about monitoring, building control, “responsible person” and fire brigade sign-off, and the rules that we put in place, will all be issues for the inquiry, as well as the question of how contracts are delivered, including the system of subcontracting.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am sorry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have declined intervention requests from other colleagues. If I have time at the end of my speech, I shall be happy to give way.
I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to comment on any of those building matters. The fire service, as inspector and enforcement body, should offer us some peace of mind, but reports of a 25% reduction in both domestic fire brigade inspections and fire safety audits do not inspire confidence, and perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on the accuracy of those reports. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service is present; he may be able to advise his hon. Friend.
Of course, the Lakanal House fire, the six people killed there and the coroner’s inquiry were a wake-up call, as was the Shirley Towers fire in Southampton, in which two firefighters, Alan Bannon and James Shears, died. Much happened as a result, but not all the lessons were learned. The key lesson for the Government was about the reviewing of the building regulations guidance on fire, as contained in Approved Document B. That is the architects’ bible: it says what is allowed and what is required. The guidance needs to be reviewed regularly to take into account not only new methods of construction, but new materials being used. They are changing all the time, as we can see from the structures and the skyline around us. Approved Document B gives details of when and where sprinklers should be used, and what types of fire alarm system should be mandatory for which types of building.
I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement earlier today, and the convening of his new independent expert panel of advisers. As I said to him at the time, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee has historically been central to such work. The last published review of Approved Document B appeared in 2006. Her Honour Frances Kirkham, CBE, the Lakanal House coroner, wrote to the Secretary of State in 2013 saying, very simply,
“It is recommended that your Department review”
Approved Document B. The Secretary of State’s response, in the same year, was:
“We have commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the Building Regulations. We expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the Approved Document in 2016/17.”
As the Minister will know, however, BRAC has not met for five years, although a succession of Ministers assured us that work was in hand.
As late as last Thursday, when I asked the Prime Minister what assurance she could give
“that the review of building regulations and Approved Document B, as recommended by the Lakanal House coroner, will be carried out as urgently as possible, and that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which has historically undertaken this work, will be recalled as a matter of urgency”,
she replied:
“That work is indeed in hand.”
She also said:
“Obviously, that will be one of the issues that the public inquiry will want to look at.” —[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 178.]
As I said then, that work does not need to wait for a recommendation from a public inquiry. Can the Minister assure us that the new independent panel of experts will undertake it as a matter of urgency? I should be grateful if he could give us a timeframe for its work programme.
The final matter that I want to raise, before making some concluding remarks, is Government policy in respect of fire sprinklers in new schools. In 2008, the Minister of State at the Department for Education upgraded the guidance for local education authorities and school governors, and changed the wording on what was expected. He wrote, and the Department published, the following:
“It is now our expectation that all new schools will have sprinklers fitted. Any exceptions to this will have to be justified by demonstrating that a school is low risk”—
for instance, single-storey or brick-built. The Government have changed this guidance, and the now revised version from the Department for Education states:
“The Building Regulations do not require the installation of fire sprinkler suppression systems in school buildings for life safety and therefore BB 100”—
that is, building bulletin 100—
“no longer includes an expectation that most new school buildings will be fitted with them.”
The regulations that it cites are 11 years old. They are overdue for revision, and at least one coroner’s inquiry has requested that they be reviewed. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed press reports at the weekend that the Government were reversing this and going back to the original guidance from 2008.
Sprinklers save lives, and they are not as expensive as some detractors claim. The situation is not helped by TV adverts, dramas and films incorrectly portraying buildings being flooded whenever a sprinkler head activates. It is only the sprinkler directly above the fire that sprays water, not those across the whole building or even a floor. We know from reports that the cost of fitting sprinklers to Grenfell Tower would have been £200,000. If we divide that by 79—you do the math, Mr Speaker—it works out at just over £2,531 per death, and that figure is likely to come down as more deaths are confirmed.
To conclude, we need to know the terms of reference of the public inquiry as soon as possible. We need to know who is to preside over it, when it will be expected to report and when we can expect interim reports on urgent life safety matters. We need to know when the independent panel will be convened, and when we can expect building regulations and the guidance in Approved Document B to be published.
It has been said often over the past 12 days that the Grenfell Tower fire could have been prevented at best, or at least mitigated. The deaths could also have been prevented, at least in the main. It is right to acknowledge—there has been controversy over this—that the Lakanal House inquiry did not order the retrofitting of all high-rise blocks with fire sprinklers. What it did say was:
“It is recommended that your department”—
the Department for Communities and Local Government—
“encourage providers of housing in high-rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retrofitting of sprinkler systems.”
It was not quite an instruction, but coming from a coroner’s inquiry, it was a pretty forceful recommendation.
There will be harrowing accounts to come at the public inquiry and/or the inquests. Historically, the vast majority of safety legislation has been written after a tragedy or disaster, and that includes fire regulations. Health and safety regulations, which are much derided in the media, save lives but they also cost money. The message from the Secretary of State’s statement today is that there will be a cost to local authorities and registered social landlords, and we need assurances of Government support that will pay to keep our people safe. The full lessons of Grenfell Tower will not be clear until after the public inquiry, but it is clear that actions need to be taken now. The Government have a responsibility. Ultimately, the buck stops here in Parliament with all of us, and we need to commit the support that is needed in communities across the country now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. There are 32 high-rise blocks of flats in Northern Ireland, plus other private high rises as well. Does he think that the independent panel of advisers should include Northern Ireland in its investigation, so that all parts and regions of the United Kingdom can benefit from its findings?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of the devolved Assemblies, because there are different practices in different countries. I commend the Welsh Assembly in this regard. Ann Jones, a former colleague of mine in the Fire Brigades Union, has piloted legislation through the Assembly, and Carl Sargeant, the Minister, has been on to my office today. The legislation in Wales is different from ours; it has improved and is more protective. I know that there are different procedures in Northern Ireland and Scotland as well. A lead from the Westminster Government would be very welcome, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. My last word is to commend the emergency service workers—firefighters in the main—who risked life and limb to try to help. If we give them the resources and the kit, they will do the job, and we stand in admiration of them, as always.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Alok Sharma)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for calling for this timely debate. As he said, he is a former firefighter and was responsible for fire safety when he was a Minister, so he speaks from a position of knowledge and experience. This House is rightly taking a very strong interest in the tragic events at Grenfell Tower, and we want to ensure that the lessons are learned for the future. This disaster should never have happened, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that this never, ever happens again in our country.
Last week, I attended a community safety partnership meeting with the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), and we were both deeply moved by the bravery and dignity that has been demonstrated by those directly affected by the Grenfell Tower fire. I pay tribute to all Members here on both sides of the House who have helped and have made a contribution, particularly the new hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for the work that she has been doing locally to support her community. Of course, all of us need to do everything we can to help those who have suffered during this tragedy to rebuild their lives, and that is what the Government are doing. We have put in place measures to help people to get back on their feet, but we absolutely understand that that will take a long time in many cases. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined, it is equally important that the questions that are being asked by those who have been directly affected are answered. We need to understand what went wrong and fix it for the future.
The hon. Gentleman has raised several extremely good points, and I will try to address them as I go through my speech. In the spirit of co-operation, however, we need to work together across the House on this issue, so I would like to meet him and colleagues on the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group. If he has time tomorrow, I would be happy to sit down and have a discussion with him and those colleagues. It is important that we work together, and I want to demonstrate that there is a clear willingness on the part of the Government to ensure that that happens.
We will do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of the causes of this disaster. There will be a full public inquiry, as the Prime Minister has announced, and it will have an independent chair. We want to be clear that the inquiry should leave absolutely no stone unturned to get to the truth. We will question everyone who has evidence to provide. We want to ensure that the survivors and the victims are consulted on the inquiry’s terms of reference and that the victims are able to be represented, so the Government will cover the costs of legal representation. That has been an issue in previous public inquiries, which is why we have been clear about coming forward and making that commitment.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I appreciate what the Minister is saying about the public inquiry. Can he give any information this evening about when we are likely to have an announcement about the chair or some idea of the timetable, when it is likely to start and over what period it will report?
Alok Sharma
I completely understand that colleagues want to have that announcement as soon as possible, and the Government are well aware of that. I hope that there will be an announcement soon and that the work will start. When Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made his statement earlier today, there was a discussion about how long an inquiry report would take. Clearly, it will be up to the chair to set out the full terms and to determine how to take things forward, but we would ideally want to see an early interim report.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, and I will come on to talk about the panel that the Secretary of State outlined in his statement earlier today. However, the BRAC actually meets several times a year, and I understand from my officials that the most recent meeting was actually last Thursday. The committee talked about the Grenfell Tower tragedy and how its work could have an input into what the Government and the Department are doing but, of course, as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government also clearly outlined, the committee’s scope is more limited. He has talked about a panel that has a wider remit, and I will outline what that panel will be looking at.
As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, there was also a discussion about the coroner’s recommendations following the fire at Lakanal House in 2009. The Government took action in a number of areas following that fire. In particular, DCLG provided funding to enable the Local Government Association, in partnership with the housing sector and enforcement authorities, to publish new fire safety guidance for purpose-built flat blocks in 2011. That guidance is still current, and hon. Members may well have seen the letter my Department sent to housing associations and local authorities on 18 June, which clearly referenced that guidance. Of course, I urge all housing providers to ensure that they are following that guidance.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to sprinklers, and I will talk specifically about sprinklers in schools. In April 2011, in response to a coroner’s report following a fire-related incident in Southampton, the Department wrote to local authorities and other registered housing providers to ask them to actively consider the recommendation to install sprinkler systems in their existing properties, and he is absolutely right that that is the same recommendation that came from the coroner in the case of the Lakanal House fire.
The hon. Gentleman raised issues with the regime for testing white goods, and the report from the working group on product recalls and safety will be published shortly. The group’s recommendation for a strengthened product recall information site has been put into effect, and the British Standards Institution has been commissioned to establish a very clear protocol for product recalls. In this particular case, we know the brand of the product that caused the fire at Grenfell, and obviously my colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are already in touch with the manufacturer.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned sprinklers in schools, and the current guidance from the Department for Education strongly recommends sprinklers. The Department for Education was going to consult on language that might have weakened that recommendation, but of course that has been withdrawn. It said, “We are currently in contact with schools and all bodies responsible for safety in schools. We are instructing them to carry out checks to identify any buildings which may require further investigation… It has always been the case that sprinklers must be installed in school buildings if a risk assessment identifies them as necessary.” Of course that is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. Gentleman said that the coroner’s report on Lakanal House addressed part B of the building regulations.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My apologies. I should have said that the vice-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), are both here, so I kindly invite them to our meeting tomorrow, if possible. I did not question the Minister about when BRAC’s meetings were, but what he says about the advice on sprinklers in schools is consistent. It is not the guidance that was issued in 2008, but I will not quibble now. I welcome the meeting, where we can clarify the matter with him and his colleagues in the Department for Education. I welcome the fact that there seems to be some movement in the Government’s position on that.
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I am of course happy to have a detailed discussion on all these points with him tomorrow—if that is possible for him.
The coroner’s report recommended that the Government look to simplify the guidance on part B of the building regulation. Although we have been working on the guidance, I accept that the work has not been completed. In the light of what has happened at Grenfell, we are going to have to take a very thorough look at the regulatory regime. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House earlier. As he noted, there is an ongoing police investigation, which we are all aware of, and, as the hon. Gentleman noted, there will be an independent public inquiry to get to the truth about what happened and who is responsible. What is absolutely clear is that what we witnessed in the Grenfell Tower fire is a catastrophic failure on a scale that no one thought possible in our country at this time, in 2017. I cannot anticipate what the public inquiry will conclude, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that the failures must be understood and rectified without delay, and the Government are absolutely determined to ensure that that happens.
The Secretary of State has informed the House that he is establishing an independent expert advisory panel, and I hope very soon that more information emerges on that. I can already say that it will advise the Government on any immediate steps that need to be taken on fire safety measures, policies, inspection and regulation arising from the Grenfell Tower fire, and it will look at the wider fire safety regime.
I very much look forward to having a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to discuss these matters. As I said at the start of my remarks, this is a time for us to work together, to listen to wide-ranging views and ultimately to ensure that a tragedy such as the Grenfell Tower fire never happens again. We owe that to the victims, to their families and to the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Anti Money Laundering Directive: Register of People with Significant Control
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
On Friday, I laid before Parliament two sets of regulations that modify the existing national measures to implement the UK’s transposition of Article 30 of the EU Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. These regulations are made under powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act.
The regulations modify and extend the UK regime for a public register of information about people with significant control over UK companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). The register is a core element of the UK’s drive to improve corporate transparency. This statement, the regulations and the guidance have been informed by responses received to the discussion paper “Implementing the Fourth Money Laundering Directive: transposition of Article 30: beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities” [1].
Specifically, the regulations:
modify the existing national measures in relation to the legal entities covered (companies, LLPs and SEs) by requiring information to be updated on the register within a prescribed timescale
extend the amended measures to unregistered companies and listed companies on UK secondary markets
apply a modified form of the regime to limited partnerships governed by the law of Scotland and to qualifying general partnerships governed by the law of Scotland, collectively known as “eligible Scottish partnerships”
amend the provisions on circumstances in which information not shown on the public register may be accessed.
Transposition is not required in relation to limited or general partnerships registered or formed under the law applicable elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in view of the distinct, legal status of Scottish partnerships in section 4 of the Partnership Act 1890.
I have also issued and published, in draft, updated statutory guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control in the context of companies, for the register of people with significant control. This is required by paragraph 24 of Schedule 1A of the Companies Act 2006, and is subject to negative resolution by either House.
The term “significant influence or control” is included in the fourth and fifth specified conditions for being a person with significant control. The statutory guidance is required to explain how that term should be interpreted.
I have also published guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control in the context of eligible Scottish partnerships and have updated guidance on the regime for all legal entities in scope and for people who might become a person of significant control over them.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/implementing-the-fourth-money-laundering-directive-beneficial-ownership-register.
[HCWS7]
Richborough Connection Project and East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
This statement concerns applications made by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc and East Anglia THREE Limited under the Planning Act 2008 for development consent for the installation, operation and maintenance of a 400kV high voltage overhead electric line between Richborough and Canterbury in Kent (“the Richborough Connection Project”) and the construction, operation and maintenance of an offshore wind generating station off the coast of Suffolk with related onshore works (“the East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm”) respectively.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The deadline for the decision on the Richborough Connection Project was 8 June 2017 while the deadline for the East Anglia THREE Offshore Wind Farm is 28 June 2017.
The Secretary of State has decided to set a new deadline for deciding the two applications of 8 August 2017. The decision to set the new deadline for these applications is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant or refuse development consents for them.
[HCWS6]
ECOFIN: 23 May 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 23 May 2017. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following items:
Annual EIB Governors meeting
There was a meeting of the EIB Governors preceding ECOFIN. This entailed a speech by the EIB President Werner Hoyer, a Governors discussion and approval of the audit report.
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President briefed Ministers on the outcomes of the 22 May meeting of the Eurogroup. Ministers then discussed the current economic situation.
Dispute resolution mechanism
Ministers agreed the general approach to the proposal for a Council directive on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union. The UK supported this measure. The proposal aims to establish a common dispute resolution regime for EU taxpayers at risk of double taxation.
Common corporate tax base
Ministers held an orientation debate on the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB). The CCTB proposal suggests establishing a common set of rules across the EU for calculating companies’ taxable profits.
Current financial service legislative proposals
The Council presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Movement of capital
Ministers had an exchange of views on a report by the Economic and Finance Committee (EFC) on the movement of capital and the freedom of payments, and a report by the European Commission on accelerating the capital markets union.
European semester 2017
Ministers endorsed Council conclusions on the in-depth reviews of macroeconomic imbalances in certain member states carried out by the European Commission as part of the macroeconomic imbalance procedure in 2017. The UK was not subject to an in-depth review in 2017.
Follow-up to the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on 20 April 2017 and the IMF and World Bank spring meetings on 21-23 April 2017 in Washington
The presidency and the Commission informed Ministers on the outcomes of the G20, IMF and World Bank meetings.
[HCWS8]
ECOFIN: 16 June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Luxembourg, on 16 June 2017. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following items:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President briefed ministers on the outcomes of the 15 June meeting of the Eurogroup, where consensus was reached on a short-term solution for Greek debt re-structuring and fiscal targets. Commissioner Moscovici also gave a presentation on the euro, area economy in which he flagged the ongoing political risks faced by the euro area.
Reduced VAT rate for electronically supplied publications (e-Publications)
The Council discussed the proposal for a Council directive amending the VAT directive as regards VAT rates applied to books, newspapers and periodicals. The proposal could not be adopted due to the lack of unanimous agreement. The incoming presidency will decide on the further handling of this file.
General reverse charge mechanism
The Council were invited to reach a general approach on the proposal for a general reverse, charge mechanism which will allow member states to shift liability for VAT payments from the supplier to the customer, under certain conditions. The proposal could not be adopted due to the lack of unanimous agreement. The incoming presidency will decide on the further handling of this file.
Strengthening of the Banking Union/Risk-reduction measures
Under this item, the Council agreed the general approach on a proposal for a directive amending the bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD) as regards the ranking of unsecured debt instruments in insolvency hierarchy. General approach was also agreed on the proposal for a regulation amending the capital requirements regulation (CRR) as regards the transitional period for mitigating the impact on own funds of the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 9 and the large exposures treatment of certain public sector exposures denominated in non-domestic currencies of member states. The presidency also presented a progress report on the capital requirements regulation, the capital requirements directive, the banking recovery and resolution directive, the single mechanism regulation, and the European deposit and insurance scheme.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The presidency informed Council of the state of play of legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Non-Performing Loans (NPLs)
The presidency gave an update on the work of the Financial Services Committee’s sub-group on NPLs. The sub-group’s report on NPLs will be presented to July ECOFIN.
Fight against the financing of terrorism (Commission Action Plan)
The Commission provided an update to Council on implementation of the action plan on the prevention of terrorist financing, including progress to agree revisions to the fourth anti-money laundering directive.
Capital Markets Union (CMU): Mid-term review
The Council received a presentation from the Commission on the mid-term review of the CMU action plan, published on 8 June.
Contribution to the European Council meeting on 22-23 June 2017: European semester 2017
The Council approved draft country-specific recommendations (CSRs) on the economic and fiscal policies of member states. These will be submitted to the June European Council for endorsement.
Implementation of the stability and growth pact
The Council adopted Council decisions and recommendations in the context of the excessive deficit procedure, closing the excessive deficit procedures of Croatia and Portugal, and the significant deviation procedure, recommending Romania correct a significant deviation from the adjustment path towards its medium-term budgetary objective.
[HCWS9]
General Affairs Council: June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
My right hon. Friend, Baroness Anelay of St Johns DBE, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
The General Affairs Council (GAC) met in Luxembourg on Tuesday 20 June 2017. It was the last GAC under the Maltese presidency. I represented the UK.
The main items on the agenda were: preparations for the June European Council on 22 and 23 June; the eighteen-month programme of the Council; the European semester; and inter-institutional agreements with reference to the Commission’s Work Programme.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/06/20/.
Preparation of the European Council, 22 to 23 June 2017
The Heads of the EU’s 28 member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission assembled at the European Council meeting on 22 and 23 June 2017. To prepare for this meeting, the General Affairs Council examined the second draft of conclusions on the proposed agenda items for the European Council. The agenda included: security and defence; migration; the Paris climate accord; jobs growth and competitiveness; external relations; and digital Europe.
On security and defence, the discussions at the General Affairs Council focused on the European Defence Fund and permanent structured co-operation, to enable member states to develop capability on security and defence matters. Ministers also discussed counter terrorism proposals.
On migration, the Council discussed: internal migration; external migration; measures to address the central Mediterranean route: and the need to work with countries of origin.
On jobs, growth and competitiveness, the Council debated how to secure free and fair trade: the use of defence instruments. Ministers also discussed their ambitions for the single market; the Capital Markets Union; the services sector; and the Digital Single Market.
Ministers were informed that during the external relations discussion, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission would update the European Council on recent meetings and summits and leaders would reaffirm their commitment to the Paris Climate agreement.
I intervened to thank colleagues for all the messages of support after the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester. I confirmed that the UK was broadly content with the language on defence but that the proposals on counter terrorism should go further to include references to data retention as a vital tool to fight terrorism.
I underlined the need for a strong EU commitment to free trade and also supported all those who called for ambition and implementation on services, the Digital Single Market and single market strategies.
Eighteen-month programme of the Council
The Council endorsed, without any deliberation, the eighteen-month work programme devised by the incoming Estonian, Bulgarian and Austrian presidencies of the Council of the European Union. The programme will run from 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2018.
European semester
The Council approved the country specific recommendations of the European semester, which is the EU’s cycle of economic and fiscal policy co-ordination, for endorsement at the June European Council.
Inter-institutional agreements
Ministers had a brief exchange of views on the proposals for the 2018 Council Work Programme. The proposals will be formally introduced with the publication of the Commission’s Letter of Intent on 13 September.
The UK also lifted its reservation on the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework that had been in place during the purdah period and the file was adopted.
[HCWS11]
British Indian Ocean Territory
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
On 22 June, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution at the instigation of Mauritius seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago, which the UK administers as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Fewer than half of the General Assembly’s 193 members voted in favour of the resolution (94 countries); 15 voted against it, 65 abstained and 19 did not vote. We are disappointed that this bilateral dispute is being taken to the International Court of Justice. This is an inappropriate use of the ICJ advisory mechanism because it is an attempt to circumvent the principle that no state should be compelled to have its bilateral disputes submitted for judicial settlement without its consent, not least on matters of sovereignty. This is a matter for the UK and Mauritius to resolve bilaterally.
We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the Archipelago and we do not recognise its claim. We have, however, made a long-standing commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes. We stand by that commitment.
We created BIOT for defence purposes and, in 1966, concluded with the United States of America an agreement for joint defence use of the territory. Our current agreement lasts until 2036. We cannot now predict what our defence purposes will require beyond that point. BIOT plays an active role in regional and global security and defence, to the considerable benefit of the UK, US, other allies and regional partners.
We have engaged in good faith in discussions to try to resolve the issue bilaterally. The UK Government have made significant proposals to Mauritius which respect and recognise their long-term interest in the Archipelago. We have offered, without prejudice to our sovereignty, a framework for the joint management, in environment and scientific study, of all the islands of the territory except for Diego Garcia, and we have offered enhanced bilateral security co-operation. These offers were relevant to the dispute and were seriously made. We are disappointed that the Government of Mauritius chose to reject them and to walk away from bilateral talks and instead decided to use multilateral mechanisms.
The UN resolution also mentions the very important matter of the Chagossians. We are currently designing an approximately £40 million support package, to improve Chagossian livelihoods in the communities where they now live: in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK.
The UK will continue to defend robustly our sovereignty over BIOT.
[HCWS10]
Justice and Home Affairs Council: Post Council Statement
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
My noble Friend the Justice Lords Spokesperson (Lord Keen QC of Elie) has made the following written statement.
“A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council took place on 8 and 9 June in Luxembourg. The Council took place on the day of, and the day after, the General Election. I represented the UK for Justice day. The UK’s Permanent Representative to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, and Shona Riach, Home Office Europe Director, represented the UK for Interior day.
Justice day
The Council agreed a number of proposals without discussion on Justice day, including a number of Council conclusions on areas including returns, children in migration and information exchange and information management including interoperability solutions.
Justice day began with the participating member states agreeing a general approach on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) under enhanced co-operation. The UK has always been clear that we will not participate.
A general approach was achieved on the supply of digital content directive. However, some concerns on a specific article remained; trilogues under the Estonian presidency are likely to come back to these issues. I expressed the UK’s support for the presidency’s compromise.
There was a policy debate on the European Commission (Commission) proposal for a provision on hearing the views of the child in parental responsibility cases arising from the Brussels lla regulation. There was broad support for such a provision. The Commission urged member states to make progress as it would help resolve the problem of refusal of recognition and enforcement of judgments on the basis that the child had not been heard. The UK agrees that refusal of recognition and enforcement of judgments is a problem but I asked that member states keep options open going forward, rather than committing to a provision now.
For the insolvency directive, the presidency presented the Maltese presidency’s paper on the role of national courts in restructuring procedures and the principle that debtors should remain, in whole or in part, in possession of their business. The UK supports the directive and I welcomed the direction of travel on both issues. The presidency concluded that member states had shown support on both issues and work would continue at the technical level.
There was then a discussion on the money laundering directive, for which a general approach was achieved. The UK has not opted in to this proposal.
The presidency reached a general approach on the recast of Regulation 45/2001, which regulates the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies, and was being re-cast to bring it in line with the wider EU data protection package. As the proposal has not yet cleared parliamentary scrutiny in the UK, I did not give a position.
Over lunch, EU Ministers discussed ways of countering illegal hate speech online. The Commission updated the Council on the second progress report on co-operation with internet service providers. EU Ministers expressed support for the Commission’s work in this area. The Government views co-operation with internet service providers as an important step in the collective work to reduce harm caused by hate online, and I suggested producing a toolkit to help small platforms to apply the same standards as bigger providers.
After lunch, at the start of a joint session of Interior and Justice Ministers, the Council held a one minute silence to remember those killed and injured in the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks. I then provided an update on the attacks. I noted the quick and effective response from our emergency services and that the investigations were ongoing. I also thanked Ministers for the many messages of condolence, and stressed the need to work together to combat radicalisation and deprive extremists of safe spaces to operate online.
The Council then moved on to discuss Criminal Justice in Cyberspace, covering e-evidence, data retention and encryption.
For e-evidence, the Commission presented a number of practical measures as well as possible legislative approaches for improving cross-border access to electronic evidence. The Government agree we must be able to bring to justice cross-border crimes planned, facilitated or committed online irrespective of where the electronic evidence is stored. I underlined the importance of this agenda, in particular for bringing terrorists to justice and set out practical action which could help. The presidency concluded that the Commission should continue to seek expert input whilst developing legislative proposals.
For encryption, the Commission presented an update on the challenges caused by end-to-end encryption for law enforcement, as well as the technical and legal issues.
For data retention, the presidency provided a brief update on discussions held so far in the friends of the presidency group on data retention. The Government have played a leading role in the group and fully support these discussions as a way of building an evidence base for the necessity of retention.
The final discussion on Justice day was focused on safeguarding children involved in irregular migration to Europe across the Mediterranean. EU Ministers agreed that protecting children at all stages is a priority and endorsed the need for a comprehensive approach to migration.
Interior day
Interior day began with the agreement of a general approach on the European Travel and Information Authorisation System (ETIAS). As the UK is not part of the border control aspects of the Schengen agreement, it will not take part in this proposal.
This was followed by a policy debate on the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) proposals. There was broad agreement among EU Ministers that the SIS II could be used for entering preventive alerts on children at risk of abduction and disappearance, with the caveat that clear definitions were needed. There was also some support from EU Ministers on the creation of a new alert on the SIS II for ‘inquiry checks’ against suspected criminals or terrorists.
There was then a general discussion on actions to address the migration crisis, with a focus on the EU-Turkey agreement and the Central Mediterranean. Member states were encouraged to take an active role in implementing the Malta declaration.
Over a working lunch focused on Counter Terrorism, there was a progress update on the work of the Counter Terrorism Group followed by a presentation of fiches on data sharing with EU agencies from Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator Gilles de Kerchove. There was also a discussion on proposals to bring together the various European bodies responsible for countering radicalisation, including the Radicalisation Awareness Network and the European Strategic Communications Network.
The afternoon session began with a debate on key operational practices and obstacles of returns policy and the use of visas as leverage. It was concluded that member states would need to work together on returns and readmission and that the next step would be to look at where and when leverage should be used.
There was then a discussion on information systems and interoperability, following the final report of the High Level Expert Group on data sharing (HLEG). The HLEG’s priorities were highlighted, including a shared biometric matching service and a common data repository, while the need to improve data quality, implement PNR and improve co-operation with Europol and Interpol were common themes in discussion.
Finally, there was an update on negotiations on the seven legislative proposals on the Common European Asylum System. Of these measures, the UK has only opted in to the recast Eurodac Regulation.
Over both days the Estonian delegation set out their priorities for their presidency of the Council of the EU, which begins in July. The fight against terrorism and serious crime will continue to be a priority. ECRIS will remain a priority file, as will criminal justice in cyberspace and data retention. The incoming presidency will prioritise safeguarding Schengen and free movement in the face of terrorism and mass migration, meaning that the asylum package, the Valletta Action Plan, returns, and the Blue Card directive will be priority files, as will work on radicalisation, interoperability of EU information systems, the Entry Exit system and ETIAS. Prüm, Passenger Name Records (PNR) and a renewed mandate for EU LISA will also be high on the agenda, as will co-operation between the EU and Ukraine.”
[HCWS12]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Wyld
Oaths and Affirmations
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about security in Parliament. Since the shocking attack on Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament in March, we have witnessed the horror of further attacks in Manchester, further down the river here in London and at Finsbury Park. As we did following the Westminster attack, we send our prayers and condolences to all those affected. I should also inform the House that I have received countless messages of solidarity from parliamentary Chambers around the world.
I informed the House at the end of the last Session about Parliament’s response to the continued security threat. First, Mr Speaker and I commissioned an external, independent review on how the perimeter of the parliamentary estate, including outbuildings, is secured and protected. The final report was submitted to Mr Speaker and myself last week. Secondly, the clerks of both Houses commissioned an externally led review of the lessons learned from the operation inside Parliament of the incident management framework, and the final report from that review is expected shortly. The reports from both reviews will be considered carefully, and appropriate action will be taken swiftly and decisively. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the reviews and also urge all noble Lords to continue to take security seriously when they are on the parliamentary estate.
Finally, I will say a few words about the cybersecurity incident that occurred over the weekend. On Friday, the Parliamentary Digital Service discovered unusual activity and evidence of an attempted cyberattack on our computer network. Closer investigation confirmed that hackers were carrying out a sustained and determined attack on all parliamentary user accounts in an attempt to identify weak passwords and gain access to users’ emails. The digital service has been working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to identify the method of the attack and has made changes to prevent the attackers gaining further access. IT systems on the parliamentary estate are now working as normal and remote access is being restored gradually. We are continuing to investigate the source of the attack and believe that fewer than 1% of the 9,000 accounts on the parliamentary network have been compromised as a result of weak passwords.
Those in the Parliamentary Digital Service are working extremely hard and are on hand to assist anyone experiencing difficulties as a result of the incident. They will continue to keep Members informed of developments. Our first priority has been to ensure that the business of both Houses can continue. This has been achieved, and I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking all parliamentary staff who have worked so hard over the weekend to ensure that our parliamentary democracy can continue to operate freely.
Aviation
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish a strategy for aviation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to developing a new aviation strategy, and we will set out our proposed approach shortly. This will be an ambitious programme of work and we will consult widely, leading to the publication of an aviation strategy White Paper at the end of 2018.
Lord Spicer (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on his new appointment. Does he think that it will bring out the many Members of this House and of the other place who want above all to know the date by which we will start to build a new runway at Heathrow? That date should, I think, be before Brexit takes off, as it were. Can my noble friend give us his early thoughts on this matter?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his kind words. The Government remain committed to airport expansion in the south-east of England through our preferred scheme at Heathrow. We must remember that our manifesto contained a commitment to continue the programme of expansion at Heathrow. We are getting on with the job of delivering critical infrastructure in the national interest. A consultation on the draft Airports National Policy Statement closed on 25 May and the department is currently reviewing the tens of thousands of responses received. Once the analysis is completed and the Government have considered the responses, I assure noble Lords that we will set out our next steps.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Once the strategy is published, will the Minister quote the costs to the public purse of the surface access? My understanding is that those costs for the expansion at Heathrow will be even higher than the cost of the first phase of HS2. Would it not be better to expand our regional airports and to do less in the south-east?
Lord Callanan
The costs of the surface access to support the new development at Heathrow, if indeed it proceeds, will be borne by Heathrow Airport itself. Of course we also remain committed to expanding regional airports, a subject dear to my heart, and we will set out our approach in the aviation strategy White Paper that I mentioned earlier.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Since aviation policy must cover drones, is the Minister aware that the Government have been consulting for the past two years, while other countries such as the USA have legislated? Is it not time that we actually took some action so that all drones that are either bought or are already around are registered, with strict penalties for those who abuse them?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a powerful point. As he says, we are consulting on the issue at the moment. There have been a number of well-publicised incidents of drones causing a hazard both to members of the public and to aircraft, and we will set out appropriate steps shortly.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Given the Government’s repeated failure to come up with a plan to improve air quality that is consistent with EU standards, does the Minister accept that the expansion of Heathrow poses a massive additional challenge for which no satisfactory solution has been provided?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Baroness is aware, air quality is a national issue, and we take it extremely seriously. The final plan on air quality is due to be published on 31 July. If the Heathrow Airport decision proceeds, the impact on air quality will be taken fully into account. Moreover, Heathrow Airport has committed to moving passengers from their cars and on to public transport and has recently committed to no overall increase in car movements to and from Heathrow in the event of a third runway proceeding.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I add my welcome to the Minister in his new position and I express my best wishes to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, in his new role. I suspect that he will find himself spending more time inside an aircraft as a Foreign Office Minister than he did as Aviation Minister.
We have had a statement this morning about the financial support the UK Government are prepared to make available to Northern Ireland following discussions between the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. It says:
“A detailed consultative report will be commissioned into the impact of VAT and APD—
air passenger duty—
“on tourism in Northern Ireland to recommend how best to build upon the growing success of that sector”.
Are similar consultative reports being commissioned into the impact of air passenger duty on tourism in other parts of the United Kingdom? If not, why not?
Lord Callanan
As someone who uses regional airports regularly, the issue of air passenger duty is, of course, high on my agenda. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, as a Minister only a couple of weeks into his appointment, were I to start rewriting the Chancellor’s Budget proposals at this stage I would not last very long.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, when the time comes to repatriate the regulation of civil aviation, will that be vested in a revitalised Civil Aviation Authority, as in the past, or left to the European Aerospace Agency?
Lord Callanan
The whole issue of Brexit and how liberalised air transport will go forward will be the subject of negotiation. We want to ensure seamless access to European air transport matters, and I am sure the European aviation industry will want to access UK policy, too.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, talking of aircraft, the Minister will be aware that the aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is, as we speak, negotiating out of the fitting-out basin in Rosyth. Will he pass his best wishes to the ship’s company of that great ship, which for 50 years will ensure the security of our nation?
Lord Callanan
Vast though my responsibilities are, they do not yet include aircraft carriers.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government’s strategy on new aviation policy is coming very soon, but I guess we are 20 years behind. I say this as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda. We recently sold two airplanes to the Rwandan Government, and for the first time, some four weeks ago, there was a direct flight from Kigali to Gatwick. We managed to get only three slots. We wanted seven slots. No slots were available at Heathrow either. Post-Brexit, for us to be a genuinely outward-looking country, we need direct flights and we need more slots. Most African countries, which are a growth area, need flights. The Ugandan Government want one, Tanzania wants one, Zambia wants one, but there are no slots available at Heathrow or Gatwick. Can we speed up the process of the third runway, and maybe even a second runway at Gatwick?
Lord Callanan
I take my noble friend’s concerns on board. Many airlines want access to the south-east of England. As we proceed with Brexit, aviation will be a critical component of our engagement with the rest of the world. More people will need to visit this country; more people will need to travel abroad for a new UK sector. Of course, the expansion of Heathrow, if it proceeds, will provide extra slots and we will look at the context of slots at regional airports in the aviation strategy.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether Zac Goldsmith will resign his seat if the expansion of Heathrow goes ahead?
Lord Callanan
I am sure the noble Baroness will want to ask Zac Goldsmith himself that question.
Palestine: Non-Jewish Population
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take to ensure the protection of the interests of the non-Jewish population in Palestine as set out in the Balfour Declaration in 1917.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the UK has been and continues to be a leading donor to the Palestinian Authority. We recognise that the Balfour Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination. Our focus now is on encouraging the Israelis and Palestinians to take steps that bring them closer to peace, and the best way to achieve this is through a two-state solution.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for what I have to say was the usual sort of Answer. Is she aware that 100 years after the Balfour Declaration and 50 years after the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel, the Palestinians living in Israel do not have the same rights and services as Jewish citizens? Is she also aware that in the West Bank Palestinians are subjected, and have been for 50 years, to brutal and humiliating treatment and the destruction of their homes and lands, and that in Gaza there is malnutrition, water is undrinkable and electricity is now supplied for only two hours each day? The situation in Gaza is so bad that a United Nations report has said that Gaza will be uninhabitable by 2020. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Baroness Goldie
To go back to the starting premise of the noble Baroness’s Question—the Balfour Declaration—many people believed that establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do. It will be for historians to assess the declaration in that context. Coming forward to the current day and age, the United Kingdom Government have been very consistent in their approach. We want to see the creation of a viable two-state solution. We think that is possible with determination on both sides. We have firmly made it clear that the occupations are unsustainable, and we need to call for both sides to promote peace, stability and security. That also means pressing both sides on the need to refrain from taking actions which make peace more difficult.
The noble Baroness concluded by referring to the situation in Gaza, which is extremely worrying; certainly, on a purely humanitarian level that has to give concern to anybody viewing what is happening. But again, the powers that have control to deal with that are, essentially, the Palestinian Authority in consultation with Israel. We also hope that Hamas can be persuaded to deal in a more constructive manner with the citizens currently residing in Gaza.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, in her first reply, the Minister appeared to confirm the Government’s support for a two-state solution. Can she therefore confirm that the Government are now in favour of recognising the state of Palestine, and if not, why not?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will not be surprised, I think, by my response. Again, the position of the United Kingdom Government has been consistent and we have said that this is not the time, in our opinion, to accord that recognition. We believe that much more has to be done in negotiating the viable creation of two states and to address the issues of peace and the cessation of activity which is illegal. The United Kingdom will select its moment when it thinks it is appropriate to consider addressing the issue which the noble Lord raises.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Balfour Declaration makes it plain that the creation of Israel should neither prejudice the rights of Jewish communities elsewhere, nor those of,
“existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
What will the Government do, therefore, to ensure that international law is upheld in relation to illegal settlements, which, far from contracting, are being officially sanctioned to expand?
Baroness Goldie
The United Kingdom Government have opposed the settlements on the grounds of contravening international law and, in many respects, contravening international humanitarian law. These representations have been made robustly, not just by the current Government but by previous Governments. What we want to see is the creation of a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that while the rights of non-Jewish citizens are, quite rightly, better protected in Israel than in any other part of the Middle East, citizens of Palestine, to whom I believe the Question refers, do not fare so well? Does she agree that we should be addressing the concerns raised by the report from Amnesty International, which points out that Hamas has summarily executed, without trial, a large number of its opponents in Gaza?
Baroness Goldie
Again, the United Kingdom Government have been clear in their attitude to Hamas. We have proscribed the military wing of that organisation since 2001. The United Kingdom Government currently have a policy of no contact with Hamas, including the political wing as well as the military wing. Our position is very clear: Hamas must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s continued commitment to the two-state solution. I also welcome her commitment to promoting peace. One way to commemorate the Balfour Declaration would be to promote intercommunity relationships. Can she give us examples of where the Government will be doing this to mark the centenary, so that they are not talking just with Governments but with people, promoting intercommunity relationships, particularly in schools and among children?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, makes an important point. I believe that a very positive dividend can often be reaped by such activity as that to which he refers. Certainly, in trying to encourage fresh negotiations to address the current challenges and difficulties, the UK Government are working through multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and the EU, to support resolutions and policies that encourage both sides to take steps that rebuild trust. The Arab League and Arab states also have a key role in that peace process and we are discussing with them ways that we can move the situation forward.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister do all in her power to promote the “Made in Palestine” brand as a way in which to encourage direct development in Gaza and the West Bank?
Baroness Goldie
I do not have specific information on that issue but we certainly think it is right that people have a basic entitlement to determine where they buy goods and from which source. That is up to them. The United Kingdom Government have assisted with labelling in certain cases. If I can ascertain more information, I shall to write to the noble Viscount.
Genocide
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking, in collaboration with the International Criminal Court, or through the creation of appropriate tribunals, to bring to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, international criminal justice and accountability is a fundamental element of our foreign policy. The United Kingdom firmly believes that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. We provide financial and political support to the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals. With our international partners, we also fund efforts to gather and preserve evidence that could be used by courts to bring perpetrators of these crimes to justice.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful reply. Will she confirm that it is now 14 months since the House of Commons designated the atrocities in Iraq and Syria—committed against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities—to be a genocide, this crime above all crimes? What progress has been made in collecting court-ready evidence and in referring those responsible to the International Criminal Court, to which she referred, or to a regional tribunal? If accountability and justice in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Sudan and North Korea are to be credible, should we not be giving this matter greater priority and urgency to ensure that we see no compromising of the gold standard of the ICC?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord. He raises an important point and I reiterate that the United Kingdom’s support for international criminal justice is based on the principle that there must be no impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court has been making good progress, as the noble Lord is probably aware, in the prosecution of persons alleged to have committed crimes. Indeed, 2016 was the court’s most productive year for judicial output, with seven convictions in three cases.
In relation to the gathering of evidence from Iraq and Syria, the UK provides financial support to a specialist organisation to conduct investigations in Syria and build prosecution-ready criminal case files against the high-level perpetrators, in accordance with international standards. The noble Lord may be aware that last year the United Kingdom funded a project through our Magna Carta fund to improve the documentation of sexual violence and other gender-based cases in a victim-sensitive way in several areas of Iraq. That has assisted in the development of cases in which so many women from, for example, Christian and Yazidi communities have suffered.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, in 2014 the United Nations commission on human rights abuses in North Korea declared that these were without parallel in the modern world, citing numerous cases of murder, rape and disappearances. Yet nothing has been brought to the international court or to any other regional tribunal. Why is nobody being held accountable?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. North Korea is a secretive regime that is difficult to access in terms of information. In principle, the International Criminal Court could be an appropriate forum to hold North Korea to account for its behaviour, but the International Criminal Court can take action only when a war crime or crime against humanity is suspected to have been committed in or by a country which is party to the Rome statute or when the situation is referred to it by the United Nations Security Council. North Korea is not a party to the Rome statute and, as we have seen with Syria, it can be difficult to achieve such a referral when a country is not a signatory to the ICC. The right reverend Prelate may rest assured that the United Kingdom Government, in conjunction with international partners, remains concerned about activities in North Korea and we shall use all endeavours available to us to continue to register these concerns.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we have time for both questions, so shall we go first to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
The matter being raised by my noble friend Lord Alton relates to the torture of women and others—Christians and Yazidis. Rather alarmingly, President Trump, in campaigning, said that he was in favour of torture, that there was nothing wrong with torture and that, as far as he was concerned, it worked. Have we in any way addressed his publicly expressed opinion on torture?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Baroness will be aware of the United Kingdom Government’s attitude to torture. We are very robust about that. What other sovereign states choose to do is largely their affair. I am not aware of any specific exchange to which the noble Baroness alludes. I shall do some research, and if I discover any information I shall be in touch with her.
Lord Elton
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. My noble friend referred to a process which it is necessary for any incident to go through before it can be recognised as within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Has the case of the Yazidis and Christians in Syria been through that process—and, if so, can the pursuit of that case be accelerated?
Baroness Goldie
At the end of the day, it is for the International Criminal Court, as an independent institution, with its prosecutor, to make all decisions relative to the prosecution of crimes within its jurisdiction. On the basis of information being provided, I am absolutely certain that the court and the prosecutor will want to do everything within their power to pursue allegations where there are serious concerns such as those referred to by my noble friend.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the funding of the ongoing gathering of evidence, which is extremely welcome. Will she tell the House whether there are ongoing discussions with the Iraqi Government regarding the establishment of regional ad hoc tribunals to prosecute the crimes of Daesh?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will be aware that the United Kingdom Government launched an initiative to address the atrocities being committed by Daesh. That initiative has enjoyed international support. In so far as Iraq and the activities of Daesh are concerned, there is a dual process of gathering evidence, investigating and then referring the information to the International Criminal Court. As I said in response to an earlier question, what the International Criminal Court then does and the decision it takes in relation to prosecution rest with it.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the International Criminal Court is constituted by the Rome statute? Is she also aware that there are reports that a number of countries that are members of the Commonwealth—South Africa, Kenya and Uganda—are considering withdrawing from that statute? In those circumstances, would it be appropriate to put the issue of support for the International Criminal Court on the agenda for the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government?
Baroness Goldie
It was the case that some rather alarming headlines appeared about the threat of member states withdrawing from the ICC. In fact, that distilled into withdrawals by South Africa, Burundi and Gambia. Interestingly, Gambia rescinded its decision and remains a member state, and I understand that the situation is under consideration in South Africa at the moment. So the threat of withdrawal did not prove to be as alarming as initially contemplated. I think that I am correct in saying that there are 124 member states of the International Criminal Court—so it is a very significant body and universally supported.
Boundary Reviews 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, following laws already passed by Parliament, the independent Boundary Commissions are consulting on their proposals to deliver boundary changes. They will submit their final proposals to Parliament in autumn 2018, ensuring fair and equal representation for the voting public across the UK. We have no plans to change this process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, millions of people have registered to vote who are not taken into account in the present parliamentary boundary review. Will the noble Lord commit the Government to including these people? Would he comment on the general opinion that the present boundary review is dead in the water because the DUP does not want it and that any review approved by Parliament will be on the basis of there being 650 seats in the House of Commons? If that is the Government’s real intention, they should say so quickly and stop wasting any more public money on a review that will not be approved.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the country has already fought two general elections on out-of-date boundaries for reasons that are familiar to the noble Lord. If we followed the noble Lord’s suggestion and started again with a new register, there is a risk of a third general election on boundaries which were set in place in 2000. That would be an affront to democracy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, fair and equal representation is clearly one of the principles. The principle of a single-member constituency also refers to the importance of place and community. Are we now abandoning that, as seems to have been done in the proposals which we are developing, and following the American system, where boundaries are drawn up entirely according to which party has the advantage in each state and without reference to local communities? Will we still try to hold on to the principle that representation should be based on towns, communities and counties?
Lord Young of Cookham
We are implementing proposals put on the statute book by the then leader of the noble Lord’s party, who was Deputy Prime Minister. He put on the statute book the legislation implementing the reviews which are currently being delivered.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is the reduction from 650 to 600 still on the cards? Is that going to happen? Has the DUP approved that?
Lord Young of Cookham
The legislation, which was approved by both Houses of Parliament, reduced the numbers of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600. The review that I referred to in my earlier response postulates boundaries for 600 constituencies.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone who, when Secretary of State, had to sign a Boundary Commission report which made my own constituency unwinnable. Would my noble friend confirm that it is the duty of this House and the other place to approve the independent Boundary Commissions’ proposals? If it becomes a party-political matter, that way lies great danger to our democracy.
Lord Young of Cookham
I heartily agree with my noble friend. His constituency was made unwinnable by the Boundary Commission; mine was actually abolished; I am not quite sure which of us came out of it best. So far as his question is concerned, it would be an affront to democracy if the proposals of the independent Boundary Commissions were obstructed.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Is it not also an affront to democracy that the strategy of this Government has been to plan a reduction of the number of MPs from 650 to 600, while in the same period increasing the size of this House by 240-plus life Peers? Could the Minister explain the thinking behind this situation?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord will know that the coalition Government sought to reduce the number of noble Lords by a very substantial number, but because of the failure of his party in the Commons to support it, that Bill did not go through. He will also know that the Lord Speaker has set up a committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which I understand may report in July. There is a consensus across the House that the numbers need to come down. We look forward to the noble Lord’s proposals, to see how that might be delivered.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the punishment handed to Wales is utterly out of proportion; that, whereas the loss of seats for the United Kingdom as a whole is one out of every 13, in the case of Wales 40 seats are reduced to 29; and that this is regarded as being entirely out of kilter with the whole principle that has been adumbrated?
Lord Young of Cookham
It is out of kilter only because Wales is overrepresented compared with other countries in the UK Parliament. At the moment, the quota for Wales, the average number of voters in a Wales seat, is 56,000, against 71,000 in England. At the moment, we have a constituency in Wales, Arfon, with 39,000 voters, while North West Cambridgeshire has 92,000. The proposals that the Boundary Commission is introducing will ensure that each vote has equal weight.
Lord Cormack
I think it is this side’s turn. Can my noble friend, having referred to the Burns committee, give an assurance to the House that, when the committee reports, its report will be fully debated and that, if there is indeed a consensus, the Government will give it a fair wind?
Lord Young of Cookham
The business of the House is in the capable hands of the Government Chief Whip, who will have noted exactly what my noble friend has said. If my noble friend looks at what we said in our manifesto, he will see that we said we want to work with the House of Lords where there is a consensus on measures to take it forward. What we have actually said—I have now found the quote—is that the Government will work with Peers where there are measures that command consensus across the House.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Monday 26th June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]
Monday 26th June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL]
Monday 26th June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Succession to Peerages Bill [HL]
Monday 26th June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Succession to Peerages Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Succession to Peerages Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL]
Monday 26th June 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Queen’s Speech
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to open the second day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. I am honoured to be standing before noble Lords just three weeks after taking up my role in the new Government as a Transport Minister. This is always one of the most interesting and wide-ranging debates in the Lords calendar, so I very much look forward to the valuable and informed contributions that I know that many noble Lords will make. On behalf of the whole Chamber, I particularly extend a warm welcome to the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Mountevans, who will be giving their maiden speeches today. I also thank my noble friend Lord Prior, who will be winding up the session this evening.
This Queen’s Speech was all about building a stronger, more successful and more resilient Britain: a country with its sights firmly set on the future and on what we can achieve as we build closer links with friends and trading partners around the world; as we deliver a Brexit deal that works for all parts of the United Kingdom; and as we grow and rebalance our economy, working to meet the aspirations of the whole nation. These themes will crop up regularly in our Queen’s Speech debate today, as we debate the Government’s agenda on economic affairs, transport, business, energy, the environment and agriculture.
Let me start with the economy. The fundamentals of the economy are strong. We have a record number of people—almost 32 million—in employment. We have reduced the deficit by almost three-quarters since 2010. After our economy grew 1.8% last year—the second highest in the G7—the Office for Budget Responsibility expects it to grow a further 2% this year.
Our economic success over the past few years has been widely documented, but what perhaps is less well appreciated is how it is benefiting the whole of our country. As the Chancellor made clear in his Mansion House speech last week, inequality is at its lowest in 30 years. The poorest households here have seen their incomes rise by more since 2010 than any other G7 country. That is partly thanks to the introduction of the national living wage, adding £1,400 to the annual income of those in full-time work on minimum salary. It will continue as we increase the national living wage, so that people on the lowest pay see their wages rise as the economy strengthens.
We have been clear that we want to keep taxes as low as possible for ordinary working people. Although we live in changing times, one thing will never change: this Government will always put economic stability first. That is why we are investing £23 billion through the national productivity investment fund in key growth areas, such as research and development and housing. It is why we are helping young people to get the training and development they need to do the high-skilled, high-paid jobs of the future. It is why we are determined to get the best possible Brexit deal for households and for UK companies.
As we leave the EU and adjust to our new position in the world, the resilience, flexibility and dynamism of our economy will be key. New Bills in the Queen’s Speech on trade and customs will help to give us an independent trade policy and a world-leading customs service. As Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech made clear, we will help British businesses sell their products and services abroad and boost exports.
Achieving our economic objectives depends on co-ordinated action across government, and I am proud that transport is playing a much bigger role today in stimulating growth. Transport used to be among the first departments to suffer whenever Governments of the day had to tighten their fiscal belts. While our competitors invested in major infrastructure projects, here in the UK, transport upgrades often fell victim to short-term political concerns. Because we have failed to invest in the long-term fabric of our nation, we have watched as our roads have grown more congested and our railways more overcrowded. But that is changing. No more is Britain seen as short-termist or infrastructure-averse. Since 2010, we have overhauled transport policy, and today we are delivering the capacity and links that we need to grow as we leave the European Union—connecting British companies with fast-growing global markets, creating the highly skilled jobs we need to modernise transport in this country and making the necessary investments to improve journeys for all working people.
Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech also showed how we are taking full advantage of the unique opportunities that new technologies provide. For example, the automated and electric vehicles Bill will help make Britain a global leader in developing and owning self-driving and electric cars. Self-driving vehicles might sound like science fiction, but they are already science fact and will revolutionise the way we travel. They will make roads safer by cutting the risk of human error and reducing insurance premiums. They will change the lives of disabled people with reduced mobility and reduce congestion by making better use of scarce road space. That is why, through this Bill, we are positioning ourselves as one of the first countries to benefit from the development and growth of self-driving vehicles.
It will also help us retain our leadership in electric vehicles. We are already one of the biggest markets for plug-in cars in Europe. So far this year, sales of pure electric cars are up by 36%, with a total of more than 100,000 ultra-low-emission vehicles now on our roads in this country. That is a ringing endorsement of the Government’s funding commitments of more than £2 billion since 2011 to increase ultra-low-emission vehicle uptake and support greener transport.
Our charging infrastructure is one of the most comprehensive in Europe, with more than 11,000 publicly accessible charging points, now including 900 rapid chargers. As the market evolves, however, this number will need to increase. The new Bill will give drivers confidence that there will be somewhere to charge their cars at motorway service areas and large fuel stations right across the country. Common standards will make them easy to use, and ensure that drivers have a wide choice of charging points. One of the main reasons the sales of electric cars are increasing is that buyers can see the charging infrastructure taking shape around them. This Bill will speed up the development of that network.
There is also a revolution happening on the railway. We are making excellent progress with HS2, Britain’s new high-speed rail network. HS2 will be the backbone of the national rail system, connecting our major cities, transforming capacity across the railway, and freeing up space for new commuter services on existing lines. HS2 is not just a new railway; it is an investment in our economic prosperity for the next half century and more. It will be a powerful catalyst for rebalancing our economy, spreading growth that for far too long has been concentrated in London and the south-east.
The new Bill announced last week will give us the powers to build and operate the next stage of the line from the West Midlands to Crewe. It is a crucial section of the project. Not only will it reduce journey times from London to Manchester and Crewe, it will speed up journeys to places such as Liverpool, Preston and Glasgow. With cross-party support and a programme that remains on time and on budget, construction of phase 1 will begin soon. We expect to deposit the new Bill covering the West Midlands to Crewe route in Parliament by the end of this year.
High-speed rail may be the biggest transport scheme of this generation. However, an even bigger revolution is taking place above us—in space. In the new economic space race, Britain is a strong competitor. The space industry Bill announced by Her Majesty last week has a clear purpose: to make Britain the most attractive place in Europe for commercial spaceflight; to put British business, engineering and science at the forefront of space technology; and to offer our world-leading, small satellite companies low-cost, reliable access to space. It will also generate opportunities for tourism.
While I am sure that most noble Lords would probably prefer two weeks on a cruise ship to floating in sub-orbital weightlessness for half an hour, there is in fact lots of demand for space tourism. The UK space industry is already worth £13.7 billion to our economy, and employs more than 38,000 people. This Bill will help us to achieve our goal to grow our share of the global space market to 10% by 2030. We want to be the first country to establish commercial spaceport operations in Europe. However, we need to move quickly to achieve our objectives. That is why this Bill is so important and we expect its First Reading to take place shortly. It will help provide the legislation required for launches and flights from UK spaceports, giving us new powers to license a wide range of commercial craft, including vertically launched rockets, space planes and satellites. Any site that meets the regulatory requirements will be able to apply to become a spaceport. We have already had strong interest from regions across Britain wanting to benefit from this exciting new market.
Finally, my department will also deliver a Bill to improve protection for holidaymakers. This will update the ATOL scheme so that it can keep pace with changes in the online travel market and UK-established companies can sell more easily across EU borders.
Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech also featured a number of important Bills and measures that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be taking forward. The nuclear safeguards Bill will enable us to implement a domestic safeguards regime when we leave the EU Euratom treaty. This will allow us to meet our international obligations. We are bringing forward proposals to ensure that critical national infrastructure remains protected, so that foreign infrastructure ownership does not undermine our security or essential services.
We will strike the right balance between protecting national security and remaining a global champion of free trade. The Government also want to ensure fairer markets for consumers, so we will publish a Green Paper that will closely examine markets that are not working in the interests of consumers.
Let me be clear: we are firm believers in the market economy. It is the private sector, operating through a competitive market economy, that has delivered much of the growth that we have seen since 2010, but it is our job to make sure the system is working for the benefit of consumers. In particular, while progress has been made in recent years to improve competition in the energy retail market, it is clear that industry needs to do more. We expect energy suppliers to treat their customers in the same way as other competitive service sectors, so we will act where necessary. This will include bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market so that energy bills can come down. A smart meters Bill will also help us complete the rollout of smart meters, protecting consumers and leading to £5.7 billion of net benefits to Britain. Smart meters will not just put consumers in control of their energy use, helping them to avoid wasting energy and money, they will end estimated billing and help customers to use smart pre-payment.
As I mentioned, the Queen’s Speech also confirmed the Government’s commitment to increasing the national living wage—specifically, increasing it to 60% of median earnings by 2020, then maintaining it in line with median earnings until the end of this Parliament. The Queen’s Speech also set out the Government’s intention to enhance rights and protections in the modern workplace, informed by Matthew Taylor’s review of modern employment practices.
I turn to the environment and agriculture. Agriculture contributes £8.6 billion to our economy and employs 1.5% of the workforce, so it is important that we support the industry and provide a strong foundation for future growth. The EU’s common agricultural policy, under which we have been operating for the past 44 years, has been an expensive failure. It is a system that provides financial support to millions of farmers across Europe to boost productivity, which accounts for around 40% of the total EU budget at €58 billion a year, and has been widely criticised for creating artificially high food prices throughout the European Union. Leaving the EU presents us with a great opportunity to renew our agriculture policy so that it supports farmers in a targeted and more effective way, while also achieving better value for money for hard-working taxpayers. Our vision is for a productive and competitive UK agriculture sector, supplying products of the highest standard to the domestic market and increasing exports abroad. At the same time, we will improve our environment, so that we can leave a better environment to the next generation than the one we inherited. The agriculture Bill will provide stability and certainty for the farming industry. It will enable the Government to support farmers to produce and sell more great British food, and in a more sustainable way. It will also help us deliver the same cash total fund for farm support until the end of the Parliament.
A fisheries Bill will be introduced to allow us to regain control of the UK’s exclusive economic zone and set UK fishing quotas once we have left the EU. This will provide a basis for us to secure a fairer share of the market, and greater economic benefit from our fish stocks. It will help a new generation of fishermen, as well as preserving and increasing our stocks, and it will support our coastal communities while securing the best possible deal for the UK fishing industry. We will no longer be bound by the common fisheries policy and will become an independent coastal state. But we will, of course, still meet our international obligations and co-operate with other coastal states in the management of our waters.
The gracious Speech sets out a clear direction for the future of Britain: a fairer, more prosperous and self-determining future as we leave the European Union, but also a more global future—one in which we build new relationships and trade agreements around the world, and where the talents and innovation of our own people and businesses can shine. I have set out how our legislative programme will help us meet those ambitions, and now I look forward to hearing contributions from all around your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the Minister’s contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech this afternoon and to welcome him to his new role. He has done the best he can, but it is a shame that the Government’s legislative programme appears to have the same vision and authority as the PM herself—very little. This is not surprising, because it is drawn from a disastrous Conservative manifesto that offered no hope and no change to a British public tired of falling living standards and failing public services. This is why it is widely acknowledged that Labour won the battle of ideas in the election, with policies that can deliver stronger growth, better living standards and greater equality and justice.
Although it is a debate for another day, the huge challenge posed by Brexit stalks through all strands of our lives, and we have heard nothing today that will reassure the public, markets, small businesses and the global community that our economy will be stronger once we exit the EU. The Chancellor’s position may be safe for now, but he still seems incapable of setting out a confident and bold strategic vision following the public’s rejection of his less than impressive economic record and his leader’s plans for a hard and uncompromising Brexit. The wrong mix of monetary and fiscal policy has left the economy weak and unstable—weak because investment and productivity have been so poor, and unstable because growth has been so heavily reliant on debt-driven consumer spending. Meanwhile, under this Government, the national debt is set to hit almost £2 trillion. They have missed every debt and deficit target that they have set themselves and their answer is simply to move the target date even more remotely into the future.
This Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity to really get to grips with the root causes of our economic woes and to reassure us over the economic impact of Brexit. Even Mark Carney, in his Mansion House speech last week, recognised the urgent need to escape the low-inflation, low-wage, low-growth trap that has driven down household incomes in the last decade. Confronted by strong evidence that economic policy since 2010 has been a failure, this Government’s response has been to offer more of the same. Yet, as we know, the first May-Hammond Budget quickly fell apart and the subsequent Finance Act failed to address the economic crisis or provide a clear direction to those in the finance and pensions sector who were crying out for clarity on this. Meanwhile, Labour has set out a clear alternative. We will set up a national investment bank that will deliver the finance needed by our small businesses, co-operatives and start-ups, getting the economy moving again by filling the gaps in lending by private banks and by providing dedicated long-term finance to R&D-intensive investments.
The UK also has the worst performance in terms of real wages, which have fallen by an average of 1% per year. To our shame, we have punished the young most of all, with 18 to 21 year-olds facing a fall in real wages of over 15%. Is it any wonder that many young people who I have met have lost faith in the idea that they will succeed in life? It is only by building on the creativity and talent of the next generation that Britain will succeed in the 21st century, yet I see little hope for young people in this Queen’s Speech. I am proud of the fact that it is the Labour Party that is the strongest advocate for young people. We showed that we cared about their finances and their future. Our plan to create a fertile ground for businesses to thrive places young people at its very heart by focusing on skills, including quality apprenticeships, research and development, and infrastructure.
Tackling low pay has to be part of the solution. Despite what the Minister has outlined, nearly 6 million people earn below a living wage. Nearly a million workers are on zero-hours contracts, and there are far too many people without the certainty of employment that they need to live a debt-free life. Meanwhile, boardroom bonuses continue to rise, and the widening gap between the highest and lowest earners creates further injustice. This is why we are committed to introducing a real living wage of £10 an hour, giving all workers full and equal rights from day one, introducing an excessive pay levy and rolling out maximum pay ratios of 20 to 1 in the public sector and public contracts. Perhaps when the Minister responds he can explain what this Government plan to do about tackling excessive boardroom pay, ending low pay and intervening in the gig economy to give workers back some control over their lives.
The upgrade needed to the way our economy works includes an industrial strategy that meets the challenges of our times. Sadly, the Government’s much-heralded Green Paper on their industrial strategy has come in for considerable criticism. As the Lords’ Science and Technology Select Committee said recently:
“The Green Paper … resembles a portfolio of tactics rather than a coherent strategy”.
It went on to emphasise the need for a more coherent approach to tax and regulation for science and industry, combined with greater investment in skills and the availability of patient finance to strengthen,
“the relationship between government, businesses and universities”.
We very much hope that work is going on behind the scenes to provide a more coherent strategy, but this Queen’s Speech gives little clue as to what that thinking might be. The issues that are flagged up—electric cars, space rockets, high-speed rail and smart meters—are all laudable in themselves but do not add up to an industrial strategy. Nor do they address the importance of good industrial relations and how to build on the proven link between employee engagement and productivity growth.
Investing in our future also means investing in our environment. Sadly, on this issue as on so many others, the Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity. Of course we welcome the reiteration of support for the Paris agreement, although it would have been good to hear something about a serious plan to bring Donald Trump back into line on this. But apart from the brief note on affordable energy and electric cars, why was this the only mention of anything relating to climate change? Despite dangerous air pollution levels across the UK and crucial environmental laws that need to be translated into British legislation as we leave the EU, the environment was notably missing as a policy priority.
The UK is poorly prepared for the inevitable impacts of global warming in coming decades, including deadly annual heatwaves, water shortages and difficulties producing food, yet it seems that the Government will not address any of these problems over the next two years. By ignoring the biggest problem facing us globally and the urgency of this problem, and by putting their head in the sand, the Government are leaving future generations a legacy of problems, including coastal erosion, flood damage, water shortages and food price shocks. We need to begin the process of future-proofing today—a point emphasised by the Committee on Climate Change’s latest report on its risk assessment of the environment. If the Government are happy to ignore the human costs of climate change, it is staggering that they are also ignoring the Bank of England, which only last month published an investigation into the risks of climate change to financial services. It is often said that money talks. Alas, this Queen’s Speech reveals that no one is listening.
The lack of a coherent plan to tackle climate change is symptomatic of a wider failure to embrace renewable energy. The UK energy system is outdated, expensive and polluting. The Government have failed to harness the huge potential of emerging technologies and renewable energy projects. They have placed a disproportionate emphasis on nuclear energy, yet the latest NAO report on Hinkley Point, published last week, is damning. It reports that costs have already risen from £6 billion to £30 billion and says that the deal has,
“locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.
It raises the spectre that the project will be delayed or cancelled. Could the Minister clarify whether this Government are heeding the NAO’s advice and developing a plan B to fill our energy gap if this project fails?
Nothing has worried environmentalists more, recently, than the news that Michael Gove has been appointed Defra Secretary of State. His track record speaks for itself and has a depressing constancy. Time and again, he has voted against measures to reduce carbon emissions and to increase energy from renewable resources. In the leave campaign he spoke with some enthusiasm about the prospects of scrapping environmental regulations, and he has subsequently suggested to the CBI that it should start drawing up a list of social and environmental regulations that it would like to see abolished or reformed. It is true that since his unexpected appointment he has made more conciliatory noises, but we should remain quite rightly suspicious of his ultimate motives. Environmentalists most want the certainty that the existing EU environmental protections will be safeguarded in full and for a long time.
When Mr Gove looks at his in-tray, he could also finalise the publication of both the environment and the food and farming 25-year plans, which were meant to set out a long-term strategy for these sectors but which have been embarrassingly delayed for some time. Can the Minister shed some light on their latest publication date, or confirm rumours that they have both been shredded?
We look forward to debating the agriculture and fisheries Bills, which were included in the Queen’s Speech. Both these sectors need urgent reassurance that jobs, livelihoods and markets will be protected. Their continuing success is fundamental to our country’s economic resilience in the future. We will continue to work closely with all those who work and live in these communities to safeguard jobs and deliver a sustainable long-term future for our farming, fishing and food industries.
Finally, we welcome many of the Government’s transport proposals, looking forward to the future with new rail infrastructure and embracing automated and electric vehicles. We will continue to push for a greater role for the Office for Low Emission Vehicles in driving the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles. We also applaud the attempt to secure growth in the UK space sector, although since the Government cannot currently manage our rail franchises I have huge concerns about the implementation of any spaceflight Bill, and fear that it might be more of a flight of fancy than reality. My own rail network is run by Southern, so I understand at first hand the chaos, disruption and impact on family life that this has been inflicting on commuters and travellers over the last two years and that seems set to continue. So while spaceflight and high-speed rail are exciting prospects, I hope the Minister will hear our pleas that the Government will tackle the deep flaws in our current rail network as a priority.
I look forward to hearing the remaining debate today, in particular the maiden speeches of several noble Lords who I am sure will add greatly to the quality of the discussion.
This is a wounded Government and a threadbare set of proposals. For as long as the Government remain in office, we will play our full role in scrutinising the Bills in detail. But should this Government fall, as many predict they will, rest assured that Labour will bring forward a Queen’s Speech that truly addresses the challenges facing Britain, offers hope and represents the real centre ground of British politics.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, last week I had the pleasure of attending a reception given by the High Value Manufacturing Catapult. At that event the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, spoke eloquently of the challenges facing this country, in particular the changes that will follow the onset of Industry 4.0, the effects of machine learning, and the scale of the change that will result from those developments. I completely agreed with his speech—which, given the audience, fell on receptive ears. It was clear to all of us there, including businesses seeking to create a new future and some of the brightest manufacturing people around, that the future is changing fast, that Britain needs to change at least as fast and that government must act to maximise our strengths and shore up our weaknesses. Failure to do so will have an impact on all the aspects of this portfolio debate. Yet the gracious Speech did its best to divert attention and fiddle around the margins. Of course, the reasons for that are clear for all to see and will be set out by many speakers in today’s debate, not least by my colleagues on these Benches.
At a time when external pressures on our wealth-generating industries have never been more intense, our Government and the machinery they command are completely distracted. So we face the prospect not only of this Government choosing the wrong paths during the Brexit negotiations but of there being insufficient energy within government to meet the other real existential challenges facing us. The effects of Brexit will be rehearsed by many others in your Lordships’ House today and probably on every other day of the debating week. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will focus on the other part of this challenge.
I shall speak briefly about some of the specific measures in the Queen’s Speech and then pick up some key features around the industrial strategy. We will see that not only are the Government distracted but they are impotent. They have not the slightest chance of passing anything but the most anodyne of measures, which explains the non-Brexit legislation that will be set before us. For example, we have heard that the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in new industries, including electric and automated vehicles and commercial satellites, about which the Minister spoke very eloquently. Very good, I say. Here, I must draw attention to my declared interests in GKN and Smiths Group. In highlighting those aspects, the Minister has indicated why those Bills are there: they are a diversion from the main issues that we face as a country. They are important but not as important as the things that are not in the Queen’s Speech.
Regarding automated and electric cars, clearing up some of the insurance issues and making things easier to plug in are of course important but there are real technological and infrastructure considerations that are not addressed—not least the woeful wireless and broadband network in the United Kingdom. In that regard, following last Session’s Digital Economy Act, can the Minister tell us when a universal service obligation will be delivered to the whole country and what that USO will be? For its part, the UK space industry, while benefiting from a landing bay, will be massively affected to the negative by how it is being disconnected from the rest of Europe’s industry. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how severing some of our most effective industrial links will strengthen the space industry and, indeed, the wider aerospace industries.
I turn to another part of the Queen’s Speech, where Her Majesty announced that the Government,
“will spread prosperity and opportunity across the country through a new, modern industrial strategy”.
Who would vote against something as good as that? To be fair, once again the noble Lord, Lord Prior, has acknowledged that the current industrial strategy Green Paper, which now awaits the Government’s next move, had its genesis in the days of BIS and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. It was taken on and up by Vince Cable and the coalition, so there is a continuum through that process. I am sure that the Minister has read my party’s response to the consultation on the Green Paper but, for the benefit of the rest of the House, I will pull out a couple of points.
From memory, some 40 questions were posed in the consultation, yet none of these asked for any input on how to shape the UK economy to become more green and sustainable. So I ask the Minister: is that because the Government felt they already had the answers to these questions or because they did not care? In answering this question, the Minister could undertake to publish a green business road map setting out measures to incentivise all business to reduce waste and improve effective resource use. He could also explain how the UK can capitalise on our leading positions in green technology and comment on the future role of the Green Investment Bank.
A second facet not highlighted in the industrial strategy response questions was inclusive growth. The Queen’s Speech, rightly, talks about spreading prosperity across the country, so in that regard will the Minister confirm that the Government will recognise the findings of the Inclusive Growth Commission’s report? Furthermore, how place-based development is delivered is key. I would like some clarity from the Government. They have put stock in the creation of metro mayors, yet vast swathes of the country do not have one; it is local enterprise partnerships and other agencies that are charged with driving local development. Will the Minister explain how the Government will deliver their place-based development and how prosperity will be brought across the country? Will it be through the LEPs as they exist now? Will it be through some future, super-charged version of the LEPs, or are we to expect something else?
There is also the issue of skills. Without any real change in the delivery of skilled people, nothing is achievable. We all agree that we need more and different skills. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others have eloquently explained how the industrial future will depend on getting this right. As a start, the Government have spoken of T-levels to rival A-levels in esteem. There are no further details as yet, so the Minister could perhaps sketch in how those will work. The Queen’s Speech introduces an idea of major reform of technical education. What does that mean? What does it mean for T-levels? What does it mean for UTCs, their future and their current performance? Whatever is proposed can work only if backed by real and substantial funding for education, training and skills development. All talk of a new sort of technical education pales into insignificance if there is no money. How much new money will be placed on the table to deliver the skills we need?
Finally, there was an eye-catching provision in the Conservative Party manifesto—it is not the one that noble Lords are thinking of—that pointed to the formation of a future Britain sovereign wealth fund, largely funded from shale gas extraction revenues. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether this fund is still planned and just how much money he expects to be in it by the end of this Parliament? If there is any money in this fund, what will it be used for?
This speech is stuffed full of questions because the election and now the Queen’s Speech have failed to spell out anything meaningful about the Government’s intentions. My worry is that the Government themselves are not sure what they want either. It is very hard to see how the events of the last two years could in any way be seen to be putting the economy first. The economy is suffering from the actions of this Government and will continue to until a coherent vision and route to reach it are properly set out. I hope this debate is used by the Government to start to unveil this vision, but I am not hopeful that we will hear anything that actually and truly spreads prosperity across the country.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, in a debate that took place last year on the outcome of the referendum, I said:
“Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: that no Prime Minister is going to call another referendum any time soon”.—[Official Report, 6/7/16; col. 2075.]
We can now add to that that no Prime Minister is going to call another snap election any time soon.
I am afraid that I did not find myself altogether in sympathy with the mood of the House at the beginning of the debate on the humble Address last Wednesday. Given the manifest deficiencies in leadership and personal style displayed by the Prime Minister in recent months, I could scarcely credit the panegyric delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—for whom I normally have the greatest admiration—in moving the Motion for an humble Address, to the obvious approbation of the House. He described the widespread criticism of the Prime Minister as “vile attacks”. Really? By Matthew Parris, Michael Portillo and the noble Lord, Lord Patten? If I was Theresa May, I would think that the moment I received ringing endorsements such as that from the Tory grandees was the time I really needed to start worrying.
If one considers the colossal misjudgments of the last two Prime Ministers and the way that they threw everything up in the air, it is surely no longer possible to sustain the pretence that the Conservative Party is self-evidently more effective than the Labour Party as a vehicle for governing the country. But I reckon that Theresa May is probably safe until the Conservative Party can make up its mind on what to do. Mind you, the DUP is a potentially dangerous wild card, and the tussle over Brexit is likely to get quite bloody.
It is remarkable how, out of millions of individual voting decisions, it is possible to distil a national mood—but a hung Parliament is probably a pretty fair reflection of it. For a change, there was a real choice, not just one between minute variants of a fundamentally consensual centre. People were obviously no longer willing to buy neoliberal austerity. They were attracted by the alternative that Labour offered, which was described as “hard left” but was in truth fairly standard social democracy, and somewhat less far-reaching than the manifesto on which the Attlee Government were elected. But people were hesitant about making a full-blooded commitment—hardly surprising in view of all the obloquy to which Labour was subjected.
I was not much in sympathy with the reaction of the House to Jeremy Corbyn, either—as much from his own side as from the Government’s. He is obviously still regarded as beyond the pale of the narrow consensus of acceptable views around which the two main parties collude. But people should realise that the centre of gravity has shifted—in defiance of the political establishment, the media and the commentariat. It has taken some time for the worm to turn, but it is clear that people are no longer seduced by the supposed common sense of living within our means, which has underpinned the draconian regime to which they have been subjected since the crash. Labour has offered an alternative, but I wish it had done more to establish in people’s consciousness the alternative common sense on which it will need to be sustained: borrow while interest rates are low and invest in infrastructure, thus giving people work, getting them off the dole and being productive, fuelling growth by spending and creating demand for consumer goods, and paying taxes and boosting receipts for the Exchequer.
What is the result of all this austerity? A great deal of personal misery to begin with. One in four children lives in poverty in the United Kingdom today, taking the total to 4 million. Food bank use continues to rise. The Trussell Trust gave out more than 1 million emergency supplies of food to people in crisis in 2016-17—and the Trussell Trust accounts for only half of all food banks. The social security system is increasingly inhuman and self-defeating. Tougher PIP criteria mean that people lose their Motability car and end up on the dole. People are sanctioned for unavoidably missing appointments. The film “I, Daniel Blake” is all too true to life. The iniquitous work capability assessment finds people fit to work who are patently unfit and who, coroners find, are taking their lives as a result. I could give many more examples, but there is no time.
All this misery, and we have not even balanced the books. These are not the results of idiosyncratic, ad hoc decisions; they are the result of conscious, strategic decision-making such as the decision to cut a further £12 billion from welfare, having already cut nearly £20 billion in the last Parliament. Even more fundamentally, they are the result of a 40-year project to hollow out the public realm and systematically shrink the state back to 36% of GDP or less. Current spending is now just under 38%, with the 36% target reaffirmed in the March Budget to be reached in 2020. This means a level of public services far below comparable European countries—44% of GDP in Germany and 50% in Denmark.
The process is meticulously documented by Polly Toynbee and David Walker in their recent book Dismembered: How the Attack on the State Harms Us All. The NHS is in crisis, public services are in crisis and local services cannot cope. We know this from the Grenfell Tower fire, which is emblematic of all that is wrong. Local government, which provides many of these services, will have lost 60% of its funding by 2020. The election and the Grenfell Tower fire should serve as a wake-up call that we need to change course.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, perhaps I may add my welcome from these Benches to the noble Lord in his role as Minister. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Mountevans, which will be made during this debate.
Since arriving in Durham, I have been struck that life feels more precarious for many in the north-east than it does elsewhere. There are lots of reasons for hope, not least the social regeneration in my home town of Bishop Auckland, but the sense of precariousness persists due to deep structural disadvantages that the region has faced for decades, even centuries. It is against this backdrop that some of the changes to welfare in the last Parliament felt particularly acute and remain of very deep concern. It is also against this backdrop that the uncertainty of the Brexit negotiation is felt. It was in part this day-to-day experience of powerlessness that led many to vote to exit the EU. It would be a betrayal of the people, especially the most needy, if living and working in the north-east becomes more rather than less precarious as a result of leaving the EU. I therefore welcome the fact that much of the gracious Speech indicates some awareness of this danger.
I want to reflect on three aspects. First, the gracious Speech includes a commitment that:
“Legislation will be introduced to ensure the United Kingdom remains a world leader in new industries, including electric cars”.
It will be no surprise to those who know the north-east that my ears perked up at “electric cars”. We have a proud history of manufacturing and the importance of the industry to the region needs to be prioritised in the Brexit negotiations. We must develop further decent technological education and training that leads to good jobs. This must include engaging with the challenges that the next generation of automation will pose to the livelihoods of people and communities in the north-east and across the country. The Church of England has already carried out some invaluable work on the economic and ethical implications of automation and artificial intelligence, and we look forward to working with the Government to ensure that this work is used to make sure that we develop an industrial strategy ready for the challenges and opportunities that these will pose.
Secondly, the gracious Speech included a commitment that:
“A new Bill will also be brought forward to deliver the next phase of high-speed rail”.
This will be between Birmingham and Crewe. A more interconnected country is to be welcomed. I would, however, like to repeat a proposal I made in the debate on the gracious Speech last year—that we start building HS2 from Newcastle as well. I worry that as long as we continue the approach of gradually moving north, we give the impression that the point of the project is to let the rest of the country share some of the benefits of London. If we think HS2 is truly for the benefit of the whole country, however, I encourage the Government to adopt a radically different approach. This must include serious investment in the whole of the rail network and the related infrastructure in and between every region. In Newton Aycliffe, the new Azuma trains are being built. It would be a tragedy if the region that builds the new trains does not benefit from them.
The rest of the country needs the north-east. We are a region that, despite uncertainties and higher levels of unemployment, is in many ways thriving and has plenty of untapped potential. Take our science and technology sector. The ONS finds that our life sciences and healthcare sector is the largest in England in population terms. Overall, this sector has 221,300 people working for more than 14,000 others. That puts us behind only the south-east and the east of England in this sector.
We also have enormous capacity for renewable energy, through water, wind and our dark skies. It is these kinds of opportunities that the industrial strategy must seize. Water, in rivers, lakes, reservoirs and seas, wind—onshore and offshore—and skies highlight the importance of integrating our environmental priorities within the industrial strategy. A humane and wholesome industrial strategy must be environmentally friendly and connect with a farming and food strategy.
I was glad to hear commitments in the gracious Speech on the national living wage, although I hope we go even further than promised to ensure that this is a truly living wage. I welcome the commitment to workplace rights and ending discrimination. I hope the latter will include ending discrimination that currently affects refugees. The ultimate point of the northern powerhouse must not be simple economic growth, but thriving communities.
As we discuss the details of these measures and the wider industrial strategy, we must strive to incentivise investment that serves the poorest and strengthens communities. This underlines the importance of faith groups and other parts of civil society being strongly included in discussions of industrial strategy. Many communities across the north-east and the wider country have had decades of experiencing politics as “being done to” rather than “working with”. As this Parliament considers Brexit, the industrial strategy and the northern powerhouse, we must engage people of all ages, including our children, in the debate. Each of these discussions is an opportunity to invite all people into the process of building a Britain that truly works for everyone in every part of the country for the generations to come.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Callanan on his very well deserved appointment as a Transport Minister. I am especially delighted to have taken over his office up in the eaves of the Palace, with vistas of Lambeth Palace and Westminster Abbey.
I start by welcoming the Queen’s Speech and the determination it shows to turn Brexit into an opportunity. I am a strong believer in free trade—frankly, there are not enough of us—and I want Brexit to be used to transform us into a country that creates more businesses selling services and goods around the world. I put services first, including financial services, because services now represent more than 80% of our economy and must be given the right degree of priority. We need to keep the economy firing and, while I agree with the Minister that we need balanced growth across the UK, we need to keep London firing too: it contributes £34 billion in fiscal surplus for the rest of the UK.
When I was last on the Back Benches, I tried to focus on some key areas where I felt that business and the economy were missing out. The first was broadband and digital, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I found graphic examples everywhere of not-spots and the lack of internet holding business back—indeed, in my case, preventing my children coming to stay with me. The second was technical education. I know from my experience in Germany and in retail that our success in elite education in the UK is not matched in vocational training. I am grateful for the progress that has been made in both areas, but there is a lot more to do in terms of delivery.
Today, time is limited so I shall encourage action in three relatively small areas. As I learned at Tesco, “Every little helps”.
The first area is congestion. I want to make the case for early investment on transport pinch points. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor made £2.6 billion available for transport infrastructure. It is really good to see the automated and electric vehicles Bill in the Queen’s Speech and to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham talking about it and about north-east innovation. In the spring Budget, it was announced that £690 million was being competitively allocated to get transport moving. Congestion is reducing this country’s productivity—we fume in jams—not to mention seriously reducing our quality of life. As on broadband, I am collecting a list of the worst offenders: the A36 and A338 in Salisbury; Stonehenge, where I sat with the Glastonbury traffic this morning; Westminster Bridge; Stoke hospital; the A52 in Nottingham; and the A66/M6 at Penrith. I want lots of graphic examples, which I hope people will send me. We need to use the “roundabout fund” to improve our lives and reduce the appalling air pollution to which congestion gives rise. Perhaps the new Minister could consider putting an interactive map on GOV.UK and inviting everyone to contribute so that priorities can be decided quickly and the work actually done.
My second and related point—because these improvements could make more plots available—concerns housing. Frankly, housing is in crisis. We have to build many more homes and we need to build them in the south-east as well as elsewhere. As the Minister hinted, this must be a key priority for the industrial strategy. We need innovative solutions, such as changes to planning rules and better training and skills—learning from the best. We need to look at loosening the financial rules and allowing local authorities to be more entrepreneurial, in addition to encouraging the private sector. We are building less than in the 1980s at a time when we have more demand for homes. Indeed, unless we act quickly, a whole generation will not be able to afford a house, let alone a garden.
Thirdly, turning to small business, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Prior on his reappointment. The Federation of Small Businesses has made a compelling case for driving down the cost of doing business and for tackling the poor payment culture. I urge Ministers to listen to it. I visited a small business in Darlington recently—not an entirely successful visit. It was run by a great couple but the range of cost increases they faced was making life torture. There was not only the national living wage but recycling costs and myriad pressures. Most troubling, they were already benefiting from the Government’s rates exemption for small businesses. Their concerns remind one how important it is to have competitive tax rates for small businesses.
In closing, I ask my noble friend some questions that are important for small business. First, where are we on the implementation of the various legislative provisions on late payment? Secondly, when will the Small Business Commissioner start work? Thirdly, how and when will the Government deliver on the welcome promise on page 14 of the Conservative manifesto to,
“conduct a full review of the business rates system to make sure it is up to date for a world in which people increasingly shop online”?
The shift to online is changing the economy, changing how GDP should be measured and, most important of all, making life very difficult in our high streets, which are so important for cohesive and prosperous communities.
Progress does not depend just on the big battalions and solving the biggest problems. Our economy is complicated and sophisticated. We need action in many areas and we need it now.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a delight for the House that the noble Baroness has found her compellingly persuasive voice on the Back Benches? I welcome her to them. I also praise the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Low, which I hope speaks for everybody in this House.
The economy is not strong and stable but in deep trouble. It has been losing momentum for three consecutive years, and we now share bottom place with Italy in the G7 growth league. Even Greece is forecast to grow faster than Britain next year. Slower economic growth means lower tax revenues and higher government borrowing. The OBR expects borrowing this year to be higher, not lower, than last year and the budget still to be in deficit by the time of the general election in 2022. Over the next five years, the number of people aged 65 or over will increase three times as quickly as the population as a whole. Slow growth makes meeting the challenges of an ageing population even tougher—be it their health, social care or pension needs.
If the Government pursue their stated aim of cutting net immigration to the tens of thousands, it will hold back growth even further by reducing the supply of labour and aggravating skills shortages. The respected economist Jonathan Portes estimates that that alone would mean £6 billion more in taxes, public spending cuts or government borrowing.
Seven years of austerity, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons, have meant that UK average incomes in real terms are now 15% below where the 1961 to 2008 growth trend would have taken them. Living standards will certainly fall this year, with prices rising faster than pay and inequality rising. In real terms, pay is set to plummet, with earnings in 2022 no higher than they were in 2007, making this the worst decade for pay growth since before the Battle of Waterloo.
Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis estimates that austerity may cost the average household a colossal £23,000 per year in lost income by 2019-20—and there is still no end in sight to austerity, which began so catastrophically and so needlessly under George Osborne in 2010. This Government are now planning another tight fiscal squeeze up to 2019-20, hitting the poorest the hardest of all. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Tory manifesto means that the severest squeeze on the NHS since it was founded will be extended to 12 years. The Tories also now have the shrinking of school budgets in their sights.
In the private sector, big business is spending its cash mountain on company share buybacks instead of investing in the future, while the commercial property market seems to be at a standstill. Consumer confidence is down and consumer debt up, with more than 3 million people in persistent credit card debt. Last year alone, UK households borrowed a record £32 billion to buy cars, with 90% of private buyers using personal contract plans. That borrowing figure is forecast to exceed £40 billion this year. The Financial Conduct Authority now fears that banks might be hit by a sudden rise in car loan arrears, hitting car sales and hence wider economic growth.
Ten years ago, under Labour, £1 bought $2. Last June it bought $1.50. Now it is worth only $1.30—its lowest level for 30 years. Yet Britain’s foreign trade balance has worsened over the past year, not improved. We have a record trade deficit and we are about to leave the biggest, richest single trading bloc in the world on terms that nobody can foresee. UK productivity today is terrible, lagging far behind our key trading partners in Europe and America. This is not helped by the fact that 5 million adults—a sixth of our employed labour force—lack basic literacy and numeracy skills.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that there are more than 3 million frustrated workers: those who work part time but want a full-time job, plus those who are economically inactive but want to work. This is especially true in the regions outside London. The economics editor of Sky News, Ed Conway, recently argued that Britain’s tax burden will have to go up. Certainly we need to tax both property and income wealth more fairly.
Grenfell Tower is surely a clarion cry for a clean break with austerity. As the Observer eloquently explained in an editorial on 18 June:
“But this is more than a story of a benign state being hacked at by funding cuts and deregulation. Grenfell has peeled away the layers, to reveal an unaccountable, distant state, sheltering behind arm’s-length bodies to which it has subcontracted its most fundamental responsibilities for keeping people safe … It is hard to escape the conclusion that they fell victim to a culture shaped by indifference to the less well-off; that extols the virtues of the market over the positive role of the state; that scorns expertise and regulation and cuts corners in the name of trimming budgets. It should shame us all”.
Savage cuts and the shrinking of the state must stop. Some of our public services are dangerously close to collapse. It is time to invest in growth and end austerity, and to bring the public finances back into balance—and growth, not austerity, is the best way to do that.
European Council
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council, and on the proposals we are publishing today, which, on a reciprocal basis, seek to give reassurance and certainty to EU citizens who have made their homes and lives in our country.
This Council followed the formal start of the negotiations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU, as well as marking the first anniversary of the referendum that led to that decision. In that referendum, the British people chose to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders, to restore supremacy to this Parliament and to reclaim our sense of national self-determination, and this Government will fulfil the democratic will of the British people.
But the referendum was not a vote to turn our backs on our friends and neighbours. Indeed, as we become ever more internationalist in our outlook, and as we build the global Britain we want to see, we will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends with all the member states of the European Union. We want to work with one another to make sure that we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through our continued friendship. We want to buy each other’s goods and services and trade as freely as possible. We will continue to celebrate and defend the liberal democratic values that we share, and to project those values that are the foundation of our freedoms and our way of life. In short, we want to build what I have described as a new, deep and special partnership between a confident, self-governing, global Britain and all our friends and allies in the European Union.
That is the positive and constructive spirit in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union began the formal negotiations last week, and it is the same spirit in which the United Kingdom made a full contribution to all the issues at this Council, including on security, migration, climate change and trade.
On security, I thanked our European partners for their condolences and for their resolve in standing with us following the appalling terrorist attacks that the UK has suffered in recent weeks. Those attacks have seen citizens from across Europe tragically killed and injured, but they have also seen our citizens standing together in some of the most inspiring ways. At London Bridge, we saw a Spanish banker tragically killed as he rushed to the aid of a woman being attacked, and we saw a Romanian baker fighting off the terrorists and giving shelter to Londoners in his bakery. These moments of heroism show how, far from dividing us, such attacks on our way of life will only ever serve to strengthen our shared unity and resolve.
But these attacks also show that we need to respond to a new trend in the threat we face, as terrorism breeds terrorism and perpetrators are inspired to attack by copying one another using the crudest of means. So, building on the bilateral agreement I reached with President Macron earlier this month, at this Council I argued that we must come together to defeat the hateful and extremist ideologies that inspire these attacks, and to stop the internet being used as a safe space for extremists. When one-third of all links to Daesh propaganda are shared within the first hour of release, it is not enough for technology companies to respond reactively to extremist content on their platforms. So the Council agreed to put pressure on these companies to do more to remove this content automatically, and also to ensure that law enforcement agencies can access encrypted data. This was a significant step forward. We will continue to work together with our European partners to combat this evil, to defend our values and to keep our citizens safe.
Turning to other issues, on migration, the Council recommitted to the comprehensive approach that the UK has advocated, dealing with the drivers of migration while also doing more to stem the flow. At the summit, I confirmed a new UK commitment of £75 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs in the central Mediterranean, while also facilitating voluntary returns of migrants making these treacherous journeys.
On trade, as the UK leaves the European Union we will be forging trade deals around the world with old friends and new allies alike, but this will not undermine the EU’s trade agenda; it is not even in competition with it. So for as long as we remain part of the EU, we will continue to press for an ambitious trade agenda that can deliver jobs and growth across the continent. That is what I did at this Council, where there was a particular focus on work towards deals with Japan, Mexico and the Mercosur bloc of South American countries.
On climate change, the Council reaffirmed the commitment of all member states fully to implement the Paris agreement. The UK has already reaffirmed its own commitment, and I have expressed my disappointment to President Trump that he has taken a different decision. We will continue to make the case to our American allies to think again.
Turning to citizens’ rights, EU citizens make an invaluable contribution to our United Kingdom: to our economy, our public services and our everyday lives. They are an integral part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of our country, and I have always been clear that I want to protect their rights. That is why I initially sought an agreement on this before we triggered Article 50, and it is why I am making it an immediate priority at the beginning of the negotiations.
But that agreement must be reciprocal because we must protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU member states, too. At the Council, I set out some of the principles that I believe should underlie that reciprocal agreement, and there was a very positive response from individual leaders and a strong sense of mutual good will in trying to reach such an agreement as soon as possible. So today, we are publishing detailed proposals to do exactly that. Let me set out the key points for the House.
First, we want certainty. I know there has been some anxiety about what would happen to EU citizens at the point we leave the European Union. Today, I want to put that anxiety to rest. I want to completely reassure people that under these plans no EU citizen currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave at the point the UK leaves the EU. We want you to stay.
Secondly, any EU citizen in the UK with five years’ continuous residence at a specified cut-off date will be granted settled status. They will be treated as if they were UK citizens for healthcare, education, benefits and pensions, while any EU citizens with less than five years’ residence who have arrived before the specified cut-off date will be able to stay until they have the five years’ residence to apply for UK settled status.
Thirdly, the specified cut-off date will be the subject of discussions, but it will be no earlier than the date we triggered Article 50 and no later than the date we leave the EU.
Fourthly, no families will be split up. Family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen here before the UK’s exit will be able to apply for settled status after five years. After the UK has left the European Union, EU citizens with settled status will be able to bring family members from overseas on the same terms as British nationals.
Fifthly, there will be no cliff edge: there will be a grace period of up to two years to allow people to regularise their status. Those EU citizens who arrived in the UK after the specified cut-off date will be allowed to remain in the UK for at least a temporary period, and may still become eligible to settle permanently.
Sixthly, the system of registration that citizens go through will be as streamlined and light touch as possible, and we intend to remove some of the technical requirements currently needed to obtain permanent residence under EU rules. For example, we will not require anyone to demonstrate that they have held comprehensive sickness insurance.
Seventhly, we expect this offer to be extended on a reciprocal basis to nationals of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The reciprocal agreement on citizens’ rights will apply to the entire United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
Eighthly, this is all without prejudice to the common travel area arrangements that exist between the UK and Ireland. We will preserve the freedoms that UK and Irish nationals currently enjoy in each others’ states, and Irish citizens will not need to apply for permanent residence to protect these entitlements.
Finally, the UK will continue to export and uprate the UK state pension and provide associated healthcare cover within the EU. We will continue to protect the export of other benefits and associated healthcare cover where the individual is in receipt of those benefits on the specified cut-off date. Subject to negotiations, we want to continue participating in the European health insurance card scheme, so that UK card-holders can continue to benefit from free or reduced-cost healthcare while on a temporary stay in the EU, and vice versa for EU card-holders visiting the UK.
This is a fair and serious offer. Our obligations in the withdrawal treaty with the EU will be binding on the UK as a matter of international law, and we will incorporate commitments into UK law guaranteeing that we will stand firmly by our part of the deal. So our offer will give those 3 million EU citizens in the UK certainty about the future of their lives, and a reciprocal agreement will provide the same certainty for the more than 1 million UK citizens who are living in the EU.
One year on from that momentous decision to leave the EU, let us remember what we are seeking to achieve with these negotiations. We are withdrawing from a system of treaties and bureaucracy that does not work for us, but we are not withdrawing from the values and solidarity that we share with our European neighbours.
As a confident, outward-looking and self-governing nation, we know that it is not just our past that is intertwined in the fortunes of our friends and neighbours; it is our future, too. That is why we want a new, deep and special partnership and it is why we approach these negotiations with optimism, because a good deal for Britain and a good deal for Europe are not competing alternatives. They are the best single path to a brighter future for all our children and grandchildren. That, I believe, is the future that the British people voted for, and that is the future I want us to secure. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The European Council focused on work being undertaken across the EU to protect its citizens in counterterrorism, security and defence, external borders and illegal migration, and economic development. These are clearly issues on which co-operation at the highest levels is essential and a key priority for the EU. It must be hard for the Prime Minister at such Council meetings, because although on those specific issues our priorities are shared, this country’s priority is not how EU members tackle those together in the future. A quick glance at the Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech shows that they are going to be preoccupied with Brexit throughout this Session, so I am a bit curious about the Prime Minister’s role at these summits. Our joint work across the EU, on which the UK has taken a lead, on tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism, is essential. We share common goals, and in order to be effective we must have joint responsibility. However, as the EU discusses future work, it is our priority—and this will take the attention of our Prime Minister—not to be part of that work.
Given the seriousness of those issues, what was the Prime Minister able to say to the Council meeting on both defence and security about the UK response and responsibilities? Specifically, did she take part in discussions on the improvements of the European travel and authorisation system to enhance external border controls? Will that be taken into account in discussions about how to manage the border with Ireland to ensure that there are no changes from the current position? At the weekend, in a TV interview that others may have seen, the Brexit Secretary made some suggestions about how that could be managed. I have to say that he sounded unconvincing, even to himself. He should understand the need for clarity on this issue as soon as possible, but instead he spoke about issues such as monitors on cars and number plate recognition. The Irish border is not like the Dartford tunnel. This has to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
I want to pick up the issue of digital Europe. Is it not something of an irony that while the European Council was discussing an overarching approach to digital issues, including cybersecurity, our own parliamentary network was under sustained attack? I think the whole House will want to thank all our staff who have sought to resolve the problem and assist colleagues. Given that the digital economy knows no physical boundaries, and that UK exports of services are an important growth area of our economy, I would be interested to know what contributions the Prime Minister was able to make on this specific issue.
There was considerable discussion at the Council of the single market and trade, recognising the benefits and addressing areas where improvements are needed. One of the issues discussed was the European Fund for Strategic Investments. In the Council’s conclusions there is a call for rapid agreement on the extension and reinforcement of that fund.
That fund has provided £184 million for the northern powerhouse investment fund. I know that the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister have previously been clear that we are in until we are out and that we remain a full and functioning member of the EU until Brexit negotiations are concluded. Given the importance of that particular investment, can the noble Baroness assure us that no part of it will be lost to Brexit, and what advice would she give regarding further applications to the fund from the UK?
Turning to EU agencies, the background note stated that the EU 27 were to agree the procedure regarding the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from the UK as a consequence of Brexit. There are several issues to be addressed. I understand why the EU has pushed the decision on relocation back to November, but for the UK these issues are live and need to be addressed now. I understand that more than 1,000 staff are employed in those two agencies. Can the noble Baroness confirm that? Do the Government know how many UK staff are employed by other EU agencies and the status of their position?
Outside the EU, we will need mechanisms, organisations or quangos to undertake the functions of those bodies and the other EU agencies of which we will no longer be part. We are all aware of the significant public safety issues that can arise and the economic implications that flow from effective regulation. Has any estimate been made of the cost involved in establishing new structures or agencies, what form they will take and how long it will be before we set them up? If we look at the European Medicines Agency alone and the importance of pharmaceuticals to public health and the economy, surely the Government must have a plan in place to address those issues. I think particularly of pharmaceutical companies, which currently invest significant amounts in research and development here in the UK because they want access to those European markets. Can the noble Baroness share the Government’s initial thinking on this issue with us?
Finally, we come to the point about certainty for EU and UK nationals. From the background notes to the Council meeting, it is clear that there was a short space at the end of the dinner on Thursday and before the session for the rest of the EU members on Brexit where the PM had the opportunity to “inform the leaders” about Brexit negotiations. As predicted, this issue has caused tensions. I have not yet had time, as I am sure other noble Lords have not, to digest all the implications of the new documents, but others across the EU apparently do not share the PM’s confidence that there was a “very positive” response. Reading the comments of other leaders, I would describe them as being underwhelmed but clearly open to further discussion.
I have had a brief look at the document. It seems quite complicated, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reading out some of the details. It seems that the Government have now come round to the idea of an identity card, although I am not clear exactly how it will work when the only people who will carry them are EU nationals residing in the UK. The noble Baroness talked about a light-touch approach, but it seems grossly inefficient and disrespectful that 180,000 people who have applied for permanent residency will now have to apply again under the new system. Surely there is a better way to resolve that for those people.
I also understand that under the new arrangements there will have to be an assessment of conduct and criminality. Is the noble Baroness sure that all those can be undertaken within the two years between now and the exit from the EU? If some of them will be undertaken later, what guarantees have been made about access to EU databases so that the accuracy of that information can be checked?
We are talking about citizens from the other 27 EU countries living in the UK whose rights we seek to protect. There are also UK citizens living across the other 27 countries, many of whom have reacted with dismay to the Prime Minister’s comments. But there is also a third group. There are about 60 million UK citizens living here in the UK who will also have their rights affected. All these discussions focus on the rights of those who are already established here in the UK, or on UK citizens already living and working in one of the other 27 countries. But the future impact on UK citizens who want to travel, live and work abroad must also be addressed. Will they need visas? Will they need work permits? The Select Committee report on acquired rights is very helpful on some of these issues.
When your Lordships’ House agreed to the amendments on the Article 50 Bill, by a majority of 102, to protect the rights of EU citizens, it was not because we were being difficult or, as some claimed, trying to oppose Brexit. It was precisely because we recognised, as did the Select Committee report, that this is a difficult issue, and resolving it in a simple and straightforward way would not only give certainty but would ensure negotiations to proceed on key issues in a better tone and a better atmosphere.
The Government worked hard to make sure that that amendment was not agreed by the House of Commons. There were meetings at Downing Street and promises were made that this would be resolved quickly as an early priority, all in pursuit of a so-called clean Bill. I have to say that I wonder whether this House would vote the same way on that amendment.
As we have heard, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed, so meanwhile there is a twilight zone of uncertainty for many. That is already having an impact. We have heard from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that there has been a 96% reduction in the number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK since the referendum. How many of our citizens have lost out on work in the EU?
The new editor of the Evening Standard said that all Cabinet Ministers backed David Cameron in wanting to address this issue immediately after the referendum result, but the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, held out against it. Perhaps the EU’s proposal should have been used as a starting point for the Prime Minister to try to resolve these issues.
Finally, I appreciate that these issues are difficult for the Prime Minister. I was struck by President Tusk’s comments at the end of the Council meeting. He said:
“Brexit took up very little time at this European Council. We devoted most of our work to addressing people’s concerns over security, illegal migration and uncontrolled globalisation”.
These are the concerns of citizens everywhere, and a challenge for the Prime Minister is to make sure that these issues, plus jobs and the economy, remain at the top of our agenda for the UK while she negotiates Brexit.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The two principal issues debated at the Council that are of relevance to the UK were, first, security and, secondly, citizens’ rights.
On security, the Prime Minister rather patted herself on the back that she had taken the lead in having had discussions with President Macron and then, at the Council itself, in moving the technology companies to responding more effectively to extremist content. It is clear that whatever happens over the coming months in respect of the technology companies, the area of security, which faces the whole of Europe, will not become less of a priority or less of a concern. My question for the Government is: what plans do they have to have a continuing voice on European discussions on security? They will not be at the EU table. Will they put proposals to the EU about how they will have a continuing voice in European security discussions? If we lose that voice it will undoubtedly be the case that the UK will be less secure.
The biggest area of interest for the UK, not so much in the summit but subsequently, is around citizens’ rights. We have now seen the Government’s paper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, when your Lordships’ House debated this issue four months ago, it took the view that the UK should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should unilaterally guarantee EU nationals the right to stay in the UK now. It is to be regretted that it has taken so long for the Government to attempt to provide any certainty about their future status. The very fact that the Government have today announced a series of issues and proposals that are dependent on reciprocal decisions by the EU means that there is still no certainty or clarity for EU citizens living in this country.
I turn to some of the specific proposals in the Government’s document today. First, there is still no specified cut-off date. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have left that open and, in doing so, extended the uncertainty of people who are thinking about whether they might come from the EU to the UK at some point over the next couple of years, when they could have made a decision to specify the date today? At what point and by what process do the Government plan to announce a cut-off date?
Secondly, it is not clear how long the application process for residence status will take. We know about the huge backlogs in dealing with such questions at the moment. Do the Government plan to resource the relevant agencies properly so that applications, albeit in their cut-down form, can be dealt with speedily? What assessment have the Government made of how many EU citizens currently resident in the UK will need to apply for the new residence status?
The Government talk about avoiding a cliff edge at the point at which EU citizens cease to be able to settle freely in the UK, and propose a two-year period during which there will be a generic umbrella of temporary leave to remain. Do the two years apply to the period during which EU citizens must apply for residence status, or do the Government envisage that we will have processed all requests for residence status within the two years—and, indeed, that everybody wishing to achieve that status will need to have achieved it by the end of the two-year period?
The document states:
“Obtaining settled status will be subject to meeting certain requirements. The eligibility criteria will be set out in UK law”.
Could the Leader of the House give some further idea of what sort of requirements are envisaged? Will the UK law referred to be in primary or secondary legislation? Is this what is envisaged to be covered in the new immigration Bill and, if so, when do the Government plan to publish that Bill?
Finally, to take up another point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, today’s documents states that:
“Obtaining documentation showing their settled status will enable EU citizens resident here to carry on living here lawfully”.
But it then states about that documentation:
“The Home Office may also need to capture evidence of EU citizens’ biometric information during the application process”.
That raises concerns that what is being proposed is ID cards just for EU nationals with settled status. Can the Government guarantee that this new status will not require EU nationals who receive it to carry documentation signalling their status and this will not amount to an ID card? If there were to be some kind of ID card, could the Leader of the House set out how much the Government would expect such a policy might cost and how they might expect it to work—particularly given that it would result in only a small minority of those living in the UK being required to carry such cards?
This Statement and the policy paper begin to answer the many questions that EU citizens have about their future status in the UK, but it leaves many unanswered. The Government need to answer those questions quickly to bring about the certainty that they claim to seek.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments today. As I said, this Council is the first to follow the formal start of negotiations for our departure from the EU, and it shows that we will continue to play a full part in Europe as reliable partners and as friends and neighbours.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Prime Minister’s involvement in the summit. As the Prime Minister made clear in the Statement, she led on the discussion on internal security and tackling online extremism, which built on discussions that she had had bilaterally with President Macron—and, of course, also complements work that has been done with the G7 and which will be pushed within the G20. We will obviously need to work with our EU partners on how we have a continuing voice in these discussions at an EU level, but it is clear that we have a voice at a global one. We are a member of a variety of institutions and organisations in which we will continue to play a key role. It is also clear that we have very strong expertise and knowledge in this area. Our EU partners value this and we want to continue to work together to make sure we can all benefit from joint communication and collaboration. As the negotiations continue it will become clear that that is as much in our interests as it is in those of our EU partners.
The noble Baroness asked about defence. The Prime Minister made it very clear that the UK supports the development of capabilities, such as the European action plan and European defence fund, which contribute to our collective resilience and our ability to combat shared threats. We must continue to create a genuine internal defence market, not a protectionist one, and we will continue to work with the EU to achieve that. I do not have the information to hand to answer the noble Baroness’s questions about the number of employees in agencies and relocation, but I will write to her with it. The Prime Minister welcomed the recent progress made across the EU on delivering the digital single market strategy and we want to continue that work. We have been clear in our support of the letter on the joint digital initiative and welcome the Commission’s plan to introduce a legislative proposal to prevent unjustified data localisation.
The noble Baroness asked about the Northern Irish and Irish border. She will know that we agreed, in the first negotiation last week, that there will be regular and technical talks. There was a very early emphasis on four key issues: the rights of citizens is one but that border is another. We are absolutely determined to try to move those discussions on as quickly as we can.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked a number of questions about the paper on EU citizens. Once we exit, we will be asking EU citizens to have a new status and document. I am not saying it will be an ID card—we have not discussed in detail what it will be—but it is true that there will be new documentation. We will be asking EU citizens to apply to the Home Office for this documentation demonstrating their new settled status in due course, in line with what most nationals in the EU currently do. As I also said in the Statement, the reaction from EU leaders was broadly positive and this is a good basis for discussion. The fact that we have published such a detailed proposal shows the seriousness with which we are taking this issue. Noble Lords have discussed it at great length and we have had a lot of passionate debate about it. The fact that we have come out early and now have a detailed document as a starting point shows the seriousness with which we also take the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the specified cut-off date. This will be a matter for negotiation and, as I said previously, we made it clear that this will be an early priority. He also asked about the legal basis. We want to see the outcome of our negotiation with the EU on citizens’ rights included in the withdrawal treaty. This will be binding on the EU 27 under EU law and on the UK as a matter of international law. Rights will be enforceable in the UK legal system up to and including the Supreme Court. The new immigration Bill will be about setting out our future system and we will be bringing forward proposals before that, later in the year.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is much in this Statement to welcome and be reassured about. It is also right that we focus on terrorism and cyberattacks—about which your Lordships’ House knows a bit today—as these are the clear priorities of the age. It is worth remembering that they are global as well as European and can be settled only in a global context, not just in a European one. Does the Minister agree that one aspect in which this Statement is particularly welcome is that it uses throughout the phrase, “seeking agreement” in our deep and special relationship with our European neighbours? Does she agree that “agreement” is a much better word to use as we approach the months of difficult negotiation ahead and that we should try to adhere to this practice rather than return to the “deal”, which has a more antagonistic tone about it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend makes a very good point. Certainly, the initial discussions were positive. We are both starting to identify our priorities. We all want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership, one that works for the UK and the EU. Now that we are around the negotiating table, that is what we will all be working for.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that what I am about to say is accurate? Everyone in this House has two citizenships—one is normally United Kingdom citizenship and the other European citizenship. European citizenship is conferred by the treaty of Maastricht and the rights it confers are enforceable and protected by the European Court of Justice. Therefore, my first question is: if that is right, does my doctor, who is a German living in this country, have European citizenship rights protected by the European Court of Justice? My second question is: what about people like me, who are British citizens and European citizens under the treaty of Maastricht? The Government cannot take away the rights of EU nationals under the treaty of Maastricht, which are protected by the Luxembourg court. However, do they intend that British citizens will be in a worse position as we will no longer be protected by the European Court of Justice and will not have the rights conferred by the treaty of Maastricht?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I believe that our legal system is second to none and we should be very proud of it. The proposed agreements will be enshrined in UK law and enforceable through the UK judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court. We are also ready to make commitments in the withdrawal agreement which will have the status of international law. We will discuss with the EU how to ensure that UK nationals in the EU will be able to rely on their rights that are agreed.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, which contained some very important principles on citizens’ rights. However, will my noble friend confirm that the actual outcome will depend upon negotiation, and therefore it is rather important not to set out any premature red lines? Furthermore, we must be imaginative in trying to resolve differences. For example, with regard to judicial supervision of the ultimate rights, surely we should contemplate the possibility of EU judges sitting alongside UK judges in British courts or tribunals in appropriate cases.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend. The Government believe that we have set out a fair and serious offer. We have put a detailed proposal forward which will now be for negotiation. The next round of negotiation and discussion begins next month. We now have a fair and serious offer with which to begin our discussions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness was keen to say that the residence documentation that EU citizens will be required to hold is not an ID card but a residence card backed by a biometric database. If and when EU citizens say that it is discriminatory to require them to hold ID cards, does this herald the backdoor introduction of a national ID card scheme, which was one of the issues which caused Secretary of State David Davis to resign in 2008, calling it an,
“insidious and relentless erosion of civil liberties”?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have been pretty clear that we have said that once we leave the EU there will need to be a new settled status and documentation. I have been very clear as well that we have not specified exactly what that will be. However, I am sure that everyone will be pleased to know that the administration of the system will be streamlined and as user-friendly as possible, and that we intend to improve the process and remove some of the technical requirements currently needed to obtain permanent residence under EU rules, such as not requiring anyone to demonstrate that they have held comprehensive sickness insurance.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with reference to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt has suggested an associate membership for any UK citizen who wishes to retain a European passport to travel, work and study abroad. Can that membership be considered as part of future discussions?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we have put together what we believe is a fair and serious offer, and we are beginning the negotiations on that basis.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that Britons who live elsewhere and are pensioners at the specified cut-off date will, as at present, have access to healthcare elsewhere in Europe after we leave the European Union. Are we therefore to infer from that that those who live elsewhere in Europe and become pensioners after the specified cut-off date will lose access to UK-funded healthcare; and that people who move elsewhere in Europe after the specified cut-off date, even though they are pensioners, will not have access to healthcare? On the European health insurance card, can my noble friend explain the rationale for the British taxpayer funding health insurance after we leave the European Union for a family that visits France but not for a family that visits Florida?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We intend to treat EU citizens with settled status in the same way as if they were UK citizens for the purpose of not just healthcare but education, benefits and pensions, and we intend to protect the current healthcare arrangements for EU citizens who are ordinarily resident in the UK before the specified date. We will also continue to export and uprate the state pension and provide associated healthcare cover within the EU. We want, subject to negotiations, to continue to participate in the European health insurance card scheme, and we will try to achieve that.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that when it comes to jobs requiring foreign language skills, the UK is highly dependent on other EU nationals? For example, over a third of public service interpreters who work in the National Health Service and the criminal justice system are from other EU countries, as are 35% of language teachers and 85% of language assistants in our schools. Therefore, while the possibility that EU nationals already here might now be able to remain is welcome, does the noble Baroness agree that future recruitment of EU citizens needed for their language skills also needs to be safeguarded and prioritised through whatever new immigration regime emerges from these negotiations?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I know that this issue is very dear to the noble Baroness’s heart and to many of us in this House. Of course, we want to continue to attract the bright and the best. As I mentioned, later on there will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to discuss the future immigration system, which her question alludes to. It will of course be implemented in primary legislation, so there will be plenty of opportunities for noble Lords to have an input. We also want and intend to continue to recognise professional qualifications obtained in the EU 27 prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and vice versa. We will certainly keep those issues in mind, because we want to ensure that we continue to attract the bright and the best from the EU.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if, as my noble friend said—I welcome it—we want to recognise the special status of EU citizens resident in this country, what is the overwhelming argument against what this House decided it wanted, by a large majority: namely, a unilateral declaration, where we take the moral high ground and give these rights, and hope very much that they will be reciprocated? Why cannot we begin the negotiations by taking control and putting this issue behind us?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As my noble friend will know, we have said that we need to ensure reciprocal rights.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, as I am from several emails, of families of joint EU nationals whose lives are being directly affected by this? We could move very swiftly to guarantee our citizens’ and EU citizens’ rights by remaining within the single market and reinforcing the conditionality of freedom of movement.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we believe that this is a fair and serious offer. It is one that we want to implement because we want to provide as much certainty as we can to the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and to the 1 million UK nationals in the EU, and that is what we are working towards.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not feel that she is in a no-win position? On the one hand, people are saying that she ought to make a unilateral declaration and abandon the rights of British citizens living in Europe; on the other, she is being told that it is wrong to put forward red lines at this stage in the negotiations.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend. As I said, we are taking this matter extremely seriously and it is one of the first issues that we have raised in the negotiations. We have put forward a comprehensive offer and look forward to discussions. As I said, our partners in the EU are keen to sort out this issue as soon as possible, as are we, and this is a starting point from which we hope to begin detailed discussions next month.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, the Brexit Secretary has stressed that in the negotiations nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Does that not mean that on some issues there will be so much delay that particular interests, whether individual citizens or financial institutions, will take action ahead of any agreement and may, for example, have already left the United Kingdom?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend raises an important issue and that is why we are trying to discuss this matter at a very early stage. We want to see whether, with the EU, we can come forward with proposals that give people the certainty they want, and we believe that we have put forward a fair and serious offer to begin those discussions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Are the Government considering extending the new proposal for some form of identification card for immigrants from the EU to the majority of immigrants to this country who come from outside the EU? Will that be in the forthcoming immigration Bill? It seems rather illogical to introduce this sort of scheme for people moving to this country from inside the EU but not for the majority of immigrants who, every year since we have worried about immigration, come from the rest of the world. Therefore, would it not be appropriate for the Government to propose a general scheme for foreigners within Britain—perhaps under something called the “Aliens Act”?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we will bring forward proposals for a future immigration scheme in due course.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, the Leader of the House has talked about a fair and serious offer. Having mentioned the medicines agency and the financial agency, have the Government had any discussions about patenting law?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I will have to get back to my noble friend as I do not know the answer to that question.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness talks about a fair and serious offer but it is not heard in that way by those affected. Is she aware of the number of EU citizens who are now leaving this country because they feel unwelcome and because they feel that, if they do not get back to their country of origin, they may lose the opportunity of finding work there? For them, settling this is a very urgent matter.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very well aware of the issues that concern many people and of the anxiety felt by some. That is why we have brought forward these proposals urgently; it is why we have been very clear that under the plans we would like to bring forward no EU citizen who is currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave; it is why the Statement makes it very clear that we do not want families to break up; and it is why we have brought this proposal forward at this point and why we will be attempting to get an early agreement.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is this issue representative of the way the Government are going to conduct these negotiations as a whole? I was very taken by the point made about the potential for people and businesses to take action and vote with their feet in the absence of a clear commitment on this issue. I must admit that I find that to be true in respect of other issues that will be part of the negotiations.
There are two points that I should like the noble Baroness to respond to. First, if we keep going round in circles saying that this “might” be the proposition but it depends on the other side coming up with something sensible, we will potentially never resolve anything. Secondly, in spite of the way that the Conservative Party has been trying to portray the Brexit vote, it was quite marginal. The reality is that we are a deeply riven country. When will the Government come forward with a proposal to deal with the issues in the negotiations that includes wide, involving engagement with opinion formers, decision-makers and the public of this country, before they go to Europe with a proposition? At the moment, it feels as though the Government open the black box and let us peer in, then ask, “What do you think of that?”. We all say it is terrible and then they shut the box and the issue remains unresolved.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Over the past year, since the referendum result, the Government have engaged extremely widely with a range of representatives from groups and organisations to feed into our thinking. For instance, DExEU has conducted analysis of more than 50 sectors of the economy, covering financial services, retail, agriculture, energy, infrastructure and transport. In your Lordships’ House we have had a lot of debate, and the Select Committees have published very useful reports to help feed into that thinking. We have put in place a solid foundation for further discussions, admittedly under an ambitious timetable. The UK and EU teams will meet every four weeks, coming together for a number of days at a time to progress discussions as quickly and effectively as possible. We have now started the negotiations and therefore hope that we will see progress, which we have not seen over the past year because we had not triggered Article 50.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, although I regret that this announcement did not come earlier and is not unilateral, I none the less welcome that the Government have at least made some progress. However, there is discussion in the document about the fees for the new scheme being set at reasonable levels. Given that the current fee for settled status is almost £2,000, and given that the change of status for EU citizens has come about through no fault of their own but by a decision from which we are excluded, does the Minister think it right that the Government should carry this out with no fee whatever to EU citizens?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can certainly assure the noble Lord that fees and charges are being looked at as part of the negotiations. I can only repeat that our aim is to offer a streamlined and high-quality service for everyone and to keep fees at a reasonable level.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am sorry to return to the noble Baroness, but I asked two questions on settled status that she was not able to address. First, can we do anything better than ask 180,000 people who have already applied to apply again under the new status, alongside the costs that that will incur for them? Secondly, will all the applications be dealt with in two years and, if not, are the Government guaranteed access to EU databases to get the information required? The Minister did not answer either of those questions, and if she is unable to do so today, will she write to me?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I apologise, and am happy to write to the noble Baroness.
Update on the Grenfell Tower Fire and Fire Safety
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by the right honourable Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and our safety inspections of cladding in other buildings. I know I speak for the whole House when I express my heartfelt grief at the Grenfell Tower catastrophe. Almost a fortnight has passed; the shock has not subsided. I have visited Kensington and witnessed the terrible anguish of those who have lost so much. In some cases they have lost everything.
I am sure that, like me, many Members have returned from their constituencies this morning with the anger and fears of residents still ringing in their ears—anger that a tragedy on this scale was ever allowed to happen in 21st century Britain and fear that it could happen again. It is this fear I want to address first today.
On the cladding checking process, I know the entire country is anxious to hear what we are doing to reassure residents about fire safety in similar blocks around the country. My department contacted all councils and housing associations asking them to identify all tall residential buildings in England that they are responsible for that have potentially similar cladding applied. We estimate this number to be around 600. On 18 June, we wrote to them and asked them to start sending samples, and on 21 June our combustibility testing programme for aluminium composite material cladding started, run by the Building Research Establishment.
On 22 June, the Government provided advice to all these landlords about interim safety measures where a building has ACM cladding that is unlikely to be compliant with building regulations. This advice was recommended by an independent panel of experts and includes advice based on the emerging findings from the Metropolitan Police investigation into Grenfell Tower. I can inform the House that, as of midday, the cladding from 75 high-rise buildings in 26 local authority areas has failed the combustibility test. I know that Members will want to know if their local residents are affected, and my department will publish regular updates on GOV.UK.
The combustibility test has three categories rated 1 to 3, and it is judged that cladding material in category 2 or 3 does not meet the requirements for limited combustibility in building regulations. I can also confirm to the House that so far, on that basis, all samples of cladding tested have failed. The fact that all samples so far have failed the test underlines the value of the testing programme and the vital importance of submitting samples urgently. The testing facility can analyse 100 samples a day and runs around the clock. I am concerned about the speed at which samples are being submitted. I would urge all landlords to submit samples immediately.
In every case of failed tests, landlords and local fire and rescue services have been alerted, and we are supporting and monitoring follow-up action, including by a dedicated caseworker in my department. Landlords for all affected buildings have informed or are informing tenants and implementing the interim safety measures needed, working with fire and rescue services. At this time, the safety of people living in these buildings is our paramount concern. I am determined that residents have as much peace of mind as possible in such worrying times. Landlords must keep residential buildings safe for their tenants. Where they cannot satisfy that obligation with appropriate mitigating measures, we expect alternative accommodation to be provided while remedial work is carried out. That is exactly what has happened in Camden and I would like to pay tribute to the residents there for their brave response in such a distressing situation.
It is obvious that the problem of unsafe cladding may not be a problem unique to social housing or residential buildings. We have asked owners, landlords and managers of private sector residential blocks to consider their own buildings and we have made the testing facility freely available to them. My department is working with the Government Property Unit to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings. Hospitals are well prepared—each one has a tailored fire safety plan. But nothing is more important than the safety of patients and staff, so on a precautionary basis we have asked all hospitals to conduct additional checks. The Government will continue to work closely with fire and rescue colleagues to prioritise and conduct checks based on local circumstances.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency is contacting all bodies responsible for safety in schools, instructing them to carry out immediate checks to identify any buildings which require further investigation. We will have more information this week. Across the wider government estate, 15 buildings have been identified as requiring further investigation.
While that work continues, it is vital that we offer every assistance to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As of this morning, 79 people have been confirmed dead or listed as missing presumed dead. Sadly, it is believed that this number will increase. As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the initial response of the emergency services was exemplary, but the immediate support on the ground was simply not good enough. A remarkable community effort sprung up overnight, while official support was found wanting. That failure was inexcusable, and it is right that a new team and approach is now in operation.
We have activated the Bellwin scheme and sent in significant central government resource including: a single point of access into government provided by the Grenfell Tower victims’ unit operating from my department; and staff from six government departments offering support at the Westway assistance centre. The Government have set aside a £5 million Grenfell Tower residents’ discretionary fund and more than £1 million has so far been distributed. Each household affected is receiving £5,500 to provide immediate assistance, and so far 111 households have received payments. The British Red Cross is operating an advice line for anyone affected or in need of support. It is just one of many charities, faith organisations, and businesses that have provided invaluable assistance to victims. I can announce to the House today that the Government will contribute £1 million to support their efforts. This money will be distributed by the local consortium of charities, trusts and foundations that are working together to respond to this tragic event.
Our other priority has been to find survivors a safe and secure place to live. The Prime Minister made a clear commitment that a good-quality temporary home would be found for every family whose home was destroyed in the fire, within three weeks. Every one of those families will also be offered a permanent social home in the local area. This work is under way, and the first families moved into their homes over the weekend. Last week, I also announced that the Government had secured 68 homes in a new development in Kensington to rehouse local residents. We will do everything we can to support the victims of the Grenfell fire now and in the future, and I will regularly update Members on our progress.
As the Prime Minister said in her Statement to the House last week, the disaster at Grenfell Tower should never have happened. There is an ongoing police investigation, and there will be an independent judge-led public inquiry to get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible. Building regulations and the system for ensuring fire safety in buildings have been developed over many decades, and until the Grenfell fire many experts would have claimed that system has served us well. But now we have witnessed a catastrophic failure on a scale many thought impossible in 21st century Britain. It is clear that that failure must be understood and rectified without delay, and the Government are determined to ensure that that happens. As an initial step, I can inform the House today that I am establishing an independent expert advisory panel, which will advise the Government on any steps that should immediately be taken on fire safety. Further details of the panel, including its members, will be released shortly.
This tragedy must never be forgotten, and it should weigh heavily on the consciousness of every person tasked with making the decisions that ensure it can never happen again”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests, specifically as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and with our emergency services, which responded so bravely and quickly to the unfolding disaster. Their actions saved countless lives. The whole nation owes these heroes a debt of gratitude.
The Prime Minister acknowledged that the response by Kensington and Chelsea Council was not good enough and a firm grip on the situation needed to be taken. The response by charities, faith organisations, businesses and local residents has rightly been praised and I pay tribute to them all. They add to the shame with which the response of Kensington and Chelsea council is viewed by everybody. I find it staggering that the council leader did not resign immediately. He should resign without further delay. The chief executive of Lewisham, Barry Quirk, has taken over as the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. He is a public sector manager with years of experience and will get a grip of the situation quickly. The command centre is under the joint leadership of John Barradell, the chief executive of the Corporation of London, and Eleanor Kelly, the chief executive of Southwark council. Both are experienced public sector managers. Eleanor Kelly is known to me, and she will do an excellent job, I am sure, with the chief executive of the Corporation of London.
I have no intention of speculating on matters that are best left to the police and the inquiry. I have confidence that robust work will be undertaken, and where criminal activity is found to have taken place, prosecutions to the full extent of the law will be brought. But lessons have to be learned and things have to change. I hope that we never again hear the nonsense that we have heard in the past about red tape and health and safety regulations. It is clear that, rather than having too much regulation, there has in this case been a catastrophic failure. Regulations were either not good enough or were not followed and applied thoroughly and properly.
The checks on tower blocks throughout the UK need to continue as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the residents of Camden who have been affected by the right decision to evacuate their blocks, which are deemed by the authorities to be unsafe, and to the leadership shown by the leader of Camden council, Councillor Georgia Gould, who has been there on the ground speaking to residents. It would be welcomed by the whole House if we were given further details of the work being undertaken by the Government Property Unit to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings.
Cladding is not the whole story. That is clear from the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires, as the respective coroners’ reports show. Can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to provide up-front funding to local authorities to take recladding measures, the installation of sprinkler systems or other fire precaution measures rather than the after-event funding through the Bellwin scheme? I welcome the independent advisory panel that is being set up, but the Statement repeated by the noble Lord seems to suggest that the system is at the point of collapse, and urgent action must be taken. We need to do that quickly.
Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said,
“we simply have not given enough attention to social housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 169.]
I would suggest that the Government have given plenty of the wrong attention to social housing. Schemes such as the National Tenant Voice have been scrapped. The social homes build is down from 37,000 to 1,000, and Homes and Communities Agency funding for the Decent Homes programme has been ended. What we need now from the noble Lord is a commitment to do everything to ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is not just empty words and that we will see a complete change of course by the Government in support of funding for social housing so that we have truly affordable homes in this country.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a councillor elected in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join with what has already been said in tribute to both the fantastic work of the emergency services on the night and to the ongoing support that has now been put in place by a combination of charities, faith groups, community groups and finally—although too late—the Government and local government. I have three major areas of concern following the Grenfell Tower fire.
The first area is that of care for the victims of the fire. The initial co-ordination of this huge and probably preventable catastrophe was a fiasco. As I said in this House last Thursday, accountability in the political process is absolutely vital if we are to retain trust between those who are elected and those who are represented. I called for the leader of the council in Kensington and Chelsea to take responsibility for the fact that 79 people have died in a council building on his watch. I cannot believe that a leader elsewhere in the country would not have resigned by that point. I repeat my call of last Thursday and I trust that some Members on the government side will talk to the leader and urge him to take responsibility.
A second element in the area of care for the victims is the co-ordination of ongoing support for them. I understand that the Government are implementing the Bellwin scheme, which provides recompense to councils and other authorities for the emergency costs of the work they do. That is positive, but I am concerned about the work that they ought to be doing to support the children who have been involved in this awful trauma. They are a particular concern of mine because of my interests. Are their welfare and ongoing education needs going to be well supported for a very long time, because that is probably what they will need?
My second major area of concern is that of prevention, referred to by the Minister in the Statement. What we absolutely must ensure is that there are no other buildings where further loss of life could take place. My understanding is that all building materials have to be passed by the British Board of Agrément, which determines whether the materials are fit for purpose and how they can be used. I have not heard in any of the statements in either this House or the other place whether this is the case for the materials referred to by the Minister; that is, the aluminium cladding. I would welcome an answer to that point.
The second element in the area of prevention is that I am particularly concerned about schools. I am a governor of a school which should be opening in September. It is being built through the government scheme. As I speak it is being clad and does not have a sprinkler system because the requirement for such systems in schools has been removed. No doubt the Minister will not be able to respond, but a number of schools are currently being built around the country. Will they have sprinkler systems put in and will the cladding be checked?
My third area of concern is that of costs. We have heard that the emergency costs are to be covered by the Bellwin scheme, but we expect that cladding which fails the checks will have to be replaced. Who is going to pay for that? If there are some 600 tower blocks, numerous schools and some hospitals which did fulfil the building regulations but latterly discover that the cladding material is combustible, who will fund the enormous cost of recladding those buildings? I doubt whether cash-strapped local authorities will be in a position to fund replacement cladding, and similarly I doubt whether the NHS will be able to meet the cost of recladding buildings. It is not responsible in the sense that, if the building regulations were complied with, in my view the costs ought to be met by the Government.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions and I acknowledge, as I think I did in the Statement, the importance of the role played by the emergency services. They were truly heroic and the events demonstrated in a very graphic way how much we owe to them on a continuing basis. Of course, as has also been said, the response has not been limited to the emergency services, although their role was extraordinary. I was reading this morning about a young Latvian-born Russian man who went five or six floors up into the tower to rescue people. The human response was extraordinary, while the continuing response of charities and faith organisations has also been first class. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned Barry Quirk, Eleanor Kelly, John Barradell and indeed the work of many London boroughs which have contributed massively since Kensington and Chelsea, as it were, stood down. Their response has been extraordinary too. Elected representatives are responsible and should be held accountable, and that is a matter for them to consider, but I certainly hear what has been said by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Let me deal with some of the specifics that were mentioned: I shall start with the victims, then move to costs and shall try to pick up some of the other points that were made. As I indicated in the Statement there is a Grenfell Tower victims’ unit which looks at many things through the medium of the Red Cross, with the funding assistance I have just mentioned, and a hotline. It is helping with advice on health, education and finance. Many of these people, it has to be recognised, do not speak English, so language support is being offered as well, for the various languages that are necessary: it is quite right that that should happen. There is counselling, including grief counselling and counselling to deal with the dreadful situation there.
On the cost, first, one should not ignore the significance of the Bellwin scheme. It has been used on many occasions, such as the Buncefield disaster, floods and so on. After 0.2% of the authority’s budget—in the case of Kensington and Chelsea, £300,000 is not significant in terms of that budget—the other money is supplied by the Government within the scheme, up to 100%. One should not ignore the significance of that: it really is important, it is in place already, as I understand it, in relation to Grenfell Tower, and in relation to Camden, it will obviously be utilised. On top of that, primary responsibility, of course, rests with the landlord of the relevant body, whether that is public sector or private sector, but of course we recognise that there is a cost here. The most important thing is the safety of individuals. That is something we want to stress and we will obviously be talking with local authorities about the cost. At the moment we do not know what that cost will be: even in relation to the 75 examples I cited of non-compliance, it is not necessarily clear that removing the cladding will be necessary overnight, as it were. We just have to look at how that is to be taken forward, but I recognise the importance of the point; of course, I do.
The general, broader point about social housing is well made. We know that many of the authorities concerned are of all parties, I think, and all parties have to look at how we address this on an ongoing basis. There are certainly lessons to be learned there. The noble Baroness mentioned prevention—I do not think the noble Lord did, but it is clearly an issue that needs looking at. Fire safety checks on cladding and so on are needed, not just on residential buildings but on all buildings. We have already put in place a system for the NHS and for education, but of course in the private sector there will be office buildings and so on, which while perhaps not as urgent as residential buildings will still need to be looked at. I know that some hotels—Premier Inn, for example—have stated that they will be removing cladding. So the private sector needs to look at this too and there are many issues to be looked at.
The sprinkler situation has been mentioned. Residential blocks above 18 metres since, I think, 2007, need sprinklers. That raises the question, clearly, which I think the public inquiry will certainly want to look at, that if it is right for them, what about retrofitting other buildings within that system? I would be astounded if, when we see the terms of reference, that is not part of the inquiry. Those terms of reference will be discussed not just with tenants and representatives of tenants of Grenfell Tower but with the chairperson of the inquiry. Those matters need to be looked at too.
Once again I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the genuinely consensual way that they have been seeking to move this forward, which I am sure is the right way. I think that certain statements made elsewhere are unhelpful, but this is a national position which we have to deal with in a national, consensual way. I do not think that victims would welcome any other approach than the one that has been demonstrated today.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister made clear in his Statement that the Government are aware of the lack of preparedness at all levels of government to take a grip of this situation. Is the Minister aware that the Cabinet Office runs the Emergency Planning College at Easingwold in North Yorkshire, an admirable organisation that trains people from all over the world, who come to prepare themselves for catastrophes and disasters of this sort? Will the Minister please go away urgently and ask his department to see what can be done to encourage people at all levels of government to make use of this admirable institution so that the lack of preparedness in this case is not perpetuated again in the future?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that helpful suggestion. He will be aware that, in the Statement repeated in this House by the Leader of the Lords last week, mention was made of the possibility and maybe the likelihood of a civil disaster action body—I forget the exact appellation—being set up to look at this type of situation so that lessons can be learned. I think that the Emergency Planning College that my noble friend mentioned would be an admirable body to involve in that discussion and I will take that back.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what work is being done to check the safety of electrical appliances? It is a slightly different angle. I am sure that the safety of electrical appliances will be covered by the public inquiry, but what work is being done at present? It is clear that safety in American appliances is very different from that in appliances sold in the UK. What consultation, if any, is taking place with the much reduced trading standards officers, who have a lot of experience in the area of electrical appliance safety? Finally, what involvement, if any, does the Health and Safety Executive—again, much reduced—have in the current activities?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. It illustrates the breadth of the inquiry that is needed here, because there are many aspects to this. One has almost overlooked how the fire started, but she is absolutely right. The supplier of the white goods in question, if I can categorise it in that way, has made a statement and is looking at checks on that. I will write to the noble Baroness and copy it to all Members, with any additional points I miss or am unable to answer in this session, including on the involvement of the consumer safety bodies she referred to and the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that they will be very much involved—I was going to say, plugged in, but that might not be the right word—in the discussions in relation to the inquiry and taking this forward. It illustrates the immense challenge that we have here, and we really cannot duck this challenge. I should also say that I held a briefing earlier today on this situation, attended by many noble Lords, ahead of the Statement. It is my intention to hold another, because this is a quickly changing position, and to take points in more detail with officials then.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I tried last week to ask this question and I should like to try again. I had the privilege in the 2013-14 Session to chair a Select Committee of a dozen Members of this House on the Inquiries Act 2005 and whether it was fit for purpose. We produced a report which was unanimous and generally well received. We said that it was fit for purpose. Therefore, the question is this: is the full rigour of the Act going to be used in the public inquiry? If it is not, whether it is judge-led or not, it will not have the power to pull witnesses in and they can slink away. It is very important that the Act be used.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I understand it, the inquiry will be within the rigour of that Act. I had a briefing today that indicated that people could be obliged to attend by subpoena, for example, which indicates that that is the case. Another point I am getting officials to check is that we have somehow to ensure that people giving evidence to this public inquiry—we want it to happen in a very timely way—are protected in that, if they face criminal charges, there has to be some sort of mechanism for making sure they are aware that anything they say on that occasion could be used in criminal proceedings. I will contact the noble Lord, via the letter I am sending round, if I am wrong on that, but as I understand it the Inquiries Act will apply.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that public figures should be very slow to make criticisms of individuals or wild allegations of criminal responsibility until such time as the public inquiry informs us where responsibility truly lies?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great authority, as a distinguished lawyer. Of course, that is the case. We have a proper procedure and process to follow in our parliamentary and democratic system, based on the rule of law and the English legal system. That is the reason for the inquiry. That is the reason for legal proceedings, and we must make sure that they happen in a timely way so that we can draw the necessary conclusions, and draw them quickly.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, first, where cladding must be removed, whether on high or low-rise buildings, can this be done while the residents remain in place? Secondly, the disaster makes it clear that almost no reserve of rented accommodation exists. Does this not underline the urgent need to multiply the rate at which safe and affordable dwellings are produced?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord asked two very relevant questions. The first was whether the cladding can be removed while people are in place. Yes, that is possible, certainly physically, and that could well—and almost certainly will—happen to some of these blocks if there are other mitigating factors meaning that those people are not at risk; for example, if the block was built after 2007 and there is an effective sprinkler system, that might be the right way to proceed. Each case is being looked at individually and that will not necessarily be appropriate for every case but it will be for some. The noble Lord then made a general point about the importance of affordable housing and, by implication, having it in the appropriate places, which is a challenge that we are addressing and have been seeking to address quite independently of this. He is absolutely right about that, and that assault on the importance of affordable housing will continue quite independently of this, but this does underline it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has described some of the work that will be done, and that is welcome. However, there is utter confusion at the moment among not just residents and tenants but those in the construction industry about what will now be deemed safe, because of the seeming contradiction between the building regulations and the combustibility test that the Government are carrying out. Where does the industry now go for a definitive list of what is safe in areas such as the cladding of schools, which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Pinnock? If there is not a definitive list, how quickly will the Government get one so that those who are cladding or retro-cladding will know exactly what is safe?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, admittedly, this is a proxy test that is being done at the moment but the testing facility that is being used by the BRE is incredibly fast and very clear. That is why we know that 75 samples that have been assessed so far are non-compliant. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. There is a wider question about the building regulations—last revised in 2006 and amended in 2010 and 2013—which the inquiry will no doubt also want to look at.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments about the voluntary sector. In the lessons learned exercise, will research be done to understand exactly why the voluntary and faith sector was so good at responding and could organise teams within four hours to distribute things, compared with the local authority response? Will lessons be learned about why the concerns raised by the residents in the months—indeed, years—beforehand were never listened to, and in the future will tenants be listened to more appropriately? Finally, what can the Government do about the speed of the submission of samples by landlords, which is woefully slow?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those points. First, perhaps I might, through him, congratulate the faith sector more widely, and indeed the charity sector and the voluntary sector. I do not think this is limited to Grenfell Tower, but it is true that often Governments and local authorities—the public sector in general—are not always trusted as much as the local faith, charity and third sector, which is local, trusted and more responsive. I have seen the same thing in relation to some of the dreadful terrorist incidents we have had, most recently in Finsbury Park. That is certainly true there.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the concerns of tenants not being listened to over time. Of course, that will be looked at again by the inquiry. I do not want to prejudice that by coming out with statements but concerns raised by tenants should always be listened to. The tenants are the people who know about this. He then asked about the slow response, was it? I am sorry.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Minister said that landlords are being very slow to send in samples.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Yes, in repeating the Statement. That is certainly the case. We are talking to the LGA, which is a very helpful partner and is following up on some of these. The testing is quite quick. We need to make sure that some of the local authorities are coming up with the material for us to test. With the LGA, we are following that up.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, a question was asked about work being carried out while residents are in situ. The recladding and other fire protection work will involve potentially hundreds of blocks of flats nationally and perhaps as many as 50,000 families. Instead of the evacuation of families, which will arise in some cases, with all the disruption of family life that entails—which is what we hear is going on in Camden at the moment—have the Government and local authorities considered the appointment of fire monitors, on a shift system basis, during surveys and periods of work, carefully located in vulnerable blocks, in particular where there are clusters of blocks of flats, and where those fire monitors can be in fire alarm contact with all flat owners? There are two advantages. First, it will give residents some peace of mind and, secondly, it will save a lot of public money.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on his perseverance in asking the question. He is absolutely right that evacuation should be only in extremis, which I think the Camden situation was. They considered very carefully whether it was appropriate there. The possibility of fire monitors—or, as I think we are calling them, fire managers—being in situ on the premises is certainly being looked at as one possible way of mitigating that, and I thank the noble Lord for his support for that idea. He is absolutely right that, where appropriate, this will provide peace of mind and save money and, of course, save disruption in other cases. But in some cases, evacuation will be appropriate and Camden was certainly one of them.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Will my noble friend clarify the position on Part B of the building regulations? That seems to be the part that is relevant. As I understand it, in 2009 a coroner in Southwark recommended that the building regulations should be reviewed. In 2016 the Minister for Housing undertook that they would be reviewed. I understand that recently the Minister for Housing has said, “We are ready for consultation”. Surely this should be a real priority; otherwise, no one in the construction industry knows what on earth they can do. That is an absolute priority. May I have an assurance from my noble friend that something will be done about this now?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed. The Lakanal inquest in 2009 that he referred to suggested that the building regulations needed simplifying. That work has not yet started. We were about to start that when an election intervened but, clearly, we have to learn the lessons in relation to building regs and fire safety measures. We will be setting up a public inquiry, which I am sure will have an interim report that will come forward with some urgent findings. But I agree with my noble friend that this clearly is in purview.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister to say something further about the private sector. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, although it is in no way involved in my asking this question. He has referred twice to the private sector. If I recall his wording, he said, first, that private sector companies should do the checks in blocks that they own and, secondly, that the testing facilities will be open to them. However, where a block is in the private sector and the building control function has been undertaken by the private sector, does the Minister agree that it is very important that checks are compulsory and not advisory?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may track back on to something that I should have mentioned earlier in relation to those blocks that have, after testing, been found not to be compliant. In those 75 cases, my department will nominate a specific employee to liaise about the necessary action. That is in relation to all those public sector or social housing blocks that have been identified. In relation to the private sector blocks, subject to the same sort of constraints at 18 metres and above, we have been in contact with all the private sector landlords and are recommending that they test the cladding. It is not compulsory; we are making a facility available to them without charge, but those are not part of the 600 blocks which I mentioned. I am sure that we will want to follow up on that but, as things stand, it is not compulsory. We are focusing on the social rented sector at the moment because that seems the right thing to do.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a systemic failure to deal with policy in relation to fire for some years. One reads newspaper reports, which I think the Minister has confirmed, that some action was intended in recent years after reports were received, but nothing has yet happened. Can he confirm that, as the situation is reviewed after this tragedy, it will be a cross-governmental engagement? All departments ought to be involved—one thinks, for example, of education, health and indeed justice, with prison establishments. It will need to reach out to the private sector as well. It has already been indicated that there are potential problems in private developments, which also need to be covered.
Can the Minister confirm that, so far as local authorities are concerned—and it may be that a similar principle will have to be extended to other areas, such as health—the full costs of this will be met by government? I remind him that a reduction is going ahead now in council house rents, which will help the Government’s finances by significantly reducing housing benefit. Some billions of pounds will be involved over a long period. I suggest that, if the Government are looking for a resource to fund the necessary work, that would be one way—by using the money being diverted from local authorities at the moment—to ensure that they are at least able to carry out all that is required of them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
First, I thank the noble Lord for his point on the involvement of other government departments. As I have indicated, it is absolutely right that this is wide-ranging. I also mentioned in the Statement the fact that some of the people on the ground in the Westway centre near Grenfell Tower are from DCLG; they are also from many other government departments as well. There is certainly a recognition— more than a recognition, an embracing of the fact—that this involves many other government departments. He is absolutely right to mention education, health and justice.
The most important duty of any Government is to keep people safe. We recognise that, and there will obviously need to be a discussion about the cost of this. We do not yet know what the cost will be. I suspect that the testing we have seen so far has indicated some of the more urgent instances. We cannot conclude that this is the case, but it may well be that local authorities have recognised those blocks where there is a concern and therefore submitted those samples in a timely way. We might therefore find that the 60 in one category and the 15 in another category are not representative of the rest of the 600 blocks. Let us hope and pray so; we do not know that yet. We will want to engage with local authorities once we know the sum total of what it will cost, to see how that is determined, but some local authorities—notably, Kensington and Chelsea—are perhaps not quite so short of money as others.
Queen’s Speech
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, just before we start the mammoth task again, can I remind noble Lords that the advisory Back-Bench speaking time is five minutes? If we stick to that, we will finish by 11.30 pm, which is already quite late.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to the Front Bench and in looking forward to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Colgrain.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on the problems facing British manufacturing industry. There are clearly industries that are hugely successful, such as aerospace, biotech and motor vehicles, to name but three. The drop in the value of sterling against the euro and the dollar has given a short-term boost to our export sales, but there can be no doubt that our manufacturing sector faces significant problems.
The first serious issue, which has been with us for many years, is productivity. We remain way down at the bottom of the productivity tables in comparison with all our major competitors, and all economic commentators agree that the reason for our low productivity is the low rate of capital investment over decades. I am disappointed that the gracious Speech did not emphasise more the Government’s proposals to solve the productivity gap between us and our competitors, particularly in the context of Brexit.
It is impossible to look at the issues facing manufacturing industry without also looking at the impact that Brexit will have. First, it must seem obvious to noble Lords that, as 52% of the United Kingdom’s exports currently go to the European Union, access to the European Union for goods must be maintained, even if some continued financial contribution is required. The alternative—of accepting World Trade Organization rules in the event of no deal after two years—would be unsatisfactory, as it would mean an average tariff of 5.3% on exports to the European Union, with tariffs ranging from 4.6% on chemicals to 10% on cars.
Secondly, it is not just potential tariff barriers that are a serious concern. Non-tariff barriers are equally important. These barriers deal with, for example, regulatory issues, technical barriers, standards and measurements. Harmonisation of standards has worked well in recent years, but there is significant nervousness in the manufacturing community that, following our exit, Europe will revert to the bad old days of Germany setting rules that suit its manufacturers.
It is also essential that lengthy customs checks are not introduced, as that would be damaging, particularly in industries that involve a significant flow of components to and from the European Union. The Government seem to believe that we will be able to build component industries to get round those difficulties. However, if we take the motor car industry, most manufacturers do not believe that a UK supply will be sufficient. We can look at the risks. Other motor vehicle manufacturers are aware of the history of Ford. Thirty years ago, it was the UK’s largest vehicle producer. It now produces 2 million engines per year in the UK, but 90% of those engines are exported to mainland Europe. Although Ford is the number one car seller here, not one of its cars is made in the UK.
The final major concern for all manufacturing companies is that British manufacturing industry requires significant skilled immigration from Europe. I appreciate that that is anathema to the Tory right, but there are countless examples of a likely skills shortage. A typical example is the need of some engineering companies for analogue design engineers. Our universities now really teach only digital electrical engineering, so the analogue design engineers that many engineering companies need can be found only from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. Such people must be given the right to work in the UK; otherwise, a disaster will occur. In industry, there is considerable scepticism about whether the skills shortage will be made up by UK employees once we have left the European Union. I suspect that David Davis would acknowledge that, and did so in a little-recorded speech in Estonia some time back.
When I see the problems faced by manufacturing industry, which I have just outlined, I ask: is it any wonder that the Tory party, in its election campaign, got the lowest level of support from industry that I can remember in my many years in active politics?
Lord Mountevans (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am honoured to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I would have done so sooner, but some noble Lords may know that I have been occupied east of here for the past year or so.
Standing here, I have the privilege of following into this House my late father-in-law, Lord Moran, who gave distinguished service as a diplomat and later followed his father—Winston Churchill’s personal physician—into this place. I follow, too, my grandfather Edward Evans—or Teddy, as I knew him—who was raised to the peerage in 1945 following a career as a naval officer and Antarctic explorer. When Teddy was a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, he was second in command of Captain Scott’s ill-fated second expedition to the Antarctic, and he was one of the last three to see Scott and the final polar party alive, just 160 miles from the pole. Growing up, I grew acquainted with the spirit of exploration, innovation and enterprise that carried him literally to the end of the earth.
While I did not have the opportunity to follow in his footsteps and visit, in his words, the “desolate Antarctic”, during my year as Lord Mayor of London, I nevertheless visited 24 countries in five other continents. These visits, on which I was accompanied by business delegations, were conducted to promote London and the UK as the world centre for financial and business services, a position that I very much hope is maintained in the years to come. On these visits, I recognised in the best of British businesses the same animating spirit of enterprise, innovation and adventure that drove my grandfather and which we will need to harness to drive our own future prosperity.
This spirit is evident not least in a sector which my grandfather knew well and in which I made my own career, the maritime sector. More than 80% of world trade moves by sea. That is more than a ton and a half of cargo for every man, woman and child on the planet, and sea-borne trade is predicted to double by 2030. Given the importance of this sector, I am pleased to say that the UK, an island nation with a rich seafaring tradition, is a world-leading maritime centre and is perfectly positioned to capitalise on future growth.
Our skilled workforce, world-class infrastructure and competitive business environment make the UK a destination of choice. As a result, the sector, which encompasses not only shipping and ports, ship and boat building, manufacturing and engineering but the world-renowned lawyers, insurers and brokers of the City of London, makes a significant contribution to the UK economy—an estimated £22 billion, supporting 500,000 jobs. We have seen growth in recent years. Updated historical data and the latest figures will be presented in full at the Maritime UK reception here in Parliament during the third London International Shipping Week in September.
Innovation is critical and is widely evidenced across the maritime sector. Much attention is being given to the economic benefits of robotic and autonomous operations, and this House only recently received a report recommending a number of actions by government to ensure that the UK can take advantage of this evolving technology. Marine and agriculture were specifically mentioned as sectors from which early benefits could accrue. Singling out marine, the deployment of autonomous devices to increase the scope and speed of ocean surveys will be a capability of the new British Antarctic Survey ship, “Sir David Attenborough”, currently under construction at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead. That contract was won against international competition. This vessel will be a world leader in technology. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, wasted no time in bringing to the attention of this House the fact that the new carrier is sailing from Rosyth today. As an honorary captain in the Royal Naval Reserve, I say that the Royal Navy is not just guarding our sea lanes; it also plays a key role in the development of marine and maritime technology.
In 2014, I was honoured to be asked by the Government to chair the maritime growth study, which made a number of recommendations for keeping the UK maritime sector competitive. I am pleased to say that significant progress is being made in addressing those recommendations and that there will be much to report at London International Shipping Week. That has been a huge success and is an outstanding example of co-operation between government and business. I urge the Government and business to continue work on the relevant recommendations of the growth study to ensure that the maritime industries can harness the talent and enterprising spirit of the workforce to deliver for Britain in the coming years.
As a former Lord Mayor of the City of London, it would be remiss of me not to say something of another of the UK’s leading industries and great success stories: financial and related professional services. In my remaining time, I will not rehearse too many statistics. Suffice to say that the sector supports more than 2 million jobs nationally, with two-thirds of those outside of London, contributed £176 billion to the UK economy in 2015 and attracted £10.2 billion of foreign direct investment, which was around one-third of total inward FDI. It is the UK’s largest generator of tax revenues, covering, if you like, two-thirds of the cost of the National Health Service. It is also the source of the country’s largest trade surplus.
I would like to highlight just one initiative demonstrating the sector’s innovative and enterprising spirit: green finance. In my year as Lord Mayor, I was proud to launch the City of London’s Green Finance Initiative, a body committed to promoting and further developing one of the industry’s most vibrant and fastest growing sectors, which advocates the steps that must be taken if we are to facilitate truly 21st-century, high-tech jobs, growth and exports.
Green finance—the funding of investments that provide environmental benefit—will fund and facilitate the growth of a more efficient and productive and less polluting economy and can provide a bridge to markets both old and new, including China, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Morocco and Argentina. This serves simply to show how, at its best, the sector embodies the same spirit of enterprise and innovation and of going out into the world of which I heard in my grandfather’s stories, and which I also see in the maritime industries today.
To close, it is my fervent belief that the best of British business, and the two sectors I have highlighted, will continue to embody that spirit and will make an important contribution to our nation’s future, helping to build the trading nation that the Government, and all of us, wish to see. For them to do so, however, it is vital that the Government deliver on their pledge to negotiate the best Brexit deal or suggested agreement, which must include mutual market access, early agreement of transitional arrangements and access to talent for the UK’s businesses. If the Government are able to provide the framework where opportunities can be taken, where innovation is encouraged and where businesses are not left out in the cold, I am certain they will deliver.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a very great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and to be the first in your Lordships’ House to be able to congratulate him on his magnificent maiden speech, so clearly informed by the wisdom, experience and insight he has developed through his distinguished career in the City, which culminated, as we have heard, in serving as the 688th Lord Mayor of the City of London. I had the opportunity to speak to the Lord Chief Justice this morning, who indicated to me that the noble Lord was a most successful Lord Mayor of the City of London. He is highly regarded throughout the City and beyond, and your Lordships’ House will benefit from his future contributions to the important work that we have the responsibility of discharging on behalf of our nation.
I also congratulate the Minister on the thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate and declare my interests as professor of surgery at University College London, chairman of UCLPartners and UK business ambassador for healthcare and life sciences. I shall concentrate my contribution in this debate on the area of life sciences.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that financial services represent the most important part of our economy, but beyond financial services the life sciences are the second. They are an industry and a sector predicated on the development over many decades of a very finely balanced ecosystem. At the heart of that ecosystem is the National Health Service. Four of the 10 leading universities of the world, three of the 10 universities leading specifically in the field of life sciences, and two of the top 10 pharma companies in the world are based here in the United Kingdom, between them employing some 200,000 people in more than 180 countries around the world and providing a surplus in excess of £20 billion a year to the UK economy. There are some 1,300 companies in our country manufacturing in the medical area. There are 3,500 small and medium-sized enterprises, 500 of which are exporting actively, and the life sciences industries employ some 235,000 people, which is just under 1% of total private sector employment in our country. Those are important statistics, because the life sciences sector not only makes an important contribution to the economy and to generating wealth but has the vital purpose of ensuring that we can improve healthcare and the outcomes we can achieve for our patients through the application of innovation and technology that has transformed life prospects over recent decades.
A recent UK Trade & Investment report, Strength and Opportunity in 2014, which looked at the life sciences sector in 2014, established that it was a true world leader. Since 2011, the sector has attracted some £7.5 billion of inward investment into our country, which has resulted in the creation of some 18,000 jobs. The medtech sector grew at some 5.8% per annum in the period 2009 to 2014, and the biotech sector some 4% per annum. Those are very impressive figures when one looks at the general pace of economic activity during that period, and something that cannot be neglected.
The Conservative Party manifesto at the last election committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom was the most innovative country in the world. Clearly, the gracious Speech has identified certain areas of innovation—we heard in the Minister’s introductory comments a particular focus on driverless cars and travel into space—but I hope that the Minister can confirm a continued emphasis on the area of life sciences. This important area of activity, which is so bound up with the public sector, our universities and the delivery of healthcare, will not thrive unless there continues to be a determined focus on ensuring that it can compete globally. It is a sector, beyond many others. that is exquisitely dependent on collaboration—across universities, across industries and between Governments. Any loss of focus in that area will result in our country paying a heavy price.
In that regard, would the Minister be able to address two or three questions? First, is he content that there will be the opportunity for sufficient focus on the life sciences sector so that it can continue to deliver as required without any further legislation to deal with some anomalies with regard to the environment in which it has to operate? In particular, is he content that UK Research and Innovation will be able to drive the kind of collaborations and co-operation among scientists and innovators, not only in our own country but across the European Union, and potentially in other fundamentally innovative economies such as the United States and the emerging innovative economies in the east, such as China and India?
Is the Minister content that the vital role that the National Health Service has to play with regard to innovation in the life sciences sector can be delivered, particularly with the adoption of innovation at scale and pace—innovation established in our own country and applied for the benefit of the patients in our National Health Service but also using the fundamental opportunities of the NHS to demonstrate to the rest of the world the value of what we can bring to drive improvements in global healthcare?
Finally, is the Minister content that the life sciences sector can be properly supported in the negotiations attending our exit from the European Union?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I have been listening to him—
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I begin my remarks with congratulations to: my noble friend Lord Callanan, whom I served in the European Parliament, on his ministerial appointment; to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, with whom I was at university, on his maiden speech; and, if I may anticipate, to my noble friend Lord Colgrain, with whom I was also at university. I must also declare some interests that are in the register, some of which relate to me in a personal capacity and some to the activities that I am engaged in. I hope my noble friend Lord Callanan will not be too disappointed if I do not talk about space but keep my feet on the ground and talk about agriculture. If you are going to leave the CAP, it seems a good moment to review agriculture, agricultural policy and rural policy, because they all go hand in hand.
Clearly, as we all know, the CAP was not designed for this country, but, equally, it was not designed specifically for any other country either. It has a number of very foolish aspects to it, although of course you do not have to cross the channel to find idiotic aspects to government. It is also a mistake to parody it, as some newspapers have done, not least because in so doing they seem to parody responsible journalism. The CAP, like much else, has moved on. Especially since the MacSharry reforms, there are plenty of things we can take as good examples from the workings of the CAP. It is a pity that it played too big a part in the EU budget, but it may not have necessarily played too big a part in total levels of public expenditure. It is understandable, but a pity, that it also played such a big part in EU politics.
It is my contention that there is a serious market failure in agricultural, rural and environmental policy, which in turn is morphing from traditional agriculture much more towards traditional rural estate management. This market failure is part of the serious problem of rural and agricultural poverty. Last weekend, we were in Dorset. For a Cumbrian like me, it looks like the land of milk and honey, but underneath that thick veneer of prosperity there is rural poverty and deprivation, and it seems to be most closely associated with those who directly work on or close to the land—those who, on the continent, are called peasants. I have been called a peasant on the continent, and I am proud of it. That is a correlation that we need to think about.
What is agriculture doing in the contemporary world? First, it produces commodities, be they food or timber. Given the role that world prices have played in the CAP since the MacSharry reforms, I believe it is pretty much wishful thinking to suppose, as I have heard government Ministers suggest, that leaving the European Union will put the price of commodities up. It seems to be most improbable. Nor have I heard much consideration of the problems of the balance of payments, of the need for security of food in this country or of the costs of food, bearing in mind that it is a significant part of many families’ budgets.
Above and beyond this, tourism, leisure and general well-being are provided from what you might describe as the assets in the nation’s rural estate. In my home county of Cumbria, tourism is far more important locally than agriculture, yet tourism does not directly pay anything towards it. Then there are ecosystem services: carbon capture, flood mitigation, clean air and other things. Again, there are no direct cash transfers here specifically in respect of those. Then there is the environment more generally. It is my view that dereliction has probably caused more damage to the urban fabric of this country than the Luftwaffe did. If you do not look after things, as we have discovered in the Palace of Westminster, the end bill is a great deal bigger than it otherwise need have been.
Finally, the countryside should be a location for businesses. It is a great pity of the way the town and country planning system developed in the immediate post-war period that that has been stamped on to the extent it has. But the other side of the coin is that developing in the countryside in general is more expensive than doing it within the wider urban envelope. It seems to me that the tax system should recognise that. Then we have things such as the problems with broadband and other forms of infrastructure, which have been well rehearsed. On the basis that people should be paid for what they do, it looks to me as if a lot of urban Britain is freeloading on the back of the countryside, which is an example of the biblical maxim that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away.
What, if anything, can be done about it? A particular suggestion that I would like to make is that the scheduler structure of income tax legislation should be looked at, because it discourages much sensible rural diversification and part-time farming. It is a gloomy state of affairs when the current framework around agriculture is conducted by the Rural Payments Agency and a lot of the planning authorities, which are not at all efficient or competent, taken as a whole. As a Cumbrian farmer said to me rather sadly, “Voting Brexit is, for farmers, the shortest suicide note in history”. I have no doubt that the Minister will not agree with that, but I would be grateful if he could explain in general but concrete terms their approach to these matters. I request that he please not repeat the meaningless mantra about generalised opportunities becoming available. To my own surprise and my friends’ amazement, I chaired a northern manufacturing company for several years, and the business was successful. The one thing that became clear to me was that entrepreneurs are successful through their own initiative and do not respond to government instruction.
Whether we like it or not, agriculture has always operated, and at least to some extent will continue to operate, within a state-regulated framework, and having an understanding of the Government’s aspirations and basic policy, so long as they are realistic, is a necessary condition of our country’s success.
Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there has been a lot of debate about the likely impact that leaving the European Union will have on the UK economy. To date, there have been two indisputable negative impacts. First, the fall in the pound as a consequence of the referendum vote has the direct effect of reducing real incomes. The second negative impact, indisputably, is the content of the gracious Speech. For the next two years at least, government energy and parliamentary time will be totally absorbed by the legislation needed to leave the EU. No time at all will be devoted to tackling the long-term trends in the UK economy, trends that herald very difficult times ahead for Britain, whatever may be the eventual deal reached in Brussels.
Consider the following. Investment in the UK as a proportion of GDP is lower than in both the United States and the EU. Corporate investment in fixed assets has fallen well below the rate of capital depreciation—in other words, the corporate capital stock is eroding. Research and development spending in the UK as a proportion of GDP is just a little over half the level that it is in the US or Germany. As a consequence of these, productivity in the UK, output per worker hour, is lower than in the US and all the major European economies, excepting Italy where it is about the same, and for the past decade productivity has not grown at all. It is hardly surprising that these trends have resulted in a seriously uncompetitive UK economy with a falling share of world trade and a persistent deterioration in the balance of payments. Britain is uncompetitive. The idea that we are in a fit state to conquer new global markets is an ignorant fantasy.
The competitiveness failure cannot be solved by the cheap-money policies of the Bank of England. It does not matter how cheap money might be; there is no incentive to invest unless there is prospect of a growing market and a positive return. No wonder companies today are accumulating and distributing cash, not spending on investment.
So what is there in this Brexit-dominated gracious Speech that might do something to reverse these miserable trends? Precious little. We are told that the Government will,
“work to attract investment in infrastructure to support economic growth”.
Note the careful wording—not a Government spending but a Government whistling in the wind in the hope of “attracting” investment. We are also told that the Government,
“will spread prosperity and opportunity across the country through a new, modern industrial strategy”.
But can we have any confidence in this strategy when over the next four years the Department for Transport’s infrastructure plans will see nearly £2,000 per person spent in London but just £280 per person in the north of England? There is not much spreading of prosperity there.
To become competitive again, Britain must become an investing economy. In policy terms we need nothing terribly original, just to learn from what has worked elsewhere. It is clear that low investment is related to the interaction of the UK’s financial markets and corporate behaviour. The Bank of England has shown that the UK’s capital markets are more short-termist than they used to be, and are more so than those of other countries. Investors give priority to short-term returns over long-term ones. In many ways the UK financial sector is a great success story; in terms of size, exports, employment and profits it is among the most successful in the world. But that international success has been bought at a price. The financial sector injects international instability and risk into the domestic economy. No wonder there is an emphasis on short-term liquidity, an unwillingness to commit to markets that are regularly punctuated by financial disorder.
Attempts to address these failings were made in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which sought to erect a ring fence between, on the one hand, commercial banking for households and small and medium-sized firms and, on the other, banking for large companies, investment banking and more risky market activities. However, once the real structure of UK finance is taken into account, it is clear that the ring fence is in the wrong place; it should be between domestic finance and international finance. The stability of comprehensive financial services for UK firms should be rigorously enforced while our booming, if unstable, international financial centre should be encouraged to do what it does best: sell outstanding services to the rest of the world. A stable domestic financial system would provide the motivation for, and the possibility of, a reform of corporate governance, including the regulation of mergers and a revamped, publicly funded R&D strategy, and would incentivise the longer-term investment culture that Britain so desperately needs. Those changes, and the many others that are necessary to create a long-term competitiveness culture, will not work unless the prospect of stable and growing demand, at home and from abroad, provides a sustained incentive to invest. Internationally, the fall in the pound provides an opportunity to recover lost markets, just so long as the competitive boost is not squandered on increased consumption.
In sum, the state of the UK economy requires that all government policy should be directed towards the long-term recovery of British competitiveness. Instead, as is clear from the gracious Speech, all government policy is directed towards a complex divorce from the EU, a huge misdirection of time and effort that in itself will do lasting damage to the UK economy.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
About one-quarter of all EU legislation deals with environmental protection—environmental regulations that have given us safe food, clean rivers and beaches, homes for our wildlife and life support for our beleaguered bees. The Government have committed—through the great repeal Bill, as alluded to in the gracious Speech—only to incorporating EU regulations into UK law wherever practicable. Clearly, by itself that is not unreasonable; practicality is an important test and many EU regulations will not be able to be incorporated exactly as they are. While that may be necessary, though, it will not be sufficient. Will the Government commit that any adjustments to EU environmental laws needed to fit the realities of a post-Brexit UK will provide the same or a higher level of environmental protection as those in the original regulations?
I ask that as there are real concerns that a Government who have consistently seen “red tape” as a burdensome and unnecessary initiative will use this to lower environmental standards. We have to think only of the Government’s attempt to oppose air quality standards; how they had to be brought kicking and screaming to produce a plan to bring emissions within EU limits; the dropping of promised legislation to reform water abstraction licences despite the pressures on water supplies from erratic weather patterns and the massive housebuilding programme; or the evidence in the repeal Bill White Paper, which states that the requirement in the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations to gain an opinion from the European Commission could be removed altogether. While clearly there may be a need to make changes, the removal of the need to seek an independent opinion is not merely a technical change to allow the conversion of EU law into domestic law, and the use of this by the Government as a case study signals a threat to vital protections.
This is a time of acute anxiety in the countryside. Leaving the EU puts farming and agricultural businesses in huge danger, from potential disastrous tariffs on exports to cuts to the support that underpin farmers’ livelihoods, and from an inability to find workers to harvest produce or care for livestock to new trade deals delivering cheaper products with lower standards for animal health and welfare. It is why Liberal Democrats believe that maintaining membership of the single market is fundamental to ensuring that British farming remains competitive. However, we also need early certainty about future support for farmers to replace the common agricultural policy, and I therefore welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to legislate on both agricultural and fisheries policies.
We need to ally a new agricultural and land management policy to the provision of public goods: providing safe and healthy food, access to the countryside and building up natural resources such as water and healthy soils, delivering carbon storage and preventing flooding. There is no doubt that there will be pressure to divert the £3 billion that our farmers get annually away from agriculture. I noted that the Minister was careful in his opening remarks to say that the funding would be guaranteed only for the lifetime of this Parliament. Currently, the CAP gives to our farmers the equivalent of the sum of £48 a year for every citizen in Britain. We spent £215 for every citizen on administering central government management alone, so to me it would seem remarkably good value if a new policy could deliver clear public goods while maintaining the support critical to sustain farm businesses, particularly those in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the uplands.
Lord Colgrain (Con) (Maiden Speech)
In this, my maiden speech, I should like first to pay tribute to my predecessor Lord Lyell, a Peer much loved and respected in this House. It is a great privilege for me to have taken his place. I also thank all those noble Lords who so generously elected me as a hereditary Peer, and who have greeted me warmly and with much encouragement, including those whom I had not had the previous pleasure of meeting. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm, who has been mentoring me, for her guidance and counsel, as well as the officers and staff of the House, who have been generous and patient with their time, not least when, in my early confusion in attempting to navigate the byways and corridors, I have found myself having to ask them the same question more than once.
As a hereditary, I owe a debt to a forebear, in my case my great-grandfather, who was president of the British Bankers’ Association and chairman of the committee of London clearing banks, positions he retained throughout the Second World War at the request of the coalition War Government. He was on the honours list of Churchill’s caretaker Ministry, and his nomination was endorsed by the incoming Labour Government.
I have frequently been asked the same two questions since I first swore the oath. The first, “Have you been here before?”, made me ask myself whether reincarnation was the subliminal message. I have understood subsequently that it was a reference to those hereditaries who had sat prior to 1999, and no, I am not of their number. But in one sense I have been here before: it was in 1972, with my grandfather, when I sat on the steps of the Throne. On that very day, the other place was debating Common Market membership, and it is a strange coincidence of timing that I shall now be privileged to bear witness to our withdrawal from the same.
The second question I have been asked is, “On what will you speak?”. Here I feel on dangerous ground. When asked the same when embarking on my year as High Sheriff of Kent, I replied with unwarranted confidence and, diverted by the number and variety of interests put before me during that year, I singularly failed to stay on script.
I know that in your Lordships’ House, there are a meaningful number of noble Lords who are experts on those subjects where I have a passing knowledge, but there are two areas where I hope to be able to make a contribution. I have spent the last 30 years recruiting in the financial services sector. Much of this has been in and for City of London-based institutions, and it has included a variety of firms located in other major global financial centres. I have been fortunate enough to bear witness to the great successes that were born from deregulation at the time of the big bang, as well as the self-destructive powers that were born from the same. As we move towards Brexit, passporting rights and other employment issues relating to the competitive position of the City, with its meaningful balance of payment contribution, will be an important part of the negotiation, and there will be much sparring with continental financial centres. I have negotiated with them happily over the years on employment matters, and I look forward to helping maintain the City’s pre-eminence in whatever way I can.
The second area where I have been engaged is the rural sector, which presents a Rubik’s cube of issues as we approach Brexit. I must here declare an interest, as president of Kent County Agricultural Society, the chairman of a working agricultural charity and a partner in a family farming enterprise. We have allowed an extraordinary situation to develop, which would not have been allowed in any other commercial sector, whereby many rural business models are viable only as a result of subsidy payments. The rationale has been that subsidies protect those disadvantaged geographical areas that we wish to continue to be populated and farmed, and in addition farmers can be paid to support conservation and environmental initiatives.
As we move towards Brexit, the quantity of and qualification for these payments will no doubt be questioned, but I suggest that the discussion should take place against another background. The New Zealand model is referred to as a demonstration of how its farming industry, and its dairy sector in particular, coped with the abrupt closure of the UK market to it. But the opportunity for us, and indeed our responsibility, is to ensure a smoother transition over the next two years than New Zealand experienced, which will minimise the stress and tribulations to which our farming communities will be exposed.
There is always a sense when engaged on the land that you are battling with the divine as well as mankind. I say this with feeling as, having been in the eye of the 1987 hurricane and as a hands-on farmer who has recently suffered losses to Schmallenberg disease, as well as seeing the immediate landscape changing as a result of ash Chalara, I have experienced it all too immediately. But we should be able to address some of the bigger questions over which we have control, such as: does it matter that as an island we are now only 60% self-sufficient in food, and can we ensure that our farmers do not suffer the double blow of export markets closing at the same time as our domestic market is subject to increased imports from competitor countries with lower welfare and hygiene standards?
Twenty percent of our population live in rural areas, very few of them are directly employed in the rural sector, and those who are are ageing fast and their numbers are falling annually. Automation is not a panacea—nor should it be—and those dependent on seasonal labour, and the current uncertainties associated with their temporary work permits, which is a very real current concern for the vegetable and fruit growers of Kent, will tell you that the development of suitable machinery is some years away anyway. We must not take for granted an industry that is now extremely vulnerable.
To summarise, I bring two parallel careers, in financial recruitment and farming. There have been times in each when I have been unsure which is the sublime and which the ridiculous, but I feel privileged to have participated in both at times of exciting change, just as I feel privileged now to be a Member of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Colgrain asked me to follow his maiden speech, I had completely forgotten that he had not made one yet: quite a lot has been happening in Kensington recently.
Alastair Colgrain will make a fine Member of this House, as his maiden speech has proved, because he has that wide mixture of experience and skills that will enable him to thrive—not only experience as a financial services headhunter and farmer, but also early on as a policeman.
As a special constable, he told me that he was part of the line of coppers at the Trooping of the Colour, arm in arm holding back the crowds as they walked up the Mall to Buckingham Palace. I gather that two very young children, well trained by their parents that if they were lost they should find a policeman, toddled forward and grabbed Alastair by the knees. Holding tight to his trousers, they attempted to walk up the Mall, and were in danger of pulling down his police trousers, to the astonishment of the crowds and the amusement of his colleagues. His family motto is “Fac et Spera”—“Do and Hope”—an unusual motto for a banker, but perfect for this age of Brexit. We all welcome him.
In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that,
“we must make anew the case for a market economy and for sound money”.
Unfortunately, he is right. Some young people have not yet got that point. Despite all the real-world evidence one could ever need, the results of the election and the recent campaigns on our streets show that there are still lots of people across the country who do not believe that free markets are a force for good. As well as making the case for free markets, it is also crucial that we do not react to the election result by simply turning on the taps, spending money we do not have. The budget deficit has come down from £152 billion in 2009 to £49 billion last year. That shows action was indeed taken by this Chancellor, and by his predecessor, to mend the broken public finances. However, it also shows that the job is not yet done. With more economic growth, we should be able to make further progress on this, and we should not be afraid to make the case for spending wisely. Public services need to be funded properly to ensure good quality, but we must also prioritise and save where we can.
Try as they might, no Government have taken more than 35% of GDP in tax in more than 50 years, according to the OBR. So if a Government want to massively increase taxes, we can conclude that people will take action. They can move elsewhere, or do less work. Calls for tax hikes to fund more spending are therefore misguided. We have probably hit the taxable capacity of this economy. We must remember that lower tax rates can actually bring in more revenue.
Corporation tax receipts are at record highs, tax rates having been continuously cut over the past few years. In fact, £56 billion came from corporation tax during the 2016-17 financial year. That was a 21% increase on the previous year. Let us not forget that in only 2008 the headline rate of corporation tax was 30% and it is now down to 19%. It is scheduled to be trimmed even more.
We know that much of the jobs growth has come from small firms and thriving entrepreneurs. It would be extremely damaging to hit those businesses with higher taxes. They would stop employing, stop striving and many may take their ideas and talents elsewhere. It is far easier to up sticks and relocate these days, and we should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not choking it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, this is no ordinary Queen’s Speech, due to two dimensions. First, there is Brexit, to which understandably every government department has to give priority for certainly the best part of two years. The other dimension is that the Session will last two years, which gives us an opportunity to tackle those areas of our society that, for one reason or another, the Cameron Government chose not to deal with.
I start with challenge number one—it is always best to start with something you know about. I have been involved in the housing market ever since I entered politics and stood in Islington North—dare I mention it?—in 1966. I was leader of the council and chairman of the housing committee. I have been a non-executive director of a construction company. Housing, I suggest, is issue number one domestically in this country. We have failed miserably in recent years, in Cameron’s seven years churning out 123,565 homes per year on average. I was a junior housing Minister in opposition in Margaret’s time, and just after that when she took power, we succeeded in building 190,000 a year. Now we need 200,000 to 250,000.
That means that we have to revitalise each sector, including social housing with its two elements. Clearly, local authority council housing has to be revitalised. We need to look again at the housing associations, which means that they must be given some resources and borrowing powers to get on and revitalise what they do so well.
We need to have a look again at new towns. I had the privilege of serving Northampton for nearly 25 years—a highly successful new town. Next door is Milton Keynes, which is equally successful, and down the road even dear old Stevenage did a pretty good job. It works, so let us see some new towns and consider that area.
Above all, one area that I feel really strongly about is young people. When I bought my first house in Islington for £7,000, I was given some help in getting the mortgage and even more help with a cash grant to put in a decent WC and water et cetera. I bought another one later on and did exactly the same. Young people need some form similar to that, and I am certainly willing to be a volunteer to help in that area.
Secondly, there is the challenge of energy. I served on the Select Committee on Energy. Our problem today is not messing around with the margin of cost—I do not know why we ever had anything to do with price caps, not least because Ofgem suggested they would not work. Today’s challenge in energy is security of supply. We already have very limited gas storage facilities, and we now read that the biggest field, the Rough field, is closing. On top of that, we know that Qatar is in a sense a problem for gas storage supply. We have to address that issue.
Thirdly, there is the challenge in industry and commerce. I highlight the retail trade. I have raised six Questions on the Floor of your Lordships’ House about business rates, and only in the last manifesto did I read that the Government will possibly look at a proper reform of business rates. Did no one understand that if we put up business rates—by up to 500% for some shops—people will go out of business? We can see it in the high street. It is obvious that the rates are killing off the retail trade. There is a disparity between the charges for online retailers who use warehouses, who pay only one-eighth of what is paid on the high street. There is bound to be unfair competition. Added to that is the fact that there is supposed to be an appeals system, but that is not happening; it is not working.
Added to that, there is supposed to be a £300 million special fund to help, but here we are three months into the new system and the funds are there—they have been given to local government—but nobody has chased up local government to ensure that they have been distributed to the retailers affected. We were told in your Lordships’ House that, basically, the change would be cost neutral, and I have discovered that Her Majesty’s Government have received an extra £1 billion. That is not cost neutral, as far as I am concerned.
I end by saying that there is much work to be done on the ground. We need to look at competition policy and support for SMEs. If we are short of money—which we are—why not recognise that, if we actually got a grip on tobacco smuggling, it would save £2.8 billion. That is an awful lot of money, and maybe we should do a bit of digging and do something about that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about the priority that we should give to housing.
Today’s debate is taking place in the shadow of Brexit, which will have a profound effect on all the issues that are being raised today. The Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Trade Secretary bear a huge responsibility for selling the people of this country an economic and moral pig in a poke smeared in snake oil. Many commentators from the right and the left agree that the country is in crisis, with deep geographical, age, education and income divisions, and the measures set out in the Queen’s Speech are too small to heal the divides and to make life fairer in this country.
I am ashamed that in 21st century Britain, which for the moment is still the fifth-largest economy in the world, inequality is rife. Inequality and a lack of hope are inextricably linked. That is why so many of our young people and their parents voted for change in this election. Labour’s manifesto spoke to people’s concerns about austerity, unfairness and the current economic model, which delivers for the few, not the many. It spoke to the burning injustices highlighted by Mrs May when she became Prime Minister but about which she has done little or nothing.
The high-level Business and Sustainable Development Commission produced a report, Better Business, Better World, which recognised that business should be at the very heart of a new, open, global economic model. This model should not only be low carbon and environmentally sustainable, but should turn poverty, inequality and lack of financial access into new market opportunities for smart, progressive, profit-oriented companies. I do not think the Government have read the report.
Such a model must also take proper account of the society and the communities in which businesses are working. The public and private sector at all levels must reflect multicultural Britain and make use of all the talent available, including those who still face conscious and unconscious bias. It cannot be right that, in the UK, citizen directors of colour represent only about 1.5% of the total director population; that 97% of senior leaders in central government are white; and that there are no non-white CEOs of London boroughs, despite the ethno-diversity of the London population increasing to over 40%. The Government, to their credit, have commissioned many good reports, but now is the time for action on diversity.
As noble Lords may recall, I am strongly in favour of a year of service. I strongly urge the Government, in the national contributions Bill, to use the Bill to amend class 3 national insurance credits so that they can be extended to those engaging in full-time social action. That would make a real difference.
Workers are absolutely key to a successful economy, but too many have terrible insecurity in their working lives, with part-time work, zero hours, the gig economy and low wages. Matthew Taylor’s review of employment practices, mentioned by the Minister, will be extremely important in that context. I ask for the Minister’s assurance that the Government will implement future recommendations that tackle the abuses of insecure work and end exploitation in the workplace. In some instances, exploitation has been exacerbated by immigration, but Mrs May’s immigration targets are certainly not the way to deal with this, and would do untold harm to our economy and our public services.
Agriculture is historically a sector in which there has been exploitation of workers, but the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the GLAA, has done much to mitigate the problems. However, the wider remit that it now has, together with fewer resources, means that, post Brexit, the situation for agricultural workers could worsen. There is also widespread concern among farmers, especially summer fruit and salad growers, that there simply will not be enough workers available to sustain their seasonal business. Will the Government take the logical step to reinstate the seasonal workers scheme, as well as provide increased resources for the GLAA?
People working in agriculture sustain our rural communities but, with lack of affordable housing, exacerbated by the 2016 housing Act, and low wages, younger people especially are moving away from rural areas. Labour is committed to reinstating the Agricultural Wages Board to underpin employment standards and wages, and I urge the Minister to make a similar commitment. The lack of high-speed broadband in rural areas is still a massive problem, and stifles entrepreneurship. It seems that the Government have not rural-proofed their policies, including with regard to transport. The cost of buses in rural areas makes life difficult for many, not least students attending college. As the BMA pointed out this morning, local funding cuts have led to reduced bus services and patients unable to get to appointments.
I live in the Forest of Dean, and am immensely proud that, despite the Government’s best efforts, the community has mobilised and we have a fracking-free area. We need a sustainable energy policy, which includes a ban on fracking, a practice which is harmful both for meeting our climate change obligations and for the environment.
I finish where I began. This country is deeply divided, and there is a growing sense of anxiety and frustration. No matter what the Minister might say, the measures contained in the gracious Speech will not enable our businesses and economy to reach the potential desperately needed at this critical time, and will not lead to the much-needed improvement in the lives of our fellow citizens. This Government are failing the country and failing its people, who deserve a more confident future, with hope for themselves and hope for their children.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, first, I would like to say what a pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Colgrain, and I congratulate them.
The Government were clearly in some trouble in bringing forward anything much from their manifesto into the gracious Speech, so in their hour of need I thought I would offer some ideas that might find a majority of support in this House and, who knows, maybe in the other. There were slim pickings for my own portfolio, energy and climate change, and what pickings there were will not deliver our commitments to the Paris Agreement, despite the welcome recommitment to it, or to the sustainable development goals. There is a preamble to everything that we discuss: that is, to ensure that with everything connected with energy and climate change in the Brexit negotiations, the aim is to achieve something better than that to which we ascribe as full members.
The automated and electric vehicles Bill is very welcome, and no doubt my noble friend Lady Randerson will pursue the Government on it later this evening. I would simply say that we should be more ambitious and move quicker: ban all sales of diesel cars and small vans by 2025, introduce a scrappage scheme to get rid of the worst vehicles more quickly, and for goodness’ sake use the conversion of lampposts into chargers. Yes, we would need to boost the grid, but renewable electricity is storming it right now. Make it super-convenient; that is the incentive for change that we need.
As I said, I was very glad to see the Paris Agreement in there, but where was the meat to deliver it? Not only are we not going to meet our targets, particularly on transport and heat, but there is no sense of a plan and certainly no sense of urgency. The UK’s ambitious target of slashing carbon emissions by more than half within 13 years is at risk because of a Government dithering on energy policy, as industry professionals have warned today. A survey by the Energy Institute, the professional body for the energy sector, found that four-fifths of their members believe that the UK is on track to miss the 2030 goal. We should be able to deliver 60% of UK electricity from renewables by 2030, and aim to be zero carbon by 2050, and I shall introduce a Bill to that effect in due course.
Our Act would set legally binding targets to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2050, which is way more ambitious than the Climate Change Act 2008. If we do not get to 80% by 2040, we ain’t going to make it, and we will never be able to deliver on our targets if we do not develop carbon capture and storage. It is just not possible. What are the Government doing in that regard, and what are they proposing on investment to incentivise entrepreneurs to produce what we need: cutting-edge projects in energy storage, smart grids, hydrogen technologies and offshore wind and tidal power? And for goodness’ sake give the green light to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, please.
What of energy and energy prices? If we really want to help to lower bills, a cap will not do it. Improving home insulation and encouraging local renewable energy schemes will, combined with an ambition for 30% of the household market to have their needs met by entrant competitors by 2022. Take that, big six. When we build all the houses that the Government are promising, energy saving should be a top priority. The Government very stupidly removed the zero-carbon homes measure, but that is what would slash bills, cut emissions and boost jobs. Government reliance on fracking is so wrong-headed that I need a whole debate on that one. The change to the fundamentals on Hinkley since it was signed off have changed beyond recognition, making its viability extremely unlikely now. It is expensive and insupportable. Low-carbon services and low-carbon product markets are the economic miracle that we need. My goodness, we are going to need it with this knee-capped Administration, who are going to be too scared to say boo to a goose. It is worth trillions over the coming decades—creating jobs, not losing them. Please could this Government try not to undermine whole industries by moving goal posts, as they have done with solar, wind, and carbon capture and storage?
First and last, there is always the EU. Of course, Liberal Democrats want to ensure that the UK remains part of the single market and customs union post Brexit. I would rather that we did not leave, of course. But as we proceed, we want to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on their promises not to resile from our commitments. We led the EU Paris Agreement, with Amber Rudd clinging to Ed Davey’s coattails. We could lead the world on energy and climate change if we only had a Government who were brave, entrepreneurial, visionary and determined. Sadly, that is not the Government we have.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, last week was Learning Disability Week, the focus of which was breaking down the barriers to employment and apprenticeships. Fewer than 6% of people with a learning disability are in fact in work. For people with a learning disability, as for most people, work is more than a pay packet; it is also about self-esteem, independence and inclusion within society. However, there are benefits for business too. Mencap points out that people with a learning disability stay in their jobs three and a half times longer than their non-disabled co-workers, leading to savings on recruitment and training. Businesses that employ people with a learning disability report better staff morale and better customer satisfaction.
In their manifesto, the Government committed to support 1 million more disabled people into work over the next 10 years. Since the election, however, there has been scant reference to this target. I hope that the Government will recommit to it. I hope too that the Government will push ahead with the recommendations in the Maynard review on improving accessibility of apprenticeships for people with learning disabilities. Addressing transition from school and college must be a priority if we are to improve their employment opportunities. However, to do this we also need to improve things within social care so that people get the right support to get a job and keep it.
In the lead-up to the general election, there was much talk about the pressures facing the funding of care for older people, despite the fact that one in three social care users are working-age disabled people, of whom nearly 150,000 have a learning disability. With no mention in the Queen’s Speech, or the accompanying documentation, of the pressures facing disabled people, there is concern that the forthcoming Green Paper in the autumn will focus entirely on older people and neglect working-age disabled people.
The Queen’s Speech announced a long-overdue review of mental health legislation and a continuing commitment to parity of esteem for mental health. Reviewing the Mental Health Act and getting widespread agreement to reform will not, however, be easy. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the criteria for detention for persons with a learning disability and/or autism. The current criteria allow such persons to be detained simply because they have learning disability or autism, in the absence of any associated mental illness. The current Act thus perpetuates the stigma and discrimination faced by people with these conditions. It compromises their ability to make decisions for themselves about their life. It provides a get-out clause for local authorities in that rather than providing adequate resources to support individuals in the community, especially those with complex needs, they can medicalise the individual’s presentation and pass responsibility on to mental health services. Many people with learning disability and/or autism are detained in psychiatric hospitals, often far from home, for extensive periods, unable to challenge their detention successfully because they meet the criteria for detention by virtue only of their learning disability or autism, and will continue to do so. For people with learning disabilities or autism who have an associated mental illness, the criteria for detention could be applied in the same way as for those without those conditions.
I turn to transport. Currently, the cost of travel and the difficulties many people with learning disabilities have in using ticket machines in stations without ticket offices, and in purchasing the right or most economical fare, prevent many people getting around and doing the things that we all take for granted. The Government could extend free bus passes for people with a learning disability to other forms of public transport, and to peak times so that people can travel to work-experience placements. A free travel pass might also prompt staff awareness of a person’s need for reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act. This could be extremely useful in busy terminals and transport hubs, and we could learn something from our American colleagues here.
I was pleased to see that there is now a Minister for Financial Inclusion, and I hope attention will be paid to the financial exclusion faced by many people with learning disabilities and to how banking might be made more accessible. In particular, I am thinking about the effect of local branch closures and the expectation, even by the Post Office, that everyone will be able to manage chip and pin, a significant problem for many people with learning disabilities, including the risk of financial exploitation and the possibility that they might not have the cash available to them to be able to use the ticket machines at stations.
There are cross-government opportunities to improve the lives and inclusion of the 1.4 million people in the United Kingdom with a learning disability. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues across the House on these important issues.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have been powerful advocates in this debate for various aspects of our national life. I will concentrate on another that so far has not received a single mention. I will give a few clues in the hope that at least a few Members of this House may recognise what I am about to speak about. This industry employs 300,000 people. It is worth about £10 billion to the economy annually, it has a very important role in bringing in tourists, including from within the UK, and it has a very important role to play in the health and well-being of people generally. I refer to horticulture. It comes under the aegis of Defra, but I fear that in the past it has always been a poor relation. I was therefore disappointed, but not in the least surprised, that it did not get so much as a mention in the gracious Speech. Nor has it been referred to so far in this debate, save when my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned homes and gardens and my spirits rose slightly, but that was all.
I want to insist that this is a very important aspect of our national life. Leaders in the horticultural industry have got together, and they have a number of organisations, one of which, a horticultural round table, has regular meetings with Ministers, and I hope these are still going on. I am making this point right now because it is very important that that continues to take place. They are not just whining and moaning; they are seeking to work with the Government on sensible policies that will be of benefit to both government and the industry. Sadly, it has not packed the punch of the big battalions because it is very disparate and that is one of its problems. There is gardening proper, nursery production, garden designers and landscape architects. On the scientific side there are botanists, those who look at pests and diseases and R&D. In many cases, the organisations are small: family firms, partnerships and so forth. It does not have that big punch, but I sincerely hope that the Government will take this on board now and in the future.
In the very short time that I have, I will touch on one or two of the myriad topics that I could mention if I had half an hour. First, there is a skills shortage. There are many organisations, including the National Trust, and many big contractors who have to turn down possible work because they do not have sufficient skilled people. We need to give far more attention to apprenticeships and right the way up to degree and post graduate work. I hope the Government will take that on board. My other beef is that very often the careers service and schools pay little attention to horticulture as a multifaceted career. To use rather vulgar parlance, the general attitude seems to be, “You only do gardening if you are so thick you cannot do anything else”. This absolutely enrages me, because it is so unfair.
My second point is the issue of import substitution. We import numbers of trees and other plants, and cut flowers, when we could be doing far more to produce our own in this country. But, of course, when it comes to trees, you have to get them going, and that might take up to five years. In those circumstances, the people who will buy the trees have to give the tree producers sufficient warning. I refer particularly to HS2, where an immense number of plants will need to be planted to help the environment around the railway line. I hope that will be considered very important. We also need to import less because of the fear of pests and diseases. However, that is an issue for another day, since I see that my time is up.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will confine myself to a few comments on agriculture and the environment. In doing so, I need to declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
As regards agriculture and food, Brexit poses one of the greatest challenges to future food production. The UK produces some of the highest-standard food in the world and, indeed, some of the finest food. In our negotiations, it will be crucial that we do not sacrifice food quality, animal welfare or environmental protection as part of those multi-sector trade agreements which will form the foundation of future international economic partnerships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has already referred to agricultural workers. As reported only last week, soft-fruit and salad growers are already finding it hard to recruit the skilled workers they need to pick and pack the crops. A survey of the members of the British Leafy Salad Association and of British Summer Fruits revealed that almost a third of their respondents are already not sure whether they have enough seasonal workers for the start of the picking season this year. Researchers from Queen’s University, Belfast, in evidence to the Lords EU Committee suggested that 98% of the seasonal horticultural workforce are migrants from elsewhere in the EU. Many successful businesses will face a very uncertain future if the Government cannot produce some sort of seasonal agricultural worker scheme as part of the immigration plans. Defra and the Home Office will need to work in partnership to achieve a coherent approach and secure the economic future of rural businesses and the communities in which they are based. It is also critical that young people living in rural areas are given the skills, training and support they need to remain in, and contribute to, their local economy.
A new fishing Bill will be essential as the UK exits the EU, as we seek to regulate the access of foreign vessels to UK waters and determine our fishing quotas. However, I note with concern that there is no direct mention of the marine protected areas created by the EU birds and habitats directives in the documentation supporting the gracious Speech. These areas need to be maintained by UK law to ensure the long-term health of wildlife in the waters around Britain.
Finally, on climate change, the commitment in the gracious Speech to continued participation in the Paris Agreement is most welcome. This emphasises that the delivery of dramatic emissions reduction remains the core environmental policy adopted by the Government and will help provide stability and direction following the decision of the US to leave the agreement. Allied to issues of climate change are a number of other very pressing environmental issues, some of which have already been referred to, with around 40,000 deaths, for example, attributed to exposure to outdoor air pollution in the UK each year. I hope that the long-awaited clean air Bill will not remain absent from this extended parliamentary Session despite its exclusion from the gracious Speech.
Lord Plumb (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. I agree with everything he said. It is good that we have such interest in rural affairs and the countryside in its entirety. It is for that reason that I think we have all enjoyed the contributions made so far, certainly from colleagues who have just joined the House.
It is appropriate at this hour to concentrate for a few moments on the food and drink industry. As the Minister opened the batting, we were reminded that the economy is very much dependent on economic stability. That has to come first, and so it should. Industry is part of agriculture and agriculture is part of industry. The growth in agriculture in recent years has been phenomenal in the sense that the development has been due to technology and the ability of the younger people who are coming into the industry—and they are. Possibilities exist for yet more to be produced.
We already employ nearly 4 million people in the food and drink industry—14% of the population are involved in this sector—which generates over £100 billion-worth of product every year; all that in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. It is well known that farming knows how to be resilient, particularly against knocks of volatility.
I wish to raise an issue that I think is of great importance, as those who are dealing with Brexit start to come to grips with each other. Agricultural support post Brexit is not something in which the United Kingdom will have a free hand—far from it. It is essential to understand that whatever the UK does must fall within the framework of rules set by the World Trade Organization. The reason the CAP has changed so radically over the years is not because EU politicians saw the need for reform but much more because successive world trade agreements made reform inescapable. I know what I am talking about because I have been heavily involved in that over the last 30 years. Therefore, the United Kingdom will need to be a full member of the WTO and its related customs conventions to permit trade to move smoothly, and this will have to be agreed before Brexit. WTO rules will be the crucial framework for both the United Kingdom and the EU 27. I would very much welcome the Minister’s response on the possibility of involving the WTO in the talks that are taking place.
Of course, the UK will have decision-making on issues such as animal health, plant health, pesticides and genetically modified crops, but the rules will have to be acceptable to export markets if trade is not to be damaged. Consumer and environmental lobbyists are increasingly vocal about so many issues, such as animal welfare and pesticide use in countries that export to the United Kingdom.
The UK market is therefore itself vital for some regions more than others. We have just heard about the importance of making sure that we can grow, like others do, the horticultural products that are so important in this country. So we should and so we can. The UK market, which itself is of course so important, has to recognise that we are a trading nation, just as the others are, and we must take what advantage we can from it. This is therefore vital for many regions. One thinks, for example, of Welsh lamb going to France—we have had problems in the past. We frequently hear the comment that the EU will fall over itself to do a deal with the United Kingdom because the Germans want to sell their cars and the French want to sell their cheese. That is a pretty glib and unconvincing assumption. Nor it is obvious that all the countries which are supposed to be queueing up to do a trade deal with the UK as a whole are motivated entirely by philanthropic sentiments: for instance, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and the like have their own interests. They will demand major concessions on products like beef, lamb, dairy products and pork. Such imports could drive down prices in the United Kingdom for the producer. It may be said afterwards, “It helps the consumer”, but WTO rules would make it difficult to provide compensation.
So where do we go? That of course depends on what we want from agriculture. If all we want is food, it is pretty difficult to defend the expensive support we have had. I say that clearly, as one who has been concerned with it for so long. What we want is of course a policy that will stand up and be there for ages. It has to encourage efficient production—that was in the 1947 Act. We therefore continue with those demands. In short, we should simplify the payments system without losing accountability, change the area payments mechanisms—for example, should payments continue to go to landowners even for unfarmed land?—and pursue a more scientific approach to plant and animal health, including GM.
The last point—which I must make—must be hammered home. The Government must produce a simple scheme to permit migrant labour to work in agriculture. The horticultural sector—although not exclusively—is dependent on such labour. At present it is a huge uncertainty, and the Government could dispel that very simply indeed.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the gracious Speech. It was of course delivered at a testing time for us all, but especially for those involved in the terrorist attacks and the fire at Grenfell Tower. In years to come, how will we remember that tragic fire? Will the Government at last recognise that management of the economy based on the principles and the models of austerity comes with a price? This debate on the economy therefore provides an opportunity to look at the price of austerity, which we debated on the Statement earlier today.
We have all asked how this tragedy could happen in 2017, in the richest local authority in the United Kingdom, one of the richest countries in the world—a country strong in its democratic liberalism. But the local community is best placed to answer that question. Some 90% of the residents at Grenfell Tower signed a petition asking for an investigation into the organisation that runs the building, but they were treated as troublemakers. Residents tried to obtain legal advice over safety concerns but were prevented from doing so. Why? They were priced out of justice by the cuts to legal aid. Many lost their lives as a result.
We have yet to discover whether financial cuts to local authority budgets affected the quality of management, repairs and the upkeep of the properties owned by Kensington and Chelsea Council. Last week the Government ordered safety checks on 600 high-rise blocks in England. On Sunday we were told that the 34 tower blocks tested so far in 17 council areas had failed their safety tests. Although we do not yet know whether existing building regulations were broken, as building inspections are ongoing, we know that three consecutive Governments, as a cost-cutting exercise, failed to introduce changes to the housing regulations. According to a BBC report, although there are hundreds of high-rise buildings in London, no appliance is currently owned by the London fire service that can ascend beyond 32 metres. The fire service had to borrow a 42-metre aerial platform from the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service so that it could meet its needs, which were for a nearly 70-metre high tower. Why? I suspect that austerity and deregulation is the answer.
The newly elected MP for Kensington, Emma Dent Coad, who was for 11 years a councillor in Kensington, recently described the disdain with which many of her constituents were treated. Emma described the slow but determined programme of privatising public assets in the area such as schools, libraries and community public space. This is a shared experience across the country. Similarly, the Government’s economic policies, driven by austerity, mean that public sector workers are required to work longer hours in order to provide essential services while suffering severe pay restraint at less than cost-of-living increases. Is there anyone here who does not recognise that the economic cost of austerity falls on the poorest in our communities?
In 2016, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights found reason to criticise the coalition Government as being in breach of their human rights obligations. The House will remember that it was the coalition Government who initiated the austerity programme in 2010. The UN committee said that it was “seriously concerned” about,
“the disproportionate adverse impact that austerity measures”,
were having on disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups. It also emphasised problems with welfare reform, saying that it was “deeply concerned” about,
“the various changes in the entitlements to, and cuts in, benefits”,
including the reduction of the household benefit cap, the four-year freeze on some benefits and the reduction in child tax credits. A year on from the report, the social outcomes of austerity today mean that the use of food banks, child poverty and homelessness are increasing. Yes, our economy has changed. We have changed from the casino economy to the gig economy, obviously with insecurity and the costs of poverty. We must and can do better.
The tragedy of Grenfell Tower and the years leading up to it have drawn attention yet again to the divisions in our country between those who exercise power and those who are marginalised by the abuse of that power. I, for one, hope and pray that the Government will come to their senses and recognise the damage being done to a large percentage of our fellow citizens by their one-sided austerity measures. Let us be clear: when we are told that cuts are essential, in reality that means tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor. As we have seen, the socioeconomic tool of austerity has a price tag. Sadly, too often the price of austerity is the lives of our fellow citizens.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, while it is always interesting to follow the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I wish that at some point somebody would explain to me how one can reconcile giving up austerity with keeping the national finances in good heart without endowing future generations with debt.
I should very much have liked to speak on many aspects of the gracious Speech but concluded that I would say one thing on one subject where I have the most personal experience and on which, incidentally, my noble friend the Minister was silent during his excellent opening speech. It concerns the SME sector of British business, which, I am told, contributes more than 80% of our output and growth. I have fears for its future, and these fears have been echoed by my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lady Fookes.
First, I need to declare my interests. For most of the last 45 years, I chaired a family group of companies in Cumbria concerned with farming, forestry, leisure, mineral extraction, housebuilding and horseracing. Although I have relinquished the chairmanship to my daughter, I remain on the board of these businesses. At no point over those last four decades has it been more difficult than it is today to maintain the level of investment that these businesses require. Fearing that I may have had problems of my own creation, I consulted widely with some 20 businesses in my area. Without exception, all told the same story. Nor this time can the blame be laid at the door of the banks, even if they have let some people down.
In a sentence, the cause of the problem is a record high burden of taxation, much of it through stealth taxes, the disproportionate effects of regulation and, added to those, a mean-spirited and unhelpful culture that has developed over time among the numerous public sector agencies that impact on our working lives. Those three things combine to squeeze margins to the point where investment carries unjustifiable risk. I want to be clear: this is not about personal taxation. The Government are plainly right to work remorselessly to restore the public finances to health—and I accept that all of us who can have a part to play there—but what they should not do is to cripple the sector that contributes so enormously to creating jobs and prosperity.
I wish to say a word on those three ugly sisters—or brothers, if you prefer. Ministers may, with justification, pray in aid numerous schemes and devices to assist the SME sector, but that does not alter the fact that today’s tax take is at an all-time high—a point made by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Business has been vocal as to the impact that it carries in respect of business rates and national insurance contributions—that ill-named tax on jobs. Less well publicised are the regular hikes in the insurance premium tax, starting as it did at 5%, then rising to 9% and, more recently, to 12%. These are serious impositions and fall disproportionately on SMEs, which have less access than large companies to sophisticated financial advice.
Where regulation and employment law are concerned, it should be obvious that for myriad reasons they impact more heavily on SMEs than on larger concerns. To an alarming extent—I have personal experience of this—large companies lobby for increased regulation on the basis that they can afford complicated compliance, knowing that their smaller competitors cannot. An especially venal complicity on the part of the Brussels institutions has added to my conviction that Brexit is for the good. Brussels plays host to some 60,000 lobbyists, paid by large multinationals whose sole job, as far as I can see, is to obtain regulation that favours them and harms their smaller competitors. Perhaps my noble friend would add that to the list of unacceptable practices that he wishes to legislate against.
Finally, I must turn, with some sadness, to the present-day public sector culture, which I find damaging to smaller enterprises. It is worse among the supposedly independent agencies than among government departments, and it is conspicuously awful among the powerful monopoly utility companies. There has been a growing tendency over many years among powerful agencies to bully and harass those over whom they can exercise some control. The attitude might be summarised by the experience that members of the public have nowadays when they visit a hospital. The parking they used to enjoy close to the main building has now frequently been given to the staff, and as often as not we are now sent considerable distances and have to pay for it. All change these days, I find, is for somebody else’s convenience and never for mine. I even notice it in the Palace of Westminster.
Perceived hostility on the part of public sector organisations and the often slovenly service they give carries a huge cost. Planning is a powerful example. I could point to numerous examples of SME companies seeking to invest suffering endless delays for no good reason at the hands of planning authorities. What is so galling is that these people seem to have neither an interest nor an understanding of the harm they inflict on their own communities or of the good they could do by a simple change in attitude.
In my local community, I believe I have identified investment delayed or cancelled amounting to tens of millions of pounds. I also believe I have identified the reasons and given them to your Lordships. If those reasons can be addressed, I confidently predict that the sector will respond magnificently and produce still more jobs and tax revenues and enduring prosperity for all.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am trying hard to be positive, so I start by welcoming the Bill on autonomous vehicles. However, I want to point out that across the world this is already a very crowded research field, with the US, for example, well ahead of us. What manufacturers want above all is easy access to sell their technology to EU countries, access to highly skilled employees in a flexible market and to co-operate across borders. It is called the single market. I hope this Bill is more ambitious than its predecessor, which was all about the insurance regime for automated vehicles. That is a necessary detail but unlikely to spark a revolution.
In the same Bill there are facilities for electric vehicles, which offer the Government a lifeline in the mess they are in on air quality. I agree with their proposals in the Bill, and I should declare an interest as the owner of an electric vehicle. However, the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough on this issue. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed out, we need a much more comprehensive approach to air quality, and electric vehicles are just one piece of the jigsaw.
The space industry Bill is also welcome but the industry itself is jeopardised by Brexit. Restrictions on the movement of scientists and engineers, increased bureaucracy in the supply chain and the danger of being frozen out of EU space contracts are already taking their toll. I will give noble Lords an example: a new clause in the contracts for the last phase of the Galileo satellite navigation system specifies that the contract will become void if the supplier is no longer based in the EU. British companies are already talking of moving abroad.
I welcome, too, the commitment to phase 2A of HS2, but where oh where is Crossrail 2 in this Speech? I noticed that it was dropped from the Tory manifesto. I hoped it might have been overlooked in haste, but clearly this is definite government policy. This is a vital infrastructure project if London and the south-east are to be able to combat the Brexit attacks on our economy. From these Benches, we will continue to press for a government commitment on this.
Missing too from the gracious Speech were drones. I say to the Government, with all seriousness, that they seem frozen into total inactivity on this. They should have learned from the Grenfell Tower tragedy that it is worth while paying heed to warnings. Week after week there are potential incidents on this. At some point something bad will happen.
Another serious omission is a review of the franchise system of our railways. It is time the Government committed to a radical overhaul of the franchise system. Southern Rail is simply an extreme example of the problems with the current system. It is time to put passengers first. The Tory manifesto, like the Liberal Democrats’, committed to a rail ombudsman, but there is nothing in the gracious Speech on this. As we leave the EU we have to protect rail and air passengers’ rights. An ombudsman will be the first step. Above all, we need an ambitious programme of investment in our railways. The gracious Speech is totally silent on any commitment to big new infrastructure projects beyond HS2.
Intertwined with this are the Brexit challenges that the transport industry faces. That industry has a sizeable reliance on the EU. A big chunk of it—Eurotunnel, the ferries, many HGV operators—exists solely to service travel and trade with Europe. It is not a matter of adapting to leaving the EU. If trade ceases to continue at the same or a very significant level, those transport industries will wither or even cease to exist.
We were told that this was a pruned back Queen’s Speech, which, beyond Brexit, aimed to be uncontroversial. I argue that what was controversial was what was omitted. It was a Speech that lacked vision and ambition at a time when our country more than ever before needs a visionary and ambitious Government.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute on the subject of agriculture as part of the debate. I declare my interests: I am a partner in a farming business in Northumberland and a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates, both of which are in receipt of the basic payment scheme and engaged in environmental stewardship. My other interests are listed in the register and include being chair of the National Land Based College.
There is no question that Brexit is the most important issue to face the agricultural sector since 1947. The agriculture Bill will be the most important since the 1947 Act. As has been said, it is an exciting time and an opportunity to shape our own destiny to create a set of policies that benefits agriculture and horticulture, our customers and our consumers; that contributes to our economy and our balance of payments; and that deliver environmental benefits, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. It will also help us to contribute to our climate change obligations. We also have an opportunity to recognise the important contribution that agriculture can make to the nation’s health. We must take the opportunity to design a holistic policy that embraces all these issues. I look forward to the debates on the content of the Bill.
I should like to emphasise three areas of concern. First, I want to stress again the importance of agriculture in the Brexit negotiations and endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on this subject. There continues to be a deep concern that agriculture is way down the ranking in the Government’s priorities. I should add that the fisheries sector shares the same concern. The common agriculture policy—the “expensive failure”, as described by the Minister in his opening comments—has had a dominating influence on agriculture ever since we joined the Common Market, so these negotiations are crucial.
In addition, we are part of Britain’s largest industry sector by a mile—it is even more important than the Minister described. The food industry is built on the foundation of the farming sector: agriculture provides the raw materials for our food processing and manufacturing sectors and much of the food service sector. Together they are far larger than the automobile, aerospace or exciting high-tech sectors that get much attention. Yet the agrifood industry is barely recognised in the Government’s hugely important industrial strategy. Why is that? In education and skills, farming and food science subjects are not even recognised as STEM subjects. Why is that? This industry is increasingly a high-tech, innovative and professional industry. There is a need for government to acknowledge the importance of this, both in the negotiations and in the design of domestic policy. This is true also of the trade negotiations.
The Minister suggested, as many do, that abolishing the CAP will lead to cheaper food. I remind the House that consumers in Britain enjoy cheaper food today, in relative terms, than at any time in recent history. Food being even cheaper could have a serious detrimental impact on farmers’ incomes. We do not want to be sacrificed in the trade negotiations to reach speedy and favourable agreements for other sectors of industry. I fully endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, in his excellent maiden speech on this subject.
Secondly, I am deeply concerned about the relationship between the devolved Governments within the United Kingdom. I assume the Bill will address that issue. It is essential that we replace the structure currently provided by the CAP with our own UK structure that sets out a framework within which all four parts of the UK will function and, I hope, flourish. There will be a massive void when we leave the European Union. The House of Lords report from EU Sub-Committee D on Brexit and agriculture refers to this very real concern. Of course Brexit is, on the one hand, an opportunity to allow the devolved parts of the UK to design policies appropriate to their own priorities and circumstances. However, if this does not take place within an agreed UK framework, the result could be chaotic, cause massive tensions, and will potentially disrupt trade. I am aware that this will be a difficult issue, particularly with the Scottish nationalist Government, but it must be grasped and it is urgent.
There is much more I could say, but I shall finish on our competitiveness. The UK agricultural sector faces exactly the same challenge as our wider industry. Our competitiveness has declined relative to our main global competitors over the past couple of decades or so. This is a concern now but will be even more so in a post-Brexit world. We need to invest now—as a matter of urgency, in preparation for the challenge—in skills to project ourselves as an attractive and exciting sector with career prospects, and continue to invest in science, knowledge transfer and new tools and technology to raise our game. The sector is ready to respond, with new initiatives in place to help address this challenge, but so far has had little encouragement from the Government. We have a great science base in Britain, with world-recognised institutions. However, our recent record of transferring knowledge to give us a competitive edge has been poor. This cannot go on, because we are likely to face even greater global competition. We need government support for this. I hope the Minister will take note of these concerns and, as I said, I look forward to the emergence of the Bill.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, in 2015 a former Conservative Party chairman said:
“Bureaucratic pen-pushers seem content to think it is OK to leave people in the countryside in the internet slow lane”.
The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced in November 2015 a proposal to introduce a universal service obligation to give people the legal right to a 10 megabits per second connection no matter where they lived. As noble Lords will know, that means the speed of delivery of broadband.
So what has happened? Not much. Why is this critical to the Government’s agenda in the forthcoming Session of Parliament? The experience of the south-west of England, which is where I live, is perhaps typical of many rural areas in the United Kingdom. The problems are a combination of a slow rollout programme, poor download speeds, poor mobile signals and poor adoption rates—that is, people not taking advantage of the services that they have. Despite funding programmes from Europe and other initiatives such as the get-up-to-speed programme by Connecting Devon and Somerset, the south-west, including Devon and Somerset, performs badly in relation to the rest of UK for digital connections.
In 2014, the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership area, which covers Devon and Somerset, was ranked 36th out of the 39 LEPs in England for the proportion of internet users with access to broadband speeds of over 30 Mbps. Only two LEP areas had slower download speeds. Somerset ranked 161st out of the 189 local authorities, with 59% of postcodes having access to such superfast services. Devon ranked 163rd, with 57% of postcode coverage. I am sorry to quote all these statistics, but they help to make the case. These figures mask even greater deficits in the rural areas.
Why is this so important? First, productivity is part of the critical agenda that forms part of the Government’s industrial strategy. The south-west currently languishes 12% behind the average UK level of productivity. We know that, as a country, we are way behind other countries in the G7—20% behind France and Germany. However, there is a huge opportunity to improve output by tapping into the growing army of new small and micro businesses. In the south-west, over the last five years 60,000 jobs have been lost from the public sector, yet unemployment levels are at historically low rates. The majority of these people are not now private sector employees, but have become self-employed and many work from home. Most have made this decision because of the power of digital access to national and global markets. This country, in particular the south-west, needs these new businesses, which are nimble and motivated. They are better able to adapt to the challenges of Brexit than many larger companies, but cannot do so without the essential toolkit of superfast connections, reliable mobile and improved services, such as 4G and 5G technology.
Secondly, there is the demographic time bomb. The south-west, like many rural areas, experiences net in-migration from urban areas. Currently, the predictions are that the south-west’s population will grow by 400,000 by 2025. The sobering figure, however, is that only 65,000 of those people will be of working age. I need not spell out to noble Lords the pressure that this will impose on already stretched local authorities struggling to maintain health and social care services. Broadband is the unique opportunity to ensure that our ageing population can remain independent, self-supporting and even part of the drive for increased national productivity. Access to broadband could also mobilise another army of those who are no longer economically active—this time either as mentors able to use their life experiences to help the growth of our new businesses or even to establish themselves as entrepreneurs.
The prize is significant to UK plc. In a recent survey by Oxford Economics, it was estimated that digital capabilities within businesses are currently generating £123 billion in performance improvements across the economy, equivalent to 3.4% of total GDP. Companies project that over 1 million new jobs could be added as a direct result of enhancing their digital capabilities over the next two years.
The message is clear. We must finally ensure that this country, and particularly the rural economy, joins the digital age. It is not good enough just to provide the service: we need to ensure that we use it to harness its vast potential. The lack of progress so far is little short of a national scandal.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. When I took my seat many years ago, a number of noble Lords said, “I knew your father”. I did not know the noble Lord’s father, but I knew his brother. He was also very interested in transport. I remember when I was Minister for Transport, we looked at the west mainline improvements together, as railways were his big thing in life rather than the noble Lord’s naval and shipping interests. I was glad that I was Minister responsible for shipping on two occasions and I hope that I helped a little towards keeping the City where it should be.
Whether we separate completely from the EU, as the voters wanted in the referendum just over a year ago, or whether we are an appendage on the edge of Europe paying a large sum of money to be part of a trading bloc but not having our feet under the table determining the policies, is irrelevant. What matters is the economy—James Carville coined the phrase when he was working for President Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid”. So whether we are in or we are out, what really matters is the economy.
There has been a shift in the UK, as all parties now want more state intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said “Spend spend” in her speech, completely forgetting of course that it was only seven years ago that the Chief Secretary from her party left government with a note in the drawer saying that there was no money left. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about “Spend, spend” and even my noble friend Lord Callanan in introducing this debate talked about spending. But we need to be wary if Governments spend, spend, spend, because the national debt is still very large by recent historic standards and, relative to the size of the economy, it has grown.
Moreover, there are now more complicated issues to take into account for that. We have an ageing population, increased health spending, pensions and long-term care. We are incredibly lucky in this country, but at some point we have to sit down, like any good housewife running the household budget, and say, “Enough is enough. We have got to stop spending and set priorities”. Does healthcare always have to be free at the point of use? If that is what is agreed, something else will have to be cut; otherwise, this country will go completely bankrupt.
Who pays the taxes for the Government to spend? A quarter of the tax that the Government raise comes from income tax, but only 50% of us pay it. That is good in one sense but not so good in another. It is quite right that the low paid are taken out of tax, and this Government have done more than any other to accelerate that, but it puts an extra burden on those who are paying tax. During the campaign, Mr McDonnell said that he wanted to squeeze the rich because the poor were overtaxed. He has only to look at some of the statistics to realise that it is actually the rich who have seen their tax burden increase hugely over the past 20 years in comparison with the poor. Therein also lies a problem, because the rich are not necessarily on fixed salaries, and they move. If Mr McDonnell wants to squeeze the rich, as Mr Healey did, entrepreneurs and those who pay taxes will leave this country. That will do us no good whatsoever.
When we look at the UK workforce, it is important to realise that fewer than one in 10 people are working in manufacturing and even fewer in construction. The biggest growth in employment over the past 20 years has been in public administration, education and health. That all has to be paid for by other people earning money and contributing to the economy.
There is an unfairness in the tax system. We in this country pride ourselves on being fair, but there is a gross unfairness. If you take someone earning £40,000 as an employee, he will pay around £12,000 in tax. If he is self-employed, he will pay around £9,000 in tax. If he is an owner-manager, he will pay around £7,500 in tax. That is inequitable. Are the Government looking at this issue? I know that the Matthew Taylor report is yet to come. When is that to be published, because this area does need to be addressed? The Government are losing what is potentially quite a large sum of money. Will the Government also look at national insurance contributions again? What are they going to do about the loss of revenue that I have mentioned?
I conclude by turning to a subject that is closer to my heart, which is agriculture and fisheries. I am delighted with the Bills which have been proposed. At the moment, farmers are in an extremely difficult situation. They know the market within the common agricultural policy, but they have no idea what is going to happen in the future. When does my noble friend expect the Government to publish their 25-year plan for farming? A stock farmer is now putting cows into pregnancy to produce calves that will be fattened up for beef to be sold in a market that he has no idea of what it is going to be. We do not know whether we are going to be in or out of the EU or what rules will apply. Farmers are potentially at huge risk. There is a high chance of either an oversupply or a shortage of food. I hope that the two Bills which are to come before us on fisheries and agriculture will go some way to reassuring these people because they are absolutely key to maintaining the countryside as the nice environment we all want. We look forward to receiving them in this House soon.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, reflecting on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, I was struck by the extraordinary scale of the challenge being faced by our Government over the coming Parliament. However, I was greatly encouraged to see that, alongside the dominant theme of Brexit, the commitment to developing the skills of our future workforce has not been lost. Our industrial strategy will ensure not only the creation of high-skilled, high-wage jobs but will develop the skilled workforce we need to fill those jobs, be they in big business, small business, high-speed rail, low-speed rail, electric cars, outer space or to build the houses that my noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, want.
I realise that many of us in this fine place, with the exception of those who arrive through the old hereditary principle, know a bit about social mobility. As a consequence, like me they will welcome the proposal to reform technical education. These reforms will undoubtedly build on the commitment of successive Governments towards establishing parity of esteem for practical, technical skills through apprenticeships—skills beyond those that improve academic performance.
The creation of the new-style apprenticeships is shaping up to be nothing short of a revolution: a far-reaching change in the way in which we educate, motivate and upskill our young people and even inspire older workers to be more ambitious for their future careers. It is generally accepted—it is pretty much common knowledge—that the UK is experiencing a skills shortage, as my noble friend Lady Fookes mentioned earlier, with businesses across the board reporting difficulties in recruiting and developing young talent. Consequently, the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships, made up of employer and industry experts from all sectors under the leadership of Antony Jenkins, provides a beacon of hope. It is an encouraging sign that we might bridge our nation’s skills gap and make social mobility a real prospect for young people struggling to get a start in life. I applaud the institute’s initiative to engage business leadership in a commitment to provide quality training to robust standards to millions of our young people.
Technical competence is, of course, critical for a high-skilled, high-wage workforce. High skills are vital if we are to compete effectively in the tough, global world of commerce and industry. However, we must take care to ensure that we match that technical competence with the rich personal life skills that are necessary to equip our young people to be active citizens, enthusiastic and able team players and fulfilled human beings, not automatons.
My experience of achieving the perfect storm of youth development wins has been through the work of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award in supporting the apprenticeship schemes of many enlightened and successful companies, including household names such as British Gas and Royal Mail. At this point, I should declare my interest as chairman of the highly successful Duke of Edinburgh’s Award programme that last year, in 2016 its diamond anniversary year, had a record 420,000 young people actively working towards achieving an award.
Key corporate supporters of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award have recognised that the classic D of E programme, when added to their own apprenticeship development programmes, produces not only an unrivalled result for their young recruits but measurable bottom-line benefits to their businesses, too. These companies discovered that apprentices who achieved the D of E gold award also displayed greater commitment to their employer and were more often fast-tracked and promoted than their peers. They also demonstrated self-confidence, self-motivation, commitment and that they cared—they cared about themselves, their communities and the businesses that employed them. Those businesses, incidentally, experienced higher retention rates, too.
My hope is that, as the shape of the new apprenticeship evolves and the impact of the significant additional financial resources business is contributing via the apprenticeship levy is felt, a place will be found for vital life-skills development alongside those critical technical skills. Employers are telling me that their hope is that they can apply a small element of their levy fund to enable them to introduce a proven programme, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, to fully round off and complete the apprenticeship experience.
This Government are a strong advocate of young people, and continuing government support and incentives are key in helping encourage business to provide the ladder of opportunity that develops ambition. If the UK really is open for business, then a first-class workforce and first-class management in those who direct them is fundamental for a first-class commercial trading nation. There is no more important priority for this or, indeed, any Government than promoting economic and social policies that allow every citizen of the United Kingdom to make the most of their abilities and talents because, for sure, jealously, division and anger flourish in an environment where people feel deprived and excluded from the possibilities of personal improvement.
I commend the Queen’s Speech for its focus on what matters in these challenging times—promoting actions that unite rather than divide us. I am delighted that the development of our young people’s work and life skills, so essential for prosperity and happiness, remains in sharp focus for our Government.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, the Prime Minister has spoken of the awful events of recent weeks as signs of a society not at ease with itself. Yet amidst the tragedy and the pain, we see hope and the victory of hope. We have seen a remarkable depth of love and shared resolve, especially between faiths. We have been deeply moved by how people have responded to evil with generosity, openness and humility. I was struck by the force and feeling with which the Prime Minister used that last word in the debate in the other place on the gracious Speech. Humility is not a term frequently associated with politicians by the public. True, circumstances have left the Government with little choice but to take the humbler part, but that is no reason for cynicism. A practical consequence is that we face the prospect of a two-year Session in which these discussions will take place. There are good reasons to deprecate departing from the annual cycle, but my hope is that it will also mean proper debate, detailed scrutiny and looking at issues from all sides and angles. If that is what humility looks like, in my view it is a price well worth paying.
Yet I have no sense that we will have a minute to spare. Brexit takes the lion’s share of the programme—an event one commentator described as the Heffalump of the programme. I fear they are mistaken. From my studies of The House at Pooh Corner, I am reminded that the Heffalump is an imaginary creature who inhabits the dreams of Pooh and Piglet. Brexit is all too real and, for some, a nightmare rather than a dream. The terrible irony is that most of the legislation we will consider is designed to enable us to do outside the EU what we do within it. We are transferring power and an existing body of law from one institution to another. We find ourselves a little like Alice, told by the Red Queen that,
“it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”.
Well, we might have to run even faster than twice as fast, especially if tonight we are to rise at the expected time.
The Prime Minister also commented on how the Brexit vote showed that,
“our country often does not work the way it should for millions of ordinary families. This Queen’s Speech begins to change that, by putting fairness at the heart of our agenda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/17; col. 57.]
On that admirable sentiment I must own to doubts—doubts that the measures we will consider answer such a clarion call; doubts not necessarily in terms of intent, but in the modesty of ambition, which matched the modesty of the trappings for this State Opening.
The programme certainly contains measures—worthy, admirable measures—which will do good, but how much will they transform or even just improve the lot of the people of a city such as Portsmouth or the challenged rural and coastal areas of the Isle of Wight, whom I serve? The measures on domestic violence, debt advice and insurance fraud are cases in point. They are good measures that will make a difference but they are discrete, aimed at a single issue. Similarly, on capping energy bills, it is good to see action being taken, and I welcome the focus on the most vulnerable customers, but what we have before us does not accord with the robust line taken until very recently.
Doubts are alarming things for the clergy, perhaps all the more so for a Lord spiritual. So it is my most earnest hope that the Minister tonight and the Government over the next two years will assuage my own doubts, and that we will indeed see this legislative programme, this Parliament and this country working with humility for millions of ordinary people up and down the land.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we are facing a two-year Parliament dominated by the legislation that will implement the historic decision taken by the British people last summer. This is an awesome task but I hope that this House will stick to its core competence of scrutinising and improving legislation and will not try to change that legislation’s intent.
The task of dealing with the legislation for our exit is so immense that there is not much time left for other legislation. That is a very good thing. Obviously, we have to have the Bills related to exiting the EU. The next priority must be to keep citizens safe from harm and I welcome in particular the proposed legislation on domestic violence and abuse, and on digital safety. However, we should be sceptical about the need for any more laws. It is not clear to me that all the remaining Bills are worth while. I will single out just one. In the previous Session, we had HS2 legislation, and I pay tribute to the noble Lords who did hard labour on the special Bill Committee. Now we are promised another HS2 Bill. I remain unconvinced about the project. It is not clear that its benefits outweigh its massive costs, which are on some estimates up to £200 billion. That is on top of the disruption and destruction that will be part of the project. It is not too late to change course on HS2; there are far more deserving homes for the taxpayers’ billions.
Today’s debate includes economic affairs, and that is the focus for my remaining remarks. If we had believed the forecasts that the Treasury produced as part of “project fear” last year, our economy should now be in recession. Wrong—our economy has continued to grow. Although that growth slowed in the first quarter of this year, the outlook is not gloomy. For example, the CBI reports that the UK’s manufacturing order books are at a 30-year high. The Treasury said that unemployment would jump by half a million. Wrong—unemployment has continued to fall and employment is at a record high. The Treasury said that foreign investment in the UK would fall, but there is no sign of that happening and a number of significant corporations have recommitted to investing in the UK.
Of course there are some issues, and rising inflation is a problem in particular for households that face lower income growth, but the long-term outlook for the UK is still positive, with signs that many non-EU countries are keen to enter into new trade deals that will take effect when we leave the EU. We have always been a great trading nation and I look forward to the Bills on trade and customs that will underpin our ability to forge our own trading destiny in the future.
As other noble Lords have reminded us, we must not forget that a large fiscal challenge faces us. Debt is expected to peak at just short of 90% of GDP, and the previous Budget paved the way for an even longer timeline for removing the deficit. We cannot wish away those facts of life. More than anything else, we need to stimulate economic growth, which is why building the foundations for international trade will be so important for us.
The gracious Speech had little to say on economic growth beyond legislation that relates to electric cars and commercial satellites. That is good; Governments cannot legislate for growth. The most important thing that they can do is create an environment where businesses can prosper. Tax is an important part of that environment. Corporation tax rates are on a path towards 17% and I applaud the Government for that commitment. We need companies to invest and grow, and success should not be penalised. However, we still have tax rates on individuals that are too high at both ends of the spectrum. The top rate of 45% is uncompetitive and is above the EU, OECD and global averages, and some marginal rates are even higher. At the bottom end, the Government rightly claim credit for the basic rate threshold of £11,500, but the ultimate stealth tax of national insurance still kicks in at about £8,000 per annum and at a rate of 12%.
Tax is not just a question of rates; it is also about complexity, and we have one of the most complex systems in the world. Low tax rates have been proven to raise yields, but one does not have to be a devotee of the Laffer curve to believe that pervasive low rates, together with a system that was stripped of complexity, would hugely boost our economic strength. I commend that to the Government as something to complement their huge efforts to promote our nation’s economic good health.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I agree with much of what she said, particularly on HS2. I also commend both noble Lords who made excellent maiden speeches today.
In speaking on energy today, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Shale Gas Regulation and Planning and as a former UK Energy Minister.
Comparing the recent Tory manifesto to the gracious Speech, I am somewhat perplexed by Her Majesty’s Government’s invisible energy strategy. If this is what strong and stable government looks like, I can only be grateful that your Lordships’ House avoided a coalition of chaos. For example, media reports before the gracious Speech said that the Government had abandoned their commitment to UK shale gas development. I hope that the Minister—who is not in his place at the moment—can reassure or otherwise the House, at least until the next U-turn.
The Conservative manifesto stated that legislation would be introduced to permit non-fracking drilling as a permitted development; major shale planning decisions would be the responsibility of the national planning regime; there would be a new shale environmental regulator; and there would be changes to the proposed shale wealth fund. Now these are all apparently out of the window. Are Her Majesty’s Government still committed to shale in England, have they been won over by Labour’s argument that fracking should be banned, as it is in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or do they simply believe they cannot get the legislation through Parliament?
The Queen’s Speech mentions nuclear safeguards and proposals to secure critical national infrastructure. Can the Minister enlighten noble Lords about how this will be achieved post-Brexit? Again, the Government seem vague about attempts to protect the UK’s critical infrastructure. Just last September, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated that the Government would reform the legal framework for future foreign investment in our critical infrastructure, including nuclear energy. The Tory manifesto said:
“We will ensure that foreign ownership of companies controlling important infrastructure does not undermine British security or essential services”.
The Minister briefly referred to this, but when will we receive the details? Concerns about Chinese involvement in Hinkley and Bradwell on security grounds have been widespread, but in the Queen’s Speech of this there was not a whisper.
Incidentally, as previously mentioned, a recent National Audit Office report said that the Government’s plans for a new £18 billion power plant at Hinkley Point were “risky and expensive”. As the UK’s ageing nuclear and coal plants need replacing or substitution by around 2030, the UK’s reliance on imports has returned to levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s, before production from the North Sea took off. My fear is that the Government do not really have an energy policy and certainly do not have a grip on the issues. A commitment in the gracious Speech to electric cars is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a low-carbon energy strategy. Perhaps it is time for a new energy White Paper. There has not been one for a while.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, Britain’s largest storage site for natural gas, owned by Centrica, is to close permanently, leaving the country more dependent on imports and price volatility. The situation is so precarious that a committee of your Lordships’ House advocated varying the pace of carbon emissions up to 2050 to keep the lights on.
While the gracious Speech commits the UK to tackling climate change and the Paris agreement, few independent experts believe the country can hit its emission targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, commented on this point earlier. The Committee on Climate Change stated that current policies are likely to deliver at best around half the required UK emissions reduction from 2015 to 2030. A new emissions reduction plan has yet to be published. Can the Minister tell the House when its publication is likely?
I do not think the Government are treating cybersecurity with the seriousness it deserves. Where was the reference to this in the Queen’s Speech? We have already witnessed recent attacks on the NHS and Parliament in this country alone, with attacks also against the US, Ukraine and Iran, among others. The Stuxnet worm was used effectively against Iran’s nuclear power stations. Researchers are now warning the Industroyer virus could bring down power networks in their entirety or lead to our power grid being controlled by either criminals or a foreign nation state. The Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies estimates a cyberattack on the UK’s regional electricity distribution network would cost between £12 billion and £86 billion.
The powers and ability of the National Cyber Security Centre to deal with an attack of this nature are frankly insufficient. It does not have a statutory role and cannot enforce its recommendations. The National Cyber Security Strategy is muddled and unclear, particularly regarding the private sector, which owns most of the UK’s critical national infrastructure. The clock is ticking, but the Government appear paralysed.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak on only one of the several proposed Bills related to our leaving the European Union—namely, that on agriculture. I declare my interests in agriculture as detailed in the register of interests.
I welcome the proposed agriculture Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who will presumably be responsible for taking it through this House, on his reappointment to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The farming industry will be one of the most affected by the decision to leave the European Union, and an agriculture Bill is necessary. But the terms of our departure will determine what level of support will be necessary in the future. As 75% of our agricultural exports go to the European Union, tariff-free access to the EU will be essential for all British farmers. Until we know whether this can be negotiated, farmers cannot plan their breeding and cropping programmes, and the Government and the devolved Administrations cannot formulate the required support systems.
Certain types of agriculture are heavily dependent on seasonal labour, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Most of this seasonal labour comes from the EU eastern European countries, and at the very least it will be necessary to go back to an equivalent of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme so that fruit and vegetable farms can pick their crops in a timely fashion. It would be helpful if Ministers could very soon make announcements about the future ability of British farmers to recruit seasonal workers from overseas. Of course, there are also large numbers of EU citizens already working on a full-time basis in agriculture. I welcome the publication today of the Government’s detailed proposals for EU citizens already working here.
Then there is the question of financial support. In the previous Parliament, the Government had guaranteed payments to farmers under the common agricultural policy up to 2020. During the recent general election, the Conservative Party stated:
“We want to provide stability to farmers as we leave the EU”.
That is indeed mentioned in the summary of the proposed agriculture Bill, but the manifesto also stated:
“So we will continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the parliament”,
which I assume now means 2022. I therefore hope that Ministers will legislate this commitment in the forthcoming agriculture Bill.
It is sometimes suggested that farming does not need or deserve the amount of taxpayer support it receives. In this House, many noble Lords from all sides understand that many farming businesses, especially livestock farms, are not sustainable without financial support. That is particularly true in the less favoured areas of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the north of England. There is an enormous difference in profitability between a large arable farm in Lincolnshire and a livestock hill farm in, for example, Wales or Scotland. Most of these livestock farms are family farms that are important in many ways to their local communities.
My plea to Ministers is as follows. A new agriculture policy must be devised as quickly as possible. We need food security, remembering that only 60% of our food is home-grown. We need to care for our countryside and the environment. We need to provide safe and healthy food for consumers. We must improve the quality of broadband in rural areas. We must sustain our large food processing industry, which is heavily dependent on home-grown raw materials. However, my overwhelming concern is for the social fabric of country communities, and one of the best ways to preserve that fabric is to sustain the family farms of this country. I urge the Government to be mindful of that as they construct a new policy for this country’s agriculture.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, time is precious today, but I think others would agree that there is very little in the gracious Speech specifically about business, so I want to raise points especially affecting small business.
A major concern relates to the late payment of debts, something that I have campaigned on for many years but which remains a big problem. It has been reported that as much as £260 billion of SME turnover is locked up in late payments. An alternative figure is that one-third of payments to SMEs in the UK are late. This situation, which many small businesses face, has not been resolved. The Government have come up with many ideas over the years, but it is a continuing problem. Indeed, tens of thousands of businesses fail every year because of cash-flow problems. I ask the Minister to look again at the problem to see whether he can come up with appropriate ways of dealing with it, because it is not just businesses that are at fault; I want the Government to look at their payment practices, and local government also needs to be addressed in that respect.
Another point that needs to be addressed is the concern referred to earlier today about the availability in this country of necessary skills, which has become a continuing problem. Many colleagues have talked about the need to welcome people from other countries into this country to provide the skills that we need. It is important that we emphasise the importance of the skills that are needed as well as the quality of the technical education that is necessary to address this problem. That has been raised many times in connection with careers advice, another issue that I and other colleagues have raised and that, to be fair, the Government have tried to address. However, I assure colleagues here that careers advice and guidance throughout the country is not consistently as good as it should be. Young people need encouragement. They should be given opportunities to get skills—apprenticeships are an important area here—and encouraged to get them. When I left school I did national service, and I have been in business all my life. One company that I worked for was a “them and us” company, and the workforce was not encouraged to be encouraged, if you like. So I very much believe that careers advice and guidance is very important to give young people the encouragement that they need.
Other points have been raised. Briefly, the Government have talked about export and the need for trading overseas. That is often referred to and we all say, “Oh, yes”. The practicalities of it relate to Brexit, of course, but also—I have some experience of export with my small firm—to whether the quality of the diplomatic corps in its representation in different countries throughout the world is of the necessary calibre to help those business people who want to export to do so.
I hope that the Government will address those points and the many others that need addressing in relation to small business in particular. Many colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, have referred to problems with business rates and such like. I hope that we can address them.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the vexed question of HS2, as this ridiculous scheme is getting under way. Demolition is starting, burial grounds dug up, trees felled and communities disrupted. The utmost pressure must be kept on in the hope that government common sense will prevail and an urgent review will be ordered.
I begin with the title of a comprehensive article written by the journalist Simon Jenkins, which traces the history of HS2, entitled, “HS2: the zombie train that refuses to die”. He wrote:
“It is the most extravagant infrastructure project in British history—but nobody can say why we need it. How did HS2 ever get so far?”—
a question we must ask ourselves and, depending on the answer, take the necessary action. Even at this late stage, it can be halted. The London garden bridge, another vanity project, has been reviewed and is unlikely to go ahead, despite the considerable sums already spent on it.
It is difficult to comprehend the enormity of the folly that is HS2. It is so monstrous that most people simply cannot believe it. On 31 January this year, I moved an amendment to the Third Reading of the HS2 Bill that would have put an end to it. Most of your Lordships voted against my amendment, while telling me privately that they agreed with it, but 26 Members of this House voted with me to stop HS2.
Were these 26 ill informed, or were they perhaps the best-informed Members of your Lordships’ House? Two of them were former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury. Terry Burns, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, saw HS2 at first hand under Gordon Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, studied it under David Cameron and George Osborne. Both of them were so convinced of the case against continuing that they voted to stop it even at that stage.
Every dispassionate observer who is properly qualified and experienced in our railway system is opposed to it. A long list of railway experts who have no axe to grind have written to Ministers pleading for a meeting to put their case to help the Government to understand the dangers. They have been rebuffed.
Every supposed benefit of this project, including speed and capacity, has been comprehensively taken apart by those professionals, who really know what they are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, when he was Secretary of State for Transport, was so worried about the scheme that he commissioned a no-nonsense report from Sir Rod Eddington, the former boss of British Airways. Eddington’s report, which was published in 2006 was emphatic: this kind of scheme was wrong in principle and should not be undertaken. His report was enthusiastically welcomed by the Secretary of State and officials in Whitehall.
A critical report by Sir Jeremy Heywood in 2016 has not yet been made public. I wonder why. A consultant in this field, Michael Byng, was commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to scrutinise the costings of HS2. His results showed that the scheme is likely to cost twice as much as the original estimate. We are talking about unbelievable amounts of money. The forecast cost was £56 billion, now thought to be nearer £70 billion, and some say eventually £100 billion.
I am reliably informed that for the price of HS2 we could rebuild and re-equip every hospital in England and Wales. Today we launched our new aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, which cost £3 billion, described as an astronomic sum. In HS2 terms, it is peanuts. This scheme will last for years, a running sore constantly reminding whatever Government are in power of the massive mistake that was made through sheer obstinacy and an unwillingness to listen. It will be an ongoing financial and environmental nightmare.
Serious disruption will soon start in Camden despite the fact that there are still uncertainties surrounding how the scheme will work in the area. Homes are to be demolished, burial grounds dug up, businesses disrupted, and mature London plane trees felled. The Woodland Trust tells us that, further afield along its route, 63 ancient woodlands will be lost or damaged. This entire project is not worth the life of a single tree.
To defend the indefensible, HS2 is reported to be employing 17 PR firms to sell its case—gravy train upon gravy train. One firm is reported as being paid £280,000 to extol the virtues of HS2 to primary schools along the route. There is a constant stream of reports of hirings, firings and squabbling over contracts by those seeking a slice of the huge sums involved.
What we need, and what we must have before things go any further, is an urgent, open, Treasury-led review of the situation with proper professional independent advice taken and listened to. What harm can that do? What are people afraid of? Perhaps it is the truth. Surely, when such huge amounts of public money are being spent and such immense damage is being done, both to our urban environment and our countryside, it is vital to get at the truth.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech and many noble Lords have spoken of a new, modern, industrial strategy. I welcome this, because we need one. How can the Minister speak of strong fundamentals when after eight years of unprecedented fiscal stimulus from the Bank of England and eight years of austerity, we are still nowhere near balancing our books? Real incomes have fallen, our standard of living has fallen, and productivity has been virtually static. It is a fantasy that we can go on like this. In these circumstances, the industrial strategy should reflect our values of fairness as much as they reflect our ambitions to grow and prosper—a strategy that unites us. Even the Prime Minister has indicated a nudge in this direction.
So, how do we do it? The obvious place to start is the industrial strategy Green Paper issued in January. A lot of work has gone into responding to this and it really has the possibility of being a creative alternative to austerity. Consultation has been wide and it involved many parts of industry. Indeed, it involved a number of people from your Lordships’ House. Not least is the suggestion that the strategy should set tough targets for productivity and create a regulator to monitor and stimulate progress—a kind of productivity OBR. For instance, much is made of the matched funding available in the innovation fund. But that will be of value only to the incumbents who have the money to do the matching. Will the Government leave the funding to organisations such as Innovate UK to make judgments and not just reward those who can afford it?
In many fields, artificial intelligence is already superior to our own. Business will profit from recognising that fact, and encouraging this has to be part of our industrial strategy. Equally, part of the strategy must be to show how artificial intelligence can benefit us all, rather than just being a threat. As part of the strategy I would like to see a campaign similar to the public understanding of science campaign, which we carried out when science was perceived as a threat. Indeed, that campaign may have been initiated in your Lordships’ House. There have been many enthusiastic submissions, and none of them should be wasted.
The strategy must include a review of patient capital. Extensive research shows that our present systems of big bonuses make executives less willing to invest because they do not want to do anything that would cause a short-term hit to profits. We know that this perverse incentive is one reason why productivity is low. Will the industrial strategy take steps to limit this?
Business has been very good at evaluating the impact of politics on its businesses. Indeed, many of us have tried to help in this—but the message coming through loud and clear is that this works both ways. Businesses should carefully consider the effect of what they do on politics, such as directors paying each other enormous salaries, companies using great ingenuity to pay less tax, and staff being often more exploited than nurtured. Then there are the customers faced with complications to their disadvantage. What steps will the Government take in their industrial strategy to discourage that behaviour, because all that it does is lead to a loss of trust?
The Labour manifesto recognises the reality that growing demands put on the state need more tax revenue. So why not, as part of our industrial strategy, broaden the tax base with heavier taxes on activities which damage the environment or with VAT on financial services? There is a strong case for taxing expensive homes—why stop at band H? What about taxing the gains on people’s main homes when they are sold? If nothing else, it would help to stabilise the runaway housing market, which many have said needs to be dealt with.
We also need to make a better case for the role of the state as industrial stabilisers, and as regulators, especially after the Grenfell fire, and not just pursue deregulation for its own sake, as an end in itself. My point is that a new modern industrial strategy must decide to meet both economic and social objectives. We have been through a lot in recent months. A business and social industrial strategy will help to unite and support us after these difficulties by demonstrating our determination to put jobs and the economy on an equal footing with a fairer society.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
The gracious Speech told us that Ministers will “strengthen the economy”—an admirable aim. However, while investing in autonomous driving vehicles and space travel might benefit the economy, some of us fear that the Government could make moves in a different direction, which would be a massive blow.
On 24 January, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said:
“What we have come up with … is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and form trade deals with the rest of the world, which is the real upside of leaving the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col. 169.]
That is a cunning plan that could be very beneficial to the economy, but the 27 countries gathered on the other side of the negotiating table do not seem to share the same vision of the UK being allowed to resign from the club while holding on to all the benefits. They seem to take the view that, if one eats the gateau, one no longer has it. Already, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union sounds less confident that the wizard idea he came up with can be delivered.
Without membership of the single market, it certainly will be crucial that companies become better at exporting to non-EU members. The UK’s share of the Chinese market, for instance, has fallen to around 1% over the last decade, lagging behind France, Italy and Germany, which do not seem to have been overly constrained by membership of the European Union.
The UK has some great exporting businesses but the challenge is to turn more of our smaller businesses into exporters. This is something which successive Governments have tried to tackle but with very limited success. In 2014, only 17% of medium-sized businesses—those with a turnover of between £25 million and £250 million —were exporters. The then Government launched a concerted effort to grow that, appointing trade experts to provide local support to medium-sized businesses. Ironically, they said at the time that English companies would become eligible to apply for up to £100 million in additional export support from the European structural and investment funds. I hope some did.
The gracious Speech referred to support for the export effort, and a more generous export credit regime would help. However, might we achieve more dramatic results if we could persuade big companies to each take a smaller one under their wing? It could be from an allied sector, rather than a potential competitor. The big companies have market knowledge, departments dedicated to export documentation and contacts. They know the ropes and they could, with little effort, help turn domestic businesses into global ones. Everybody would benefit from that. That would also boost productivity, which remains an issue for the UK. In his Autumn Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that it takes a British worker five days to make what a German produces in four. We lag behind the United States by 30%, France by 20% and Italy by 8%.
Investing heavily in innovation and infrastructure, as we are promised the Government will, should eventually lead to productivity gains. However, extensive research done by the productivity leadership group, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, came to one overriding conclusion. Too many businesses simply were not focusing sufficiently on productivity. Put less politely, poor management may be the root of the problem. The much-talked-about skills shortage may extend to the boardroom. The productivity leadership group is aiming to change that by promoting best practice, but it will be effective only if owners of businesses, in both the private and quoted arenas, keep emphasising the importance of productivity. Sir Charlie Mayfield reckons that getting it right could add as much as £130 billion to the economy every year. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to support the productivity leadership group with the very limited funding requirement that it has?
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, the gracious Speech commits the Government to bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market and reduce energy bills. In my brief contribution this evening I will concentrate on fuel poverty. Can the Minister explain exactly what the Government are proposing on energy prices? How does this interact with the Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014 and the fuel poverty strategy of 2015?
I should declare my non-pecuniary interests. I am president of the Sustainable Energy Association, president of the National Home Improvement Council, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of National Energy Action, a fuel poverty charity. I am grateful, as always, for their briefings on this issue.
The scale of fuel poverty is very worrying and has been for well over 20 years. What is more, the levels are increasing and have increased since the publication of the fuel poverty strategy in 2015. Since 2011, levels in England have been based on the low-income, high-cost definition whereby an individual is considered fuel-poor when their fuel costs are above the national median level and when spending that amount leaves them an income below the poverty line.
Monitoring in the other three UK nations uses a 10% definition, which simply means that you are spending more than 10% of your income on fuel. The latest figures for England show a small increase in the number in fuel poverty since the fuel poverty strategy was introduced. It was 2.35 million households and has risen to 2.38 million. That is nearly 11% of all households in England. United Kingdom-wide statistics are no longer produced by the UK Government but the last figures in 2015 highlighted a figure of 4 million households in fuel poverty. Whatever the definition of fuel poverty, the main drivers remain the same—the price of energy, the level of household income, the quality of energy efficiency of dwellings and the vulnerability of the occupants of those dwellings. From 2004 to 2014, we saw gas prices soar by 125% and electricity prices by 75%. In recent weeks, we have all heard announcements of new increases by the major suppliers.
Improvements in the levels of energy efficiency in our dwellings have reduced by 75%. Typically, the vulnerable are older people, children and those with long-term illnesses. We now have 1.8 million households in this category, up by 40,000 since 2013.
Wages and benefits have not kept up with prices. Those unable to work have seen their income stagnate or reduce, and half of all fuel-poor households are in work. We have heard the rosy picture and the not so rosy picture of our economy from noble Lords’ contributions but any rosiness in the economy has not affected the people in fuel poverty I am talking about.
This situation puts huge pressure on our National Health Service. The World Health Organization estimates that 30% of winter deaths are caused by cold housing. That means that in this country 9,600 people are dying needlessly through the winter months. It costs our National Health Service £5 billion to treat the effects of living in cold homes, at a time when we hear daily about the pressures on our health service. The Government have committed to various targets to achieve better energy efficiency but current resources are less than half what is required to meet them. There are no bespoke programmes so progress has been very limited. The 2015 fuel poverty strategy committed to prioritise the most severely fuel-poor through cost-effective measures and ensuring that vulnerability is reflected in policy decisions. However, the transition to supporting those who most need help has been very slow. The energy company obligation is the only delivery mechanism in England and spending reduced from £1.3 billion to £640 million over 18 months, rather than the original 12 months. Therefore, I ask the Minister: will the changes to this be part of the government proposals announced in the gracious Speech?
Another scheme for the vulnerable is the warm home discount scheme, which provides an automatic electricity bill rebate to low-income older-age households. Like ECO, this policy is paid for through a levy on energy consumers’ bills and is delivered across Great Britain. Some people do not always remember to apply for the £140 payment at the right time. If they do not do so, they end up paying for the people who are getting that help.
I have three questions and a suggestion. First, will action on energy prices go alongside co-ordinated support to drive up low household incomes? Secondly, the most sustainable solution to fuel poverty is to increase energy efficiency, so will the Government ensure that the National Infrastructure Commission includes energy efficiency as part of the upcoming infrastructure assessment, as was included, indeed, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto? Will the Government re-target current fuel poverty support and address the gaps in provision? Lastly, I urge the Government to build on local practice and replicate consistent outcomes in all our towns and cities. Much could be done in this way if the Government supported and resourced local authorities’ activities under the Home Energy Conservation Act, which I successfully steered through the other place a very long time ago. We are one of the richest countries in the world. When will we see the end to vulnerable people dying each winter in this country? It does not have to be like this.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I know that at this stage there is no necessity for me to thank the two maiden speakers, but in this case I really would like to. I thought they were terribly good. I found the history of the mighty forebears of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, fascinating. I come from Plymouth, and everything he talked about seemed to me to be maritime—cargoes at sea and so on. I look forward to him being with us and bringing in a bit of fresh air. My noble friend Lord Colgrain spoke so graciously about Lord Lyell, which was lovely, about his great-grandfather and about sitting on the steps of the Throne. It became terribly close and nice, and I look forward very much to hearing from both of them. I have added up that between them they have experience of the City, rural and marine, so that will smarten things up a bit for a while.
I declare my interests—I have already put them on my list up there, but it is always with me—in fisheries and, of course, the National Lobster Hatchery. I am therefore delighted that there is to be a fisheries Bill. I was on the EU Select Committee, and when we put forward a report about fisheries we never dreamed for one moment that the Government would let us have a fisheries Bill. However, we have one now and I am thrilled. The Minister outlined how we would be in control of the UK’s EE zone. He talked about having a fairer share of the market, controlling quotas and not being bound by the EC fisheries policy. He talked about meeting other fleets fairly and about how coastal communities are to be renewed. I hope that will encourage modern apprenticeships, science and technology and bring our Government to a fisheries Bill that raises the morale of our island nation all over again.
Above all, I applaud the meaningful recognition of the need for enablement of the protection of our fish and our fishing fleet. We need now to put into place appropriate and effective protection. We need boats, and we need them built fast. I am sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, is not here to speak, for he is an admiral and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and is knowledgeable about the Fishery Protection Squadron, which thrives—I looked it up and read about it. I think we will do awfully well with this today. Can the Minister say whether the Government have already assessed the need for boats, and if so, when will they be ready to start with them? Have they ring-fenced the money to make sure that we can have them? We need to be ready to train the young people who will get their careers going in this area.
The Mediterranean has been fished out. Net sizes got smaller and smaller. The great fleets of France and the great Spanish armada have to come here, because the fish are available in our waters—our common-law system makes us very well behaved in not overdoing things. With the CFP removed, we will be able to make a policy of our own and police are own waters. We are blessed indeed with our inshore and deep water fish and shellfish, which provide demersal and pelagic fish, lobsters, crabs, oysters and shrimp—all those delicious things grow in our waters.
In the period from 2012 to 2014, EU fishing vessels, including ours, landed on average 1.1 million tonnes of fish and shellfish annually, caught within what will now constitute the UK EEZ. The report found that, on average, fishing vessels from EU countries other than from the United Kingdom landed 58% of that volume—equal to some £400 million, or 43%, of the value of all landings from the UK EEZ. Our country, out of the European Community, has a good, rich fishing future as long as we protect it.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I place on record that before speaking tonight I took counsel and guidance from the clerks—although from none of those who have been here tonight, so they can all relax—on whether there was any risk of me going sub judice on anything that I am about to say. They have assured me that there is not, for which I am grateful.
My subject is LIBOR and a sequence of four cases which have passed through the High Court in the last 18 months. There have been 15 prosecutions, five convictions, two cases where the juries have failed to agree and eight acquittals. We are now left with so many confusions and unresolved issues from this process and our parallel LIBOR market in Europe, called Euribor, is complaining so much that it may seek to shut us out and take the entire market, to our significant financial detriment. It is rather the reverse of the old Groucho Marx comment, “You wouldn’t join a club that would have you as a member”. We wish to remain in the club that does not want to have us as a member and this is a serious predicament.
The key issues are these. First, we are apparently at variance with the entire remainder of Europe, which has stated categorically that it will have no LIBOR prosecutions for any incident that occurred before 15 April 2013, as the new regulations came in on that date. All the prosecutions that we have seen go back as far as August 2006, so they would not have been relevant.
Secondly, the rest of Europe has been greatly upset by comments made by no less than the Lord Chief Justice in determining one of the appeal processes relating to these cases. He said that the bank’s positions in these LIBOR cases could have no link to the relevant indexes of the day when the deals were struck. That is not only fundamentally wrong; it is arrant nonsense, if I may be so bold. In any financial market, the bank’s position will always have a link to any index.
A range of possible rates could apply. That point was accepted by the FCA in the extraordinary disciplinary process that it mounted and completed just a few weeks before the start of the LIBOR cases, all of which involved the UBS bank and particularly its principal LIBOR trader—a man called Tom Hayes. The FCA, quite reasonably—expecting that this case would produce some prosecutions—set out to prepare the way for a lifetime ban on the other UBS staff who had been working on LIBOR. In doing so, it first convened its disciplinary committee, consisting of five people and 15 expert advisers. It sat intermittently over a three-month period and came up with three absolutely critical conclusions.
The first was that all LIBOR, in contravention of what the prosecution was saying in these cases, was based on daily fixings in something acknowledged as “the range”, which limited the minimum and maximum spot fixings that could be achieved. Secondly, the committee confirmed that the range had been correctly applied throughout all the cases that had gone through UBS and that there was no sign of any dishonesty whatever in that process. Thirdly, it then looked at the rest of the situation and said that the senior executive to whom Mr Hayes had had to report his fixings each day had behaved perfectly correctly. It said that there was no question of his disqualification and all accusations were binned.
Given those circumstances, that would have been a hugely valuable piece of information to have passed into the jury’s knowledge. Indeed, the FCA sent a copy of its report of the proceedings to the Serious Fraud Office, asking that it be placed in the hands of the defence counsel for the trial. Three weeks into the trial, it was found that the SFO had never released the report, and it was never seen again. The judge refused to allow it to be submitted as late evidence and the jury accordingly convicted. Mr Hayes was sent to prison for 13 and a half years and a confiscation order for £1.8 million was passed upon him—it realised only £800,000 but we cannot win on all things. He has almost 10 and a half years of his sentence still to serve, but I am sure it is a great consolation for him to know that the FCA thought his boss perfectly innocent of any accusation in the process that has now lumbered him with slopping-out every morning as he ticks another day off his sentence.
Having started off trying to circumvent the trial process by going for a common-law prosecution—they could not do it under the LIBOR rules due to the European restriction—they then gave themselves the task that although it was a common-law prosecution, they had to recreate a knowledge of LIBOR in the minds of the jury to understand the whole process. The SFO, ever helpful in these matters, provided an expert witness. He was a great success, and ran through every trial. However, in the fourth trial, he broke down and confessed that he did not know the first thing about LIBOR, had never worked a day in the LIBOR market and had been given coaching by the SFO as to what to say to convince the jury—that is splendid British justice for us.
The new Government need to address three separate and vital LIBOR issues. First, as a matter of common justice they need to decide how we are going to sort out the mess we are in with this one. Secondly, we have to work out how we are going to amend the statute book and codes of practice to ensure that we are clean for the future. Thirdly, we have to get ourselves back into LIBOR permanently and stay there. If we do not, we are all going to hell in a handcart and nothing in our financial services market is going to save us. This is a real issue and we need to address it very urgently. I commend it to the attention of the incoming Government.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, despite its brevity, the Queen’s Speech emphasises that our Government and Parliament have a great responsibility for many critical issues affecting the future of the UK and the countries of the world. I agree with other noble Peers that dealing with global climate change for present and future generations has been accepted by most Governments as the most serious of these global issues. Most countries signed the Paris accord in 2015, although regrettably the US Government have withdrawn from it. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the UK will join with other major countries at the forthcoming G20 conference in Berlin in asserting again its commitment, as, of course, Mrs Merkel has already.
The UK can be proud not only of its diplomacy, which led to consensus in Parliament for the then Climate Change Bill, but of its participation in leading research that contributed to international consensus about the past processes of climate change and the future trends of rising temperatures in the atmosphere, ocean and land areas caused by rising emissions of carbon dioxide. There is now a practical consensus that over this century these emissions will be greatly reduced—the UK target for reduction is by 80%—but this is possible only if new sources of clean energy become available throughout the world.
There are great opportunities for the UK to develop renewable wind and solar energy. Even Saudi Arabia is moving away from petroleum and developing solar energy. The UK is also investing in advanced nuclear fission and fusion systems. I declare an interest. The environmental impact of these systems will also have to be managed in collaboration with other countries and international organisations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom. It is essential that the UK should positively expand its involvement in these national and international environmental and energy organisations. There will be a Bill, as the Minister said, on dealing with the consequences of leaving Euratom, and that will be a very important piece of legislation.
As I have said in the past, the House of Lords should receive more regular reports about these international bodies, which are so important to trade, the environment and communications. We have had almost no debates on this. I have organised two in the 17 years that I have been here and this goes by default. Select Committees could also be more involved in this aspect of UK governance.
Although local conservation of fisheries, which was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is an important issue, it is also important to realise that we have to think about fisheries on an oceanic scale. Again, I have been involved in ACOPS, which sits on some of these bodies. Following urgent environmental and infrastructure safety problems in the UK, which we have been seeing in the last few years and most urgently in the last couple of weeks, HMG need to consider the governance and openness of the responsible governmental and private organisations, and how the latest science and technology can be used.
I speak as a former chief executive of the Met or Meteorological Office—although some people think that it is another kind of Met—which I am pleased to see remains a world-class governmental agency despite several attempts by Governments of all parties to privatise it. Other well-known governmental laboratories have been privatised and universally spin off companies to provide valuable services. I declare an interest there. The question for the UK is how these privatised ex-governmental organisations should be involved in these critical governmental questions. That has been a hidden question during the last week. An alternative is to involve professional bodies such as the Hazards Forum, which brings together all the engineering institutions and quasi-governmental bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive. Again, I declare an interest.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, emphasised this afternoon, as the Government, Parliament and industry review the technical solutions to these challenges and the production and design of UK products, the need is to consider how UK schools, universities and training colleges can compete with leading institutions around the world, for example by making sure that our children do homework, which is rather rare in some schools. It is important that these institutions should educate more qualified engineers and scientists. If not, as industry is urging, the UK will need to expand the number of immigrants with advanced qualifications, assuming they have the confidence in how they are treated when they arrive. I was pleased to hear that identity cards are being considered again. That may be essential in future.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech made clear this Government’s priority to ensure security and stability as we leave the European Union. Safeguarding jobs in our economy must be at the forefront of this. We must protect our position as a global economic powerhouse, but also reach out for new opportunities. A fundamental part of our economic success strength stems from bilateral trade. This will be more important than ever before as we embark on a new era for our country. In particular, I believe that we must now seek greater economic and trade ties with our friends across the Commonwealth and forge new trading relationships.
I am a great admirer of the Commonwealth. It encompasses 52 countries and a third of the world population. It is culturally, economically and politically diverse, yet shares our values of democracy and the rule of law. The Commonwealth is essentially a ready-made trading market. Its economies are large and small, developed and developing. It includes two of the BRICS economies, India and South Africa, along with several members of the “7 per cent club”.
Earlier this year, Commonwealth Trade Ministers met in London and agreed to deepen economic ties. They were clear about the advantages that we all have through sharing a common law, language and institutions. In 2014, UK exports to the Commonwealth were worth more than £48 billion and imports were worth £42 billion. There has been a trade surplus since 2011. It is estimated that, on average, Commonwealth countries trade around 20% more with each other than with non-Commonwealth countries.
Next year, we will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This will be a golden opportunity to reflect on opportunities and develop new ideas. We must be ambitious and open-minded, and be more active in promoting business. The Government have made it clear that we will see new Bills on trade and customs. I look forward to such legislation and hope that we can support British businesses to export to new markets across the Commonwealth and, indeed, the entire world.
I would also like to emphasise the importance and potential of the Islamic finance industry to our economy. I declare an interest as the previous co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamic Finance. It is my intention that the group will soon be reactivated following the general election. I am also a volunteer patron of the Islamic Finance Council.
The United Kingdom has the largest Islamic finance market outside the Muslim world. Its assets now exceed $20 billion. The market is also growing significantly worldwide, at an average annual rate of 15%, with a value of more than $2 trillion. We must take advantage of the strong hand we already have in this industry. We have hundreds of accountants, solicitors and consultants who are highly trained in Islamic finance. We must harness and grow this talent pool further.
We can also export these skills and help other countries to develop their Islamic financial structures. In 2013, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke at the World Islamic Economic Forum. He committed to issuing a £200 million sovereign sukuk, to providing sharia-compliant student loans and to providing sharia-compliant start-up loans for new businesses. The sukuk was issued and was 10 times oversubscribed. We must now look at the issuance of a second sovereign sukuk which can attract investment in infrastructure to support economic growth, something that was referred to in Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech.
Furthermore, we must also now move forward and deliver the other two commitments. Sharia-compliant student loans will enable greater numbers of Muslim students to attend university, while start-up loans will inspire Muslim entrepreneurs to establish their own businesses. These can only be good things for our skills base and for our economy. More widely, Islamic finance is also favoured beyond the Muslim community by those who wish for a more ethical form of financing.
We must be flexible and innovative as we explore new markets and build new relationships. This approach will deliver the best returns for our businesses, create more jobs for the future and secure a stable economy on a long-term basis.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, there is yet another glaring omission in the gracious Speech and supporting documentation. It is the lack of understanding of small and medium-sized businesses and how they are a major component of the success or failure of the UK’s businesses and the UK economy. This Government have failed to understand how smaller businesses work and thrive. Smaller businesses need to concentrate on their core activities of providing services, production and sales, and the rest of their activities is incidental.
I have, in 2015 and 2016, spoken in your Lordships’ House on the Conservative policy of MTD, making tax digital. This was apparently seen, prior to the 2015 spring Budget, as a means of simplifying our tax system, being a step change in the ways records are kept and tax collected. This will mean that the self-employed, landlords and businesses will have to keep digital tax records. All right so far, but they will have to send four digital returns to HMRC, plus a year-end return, every year: five digital returns a year. For gurus in Whitehall or 10 Downing Street this might seem a simplification, but for most small businesses, in practice, it means employing a firm of external accountants—I declare an interest there—in order to comply; expensive, unless you are an accountant. Those in business who should be concentrating on production and turnover will be overwhelmed by the digital requirements. Please, Government, think again.
Another problem faced by small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in our high streets, is the obscene rise in business rates mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Liberal Democrats want a systemic review of the business rates system, prioritising reforms that recognise the increased role of the digital economy. We want small businesses and high street shops to remain competitive. It cannot be right and fair that an out-of-town mail order house or a retail warehouse on an industrial site pays less rates than a small shop on my local high street. Have the Government any plans to address this major problem?
I would like to see a greater acknowledgement of the courage of individuals starting their own businesses. Liberal Democrats have proposed a £100 per week start-up allowance for six months to give support with basic living costs to entrepreneurs starting a new business. Further, we need to expand the British Business Bank, introduced in 2014 by Vince Cable when he was Secretary of State, to provide more equity capital for growing firms. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on this.
Leaving the European Union will be, in the words of “Yes Minister”, “a courageous decision”, but whether we are in or out of the single market and customs union, I trust that central government procurement is used as a tool to drive local growth and community development. Can the Minister say whether government departments, local and national, will purchase from diverse sources and use local labour, goods and services where possible? Too often, government contracts go for apparent safety with a large firm, since if that firm goes belly-up, those who commissioned the work can say, “Don’t blame me, guv—I went to a large firm”. Small firms need to get a look-in on this business.
Inevitably, most speeches will come back to Brexit, that ill-advised leap in the dark. When trade negotiations start—assuming that by then we have experienced and able trade negotiators in the UK—I believe that those negotiations should focus on start-ups, the tech sector, data movement and tariffs, and the protection of intellectual property. A hard Brexit will lock Britain out of the world’s largest free-market area and will impose another huge administrative burden on SMEs seeking to export. If no free trade agreement is reached, the UK will be subject to WTO tariffs, which range from 4.1% on natural gas to 9.8% on cars and, horror of horrors, to 32% on wine. The Centre for European Reform estimates that this would cost the UK more than £40 billion.
Further, have the Government made any assessment of the additional costs to UK businesses of the overhaul of data protection rules? These EU-generated rules, which are going to be brought into UK legislation, will mean a change in how companies process information, such as customer lists and employee records, and will come into force, unless something happens, in May 2018. It is clear that many businesses will fail to comply. Will the Minister say how businesses are being made aware of these rules and whether next spring we will see a plethora of firms paying fines? Will the Minister confirm that fining will be a last resort?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Callanan to his role and wish him success. I am delighted to follow so many significant contributions, including the two excellent maiden speeches, in this important debate on the gracious Speech.
With today’s focus on economic issues, I congratulate the Government on achieving the highest UK employment rate since records began. Global firms have been investing here, taking advantage of our business-friendly environment and successful labour markets. We must protect this. A hard-left economic agenda would, in my view, do dreadful damage, as indeed would a hard-right or no-deal Brexit.
I welcome the Government’s proposals for the national living wage, increased housebuilding, protecting critical infrastructure and encouraging electric vehicle use to build on the UK’s leading position in this area. I am proud that the Government will continue supporting international action on climate change, which poses a real threat to younger generations. Another threat to the British economy is the worrying resurgence in consumer debt levels, which rose 10% last year. We know that excess borrowing and irresponsible lending preceded the 2008 crisis. I certainly support the financial guidance Bill to help consumers manage their finances and debts better, although more needs to be done to control consumer debt.
I also welcome the Bills to improve the treatment of mental ill-health and tackle injustice. However, there was a serious omission from proposed anti-discrimination measures. The Queen’s Speech rightly calls for an end to prejudice on the basis of gender, faith, race, disability or sexuality, but what about age? Can my noble friend the Minister explain why this was missing? Reducing immigration makes it increasingly important to tackle the ageism that still pervades Britain’s labour market. With an ageing population, the more we can encourage full-time or part-time later-life working, the better the economic outlook. This is not about favouring older generations over younger ones; it is about ensuring that everyone has opportunities to work and contribute to the economy and their own economic welfare. Too often employers overlook the talents, dedication and experience of older staff, whether in training or recruitment for new roles. In this context, I also welcome the new institutes of technology to improve young people’s technical skills, but we need an adult stream, too. Lifelong learning, mature apprenticeships and reskilling can help the British labour market stay world-class, improve productivity and enhance growth.
Another important issue for the economy and its resilience is corporate finance. In particular, I am concerned about the significant advantage for debt finance over equity. Stamp duty is paid on UK equities, while debt is subsidised by taxpayers and favoured by regulators. Having spent many years in investment management, I find this bias against equity capital concerning. Equity financing was invented in the UK and helps businesses drive innovation with the support of patient, long-term capital. Leaving the EU would make this even more important.
I had the privilege of opening the London Stock Exchange last Friday and it struck me that every trade in a British company attracted a tax charge, whereas each non-UK company trade did not. It is estimated that the tax comprises 70% of UK equity trading costs. Pension funds and insurers have dramatically reduced equity holdings in recent years, removing some of the underlying support for British business. As auto-enrolment brings millions more workers into long-term investing and quantitative easing continues to depress bond yields, the nation’s long-term economic interest could be boosted by levelling the playing field for equity versus debt finance, encouraging more activity in public equity markets, rather than private equity, as well as encouraging pension funds to invest in growth and job-creating British infrastructure.
Finally, the central theme of the forthcoming legislative programme revolves around arrangements for leaving the EU. From an economic perspective, I wholeheartedly support the wise words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who urges prioritising jobs and prosperity during our journey of separation from the EU. The British people voted to be better off, not worse off. They did not vote to jeopardise our economy, manufacturing and services industries and all the jobs that depend on them— and what about immigration? From a demographic and economic point of view, immigration is essential for our economy. As our ageing population is moving into retirement with fewer younger people to support them, immigration has helped to power economic growth.
Leaving the EU single market, customs union and EEA by 2019 would be disastrous. Yes, Britain is great. We have strength, ingenuity, scientific brilliance and resilience but without a more conciliatory, co-operative approach to Brexit the economy is at risk. I believe that logical, rather than ideological, economic arguments are needed now. I hope my noble friend the Minister and many colleagues on these Benches can work with others in the national interest to help us better achieve success and future prosperity.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak today about energy and the environment and, in the interests of brevity, I refer to my interests in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency in the official register.
Brexit and the tragic events of recent months will understandably take much of our attention but we must not forget the longer term. Our actions today are making the prospects of future generations very bleak, both for the people and for the plants and animals with which we share the planet and which make the planet habitable for us. Today, I wish to focus on the consequences of the deluge of greenhouse gases that is largely produced by the burning of fossil fuels and released into the atmosphere. It is steadily and remorselessly shifting our climate. Admittedly, the causal relationship is based on probabilities but it is one endorsed, I think, by every national scientific academy in the world. It gave rise to the Paris agreement of 2015, under which countries pledged to do what they could to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. True, some of the pledges fell short of what the climate scientists calculated was needed to avert the most extreme consequences of climate change but something is better than nothing.
It was most welcome that in the Queen’s Speech, the Government renewed their commitment to meeting their Paris target. That said, it is far from clear how this is to be done. In the autumn Statement of 2015, the Treasury cancelled a £1 billion competition for industry to develop the carbon capture and storage technology—CCS—that is essential if the UK is to decarbonise at least cost. At a single stroke, this removed one of the three legs supporting the Government’s energy strategy: nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels, but with their emissions abated by carbon capture and storage. The then Environment Secretary, Amber Rudd, immediately set up an advisory group that I had the privilege to chair, comprising parliamentarians and external experts to advise on the way forward. The group scrutinised and then endorsed the Government’s previous view that CCS was needed to decarbonise heating and electricity generation. The group furthermore developed a business model by which this could be done at reasonable cost. The group’s report has been accepted by UK industry and has excited considerable international interest. Formal publication was last September, but the Government are yet to respond. They said they would do so in a decarbonisation plan, which would be out in the spring. It seems that spring is late this year because we have still not seen it.
The report emphasises that the technology is available but the timescales are long, whether for building power stations, laying pipelines or transmission lines or any other aspect of major infrastructure. This means that, for there to be any hope of meeting our Paris obligations, we have to decide urgently the outline of what needs to be done by both government and industry. It is essential that this outline has wide support across both Houses of Parliament because it must be robust to changes in Government. Chopping and changing in matters such as this is a certain recipe for wasting money and failing. There is no fundamental reason why this should be highly politicised, and this House, in particular, has a good record of achieving consensus on energy matters. If a broad outline can be agreed, details can be added later, as appropriate, and industry will be able to plan accordingly, but the Government will need to work hard because they must realise that after the cancellation of the CCS competition in 2016, their credibility is low.
I therefore ask the Government three questions: when will the decarbonisation plan be issued? Will the plan address the recommendations of the parliamentary advisory group on CCS set up by the previous Government? Will the Government seek ways of achieving all-party consensus on how decarbonisation is to be achieved?
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I propose to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others and confine my remarks to what the gracious Speech calls a new modern industrial strategy. When the Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament, which I had the privilege of chairing, took evidence on the Green Paper Building our Industrial Strategy, we were frequently reminded that industrial strategies have been formulated regularly, at least one a decade for 60 years, since the Attlee Administration. It is fair to say that most have not stood the test of time, so the first question to be addressed when formulating what the gracious Speech calls “a new modern industrial strategy” is: have we learned lessons from previous failures?
Whether we end up with a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, our long-term prospects will depend on achieving economic growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. We have to improve productivity, capture a larger share of world trade and attract inward investment. We are not going to achieve lasting periods of economic growth unless we successfully promote innovation. Successful innovation raises productivity and living standards, expands the range of goods and services available to individuals and society and allows us to live longer, healthier lives. It will not solve all our problems. I accept that, as my noble friend reminded us, lack of productivity it is very much a consequence of poor management. It is not just business that must innovate; government and social organisations need to innovate, adapt, respond to and shape the evolution of society. We have a strong science base—I do not think that is disputed—but that does not ensure that we will be among the global leaders in developing new innovative technologies and processes.
The Green Paper recognised the potential benefits and, indeed, our national dependence on science and innovation, but it failed to impart a vision of how we are going to develop a coherent strategy. It amounted to a portfolio of tactics. The Science and Technology Committee suggested that a new modern industrial strategy should first set out pathways of practical steps to a more regionally dispersed economy building on our research excellence at every opportunity. The strategy should be clear on how many sector deals the Government aspire to. They are clearly already an important component. They should also explain how transformational technologies that do not necessarily fit comfortably into existing sectors will be matured. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in his inspiring maiden speech, referred to the impact that robotics will have in the marine and other sectors. Many such sectors will be transformed by autonomous systems. This is an example of where innovation will lead in most unpredictable directions, but new industries they certainly will be.
We need to change the investment culture within our fund management industry to encourage, by a coherent approach to tax and regulation, the further supply of long-term capital for industry and science, particularly for emerging science-based firms with the potential to be significant global players. Brexit presents opportunities for businesses in the United Kingdom to gain competitive advantage from reforms to taxation and regulation that were previously not possible as part of the European Union framework. The new, modern industrial strategy promised in the gracious Speech must spell out clearly how such competitive advantage will be gained.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Government should be dealing with much else besides Brexit, but I fear that the Brexit legislation and negotiations, and their struggle to survive, will consume all the Government’s energies. Complex and politically fraught as Brexit will be, here we should be optimistic. As the two sides move beyond simplistic rhetoric, sensible negotiators, recognising their shared interests in the maintenance of trade and other relations, will converge on practical arrangements. Meanwhile, we are experiencing the predictable consequences of the correction in the value of sterling that followed the referendum. Living standards are being squeezed, but inflation is not expected to remain high. Manufacturing orders are at their best for 30 years, which points towards a healthy rebalancing of our economy.
More difficult than Brexit, and more fundamental, is to achieve for Britain what the Prime Minister has called an economy that works for everyone. Our mountainous public and private debt, the excesses and abuses of deregulation, our debilitated productivity, stagnant wages, insecurity of employment, threadbare public services, and the chasm between rich and poor are the legacy of 40 years of neoliberalism. The hierarchs of the European Union remain unrepentant neoliberals. In Britain, we contemplate as a monument to neoliberalism the charred remains of Grenfell Tower and of the poor people who lived there.
The gracious Speech promises that the appropriate lessons of Grenfell Tower will be learned. Among the lessons are that effective regulation is necessary to secure humane values and that wealth does not trickle down but must be redistributed. A Manichaean contest between private and public may gratify ideologues, but it wrecks the lives of ordinary people. Capitalism needs government to save it from its own excesses. Shareholder value has been a pernicious mantra when it has meant ever-rising dividends at the expense of investment and good jobs. Finance, gorging on itself, all but destroyed our economy a decade ago, caused lasting misery for millions and now threatens us again through reckless lending. Conservative Governments, manipulated by party donors and lobbyists, have allowed big money to call the policy shots. The rentiers have been flattered and pampered while the poor have been insulted and punished. The overdue prosecution of the Barclays bankers is a parable for our times.
There is no sign that the Conservative Party has new thoughts about how to run the economy. The Speech promises vaguely to strengthen the economy so that it generates the tax revenues needed to invest in public services. It also promises to keep taxes low. The balanced budget continues to recede. The promised land of renewed public services is not in sight, nor is a credible path to it marked out. The public will tolerate austerity that repairs the public finances, but not austerity that gets us nowhere.
Meanwhile the Home Secretary admits that the police are too stretched; Shelter warns that, with the housing benefit freeze, 1 million households will be made homeless; academics are joining the precariat on zero-hours contracts; mental health services have collapsed; and the prisons are simmering. Whatever the pledges in the Speech, the debt overhang and the weakness of the tax base mean that there are not the resources to rescue public services. The social care debacle in the election campaign exposed how people—characteristically in our political culture—demand good public services but refuse to pay more taxes.
If the Chancellor has few cards to play, neither does the governor. Desperate to stave off disaster, central bankers have inflated their balance sheets as recklessly as commercial bankers inflated theirs. If capital is to be allocated other than into asset bubbles, interest rates will need to be normalised, but one shudders to think of the effect on overindebted households and fragile businesses. We need the productive growth that loose monetary policy has failed to stimulate. The Speech promises a major reform of technical education as part of a new industrial strategy, but our weakness in technical skills is the legacy of 200 years of cultural disdain. Wishful thinking will not transform a culture.
We need a new economic model. In the near term we need a boost to growth, but we know that economies predicated on the infinite growth that capitalism requires will be unsustainable in a world of finite physical resources already imperilled by climate change. Nor will the digital economy come to our rescue. Ungovernable, it creates global monopolies, traumatically disruptive change and extreme polarisation of wealth.
Our situation requires us to consider anew what kind of economy and society we want and what government is for. The Prime Minister refused to debate any of that at the general election, and the country refused to give her its confidence. We now have a Government in office but not in power and a Queen’s Speech made up of banalities and evasions.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Mountevans, on their excellent maiden speeches. I welcome the chance to lend my support to the Queen’s Speech and the measures therein to support business and the economy at this critical time for our nation.
Our businesses are not separate from our people, our communities or our sense of country, so it is a welcome change of tone in this Queen’s Speech that businesses are being brought back into the debate about what kind of country we want to be in these uncertain times. After all, at their best, businesses are not faceless and robotic; they are groups of people united in a common purpose.
If our economy is to flourish, we need business to flourish. If we want more jobs and new career paths, we need businesses to provide them. It is a relief, then, that we may yet see a new approach to consulting the business community, and that the Government will “test and validate” their approach to Brexit negotiations to give employers a chance to contribute and consult on how Brexit will affect them. I welcome the formation of a new business council but it must have a genuine role and input.
However, bringing business back into our national debate must be about more than Brexit. It is about our future place in the world and the level of prosperity that we can deliver for all people. So we must see government policy as something that can enable businesses to grow, create more jobs and make a bigger contribution to society. This Queen’s Speech should be judged on its ability to do this, and the Government should focus on matching skill supply with the demands of business. That is as critical now as it has ever been at this time of global competition and rapid technological change. I therefore welcome the reforms to technical education. Those reforms should be judged on their ability to increase the supply of engineering apprentices, programmers and coders and to give school leavers a legitimate choice in how they educate themselves, ready for their future careers.
Even as we invest in improving the skills of our school leavers and graduates, though, we must not allow Brexit to shut off the supply of the best that Europe, and indeed the world, has to offer. This means ensuring that business has a say on our approach to free movement of labour and its relationship to single market access. As the Chancellor said last year, we must keep in mind our first duty to spread prosperity and, as noble Lords have said, people did not vote to be poorer. It is the job of everyone in this place to explain the positive contribution that such skilled workers can bring, with the benefits felt by all.
Similarly, investing in technology, research and infrastructure gives businesses a platform to do more. Industrial policy, where it concentrates on improving our research base, our output in intellectual property and building a world-class ICT infrastructure, has a place in building a modern economy. I have spoken in this place before about positive changes to the way we allocate research funding, and I am pleased to see further investment pledged to commercial satellites and electric vehicles. Whatever our settlement with our EU partners, one thing we can be sure of is that investment in technology will stand us in good stead.
Lastly, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have reminded the Government of the greatest enabler that they can offer the business community: certainty. Certainty enables more investment. Businesses need to know what arrangements they will face in 2019: what tariffs they will have to pay, what customs arrangements they will have to navigate, and who they will be able to employ. Without more clarity, there is a risk that businesses will stop investing, and we need investment to foster productivity growth, which is the key to unlocking greater prosperity for all in the UK economy. In a Brexit context, it can be delivered with clear announcements on access to talent, access to capital and, most important of all, early clarity on a transition deal that avoids a cliff edge and allows businesses to plan for the future. Whatever the nuts and bolts of the final deal, avoidance of a cliff edge, with time built in for implementation, will be paramount.
We heard a lot from businesses during the EU referendum campaign—some say perhaps too much—but now I fear the pendulum has swung too far the other way and businesses have been largely excluded from the debate and have become mere recipients of government policy rather than legitimate actors in shaping it. We must hope, then, that a sense of equilibrium is restored, and businesses’ critical role as employers, community pillars and taxpayers is recognised once again.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the proposal in the Queen’s Speech to build a strong economy, and therefore cannot agree with the bleak analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. I am pleased to see the commitment to continue to develop a modern industrial strategy, because I believe that the industrial strategy Green Paper is a good starting point. However, I believe that two key components are missing from that strategy.
First, there is no reference in the document to the importance of maintaining and enhancing the United Kingdom’s well-deserved reputation for quality. This reputation has been achieved through the support of successive Governments for a national framework of standards, measurement and accreditation, which together are referred to as the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure, or the UKQI. The UKQI is delivered by four key bodies: the British Standards Institution, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Measurement Regulation Office and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. Here I should declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. I should briefly highlight the important role played by the UK quality infrastructure in respect to trade.
The assurance and confidence provided by UKAS accreditation and the other UKQI partners have been instrumental in facilitating international commerce by reducing cross-border technical barriers and increasing cross-border confidence in goods, services and their suppliers. This illustrates the increased relevance of the UKQI as we develop future trade agreements with our European partners and others across the globe. Indeed, the unrivalled international reputation and trust established by the UKQI partners have already enabled the development of many successful cross-border agreements—and will be crucially important ingredients in post-Brexit trading relationships.
It is worth bearing in mind that the German Government are energetic in promoting the German national quality infrastructure to support their export drive, and we know how successful that is. I think we should do the same in this country. The UKQI partners also have a crucial contribution to make in respect of the industrial strategy’s focus on policies and institutions that underpin productivity and prosperity in the UK. The UKQI’s integrated quality framework is capable of driving and reinforcing work across the strategy’s 10 pillars by helping businesses to innovate, to develop new processes, goods and services, and to break into new markets. The UKQI likewise has an important role to play in supporting the national productivity investment fund and the new industrial strategy challenge fund. In developing the industrial strategy, I therefore urge my noble friend and the Government to ensure that the key role of the UKQI is properly recognised and that the UKQI partners are supported in the work that they do to underpin trade within the economy.
My second point in respect of the industrial strategy relates to the continuing need to fine-tune regulation to ensure that it is intelligent, proportionate and fit for purpose. There is just one paragraph in the Green Paper on the subject yet, in my view, modernising the stock of existing regulations and applying intelligent scrutiny to all new regulatory proposals should be one of the key pillars of the strategy.
Our withdrawal from the EU provides a significant opportunity to take a fresh look at the regulatory and enforcement landscapes. It is an opportunity to see if it could be made more fit for purpose in terms of both reducing unnecessary, poorly focused or disproportionate burdens currently placed on businesses, organisations, public services and individuals, and at the same time enhancing the effectiveness with which regulations and their enforcement are able to deliver their intended protections and other purposes.
There are other opportunities that are also worth exploring further, some of them already well tried and tested and many involving the UKQI partners. UKAS accreditation, for instance, has been successfully used by regulators to support and complement existing regulatory regimes, enabling regulators to adopt a more risk-based and outcomes-focused approach. This in turn has enabled them to target their resources where they will have greater impact, focusing on where the risk of non-compliance is highest.
UKAS accreditation of voluntary standards has also been used effectively to underpin the credibility of self-regulation, so that it can deliver greater confidence to government, regulators, consumers and users. I note in passing that the Government will be considering placing a duty on regulators to consider the needs of vulnerable customers. This is welcome, as their needs are important. However, I encourage the Government to include in their consideration the option of using standards underpinned by robust certification and accreditation. For example, the Government could look at the BSI standard for inclusive service provision, which includes requirements for identifying and responding to consumer vulnerability.
Encouraging or requiring businesses that want to use this standard to be audited by a certification body that is UKAS accredited would provide assurance and public confidence. Such an approach would also chime with the Government’s ongoing Regulatory Futures Review with its focus on regulatory self-assurance and earned recognition. In summary, I urge the Government, as part of their commitment to a strong economy and a modern industrial strategy, to ensure that the role of the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure and its partner organisations is properly recognised, given the contribution that they can make to trade, investment, innovation, business growth and productivity. Likewise, I urge the Government to see a regulatory and enforcement landscape that is intelligent and fit for purpose as a key objective and to recognise the contribution that the UKQI partners, particularly those involved in standards accreditation, can make towards this end.
The Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, although it has been a little while since I last did so. I add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers, both of whom will add greatly to deliberations in your Lordships’ House and who mostly spoke of their experiences in the City. I feel that they will not entirely approve of what I have to say this evening—but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, on what he said about agriculture. A number of speakers tonight have made the point that the removal of the subsidy delivering cheap food is an equation that is a little hard to understand. The agricultural industry will need a great deal of support as we go through the Brexit process.
In his opening remarks, the Minister spoke about some of the fundamental strengths of the economy. I welcome him to his place on the Front Bench. I agree that there are a number of indicators of the economy that are good, and lack of unemployment is certainly one of them. But there are, equally, a number of the measures of the economy that do not give such grounds for optimism, such as the sheer size of the central bank balance sheet, the lowering of growth, low interest rates with growing inflation, a faltering property market and some of the difficulties coming into the labour market. Those are all areas of concern, but they are not fundamentals.
I should like to speak to two fundamentals that are at the core of a genuinely strong economy: the ability of the financial system, and banking in particular, to deliver capital, which is the fuel for industry and commerce, effectively into industry and commerce; and, secondly, the labour market, which remains dysfunctional, with those at the top still being rewarded excessively for a modest performance—and, indeed, at times failure—and those at the bottom receiving insufficient reward for their honest endeavour.
Before I make those points, I should say that I am utterly committed to free enterprise and to private capital. I believe that remains the best system for ensuring growth in our country. That is underpinned, however, by two principles that I believe in. First, capital and labour must be equally regarded and respected; they cannot be out of balance. Secondly, the purpose of wealth creation is, primarily, to enhance the nation and society, and the personal accumulation of wealth is a happy secondary benefit that comes from that. I feel that sometimes these days the opposite is the case.
On capital, I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in the 2010-15 Parliament. I reread its conclusions over the weekend and was startled to see how many of our diagnoses remain valid today and how many of the recommendations we made not only remain valid but have not been acted on. If anybody would like to, I suggest paragraphs 111, 116 and 119 are well worth a read. Corporate governance, ineffective markets and a concentration of banking power all remain a problem today—but the primary problem is that banks and the financial system should act as an effective mediation system between those who have capital and those who need it, and the current system does not deliver that, giving too much in commission to too many along the way.
On the labour market—interestingly, from the same report—it is clear that too many people are still being rewarded with too much for too little, while at the other end of the spectrum we have difficulty in ensuring that people at the lower end receive a genuinely living wage, on which they can live without being subsidised by credits. It has always seemed extraordinary to me that we are subsidising labour.
I could speak at length on both subjects but time does not allow. I will close with a memory of one of the first debates that I took part in in this House, on 21 February 1996, when the late Lord Dahrendorf introduced a report entitled Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a Free Society. We are not terribly good at wealth creation at the moment; we could be a great deal better. I have never known a time when social cohesion was so lacking and it threatens our civil society. I am worried and any responsible Government should be as well. I hope the Government will look to that as much as to anything else.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate our two maiden speakers today. My case is that austerity is not the fundamental issue. With a current account deficit of over £40 billion per annum, a budget deficit of £50 billion per annum, and the OBR forecasting another £122 billion of additional borrowing over the next five years, this is not a picture of austerity; it is still one of Keynesian expansion. Although it is welcome news, the 32 million in employment—up 2.7%—is similarly a reflection of a positive situation, not a negative one. The issue is pay and living standards. Because productivity has been so poor, living standards and pay in both public and private sectors have scarcely increased for eight years. No wonder people are discontented. The two key factors that drive productivity are capital investment and making more efficient use of better skilled employees, both of which need to be worked upon. I would add a third factor that is relevant to increasing living standards: a much bigger free trade situation, where there is scope, post Brexit, for trade deals with some 165 countries that do not to date have deals with the EU.
Capital investment needs business confidence. The attack on business in the Conservative manifesto was misplaced and it is welcome that business is being brought back. The major cause of falling productivity has been tax credits. This has been conceded, to a large extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Darling. Tax credits were intended to increase living standards but ended up subsidising employment. This in turn led to labour hoarding and the use of labour as a cheaper alternative to capital investment. No wonder our productivity has been poor. Poor productivity has very much coincided with the period since the introduction of tax credits.
There is obviously masses of scope for capital investment in the public sector. In particular, I see the need for major improvement in the road network in the south-east, but I have some reservations about the Government having sole responsibility here. HS2 and Hinkley Point are not ideal examples of the most effective forms of public sector capital investment. However, the proposals in the spring Budget were extremely good and represented a clear statement on how to improve productivity. There is the £23 billion fund for productivity improvement over five years, the Sainsbury technical education initiative and the industrial strategy Green Paper, so there is huge scope. The UK has the other advantage of an extremely lively, young entrepreneurial generation coming straight out of higher education and willing to start new businesses. We have never seen anything as strong as that before, and it has also been crucial to the technology sector.
I could talk for a long time about Brexit, but on a three-year view I think it will be positive for economic growth, in particular for living-standards growth because of the much greater scope for free trade. To close, it is time to phase out budget deficits, to save and invest more, to reduce current account deficits and, above all, to improve productivity and advance free trade arrangements.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers and congratulate my noble friend Lord Callanan on joining the Front Bench.
Most of my activities in the European Parliament, the House of Commons or this place have had a rural theme. I am delighted to be a member of the Rural Affairs Committee of the Church of England Synod. In the last Parliament, I co-chaired the all-party water group. For five years, I had the privilege of chairing the Efra committee in the House of Commons. Among those, I primarily advise the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, and I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities and of National Energy Action.
In the recent general election and in the gracious Speech there is very little about those who live in the countryside and rural businesses, yet about a third of the population live and work in rural or semi-rural areas such as market towns. In opening, the Minister seemed to indicate that support for farmers would carry on up to 2020 or 2022. But that begs the question: what happens after that time?
The wider farm-to-fork industry, including the food and drink manufacturers and retailers, is worth some £110 billion to the UK economy, employing more than 4 million people. Rural dwellers and businesses such as farmers, farm shops and others are held back by poor services. We have heard a lot during the debate about the poor broadband in rural areas, the lack of access and fast speed and, indeed, in many cases, poor mobile coverage, as well as the lack of affordable homes, lower funding for rural schools and lack of public transport. The poor access to such essential public services, especially the shortage of affordable homes in the countryside, is leading to many young people leaving the countryside. Demographic changes mean that the older people remaining put enormous pressure on health, social care and other services.
It is true that the resilience and resourcefulness of our farmers and growers help to feed the country, but we are only 60% self-sufficient at this time. If we are to improve standards, as the Government have promised to do in the words of the incoming Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we increase standards of animal welfare and other means of production that will only increase the price of food. That will price British farmers out of the market. British consumers primarily buy on price. Cheaper food should not mean substandard imports. As with other businesses, farmers and growers need certainty. Therefore, the question is: what happens post 2020-22?
Upland farmers in the hills up and down the United Kingdom rely for 50% of their income on CAP support through farm payments and stewardship schemes. Who better to act as custodians of the countryside than the farmers? They need access to a reliable supply of labour from the European Union. The Government need to say why they have not yet reintroduced the seasonal agricultural workers system. Rural businesses and farmers need certainty at a time of losing access to a guaranteed market of 505 million consumers and low-tariff access to EU markets, with the threat, as we heard earlier, of tariffs of up to 40% to 50% of their products under current World Trade Organization rules, and possibly 80% tariffs for higher-end products.
There remain alarming gaps in the Government’s policy as to what will happen before, during and after we exit the European Union, particularly during the anticipated extended transitional phase. Which body will adjudicate on any potential trade dispute between UK and EU companies if not the European Court of Justice? Who will be the ultimate arbiter on environmental matters in the UK relating for example to keeping our waters clean and our air of the highest quality, and avoiding and preventing pollution?
On fisheries, I am proud of the agreement that the current Fisheries Minister negotiated—an EU policy that determines conservation and quotas on the basis of science and decisions by the coastal states operating in the respective waters, such as the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Fish do not swim around in purely national waters, so the danger of setting purely national quotas could set back conservation policy in what are currently shared fisheries.
It is incumbent on the Government and indeed all parties to listen to the concerns and suggestions of those who live in rural areas, particularly rural businesses, and act upon them. I hope there will now be the opportunity for rural businesses, as my noble friend Lady Rock stated with regard to other businesses, to pave the way for Britain leaving the EU and to rectify this policy gap affecting rural communities. The rural voice must be heard.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust and president or vice-president of a range of environmental organisations. Your Lordships have heard a lot about global economics, social justice and business needs tonight, and at this time of night I want to talk to you about trees. This is probably one of the most important Queen’s Speeches for the environment—perhaps more important than any other. That is not immediately obvious from reading the Queen’s Speech, but practically every provision in it will have an environmental impact. However, before I touch on those environmental impacts, I will say that I wish that I was making the brilliant and humane speech that the noble Lord, Lord Low, made right at the beginning of this debate.
To focus on the environment and the gracious Speech, I will make three points. The first is about the repeal Bill. It is interesting that it is no longer called the great repeal Bill— I wonder why. Some 80% of the legislation that affects Defra’s responsibilities in the environmental sphere comes from the European Union, so there is a huge opportunity in transposing European law into UK law for the Government to make good on their manifesto commitment to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than when they inherited it. A third of these European legislation regulations that Defra enforces in this country cannot simply be dragged and dropped into the new legislation, so we need a commitment from government to ensure that these pieces of legislation are not watered down either by design or by error when they are transposed and tweaked to make them relevant in a post-EU world. I hope that we can get a guarantee from government that where substantive changes are proposed, that should be by primary rather than secondary legislation. In this House we have all had many long debates about how adequate the scrutiny of secondary legislation is.
We also seek assurances from Ministers that not only the laws and regulations will be transferred but some of the principles of the EU environmental legislation, including things like the precautionary principle and the principle that the polluter should pay. Also, what will take the place of EU enforcement processes and the whole infraction procedure? The big question is: do we now need an environmental court?
My second point is on agriculture. We all hated the common agricultural policy, and it is a bit like being a kid in a sweet shop to be—still with £3 billion in our hands, we hope—able to drive the train set ourselves, and indeed to design the tracks on which it runs. However, the proposals in the gracious Speech seem very much focused on farmers and food, with the environment coming a poor third. We need to look at an integrated process of land management which delivers a whole range of public benefits, and the public payment should be only for where farmers are rewarded for genuine public goods. These should include environmental services, such as delivering on biodiversity, reducing flood risk, helping with carbon sequestration, and dealing with water and soil protection. Scotland has a rather good integrated land management strategy. Perhaps we could just rub “Scotland” out at the top and put “England” there instead.
The issue in which I would be particularly interested is the integration of farming and forestry. At the moment their relationship is hugely dysfunctional, with the grant systems preventing farmers taking part in good forestry practice. We would also like to see the new agricultural Bill—whatever its terms might be—enabling a turnaround in the poor performance of this country’s planting rates in the future. At the moment, the Government’s target is 5,000 hectares per year but last year we planted less than 1,100.
The third issue that I want to touch on is a non-legislative one, and I have talked about it previously in this House. I greatly welcome the government commitment on better protection for ancient woodland. There is a proposal in the housing White Paper and we would very much like that to be taken forward. Unfortunately, the way in which it is currently framed would not be adequate. It is an urgent issue because the Woodland Trust is already aware of 700 cases where ancient woodland is threatened with damage. Indeed, HS2 managed to put a route through 63 of them in phase 1 and it will be putting the train tracks through 24 more in phase 2. Therefore, there is a real need to improve the protection of ancient woodland to the same level afforded to ancient buildings. I hope that the Minister can reassure me and encourage CLG Ministers to make sure that the tweaks to the proposals happen.
On balance, the European Union was good for the environment. In throwing out Europe, let us not compromise environmental protection. Can the Minister tell us how the gracious Speech will fulfil the very admirable government commitment to this being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it was found in?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is always an honour to speak in such an auspicious debate and at a crucial juncture, having heard two excellent maiden speeches. I welcome my noble friend Lord Callanan to his new position.
Even though it did not fare as well with voters as we on this side of the House had hoped, there was much in the Conservative Party’s election manifesto to be commended, and we must hope that some of it, as appears to be the case from the Address, will be carried forward in legislation. I am reminded of President Truman, who said “Herbert Hoover once ran on the slogan, Two cars in every garage. The Republican this year is running on the slogan Two families in every garage.” It did not quite go as expected but we have some significant proposals in the manifesto, beginning of course with Brexit.
I have spoken before in this Chamber about the importance of international trade and the opportunity that Brexit will bring to set our own approach and pursue our own bilateral deals. It is worth reminding noble Lords again that being part of the EU bloc has meant that, to date, free trade deals struck with third countries have not necessarily been designed with Britain’s economy in mind. It is to be welcomed that the Address indicates that there will be a trade Bill, meaning that we will ultimately leave the customs union and strike out on our own, even if, as the Chancellor suggests—and even as a Brexiteer, I agree with him—there may need to be a transitional period inside the customs union.
Elsewhere, and closer to my own patch—I refer your Lordships to my interests listed in the register—I want to touch on corporate finance and the importance of ensuring that growing businesses have access to the capital they need. This should begin with announcing a new mandate for the British Business Bank to give it more capacity to invest in the UK through venture capital.
Similarly, I believe that it is not too early to consider how we might plan to make more of EIS and VCTs to help them finance larger companies. As your Lordships may be aware, the limit is currently £15 million, which of course is a restriction due to European state aid rules. I am not sure where the national productivity fund and promise to help SMEs win more government contracts, as in the Conservative manifesto, went in the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can assure us that they will be kept in the Government’s plans. Gone too are the corporate governance and executive pay restrictions and the inhibitions on FDI by changing the current takeover rules. This is welcome and, I believe, marks a turning point.
As my noble friend Lady Rock said, government is now listening to the voice of business, which frankly, as Luke Johnson recently wrote in the Sunday Times business section, needs to be less timid and more forthright. The business community has a responsibility to stand up and explain to all its stakeholders the devastation to the economy that a Labour Party Queen’s Speech would have wrought. It promised unaffordable borrowing, crude executive pay caps, trashing the flexible labour market, nationalisation of key industries at unspecified cost and increasing corporate tax, among many other measures, which, all the evidence suggests, by increasing the rate, would have reduced the tax take. Business has a right to be heard and an obligation to speak up. Neither has happened recently; thus, big business is currently considering making the easy move overseas if a change of Government were to arise. SMEs are also petrified of this eventuality and all businesses look to this Government for assurances that they are valued as a key contributor to our political economy.
There is some light ahead. I look forward to the findings from Sir Damon Buffini’s review into patient capital. I hope he finds creative ways to encourage pension funds to invest in venture capital. Elsewhere in the manifesto and the Address we continue to pursue regulation that ensures good and fair competition in markets, not least in energy. Ensuring that markets work for consumers is quintessentially Tory and something we on this side of the House should never lose sight of. We must keep up with corporate tax reductions as a clear signal to business that it continues to be welcome here.
In short, this is of course an Address that rightly focuses on Brexit, and the decision to extend Parliament to a two-year Session is wholly justified. I hope noble Lords will seek to work across party divides to ensure legislation is passed that enhances our current very competitive position, which is in part due to our low taxes and our flexible labour market. We need to strive to help existing and aspiring entrepreneurs to create wealth for all UK citizens. We have a Government who are, as my noble friend Lord Flight said, spending more not less, who are cutting the deficit, and who have seen the highest employment rates and fastest growth rates of any comparable country in the world. How is that? It is because they have a vibrant and entrepreneurial business community.
I look forward to that energy coming back into government to help our economy with legislation focused on ensuring business, and thus economic, success. We have shown we can do it; let us not stop now.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I want to talk about business and skills. In doing so, I am conscious that this contribution could just as easily have been made in the education debate—indeed, given the hour, it almost was. However, I am equally conscious that the education debate will probably once again be dominated by finance, “Do schools have enough money?”, and even more by structure, “Do we have enough grammar schools, academies, free schools and technical schools?”. These are not insignificant issues, but my concern, and that of many business colleagues I meet, is that we spend nowhere near as much time talking about educational outcomes—in other words, the skills, competencies and attitudes that our education system needs to develop.
My particular concern is that we fail to prioritise the skills that business needs if it is to fuel a thriving economy in the face of the Brexit challenge. The time to address that is now, in this gracious Speech, and not after a Brexit deal has been done. Perhaps the skill which business needs most from our young people is enterprise, but enterprise is rarely something that our existing education system seriously addresses or prioritises.
I declare as a non-pecuniary interest that I chair the Bristol Business School at the University of the West of England. We hope to launch shortly a centre for enterprise. However, there are currently very few such initiatives. Sir Tom Hunter established a centre for entrepreneurship at Strathclyde, and Sir Anthony Seldon has set up an entrepreneurs centre at Buckingham, where he is vice-chancellor. But as I said, those initiatives are few and far between.
Equally, for young people leaving school, there is no formal vocational training route for those wishing to establish their own business, become entrepreneurs or even be self-employed, yet the small and medium-sized enterprise market accounts for 99% of all private sector business in the UK. For a young person to go straight from school to running their own business is a huge step, and most could not take the financial and emotional risk without proper training and support. Maybe the apprenticeship system could help fill that void.
Enterprise is also a subject area that could and should feature more strongly in schools. Again, there are few good examples of that. Sir Rod Aldridge has set up “Creates” centres in all his academies to enable students and others in those communities to start businesses in the schools, and these centres provide entrepreneurial training for all pupils. I know that Sir Rod is also interested in developing an entrepreneur apprenticeship scheme so that apprentices could achieve a level 4 standard while running their own business.
So my question is: why does enterprise get so little attention in our education system? In my time, now long ago, as Permanent Secretary at the then Department for Education and Employment, we began to see business having an increasing and healthy influence on the education system, but since then we seem to have regressed. Perhaps the business and the education departments need to be told to work closer together to ensure that enterprise features in our curricula at all levels. Perhaps business itself needs to be better organised, more confident and more articulate in explaining why this is so important and maybe the new business council is a vehicle for that.
To be clear, I am not encouraging yet further debates on the balance between vocational, technical and academic education. Those debates, I am sure, will go on. This is about ensuring that all students, whatever their subject, develop the desire and capability to be enterprising. It will not happen naturally, there is probably nothing we need more to be successful in a post-Brexit world.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords at this hour for appearing in the wrong place on the list, but their gain will be my loss because I will have an even shorter speech. The gracious Speech contains many valuable proposals. As a professional involved with property, much of what I would advocate in doing things better has been very tragically illustrated by the Grenfell Tower fire. I add my sympathies to all those affected. Here, the best of regulatory intentions in improving and updating an ageing housing stock have found us wanting.
Like other noble Lords, I suggest that there are many areas in which public administration and corporate social responsibility must improve. Regulators often appear ineffective, even toothless, and ethical tests seem to be missing from their toolbox. We would do well to consider impediments created by the inaccessibility of the judicial process to most normal folk and the economic implications of not having that check on actions by others.
In particular, we should address the “us and them”—perhaps the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—and the sentiment that public administration is often not seen as being for the people or by their elected representatives. From my own standpoint, sometimes it is not clear whether one is dealing with the objective public administrator, a commercial competitor or some sort of political adversary. That should not happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to business rates. Yes, indeed, not only is the valuation in some areas patently faulty, but the Valuation Office Agency itself is faced with substantial cuts. Then there is the new rating appeals system. A more dysfunctional, intrusive and frustrating process which seems to have been designed to prevent appeals happening at all is hard to imagine, but it is being paraded as a simpler and fairer system—I wish.
I welcome the attention being given to the question of spurious personal injury claims in motor accidents, but Highways England’s own contractors are apparently not averse to submitting inflated “green claims”, as they are known, for highway infrastructure damage caused during motor accidents. These increase insurance costs, too, and appear to be outwith the contractual arrangements with Highways England, and yet nothing seems to be done about them.
Planning departments across the country are underresourced. This matters because approval of reserved matters in planning consents is often mired in utterly unreasonable compliance demands and some are, frankly, nihilistic. All of them cost a fortune to resolve, but significantly most could be resolved by greater officer experience, the very experience which has in large measure been lost from that sector. All of these factors add cost, risk, delay and drag in delivery and fetter growth, to say nothing of developers then gaming the system for their own advantage. Housing and infrastructure are at stake here, and making ourselves best fitted for Brexit means that we can and must attend to these inefficiencies because much of the thrust of the other proposals in the gracious Speech will depend on it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, many powerful speeches have made across a range of issues and I confess before I start that I have absolutely no hope of doing this debate justice. The debate was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I join others in welcoming him to his role on the Front Bench. However, he described an economy that I think almost no one in this House recognised. He quoted a figure of 2% growth for the UK economy this year. Perhaps I may say to him gently that that figure was binned months ago. The British Chambers of Commerce has today given its forecast for this year of 1.5% growth, dropping to 1.3% next year, and the term now being used is “stagnant”. Part of that is the impact of Brexit—its uncertainty and the expectation of job disruption, export losses and the cost of the devaluation of sterling. It is certainly not the picture that the Minister addressed. A number of other speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell, Lord Hain and Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Thurso, questioned his analysis of the economy.
I want in particular to pick up on an issue that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It is often overlooked but it is crucial. I refer to rising consumer debt. The Minister will know from IFS reports that repayment of consumer debt is now taking a bigger bite out of personal income than it did in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. That number is completely unsustainable. The buoyancy, or bubble, that we saw in economic growth shortly after the Brexit period was fuelled by consumer spending financed in turn by unsupportable and unsustainable consumer debt. This is an issue that ought to be addressed and I wish we had seen more about it in the Queen’s Speech and, frankly, in other proposals being put forward by the Government.
I also want to take this opportunity to welcome the two Members of your Lordships’ House who have made their maiden speeches today, the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Colgrain. They were superb speeches, but it was interesting that both noble Lords talked about their experience in the City. That is highly relevant as we reach the point where we address the issue of Brexit, a subject that has probably been understated in today’s debate. There may be a certain exhaustion around it, but perhaps I may point out that the City of London and the financial services industry, described so eloquently by both our maiden speakers, are the major underpinning of the whole of the British economy. They are very much at risk as we enter the Brexit process.
This House will be aware than many organisations, having found that they got no sympathetic ear from the Government, have progressed with making their own plans. Most of the major American players have now identified a new European headquarters—it might be in Dublin or Luxembourg; some have identified two major European headquarters—to which they will begin to transfer business. Lloyd’s of London has opened, or is in the process of opening, its EU headquarters in Luxembourg. The small players—the fintechs—are part of the future and were mostly pan-European from the day they were conceived. One third of them were founded in, or have CFOs from, continental Europe. They have all started making their plans and have begun that process of shifting, not in great numbers, initially, but giving themselves the opportunity to gradually, salami slice by salami slice, decide where they can best put their business to serve their critical European clientele.
Strangely, no one referred to the decisions by the European Central Bank, soon to be ratified by the European Parliament, that will define where euro-denominated financial instruments can be cleared. The European Central Bank has set up a set of rules that are quite interesting because the UK has always argued, “We will never lose this business; Europe doesn’t have the capacity to take it”. The European Central Bank has now set up a system that will allow it to grow capacity and shift a piece of business, grow capacity and shift another piece of business, with the UK Government completely unable to intervene in this process in any way whatever. Frankly, some realism needs to be injected into this debate.
Speaking of that realism, I want to pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and others made: business has been excluded from this discussion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, that the issue for business in the whole discussion about business being listened to is essentially about Brexit, not taxation or regulation. Finally, there is some listening to business: we understand there is to be a council now that will enable various government departments at the highest level to engage with business. The problem is that in many instances, it is too little, too late. Moves have been decided and the beginning of that process is now well under way; leases have been negotiated, HR has gone through various iterations. We have to start being realistic about this, rather than talking as if nothing has happened over the past nine months: we may not have done much, but businesses and the European Union have done a great deal.
There was one fascinating area of the discussion that I had obviously not focused on to the extent I should have: concerns around agriculture. A number of Members of this House—the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Colgrain, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—talked about the impact of Brexit on agriculture, reminding this House of the need for a workforce and access to European markets, because agriculture in this country is underpinned by its capacity to export to the European Union. The domestic agricultural system survives only because it also has that export opportunity. Those complications have been underdiscussed in this House and I hope they will be discussed more.
I particularly want to pick up on an issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb: the idea that we could follow New Zealand’s system of restoring our agricultural strength after Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, reminded us that this was achieved by much lower standards of animal welfare, health and safety and environmental standards than are acceptable in the UK today—or acceptable, I suspect, to UK consumers. I pick up on concerns about the environment expressed by my noble friend Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and many others. There is a deep, underlying concern as we move into the future that we should not use this as an opportunity to water down and undermine environmental standards that our entire community now expects as a fundamental underpinning.
There are many other issues that could have been in this year’s Queen’s Speech, from productivity, raised by my noble friend, Lord Razzall, to housing issues, underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. There is a vast range of crucial issues, including those around artificial intelligence, the new economy, getting companies to invest and productivity. All are missing from this Queen’s Speech. I do not have the opportunity to continue to summarise this but I know that the Minister will look at Hansard and look at that range and depth. I hope we can bring this Government to find a way to address those absolutely key issues and not set them aside for two years, when many are vital to the future of both our economy and our young people.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on his appointment, and the clarity with which he presented the opening statement, although I have to say to him that I disagreed with about 90% of it, which is par for the course in these discussions in this Chamber.
We had some very important contributions on fisheries and agriculture. Both the maiden speakers made excellent speeches and we welcome their contributions to our subsequent debates. But the thing about fisheries and agriculture is that we have to start again. The withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the London fisheries convention is bound to be problematic, as is the establishment of a new agricultural regime. Although I appreciated the fact that several noble Lords expressed considerable optimism about what could be done, we have to recognise that at present the Government have given us very little insight into these important developments. Of course, this is against a background where they did not plan for Brexit because the Government of David Cameron had not expected to lose the referendum. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is very little consultation or discussion on two areas of policy, which have been spoken about this evening and about which on the whole we remain at this stage very much in the dark—the Government involved in aspiration rather than inspiration on these points.
As for the environment, it is the pursuit of the wrong policies that we criticise on this side of the House. Do we remember that David Cameron’s Tory Government was to be the greenest ever? Do we remember the days of the huskies and various concepts such as that? Yet there has been limited investment in renewable energy. Of course, the Government sold off the green bank. We are on course to miss key climate change targets, and we have to add to this the ending of the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the Prime Minister, Theresa May. As my noble friend Lady Jones mentioned in her opening statement, the amazing fact we have to adjust to is the appointment of Michael Gove as Secretary of State in the department. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister wanted to show her keen appreciation of President Trump when she went to see him. She must have approved very much of his attitude towards climate change, at least.
Of course, we approve of the capping of energy prices by the Government, who managed in this last election to catch up with the Labour proposals in the 2015 election. There was some sign of realisation that one of the things presently facing a very large number of people in the United Kingdom, many of them on low incomes, is the real cost of energy.
On transport, notwithstanding the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, Labour supports HS2. It is essential to meet the rail demands of both passengers and freight between London and the north. We did wonder why the election promise of a rail transport ombudsman has been jettisoned. Presumably the Government think that Southern railway is doing reasonably well and that passengers are reasonably satisfied with the service. If they think that, they need to have a substantial recasting of their views on the state of our railways. From all I can see, the main transport proposals in the Queen’s Speech seem to have been on automated cars, space travel and insurance controls over whiplash claims. These are all desirable features—I like to see the Government look to the more distant future—but scarcely crucial to the infrastructure of our national economy and its present needs.
There were many contributions on business and the state of the economy. It looks pretty clear that we are to have a surfeit of finance Bills, which cannot bring us too much confidence in this House. We all recall the last finance Bill, when the Chancellor proposed one approach to national insurance contributions and shortly afterwards—four days, in fact—the Prime Minister annulled those proposals. We cannot therefore expect too much from the finance Bills to come.
However, we hope that the proposals on tax avoidance will be reinforced. We have pressed on this issue ever since the Government appeared to be a somewhat late convert—I am talking about a decade ago—to the realisation that tax avoidance was going on at a colossal scale, not by individual citizens or, to a degree, by the wealthiest among them but by multinational companies that were often paying less tax than individual employees were paying. This requires a well-staffed, well-trained and invigorated department of the Inland Revenue, yet the Government keep telling us how important it is to scale down the government machine. It is so important, they say, that we should reduce the role of the state in our society even to the point of reducing the role of those who collect the appropriate taxes from those who should be paying them.
This is a Queen’s Speech which pays little constructive attention to the deplorable state of our economy. I could scarcely credit the opening statement by the Minister. The first person to demonstrate how erroneous the Minister might have been was the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who spoke from the Cross Benches and produced a devastating indictment of how the Government have run the economy over recent years. We all remember that the deficit, which the Government now claim full credit for having reduced, was meant to have been eliminated by 2015. The appalling cuts in public expenditure and the sacrifice of our people during the period of austerity were meant to be over in five years, but instead, we had an extension first by Chancellor Osborne until 2018 and, under the new Chancellor, we are going deep into the 2020s. It is not surprising that the people are rising up against austerity when the Government are showing such obvious incompetence about hitting the target that they said that austerity was designed to achieve.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, who clearly identified the nature of just what government cuts in our society have created. We have reached a stage at which food banks are part of our economy. We have a situation in which the Government boast about an extension in employment but more than 1 million of the people who are employed are on zero-hours contracts. That form of employment might be considered acceptable to the Conservative side of the House, but it is not acceptable to all normal people who are trying to run their household budgets when they do not know with certainty whether their employer will use their work any day of the week. We have also seen enormous cuts in all the services which our people value. There have been cuts to education and a sharp reduction in funding of our schools and the decimation of our further education colleges and lifelong learning provision. No wonder the Government are waking up to the fact that if they are going to improve the skills of our nation, they have to reverse some of the policies they have been pursuing in recent years with such thoroughness.
There have also been cuts to the police and warnings that they may not be able to guarantee our safety because there are insufficient police officers as a result of such cuts. There have been cuts to local authorities, about which we have complained incessantly in this House, often to the rather obvious derision of Conservative Ministers who seem to think that local authorities can fulfil their obligations with the most marginal resources, until the cuts begin to bite where they produce enormous damage to our people: of course I am referring to the tragedy in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That borough saved a certain amount on cladding and has £300 million in its reserves. That is the difference between a rich borough that knows where its resources are and how little it is prepared to spend on the needs of its people. It is quite clear. What stands out from this is the reference made by several noble Lords to our gross lack of effective expenditure on housing, particularly social housing. The Government have to change their tune on that, otherwise there is no doubt that the people will speak with vengeance against the Government if they carry on with their present strategy.
The problem for the Government is that they cannot run the economy. They keep talking about the necessity to improve productivity, and our productivity has slumped under this Government. We are down with Italy at the bottom of the G7 in terms of the effectiveness of our workforce. How can the Government pretend that they are developing the economy successfully when that figure is clearly identified for us?
Another point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, just referred to, is that we are running personal debt at a higher level than before the 2008 crash. If that is not a warning hint to the Government about the problems of our economy, I do not know what is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, said that if you are going to get investment in the economy, you need certainty. Certainty from this Government? Certainty when they lost a referendum which the Prime Minister called in order to win and who was then forced to resign? Certainty when the next Prime Minister decided the majority was not sufficient to run the country successfully and then found that she had translated a small majority into minority government? Is that where certainty is meant to come from for our businesses and for investors? It is quite clear that this Government are on the rocks. Even the much-vaunted lead Minister on Brexit, David Davis, is in the extraordinary position that he made it quite clear to the nation that he intended to go to Brussels to define the priorities in the discussions and then conceded to European arguments on that matter on the very first day.
I have some sympathy for the Minister who is to wind up on this. We all recognise that he is a principled man who enjoys a great deal of affection in this House. But this evening, he has to respond to the challenges that have been laid down from this side of the House, and from many parts of the House, on the state of the economy, which is crucial to the welfare of the nation but at present is being conducted by a Government who offer us no hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, we have had more than 60 speakers this evening, and many insights from much experience. We have ranged from lobsters, through the libel laws to horticulture, and I am afraid I cannot address all the issues that have been raised this evening. But I will just begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Callanan on introducing the debate so well earlier this evening. He set out a very comprehensive legislative programme over the next two years, and I do not intend to repeat what he has said already. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Colgrain, on their two excellent maiden speeches. They bring to this House much experience from the world of financial services, the maritime industry and the rural sector.
I intend to spend most of my time this evening discussing the economy—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would like me to do—and Brexit a bit. Before I do that, two issues have been raised by a number of noble Lords this evening in addition to those. The first, of course, is agriculture. I refer to my declaration of interests: I am a partner in a small family farm. I was talking to a farmer at the weekend who was ranting on about the uncertainty caused by Brexit for the outlook for farm prices and about the difficulty he had in attracting labour to pick his fruit. I asked him how he had voted in the referendum, and he said he had voted for Brexit, so my sympathy for that particular farmer was somewhat limited in the circumstances.
As the noble Lords, Lord Plumb and Lord Curry, two very distinguished former presidents of the National Farmers’ Union, have said in the debate this evening, British agriculture is facing probably about as much uncertainty, or as big a decision, as it faced in 1946 after the war. We will be returning to this country the powers to make our own decisions about the trade-offs and priorities in British farming. We will have to decide whether we will retain area payments, whether we wish to treat big farmers differently from small farmers and what the trade-offs are between low prices and the need for better animal welfare. Then there are the ethical concerns about GM foods and animal and plant breeding. Those are the kind of decisions that we will have to make.
Personally, I have never been a great fan of the common agricultural policy. I felt it was a policy designed, by and large, for French farmers and the French structure of agriculture rather than the structure of British agriculture, which is very different. I have always been very pro-European myself, and I voted to remain in the European Union, but I think the repatriation of the common agricultural policy will be a good thing in the long run for British consumers and British agriculture.
The other issue that I ought to address was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and other noble Lords: climate change and what we are doing on that. I would just point out to the noble Baroness, who was very critical of our policy on climate change, that between 1990 and 2016, carbon emissions in this country went down by 42%, at a time when GDP grew by 67%. I do not take all the credit for that. In fact, I personally take none of the credit for it. The coalition Government, of whom she and her colleagues were a part, can take some credit for that, but we have made huge progress in that area. We are trebling renewable electricity capacity for the period from 2010 to date. We have spent £730 million on renewable support over that time. We are leading the world in the offshore wind industry. We are committing £1 million to support ultra-low-emission vehicles. I do not feel remotely embarrassed about what this country has done when it comes to meeting our obligations to reduce carbon emissions and supporting all our initiatives on climate change.
I turn to Brexit. I do not want to spend the rest of my time talking about Brexit, because virtually everything that could be said about it has been said before. It is undeniable that there is a high degree of uncertainty in the business world at the moment, a point made by my noble friend Lady Rock, and it is going to be some time before we reach the sunny uplands of the economy that may result from Brexit. However, there is a dream that most of us can share, whether we are pro-European or have always wanted to leave the EU, and that is that we can come out of the machinery of government of the EU, we can leave that structure, and remain a very strong and committed trading partner with Europe. Surely now that we have had the vote on the referendum, that is something that we all need to support and get around. One of the few clear messages that came out of the last general election is that the electorate want us to work together to deliver a satisfactory outcome to the Brexit negotiations. I hope there is no room on either side for any triumphalism in these matters. We need now to get together and work out a solution.
I turn to the more substantive issue of this debate: the UK economy. We have reduced the deficit by 75%. Of course we would have liked to have cleared it further than we have. It is only because we were not actually tied as tightly to the policies of austerity that we have not succeeded in doing so. Still, the employment rate is now the highest it has ever been in this country, and over the last three years we have been the second-fastest growing economy in the EU.
That is one part of the picture. I accept that there is another part, and I thought the noble Lord, Lord Low, put it very strongly in his speech, while the Lord, Lord Hain, talked about seven years of prosperity. The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to the personal misery of many young people who were without hope. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to the precariousness and uncertainty of business in the north-east where he is in Durham. It is true that pay growth and earnings have been stagnant for many people. It is hard to disagree with the analysis that too many people have been left behind and that, as the economy has grown, too few people have enjoyed the benefit of it. However, this is not a recent phenomenon; it has been a growing issue for most of my working life. We have to ask ourselves why it has happened, and I think the answer is twofold.
The first answer is globalisation. The great beneficiaries of globalisation have been the billions of people living in China, south Asia, India and the like who have been raised out of poverty in extraordinary fashion over the last 20 or 30 years. The other beneficiaries have been a very small minority of people living in the West, many of them like those in this Chamber today, who have seen extraordinary rises in their income over the same period. That is true of every country in Europe and the USA. It is somewhat less in some of the Scandinavian countries, but by and large there has been a small sliver of people who have done extremely well over the last 20 or 30 years. There have been a small number of winners and a great many people who, if I may use the expression used by our Prime Minister, are “just about managing”. The Prime Minister absolutely recognised that as a huge issue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, talked about wealth creation and social cohesion. If we are honest with ourselves, we have not done so well on social cohesion, and not just over the last two or three years. You cannot just put this at our doorstep; it has been happening at a fundamental level for many years.
If we ask ourselves why so many people have had to put up with stagnant earnings for so long, the only true answer, as several noble Lords have said, is that we have had very poor levels of productivity. Paul Krugman said:
“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything”.
The fact is that, since the 1980s, we have been trailing in productivity by 20% or 30% behind the Germans, the French and the Americans. I have to accept, because it is true, that that gap has widened, not narrowed, since 2007. I do not think anyone fully knows the reasons for that, but it is actually worse than that, because in the south-east of this country and in London our productivity is very high. Arithmetically, it must be true, therefore, that in other parts of the country the productivity gap is even greater.
I have to say to the House that I think that this trend is getting worse, not better. There is a risk that it will get worse very quickly, because the advent of what is called “Industry 4.0”—in lay man’s terms, machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics and automation—is, if anything, going to make it more difficult. One of the great lessons that we need to learn from the 1980s is that we have to look at the consequence of these changes. The consequences of globalisation destroyed the livelihoods of many people during the 1980s and 1990s. We must make very sure that those people who lose their jobs as a result of these new technologies are looked after much better than we have looked after people in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said in his introduction that he thought that this was an existential challenge outside Brexit. In many ways, the impact of these new technologies could be greater than that of Brexit.
Interestingly, the speeches of the chief economist at the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, predict that between now and 2030 16 million to 17 million existing jobs will disappear. That is supported by work done by the McKinsey institute. That is a huge change in a very short period that we will have to address. We are addressing it through our industrial strategy, and I shall describe just a few parts of that.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, we must build our universities. Our universities are an absolute source of competitive advantage for this country. We have four universities—Imperial, UCL, Oxford and Cambridge—in the top 10 in the world, and building on the universities to develop our life science industry, as described by the noble Lord, is a priority for us.
Skill is, clearly, always a huge issue. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that we have a 200-year cultural legacy of problems in this area. We have always favoured academic over technical education. That is something that we must address in our industrial strategy. We must address digital and technical skills. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, was absolutely right to draw attention to the need to develop enterprise and entrepreneurship skills at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, referred to the need for parity of esteem between technical and academic education.
We must address our physical infrastructure. We have talked about HS2. I will not get into a discussion with my noble friend Lord Framlingham about HS2 this evening, but a strong, good, efficient physical infrastructure is very important. So is high-speed broadband. It is a disgrace that we still have 2,000 schools this country without access to broadband. We have a commitment that, by 2018, 95% of the country will be covered by high-speed broadband—that point was made strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Arran.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that we must be sure that our industrial strategy is based around the country. It is no good basing our industrial strategy on London; it has to be in some of our great northern cities, in the northern powerhouse, Birmingham, Newcastle and the like. Two other interesting observations were made about the strategy. One was by my noble friend Lord Lindsay: that our quality standards under UKQI were an important part of the British offering abroad. My noble friend Lord Leigh and others referred to Sir Damon Buffini’s report on patient equity capital being available to our start-up firms, which is very important.
We are not starting at ground zero. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who is not here this evening, and to Vince Cable in the other place, both of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned in his speech, had a big contribution to make to our industrial strategy, which is something that we in this Government are building on. We are investing £23 billion through the national productivity investment fund up to 2021-22 into key productivity-enhancing areas such as infrastructure, R&D and housing. We are putting an extra £4.7 billion into science, research and innovation, and we have formed UKRI.
We are not standing still. I hope that large parts of our industrial strategy will gain the support of all parts of the House. If we do not address this productivity problem, we cannot address the social cohesion issue. I can assure noble Lords that our industrial strategy will have twin aims. It is in part wealth creation, but it is also, and very importantly, about social cohesion. If we do not get both those parts of this strategy right, we will not be successful.
It is late, so I shall bring my speech to a conclusion. For me, it has been, as it always is in this House, a very enlightening debate. It is right that we should hold up a mirror, and sometimes we see different things in that mirror. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, sees different things from me in the mirror. The truth is that we are probably both right to some extent. We probably ought to be given more credit than has been given to us. We acknowledge many of the problems in the economy that others not on my side of the House have identified and we will be using our industrial strategy to address them.