House of Commons

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 31 January 2018

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to support cross-border economic opportunities.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to support cross-border economic opportunities.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

Last week, I hosted the first cross-border Severn growth summit in Newport. More than 350 people attended the event, all looking to strengthen the economic links between south Wales and the south-west. Through our industrial strategy, we want to build on this cross-border collaboration and help create prosperous communities throughout the whole of Wales.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Shrewsbury, the county town of Shropshire, relies very heavily on trade with our friends and neighbours across the border in Wales. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his counterparts in the Welsh Assembly about dualling the A5, which crosses the border between England and Wales? Will he join me in paying tribute to my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who has campaigned assiduously, but who has been very badly injured in a riding accident and is recuperating at home?

[Mr Speaker]

We wish the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) a full and speedy recovery, but the fullness of the recovery is more important than its speed.

[Alun Cairns]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). Both are assiduous and relentless in their pursuit of the dualling of the A5. I would point them to the second road investment strategy for England. I liaise with the Welsh Government Minister Ken Skates regularly to pursue the issue, because it works for much better co-operation if we bring together investment priorities. My hon. Friend’s efforts are paying significant dividends in the negotiations.

[Sir David Amess]

Every “Gavin and Stacey” fan knows that the journey from Essex to Wales involves the most expensive toll bridge charges in the country, so I am delighted that this Conservative Government have removed the burden of crossing the border for tourists, businesses and commuters generally. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he intends to capitalise on that wonderful news?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that iconic “Gavin and Stacey” scene where Smithy is struggling to get into Wales because he has to pay the £6.70 toll charge to cross the bridge. I would point out to my hon. Friend that tolls have been reduced by 20% in the interim, and by the end of the year they will be abolished. That will be one of the biggest stimuluses for the Welsh economy in decades. It will provide the opportunity for more and better-paid jobs, and a £100 million boost to the Welsh economy. This is an opportunity for the south-west of England and south Wales to come together as an economic powerhouse to provide better opportunities in the western side of the UK.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

My constituents who work in Bristol and beyond have to put up with chronically overcrowded rail services as fares increase. Will the Secretary of State talk to UK Government Transport Ministers—rail services are not devolved—to sort this out?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about public transport in general. The Great Western franchise is out for consultation as we speak, and I encourage her, her constituents and south Wales Members to make representations about the improvements they would like. She talked about overcrowding, but one of the most overcrowded roads in the UK is around the Brynglas tunnels in Newport. I hope the Welsh Government get on with building that road sooner rather than later. After all, the UK Government made money available more than three years ago, and we are frustrated by the lack of response and reaction in building it.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Since assuming office, the Secretary of State has broken a promise to electrify the main line to Swansea; vetoed devolving airport taxes to Wales because he does not want to upset Bristol airport; and not delivered on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. Is not the reality that his record on the economy is failure, failure, failure?

[Alun Cairns]

I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I would point to significant wins for Wales over recent years, the most important of which is the fair funding settlement, which provided a 5% uplift—it will be a £67 million uplift in the next financial year and similar sums in subsequent years. Thirteen years of underfunding by the Labour party have been corrected in the first year of a Conservative Administration.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for inviting my district council and my tourism industry to his Severn growth summit. I am also grateful that the tolls will be removed, given that the old Severn bridge is half in my constituency and the gateway to Gloucestershire, not just Wales. May I urge him, as he continues these cross-border opportunities, fully to involve business and industry in my constituency so that we can take full advantage of growth in the western part of our country?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for the call to abolish the Severn tolls, because that really will be a major boost to his constituency and constituencies across the whole of south Wales. After all, can he imagine a £6.70 charge to do any business between Cardiff and Newport and the impact that that would have? Well, that is really what has been in place between his constituency and the south Wales economy for more than 50 years. Abolishing the tolls is a commitment on which I am pleased to be able to deliver.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to his place. They say the first time is always the worst. I understand that he was born on Ynys Môn and that he was a member of the Labour party. We would like to welcome him back, but we might be full.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Welsh Assembly: there was an announcement by Stonewall this morning that it is the No. 1 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employer in the UK. I will not mention that Swansea City beat Arsenal 3-1 last night.

Manufacturers across the UK consider the world-leading tidal lagoon industry a lifeline for their businesses. Thousands of skilled jobs in cross-border factories are earmarked to supply the lagoons, and they are at risk because the UK Government cannot make a decision. The Secretary of State has said many times that he would love it to happen. The Welsh Labour Government have pledged millions to the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. Hendry says, “It’s a no regrets decision.” Has the Secretary of State anything constructive to report? In the words of Gavin and Stacey, “What’s occurring?”

[Alun Cairns]

I join the hon. Lady in recognising the Welsh Assembly for its recognition by Stonewall; that is something to be accepted, underlined and recognised. I also recognise, as a City supporter, the success that Swansea had last night. She raises an important point about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. As I have said previously, I really would like this to happen, as would the whole of the UK Government. After all, we gave planning permission for it after the 2015 general election. We would like to see progress on it, but, clearly, it must be value for money. The Welsh Government have communicated with the UK Government about something that they call “an offer”. Last week, officials from my office, the Welsh Government, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy met to establish what this offer amounts to. We will continue discussions. I point out to her that she needs to look at the jobs that will be created in the long term, and not those thousands of jobs that she talked about, because the project itself will deliver 40 or more jobs.

[Christina Rees]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the jobs, because these cross-border jobs include local government apprenticeships for 16 and 17-year-olds. They are now at risk because of the UK Government’s dithering. Now that the Welsh Labour Government are introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local government elections in Wales, are the UK Government worried that Welsh young people will be able to vote on their future, vote for apprenticeships and vote for tidal lagoons?

[Alun Cairns]

Apprenticeships are part of the UK Government’s manifesto, and we are grateful to the Welsh Government and recognise that they have followed the ambition that we set out for apprenticeships. I also point out and pay tribute to the Welsh Government for their action over changing the voting structures, but remind the hon. Lady about who gave them the power to do that in the first place, after it was refused for 13 years by Labour.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee has invited the First Minister of Wales to come before us and spell out exactly what the offer is and that, so far, he has refused to do so? If there is a serious offer from Welsh Labour to support tidal lagoons, does he agree that the Welsh First Minister should reconsider, come before the Committee and tell us exactly what it is that he is offering us?

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—a position in which he has been vociferous in pursuing these sorts of issues and the case for value for money. He has invited the First Minister to give evidence to his Committee. I would have thought that the First Minister would want to respond positively to that invitation, if he wants to be seen to be doing everything—and, indeed, to do everything—to make this project come about and to prove the value-for-money case that we seek.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on reducing the time taken to make universal credit payments in Wales.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on reducing the time taken to make universal credit payments in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. Rwy’n ddiolchgar i’m cydweithwyr am y croeso cynnes.

At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that all claimants will be eligible for universal credit from the first day that they claim it, removing the seven waiting days.

[Hugh Gaffney]

Och aye the noo!

The Opposition welcomed the U-turn by the Chancellor, increasing the waiting time for universal credit from six weeks to five weeks, but this does not go far enough. Household claimants in Wales and across the country are still suffering from rising debts, housing arrears and evictions. Will the Minister stand up for universal credit claimants in Wales by asking his Cabinet colleagues to reduce the waiting time further?

[Stuart Andrew]

I loved the hon. Gentleman’s introduction.

The need for reform was absolutely clear. Under the old system, people had to go to the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the local housing authority and, potentially, more organisations. We are now simplifying the process so that we have a system that encourages people into work. Surely, we should all welcome that. We are rolling the scheme out slowly to ensure that we are learning lessons, and that is exactly what we have done. The Chancellor made the announcement in the Budget so that we improve the system to ensure that people have the money they need when they apply.

[Gerald Jones]

The DWP’s own analysis shows that half those with rent arrears under universal credit said that they had gone into arrears after making a claim. Is the Minister content with the fact that more Welsh families who were not previously in arrears have begun 2018 in debt following their claim for universal credit?

[Stuart Andrew]

That is exactly why we made the announcements in the Budget. Now, households who already claim housing benefit will automatically receive an additional two weeks of housing benefit when they claim universal credit. We are responding to the lessons that we are learning, and we will continue to do so as we roll out the project.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. May I urge him, in looking at the administrative changes to universal credit, not to lose sight of the overarching goal, which is to have a simpler welfare system that actually encourages people into work—a far cry from the old system that it is replacing?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am delighted to take a question from my hon. Friend, and I mean that in the sincerest sense. He is absolutely right. Unemployment in Wales is currently 73,000, which represents a decrease of 52,000 since 2010. People are going back into work because universal credit is encouraging that. Under the old system, people who worked a minute over 16 hours would lose their whole jobseeker’s allowance. There was no incentive to get into work, which is why we have introduced this new system.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I too offer my congratulations to the Minister on his elevation to his new position—llongyfarchiadau.

Waiting times are important to all claimants, but none more so than the terminally ill—those who the DWP expects to live for less than six months. The DWP’s own data shows that personal independence payment claimants who are terminally ill have their claims reassessed at the rate of seven in 100 in the south-east and 17 in 100 in Wales, which is the highest rate in the country. Why is there such a huge variance, and will the Minister join me in requesting a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss these issues?

[Stuart Andrew]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the warm welcome, which I much appreciate. It is important to recognise that, with PIP, we are bringing in a system to try to help people live with the conditions they have. If we compare the systems, 29% of PIP claimants are receiving the highest possible support, compared with just 15% for disability living allowance. I have only been in this job a few weeks, but I will be taking this up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will report back.

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up a bit, because we have a lot of questions to get through. What we need now is pithy questions without excessively demonstrative behaviour.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made on the roll-out of high-speed broadband in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)]

Superfast broadband is now available to more than 19 out of 20 UK homes and businesses, including 95% of premises in Wales. That underlines the progress made in recent years thanks to our investment of £69 million in Wales, plus an additional £56 million gainshare to be reinvested.

[Michael Fabricant]

That investment is working. In Gwynedd, for example, it was previously only possible to get a download speed of 0.9 megabits per second. In Merionethshire, Openreach has now given fibre to the home that delivers at least 75 megabits per second. That is great, but what can the Government do to provide a legal obligation for everyone to have a right to broadband?

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of good connectivity through broadband, particularly in our rural areas, if we are to maximise the economic benefits. We have decided that regulation is the best way to ensure that everyone in the UK has a decent broadband connection. A regulatory universal service obligation will give everyone in the UK access to speeds of at least 10 megabits per second by 2020.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I genuinely welcome the Anglesey-born Under-Secretary to his place? The last Anglesey-born Tory Minister was Sir Wyn Roberts, so he has very big shoes to fill. The success of the broadband roll-out in Wales is due to the partnership between the European Union, Government here in Westminster and Government in Wales, working with BT. Will the Minister assure us that in 2020 there will not be a cliff edge and that we will have transitional money from Europe, so that we can roll out to 100%?

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to have such a welcome from someone I have known for many years. I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

You were a young socialist then!

[Stuart Andrew]

No, actually I was a member of the Young Conservatives then. We are determined to roll out broadband and to achieve the 2020 target. It will be incumbent on us, as the UK Government, to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that broadband is rolled out to every part.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Ceredigion has among the slowest broadband speeds in the UK. Despite that, Ceredigion, and indeed the whole of Wales, was left out of the UK Government programme to provide full fibre broadband to six areas across England and Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that representations were made to his Government to ensure that Wales was included in that programme? What explanation was he given for its omission?

[Stuart Andrew]

Let us not forget that the roll-out of broadband is the responsibility of the Welsh Government. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have already had a conversation about this, this could form an important part of the mid-Wales growth deal. That will be incredibly important in making a successful growth deal for the area.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

For the households in Pembrokeshire in my constituency that have been told they cannot get broadband, the roll-out coverage is not 95%; it is zero. Will the Minister provide assurance that he will keep working with colleagues in the UK Government and Welsh Government to see that we connect up the whole of Wales?

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely accept that we have to ensure that broadband is rolled out to every part of Wales. Pembrokeshire is equally important, and my right hon. Friend is a big champion of his constituency and area. I am a little bit disappointed in the Welsh Government’s roll-out priorities, but we will continue to work to ensure that we deliver the roll-out that we have promised and envisaged.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Government on modernising cross-border transport connectivity. With 50% of the Welsh population living within 25 miles of the border, improving connectivity is central to delivering economic growth on both sides.

[Mike Amesbury]

If providing funding to remove the tolls from the Severn bridge is good enough for the people of Wales, why not extend such a generous Government offer to the people of Cheshire and Merseyside and do away with the tolls on the Mersey Gateway?

[Alun Cairns]

The tolls on the Severn crossing have been there for more than 50 years, and the Mersey Gateway bridge has very different levels of tolls from those that were levied on the Severn crossing. Locals will not have to pay on the Mersey Gateway bridge, other than the £10 administration fee; locals around the Severn tolls have had to pay the full charge for 50 years.

[Justin Madders]

My constituents were pleased to see a commitment to fund a business case to improve the Wrexham to Bidston line in the autumn Budget, but we have not actually had any progress since then. We would really like to see some improvements in both efficiency and frequency on that line, so can the Secretary of State update us on what progress has been made with respect to that?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), who has highlighted the importance of the Wrexham to Bidston line. It forms part of our cross-border growth strategy and is reflected in the UK’s industrial strategy. I spoke with the Welsh Government’s Transport Minister on Monday to discuss the project and we will be updating the hon. Gentlemen and the House in due course.

[Christian Matheson]

The industrial areas around my constituency, which include Airbus in Broughton and Deeside Industrial Park, absolutely depend on the M56 running smoothly. Has the Secretary of State had any conversations with Highways England, or his counterparts in the Transport Department, about when we shall get that motorway unclogged and running smoothly?

[Alun Cairns]

Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights the importance of cross-border connectivity. I would point him to the second road investment strategy for England, which will provide an opportunity to highlight the priority. A million people a week cross that border between north Wales and the north-west of England; 2,000 go to Airbus alone.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the UK Government’s investment in the Halton curve significantly improves rail services between my constituency and north Wales, and that there was a missed opportunity with the Welsh Labour Government in the failure to include that train line in the TEN-T network in the last round of European funding?

[Alun Cairns]

The Halton curve, which is approaching £18 million in terms of the spending cap, is an exciting project because it is a relatively simple, straightforward investment that will bring direct services to Liverpool again, improving cross-border connectivity, and releasing new opportunities for economic growth and development. We want to integrate it into both the north-west of England and the Wales and borders franchises.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on proposals for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)]

We continue to have constructive discussions with the Welsh Government on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, with a view to securing the National Assembly’s support for the legislation. The Welsh Government have not discussed with us their proposals for an EU continuity Bill, but we do believe that such legislation will be unnecessary.

[David Linden]

So bad has the Westminster power grab become that on 17 January the National Assembly unanimously, including the Conservatives, supported a motion on Plaid Cymru’s continuity Bill. Both sitting devolved Administrations have now rejected this constitutional embezzlement. Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will not meddle any further in respect of devolved Administrations?

[Stuart Andrew]

First, I do not believe that the continuity Bill is actually needed. We are engaging heavily, at every level of government, with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we go through the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that the clauses that we want to amend in the other place will be effective. Then will get the support of those Assemblies.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very short of time. I will call the hon. Gentleman if it is a single short sentence; otherwise, we won’t bother. Blurt it out, man.

[Stephen Kerr]

When will the Government publish their framework analysis and their proposed wording for the amendment to clause 11 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill?

[Stuart Andrew]

We are continually engaging. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are going to Wales tomorrow to meet the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, so that we can get the further detail of those discussions and bring forward the amendments as soon as possible.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Hoffwn gymryd y cyfle i groesawu’r Gweinidog i’w barchus, arswydus swydd. The Minister will recall the Scottish Secretary claiming there to be a Scotland-specific economic impact assessment, only to contradict himself a week later. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady should not be disquieted in any way. I think the robin is keenly attending to her words.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It appears now that regional assessments do exist. Which road will the Minister take? Will he confirm that a Welsh assessment has been produced, or will he concede that the Government are so heedless of Wales’s future that there is no such assessment?

[Stuart Andrew]

I know that Bristol City’s emblem is a robin, so maybe it is trying to interfere with Welsh questions.

We have many assessments as we go through this process. We will look at all of them in great detail and ensure that we come up with an effective resolution that suits every single part of the United Kingdom, because having a statute book that is fit for purpose is incredibly important once we leave the European Union.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister in that case ensure that he shares those assessments, not by Twitter, but also with all Members and all members of the Welsh public?

[Stuart Andrew]

Obviously, we will make things available at the appropriate time, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I will not be sharing things like that on Twitter.

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to allow a little injury time, because I do not want the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) to feel left out.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect on the Welsh economy of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on new opportunities that leaving the European Union brings to Wales and the UK. Wales was the fastest-growing nation in the UK in 2016 and is well placed to seize the opportunities presented.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Will the Minister reassure the House and businesses across Wales by confirming that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that new trade deals negotiated after leaving the European Union do not undermine devolved policies?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman points to the opportunities for new trade deals, which are exciting for every part of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has re-established the UK’s Board of Trade. We have the privilege of having Lord Rowe-Beddoe, a former chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, as well as Heather Stevens, a very successful business lady, who is part of the Board of Trade and will be looking after Welsh interests on all occasions.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

How will the Secretary of State guarantee that integrated supply chains with the EU will be preserved when Britain leaves the European Union?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are working to deliver a trade agreement that leads to frictionless trade between the UK and the European Union, but I would also point out that, as 80% of Welsh exports go to the rest of the UK, maintaining the integrity of the UK market should be our first priority.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 31 January.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)]

I have been asked to reply. Mr right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in China, building on the existing strong ties between our two countries, and she is accompanied by the largest business delegation that this Government have yet led.

[Ian Mearns]

A number of Carillion employees and former employees live in my constituency; indeed, the company has an apprenticeship training centre in Gateshead. They all still face an uncertain future. Will the Government act now to prevent similar corporate theft, whereby pirate directors have syphoned off what should have been hundreds of millions of pounds in pension contributions to pay bogus dividends and unearned corporate bonuses to themselves? Exactly what action do the Government propose to take?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand the anxiety that must be affecting the apprentices and their families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He probably heard me say during last week’s debates that the Construction Industry Training Board has taken responsibility for finding alternative employers to enable all those apprentices who were with Carillion to continue and complete their qualifications. It is making good progress in that work, but I shall ensure that the particular concern that he has expressed about Gateshead is brought to its attention.

On the broader question, the House will understand that it would be wrong for me to pre-empt findings by an independent inquiry by the official receiver, but we have already made it clear that we will be publishing proposals later this year to stop directors being able to siphon off pension funds in the way the hon. Gentleman described.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Q2. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the country faces significant cyber-threats from other countries and from non-state actors. He will also be aware that we are protected from those by our security and intelligence services, including the men and women at GCHQ in my county of Gloucestershire. When the Government publish the results of the security review, will he confirm that we will continue, as we have since 2010, to invest in those capabilities to keep our country safe?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct and I am happy to give him that assurance on behalf of the Government. The sad truth is that, in this country, we face a growing threat of cyber-attacks from states, from serious crime gangs and from hacking groups. We do have a robust national cyber-security strategy to protect critical services, including our democratic processes, and that is underpinned by nearly £2 billion of Government investment.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Let me start by welcoming the Minister back to his role deputising for the Prime Minister. The last time he did so was in December 2016, when the Conservative party was 17 points ahead in the polls, and he told the House that the Labour party was “quarrelling like” in the film

“‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ as re-shot by the ‘Carry On’ team.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 208.]

Well, what a difference a year makes.

But I am not going to intrude further on the Government’s public grief, because I genuinely hope that we can reach consensus across this House today on a very important issue. Next Tuesday will be the centenary of women gaining the right to vote in Britain; that was followed later in 1918 by a second right, to stand for Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we have a long way to go with regard to the second right; after all, I am the only Emily elected since 1918, and he is one of 155 Davids. The women behind me on the Labour Benches represent one quarter of all the women elected in the last 100 years, but it is still not good enough. Will the Minister tell us how we can best increase female representation in this House?

[Mr Lidington]

May I first thank the right hon. Lady for her words of welcome? Clearly, my previous remarks struck a chord with her, to have been treasured in the way that they have. It is a delight to me to see the right hon. Lady still in her place, when no fewer than 97 members of her Front Bench have either been sacked or have resigned since the Leader of the Opposition took office. I pay credit to her sticking power, although she must sometimes whisper to herself, “Surely, I’m a celebrity. Please get me out of here!”

The point that the right hon. Lady raised is a serious one. I think that all political parties represented here—she is right to seek to make this consensual—want to encourage more women candidates to come forward. I am pleased that the Conservative party, since I was first elected 25 years ago, has made very considerable progress, but I also accept that there is more to be done. I hope that she, for her part, will accept that we have now had two women leaders and Prime Ministers, so the Labour party has a bit of catching up to do.

[Emily Thornberry]

If the Conservative party is so proud of having a female leader, why are so many of them trying to get rid of her and why has she had to run away to China to get away from them? However, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer and I totally agree with his sentiments. Let me ask him about the first right that I mentioned, a right that millions of women received 100 years ago this week: the basic right to vote. It was originally restricted to women with property over the age of 30. Then 90 years ago, it was extended to all women over 21. Almost 50 years ago, it was extended to all men and women over the age of 18. I ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question: how many more years do we have to wait until the vote is extended to everyone over 16?

[Mr Lidington]

The age of 18, rather than 16, is widely recognised as the age at which one becomes an adult and that is when full citizenship rights are attained. Only a handful of countries have a nationwide voting age below 18 and we believe that it is right that the age of majority—18—should continue to be the age at which people become eligible to vote.

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman makes international comparisons, but I have to say to him that it was this country and a Labour Government that led the way in Europe and the English-speaking world in reducing the voting age to 18 in 1969. Where we led, others followed, and it will be the same here.

Let me move on to a second question that I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened carefully to his answer, but I did not hear any logical explanation for the different rights that we give to 16-year-olds in this country. At 16, we are free from parental control, we can leave home, we can start a family, we can get married, we can start work, we can pay taxes and we can join the forces, so can he give us a logical explanation of why a 16-year-old should not have the right to vote?

[Mr Lidington]

I am slightly baffled by the right hon. Lady’s comments when compared with what her party did in office, because it was the last Labour Government who raised the legal age for buying cigarettes to 18, raised the age for sales of knives to 18, raised the age for buying fireworks to 18 and raised the age for using a sunbed to 18. If she wants a lesson in inconsistency, she might like to examine the mirror.

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions a range of restrictions that we have until the age of 18, but those are for the most part to do with public health, public safety and the prevention of crime. They are not the same as the basic right to vote on issues that affect your life once you are considered old enough to make other independent decisions about your life, such as leaving school, leaving home and getting married. Let me give him a specific example—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that it will not have escaped public notice, and it is rather a sad irony, that when a woman is addressing the House, quite a lot of noisy, boorish and, in one case rather stupid, individuals are trying to shout the right hon. Lady down. Cut it out!

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I want to give the right hon. Gentleman a specific example to illustrate what I am talking about. According to the Government’s own figures, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds receiving carer’s allowance for looking after disabled relatives at home has risen by more than 50% over the past four years, so last year, over 2,000 16 and 17-year-olds gave up their youth and often their schooling to care for relatives at home. How can it be fair and how can it be logical to expect them to take on that responsibility because of failures of the state and then to deny them a say on how that very state is run?

[Mr Lidington]

The logic of the right hon. Lady’s argument is that she wishes to lower the age of majority from 18 to 16. She listed a number of areas in which she supported the age at which activity should be allowed to 18, on the grounds that only then could people be expected to have sufficient maturity and responsibility to have those rights. My argument to her is that the age of majority should be set matching both rights and responsibilities. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that, from the age of 18, we entrust young men and women to exercise those rights and responsibilities in full. On the final point she made, it is right that sensible local authorities have particular care for the role of young carers. In my experience, local authorities, whichever party runs them, make every effort to do that.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am genuinely surprised at the Minister’s response. This is what he said two years ago, speaking to the Youth Parliament:

“When the voice and the vote of young people is absent, decisions are taken that affect young people’s lives that they have not always chosen”.

Not for the first time in these exchanges, I have to say that I agree with him—all of us on the Labour Benches agree with him. Why does he no longer agree with himself?

[Mr Lidington]

If the right hon. Lady had been with me at the Youth Parliament, which was indeed both a memorable and an enjoyable occasion, she would have discovered that a significant number of the young men and women there were actually over the voting age. I fully support the role that the Youth Parliament plays, the role that its members play throughout the country and the role that organisations such as school councils play in getting young people used to the idea of exercising democratic responsibility. That seems to me to be excellent training for the full adult responsibilities they will inherit when they turn 18, and I hope that it will encourage more young people to go out and vote.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister says that he was only talking about 18 year olds, but you were there, Mr Speaker; he was talking to 370 under-18s. These discussions have revealed that there is no logical principled objection to votes at 16. That is why the Welsh and Scottish Governments support it and why every single political party in the House supports it, except, of course, the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party—joined, once again, in opposition to change. They are not the coalition of chaos; they are the coalition of cavemen. [Interruption.] Does he not realise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One Member who thinks he knows what he is talking about is gesticulating at me. The answer is that it is a matter of taste, not of order. It is blindingly obvious and should not really escape somebody of great intelligence.

[Emily Thornberry]

I was talking about cavemen, Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister not realise the lesson that we women taught his predecessors 100 years ago? When change is right it cannot be resisted forever, and this is a change whose time has come.

[Mr Lidington]

My advice to the right hon. Lady is to wean herself off the habit of watching old versions of “The Flintstones” on the relevant cartoon channel.

We ought to salute the fact that not just the Youth Parliament but many schools and other youth organisations throughout the country are working hard to get young people used to the idea that, as they grow up, they should take an interest in current affairs and then, when they reach the relevant age, exercise the full rights and responsibilities of an adult by participating in elections and political campaigning, The situation here, with the national voting age at 18, is one that is followed by 26 out of the 27 other members of the EU and by the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Unless she is going to denounce all of those countries as somehow inadequate by her own particular standards, she ought to grow up and treat this subject with greater seriousness.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Q3. The Government’s policy on tax has made the UK one of the most competitive places to do business, as was confirmed by the recent growth figures. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that raising tax would damage the UK economy, as we have seen in Scotland, where growth has fallen behind the rest of the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. We devolved new powers from this House to Holyrood, and it is obviously for the Scottish Government to determine how to use them. It is a matter of great regret, however, that they have chosen to use those powers to break their promises and penalise aspiration in Scotland. In our Budget, we increased the Scottish Government’s spending power by £2 billion, so the SNP has no excuse for hiking the taxes of hard-working people, including public servants, and penalising businesses. The leader of the Scottish nationalists in Westminster used to champion wealth creation and free enterprise. I hope he will ask the First Minister of Scotland to think again.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. If the reports are true, he may be auditioning for a new role. I wonder if he is sending a “round robin” letter.

The Minister has previously said that

“the Single Market is essential to this government’s agenda for trade and competitiveness.”

Since BuzzFeed published the leaked Brexit analysis, has the Minister recognised that the single market is essential to jobs and prosperity?

[Mr Lidington]

When we leave the European Union in March next year, we will, as a matter of legality, leave the single market and the EU customs union. The Prime Minister and the entire Government have also made it clear, in both the Lancaster House speech and the Florence speech, that we are seeking a new partnership with our neighbours in the European Union that will ensure that we continue to have frictionless trade, which is in the interest of not just our people but the people of every one of the 27 other EU countries.

[Ian Blackford]

I must say that I am surprised at the Minister, because it is not a question of legality. We are going to be in a transitional deal, so we will still be in the single market when we leave the EU.

This is a Government who are in crisis, and an international embarrassment. The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Conservatives and the Home Secretary have all supported membership of the single market, but despite that, the Government are still prepared to make everyone poorer. Where is the leadership?

[Mr Lidington]

The leadership that the right hon. Gentleman wants was set out very clearly at Lancaster House and then again in Florence, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making further speeches on these issues in the weeks and months to come. Let me point out to him, however, that the single market that is most important to the people of Scotland is the single market of the United Kingdom, which is worth nearly £50 billion every year to the Scottish economy—four times more than trade with the European Union. It is our deep and special partnership with the EU in the future, not the separatist policies pursued by the Scottish National party, that will help to deliver prosperity to Scotland.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q5. I know my right hon. Friend shares my passion for ensuring that all children have opportunities to succeed, regardless of who they are or where they come from. Can he tell us what progress the Government have made in reducing the attainment gap between less well off secondary school pupils and their peers, and—given their positive impact—when the round of free school applications will open?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government’s clear ambition and purpose is to ensure that our school system works for every child in every community in this country. Our reforms have already raised school standards. Nearly 2 million more children are attending good and outstanding schools, and since 2011 the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has shrunk by 10% at GCSE and by 10.5% at key stage 2. I know that Education Ministers will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about their plans to further improve standards in schools.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Q4. Last Sunday in my constituency, Reece Oduleye-Waters, who was just 17, was stabbed, with life-changing results. The knife crime that is happening across our country is not being driven by minors and young people; it is being driven by gangsters, organised criminals, and dirty money. Cocaine alone is worth £12 billion to the market in this country, with 100 tonnes of it crossing our borders. So I ask the Minister this: why are we cutting our border force, why are we cutting our police, and why has London been offered, in the violence reduction strategy, a community fund of only half a million pounds? No one could buy a house for half a million in London.

[Mr Lidington]

I, like every other Member of this House, have nothing but the most heartfelt sympathy for Reece and his family and friends for the most appalling experience that they have endured and are still living through. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are complex causes of the knife crime we are seeing. I agree that there is no doubt that organised crime is contributing to this, and is exploiting young people; organised criminals try to groom young people and attract them into criminal gangs. The Government will publish later this year a violent crime strategy looking not just at the criminal justice system, but at how we can work effectively with all other agencies to ensure that young people are diverted away from that sort of activity in the first place. But it is also true that those carrying a knife can now expect to end up in jail; we have toughened the sentences. And despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, we have also protected police budgets; a quarter of all police are in London.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Q8. Demand for school places in the London Borough of Bromley is forecast to grow by some 20% over coming years, but repeatedly proposals for much needed schools have been delayed, in no small measure because of concerns at the way the Education and Skills Funding Agency has handled the planning application process. On behalf of the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss the very real concerns of local parents as to the competency of the agency?

[Mr Lidington]

Either I or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be happy to talk to my hon. Friend. The purpose of the ESFA, formed at the start of this financial year, is to provide a more joined-up approach to funding, covering both schools and colleges and other providers. I note that Bromley has increased both primary and secondary school capacity by more than 6,300 places since 2010, and the ESFA is delivering nine schools in Bromley, but there is clearly more work to be done, and Ministers will gladly talk to my hon. Friend about that.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q6. Recent research shows that international students are worth a staggering £20 billion to the UK economy; that research was commissioned by Nick Hillman, Conservative parliamentary candidate in Cambridge in 2010 and a former adviser to Lord Willetts. Yet the policies of the Prime Minister have stopped that steady increase in the number of international students coming to our country. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a touch careless of the Prime Minister to have squandered billions of pounds that could have been available to our schools and hospitals?

[Mr Lidington]

The facts say that we are the second most popular destination in the world for students and university-sponsored visa applications are up by nearly one fifth since 2010, so I would argue that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman alleges, we are doing a good job in attracting international students.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Q10. South Dorset is the most beautiful constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom, so improving the infrastructure to create jobs and prosperity is difficult. What we can do is improve our rail links on the Salisbury line and at Yeovil Junction to get faster trains to Weymouth. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and me that the Government are behind this scheme, to do exactly what the Government want: create more wealth and prosperity in South Dorset?

[Mr Lidington]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor last year set aside very considerable sums of money—more than £20 billion—to finance infrastructure improvements in rail, road and broadband, in order to generate growth around the country and facilitate housing developments; my hon. Friend’s constituency has seen considerable new housing development in recent years. I will ensure that Transport Ministers talk to him about the particular concerns he has expressed.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Q7. On 25 January 1985, the Conservative Government promised that no nuclear waste would be dumped in the Billingham anhydrite mine. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that that promise still stands?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, but my memory for statements that were given in 1985 is a little bit rusty. That was seven years before even I was first elected to this House. I will look into the point that he has raised and write to him to set out the position.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Q13. To secure our future prosperity and to meet the employment challenge posed by artificial intelligence, this country has an urgent need to improve its digital skills base. Will my right hon. Friend therefore congratulate the Open University in my constituency on securing a leading role in the Government’s Institute of Coding?

[Mr Lidington]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Open University on securing that lead role in the Institute of Coding, which is an important new initiative to get universities to work closely with business to develop specialist coding skills. The Government are investing £84 million to deliver a comprehensive programme to improve the teaching of the computing curriculum, and we look forward to working closely with the university and the institute.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q9. After 10 years in this country, one of my constituents missed out on the right to claim indefinite leave to remain by 22 days when she left the country to attend her father’s funeral and broke her leg, making her unable to return. The Home Secretary is aware of this case, and my constituent has been told that she will have to wait a further 10 years to reapply. This will mean that she will be unable to adopt a child, which could be the only way in which she can start a family in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman raise this issue with the Prime Minister when she returns, and may we have a meeting to discuss the issue?

[Mr Lidington]

Obviously I know no more details of the case than those that the hon. Gentleman has just described, but, like many Members, I have immigration casework in my constituency, so I am familiar with the type of problem that he describes. If he would like to write to me after these exchanges to set out the details, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the relevant Minister will certainly meet him.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Q14. Last week, I visited RNAS Culdrose as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and was delighted to see the great outreach programme that the sailors are using to promote science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—skills and innovation in the local community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this initiative to inspire the skills that our armed forces and our country will need to succeed in the future is a huge credit to the forward thinking of the team at Culdrose and that its approach should be highly commended?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know about the important role that Culdrose plays in the life of Cornwall, but he has highlighted the fact that its work deserves to be in the national spotlight as well. We want and need to build the science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills that we will need in a growing and rapidly changing economy, as we highlighted in the Government’s industrial strategy, and the initiative at Culdrose will contribute to the success of those objectives.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q11. It is an extraordinary fact that this year, last year and every year for more than a decade, one London borough, the London Borough of Islington, has received more Arts Council funding than all the midlands and northern ex-coalfield communities combined. Who is going to be brave enough to reverse that inequity so that my constituents, especially my young constituents, can have fair and equitable access to arts funding?

[Mr Lidington]

I am not sure whether that was meant as an attack on the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) or the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that if there is a particular bid that he feels has been unfairly treated, he is welcome to take that up with the new arts Minister, who I know will want to examine the case carefully. In general terms, however, more than half the arts funding in England is awarded to arts activities outside Greater London.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Q15. Holiday homes in Cornwall are a mixed blessing. They provide important support to our local economy, but they also take up vital housing stock and push up prices beyond the reach of many local people. In addition, many people avoid paying council tax on them by switching them to business use and then enjoying the benefits of small business rates relief. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that unacceptable? Will he use his good offices to help the Government to find a way of closing the loophole?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point, and it is right that holiday home owners should pay the correct tax. Obviously, individual decisions on whether a property should pay council tax or business rates rests with the Valuation Office Agency, which rightly operates independently of Ministers. However, if a property is available for rent for 140 days or a more a year, it will be subject to business rates. If it does not meet that test, council tax will be due. If an individual provides false information in order to seek business rates relief, that person is liable to summary conviction or a fine or both.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Q12. The Prime Minister wants to bring forward legislation to tackle domestic violence and abuse, but her Government are currently taxing the same survivors for using the Child Maintenance Service. For survivors of domestic abuse, using the collect and pay service is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of safety. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Prime Minister to commit to using legislation to scrap the tax for survivors of domestic violence?

[Mr Lidington]

A Government consultation on this matter is imminent, and I urge the hon. Lady to make her representations to that consultation and also directly to the relevant Minister.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Following last year’s terrorist attack in Manchester, the Government committed £24 million to the city. With the effects still being felt across the area, including in my constituency, will the Government provide an assurance that they will continue to support Manchester?

[Mr Lidington]

We will certainly continue to support Manchester right across Government through the various agencies and spending programmes that the Government have available. Manchester demonstrated its resilience and its strong sense of community identity and purpose last year, and they will serve it well both economically and socially in the years to come.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The whole House will warmly welcome the fantastic news that has saved thousands of jobs at Bombardier in Northern Ireland. We should pay tribute to Bombardier’s management, both in Belfast and in Canada, the workforce and the unions, which worked well together, hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist party Bench, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the Government, which rode in strongly to support the company. I urge the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to get behind improving manufacturing in Northern Ireland, because vital decisions are outstanding. I also gently urge the Government, who always listen very carefully, to get on with it.

[Mr Lidington]

May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words? Although it is now a few years since I had the opportunity to visit Bombardier in Belfast, I still remember how important that enterprise is for the provision of high-quality, well-paid skilled work both in the city and more widely in Northern Ireland. He is right to say that the Government worked closely with Northern Ireland leaders and politicians. The Prime Minister raised the matter personally more than once with President Trump and with Prime Minister Trudeau, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has also been active on Bombardier’s behalf. We are pleased by the outcome. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will remain a strong supporter of business in Northern Ireland, but the sooner that we can get back to devolved government in Northern Ireland, the easier it will be to ensure that practical benefits flow back to Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

A vibrant high street is critical in traditional market towns such as Knaresborough, which has had a market since 1310. In this age of internet shopping, will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s support for traditional markets and for policies that will boost our high streets?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to speak up on behalf of his constituents, and I know he is a tireless campaigner for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Markets like the one in Knaresborough are part of the local fabric and tradition of towns right across this country. The Government want to help those markets and town centres to prosper in a rapidly changing retail environment. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be happy to write to him with further details.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

Lincoln’s walk-in centre will close in a few weeks, despite there being inconsistent and insufficient service provision in place to mitigate the closure. Will the Minister pass on to the Prime Minister my request for her to meet me both to discuss and review that closure?

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Lady would like to provide a bit more detail than she has had the time to set out today, I will ensure that a Minister sees her about this.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Next Wednesday we will be assessing and voting on the local government finance settlement. A group of us from the shire counties are very concerned that there is not enough money for rural counties like ours, where adult social care costs are spiralling out of control. My own county is facing a black hole of £10 million because of adult social care costs. What message should I take back to the leader of my council?

[Mr Lidington]

One message is that the Government have made an extra £2 billion of funding available to local authorities for social care. Obviously, local authorities are currently deciding whether to use the more flexible precepting powers they have in respect of social care. My hon. Friend met my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary a few days ago, and I would encourage him to continue talking to the Communities Secretary and other Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the particular circumstances in Shropshire.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The current edition of The Economist carries an article that says the hostile takeover bid for GKN by Melrose

“casts doubt not only on the survival of GKN, Britain’s third-largest independent aerospace and defence firm, but on much of the rest of the industry, too.”

The right hon. Gentleman knows that, where national security issues are involved, Ministers have the power to intervene to protect the public interest. Will they do so in this case?

[Mr Lidington]

As I understand it, the bid for GKN is being examined by the relevant independent authorities. Clearly this is also something that the appropriate Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be monitoring very closely. For now, it would be wrong of me to speculate about this case in more detail.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

My constituency of Chelmsford is a very popular place to live, and this week we have had the very good news that more first-time buyers are getting on the housing ladder than at any time in the past decade. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the Government’s progress on helping people to buy a house?

[Mr Lidington]

I am pleased to be able to say that the number of first-time buyers is now at the highest level for about 10 years, which is a tribute to the various initiatives that both the Communities Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have put in place to encourage first-time buyers—the cut in stamp duty, for example, will benefit about 95% of first-time buyers—but we also need to improve housing supply. Constituencies like hers and mine are showing the way to much of the rest of the country on the need to build houses to meet the legitimate demands and expectations of young people who are working incredibly hard and want to get a foot on the housing ladder.

Petition

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Point of Order

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

12:45

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in the National Assembly for Wales, when my constituency colleague Adam Price asked for a vote on the Labour Welsh Government’s plans to potentially close hospitals in Carmarthenshire, the First Minister misled the Assembly and Assembly Members, and in doing so provided details of correspondence between the local health board and my constituency office. He claimed that our office has made no effort to engage with the health board over this issue.

I first became aware of the proposed closure plans on 18 January this year, following a panic email from Mr Steve Moore, chief executive of the Hywel Dda University Health Board, in which he explained that the closure plans had been leaked and were due to appear in the local press imminently. Our office replied on 19 January, asking for an urgent meeting. Although I do not expect you to comment on health policy in Wales, Mr Speaker, or indeed the manner in which the Labour Government of my country harvest information from public bodies in order to smear opponents, I would be grateful if you could say what advice you would give MPs who may find their data protection rights breached by a public body and how I could put on the record a correction of the comments by the First Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise this point of order. It is not my role, I am very pleased to say, to pass judgment on matters before the National Assembly for Wales. That said—the hon. Gentleman in in pursuit of advice—if he believes that there has been a breach of data protection requirements, he should most certainly raise the matter with the Information Commissioner. We will leave that matter there for now.

Freedom of Information (Amendment)

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:47

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons contracted to provide services for them or on their behalf; to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and for connected purposes.

Nearly 20 years on from the revolution of the Freedom of Information Act, this Bill would extend its parameters into the unaccountable outsourced state. It would also enhance the existing powers available to private citizens, investigative journalists and concerned communities so that they are not forced to wade through a swamp of bureaucracy before getting answers about the decisions that are made in their name.

I would first like to pay tribute to the many other Members who have campaigned on this issue for many years, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has a very similar Bill in this Session and has focused particularly on housing associations, which I will come to shortly. Those in power have had a long and difficult relationship with freedom of information, and, like much that challenges government, it has met resistance every step of the way. The Thatcher Government were so concerned in the 1980s that they warned that FOI would reduce the sovereignty of Parliament itself.

In that context, it was remarkable that the last Labour Government, who had been out of power for 18 years, committed themselves to shining a light on the shadows cast by decisions made behind closed doors. Tony Blair said at the time that the Act

“is fundamental to changing the way we do politics in this country…there is still far too much an addiction to secrecy and wish to conduct Government business behind closed doors”.

Tony Blair, of course, came to regret the revolution that followed, but it was nothing short of revolutionary. Literally thousands of cases, on every topic imaginable, saw information drawn into the public domain—expenses, bonuses, stop-and-search figures and child sexual exploitation were all exposed and brought to light because of this Act. That was a Labour achievement and it is one we should be proud of.

That is why the last two Labour manifestos pledged to extend FOI to private contractors performing public services. We propose extending this Act because we recognise the climate in which FOI operates has changed, as the Government’s addiction to outsourcing has exploded.

The collapse of Carillion is just one recent example of an ever-growing shadow state in which some of the Government’s more dubious policy priorities are outsourced for private profit, leaving citizens in the dark about what is happening in their name. Under the coalition, outsourcing almost doubled to £120 billion. Never before has shareholder interest over the public interest had such a large stake in the functioning of our state. Transparency and accountability have diminished in consequence, and the limited scope of the Freedom of Information Act allows too many of those who are performing public functions with public money none the less to hide behind a cloak of secrecy.

Bad decisions, targets missed, warnings ignored—the result time and again is similar to the scandal exposed in the past fortnight, which should have been predictable. Carillion was not an isolated example of incompetence and indifference from one individual contractor; it was a symptom of a much broader problem—private contractors providing public services that should never be driven by profit. In the welfare system, we see contracts structured by Government farmed out to the private sector, and the consequences only truly exposed when things fall apart.

We saw that in the last Parliament, when we were pursuing Concentrix, the firm contracted to identify fraud in the tax credit system. That multinational corporation was ruthlessly pursuing single parents and families, on the instruction of the Treasury, and treating them as guilty until proven innocent. It accused them of living with people they had never met, or told them they were to have their tax credits arbitrarily cut because they did not respond to a letter they had never received. One single mum, who worked two jobs for little pay, said to me, “I feel as if I am being treated as a criminal.”

The scandal was not just the treatment of these parents, or the pursuit of profit at their expense. The scandal was the Government’s absolute failure to manage the contract effectively, and then the denial of information to Members of this House who were demanding to know what went wrong. A similar case is that of Cygnet, a private provider of mental health services. Its hospital in my constituency was judged unsafe owing to some very severe shortcomings, but even something as basic as the action plan agreed by the regulator, the NHS and the provider has been withheld from public scrutiny as it is deemed to be the property of the private provider.

It should not take public exposure for decent people to be treated with dignity, or for information to be put into the public domain as a matter of course. The current situation is allowing private contractors to withhold information that is very clearly in the public interest. Maurice Frankel and Katherine Gundersen, from the fantastic Campaign for Freedom of Information, have pulled together examples of the type of request private contractors have refused. They include: the number of prison staff at HMP Birmingham and the number of attacks at the prison—information currently held only by G4S—whistleblowing policies applying to Virgin Care staff providing NHS services, and the number of employees providing outsourced services for a local council employed on zero-hours contracts.

Extending the Act into areas that used to be overseen by the state and were therefore subject to FOI is not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. When institutions or private providers are permitted to withhold information, bad decisions are made and mistrust builds among communities. The Grenfell Tower fire has highlighted the desperate need for public access to information held by the providers of social housing. Housing associations, which own or run many former council estates, are completely outside the scope of the Act, and residents are denied information that they have a right to know. In one instance, a housing association refused to reveal information to residents about the cause of a fire in one of their flats, and whether potentially toxic lead pipes were used for the water supply to a property. Making contractors accountable to the public they serve for the decisions they make will lead to better, safer, clearer decisions.

The original Act still gives too much power to authorities to delay and obstruct an individual’s right to information. In 2015, the Government commissioned an independent review of FOI, which made several recommendations to improve the functioning of the Act. This Bill takes up those recommendations. It includes strictures on the delaying tactics available to authorities and a statutory time limit for internal reviews, and provides that an offence under the Act should be triable either way rather than being summary only. There has never been a prosecution under section 77 of the FOI Act, in large part because there is a six-month deadline for bringing prosecutions, which is long gone by the time the public authority has made a decision and the commissioner has received and investigated a complaint. Extending the offence to be triable either way gives authorities a chance to bring prosecutions and ensure that the Act is enforced.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant—advice from their former leader that the Government may wish to remember. Ultimately, few could disagree with the need for parity for public and private providers when they are delivering public services. Whether it is Concentrix, Carillion or Cygnet, why would we hold private providers to a lower standard of transparency and accountability than their public competitors? If sunlight really is the best disinfectant, here today is the chance to clean up the murky world of our outsourced state, to drive up standards, to improve trust and to ensure that it is always citizens, not shareholders, who are the ultimate authority for our public services.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Louise Haigh, Tommy Sheppard, Andy Slaughter, Paula Sherriff, Jo Stevens, Ian C. Lucas, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, Nic Dakin, Alex Sobel, Diana Johnson, Anna Turley and Clive Efford present the Bill.

Louise Haigh accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 15 June 2018, and to be printed (Bill 159).

Business of the House (Opposition Day)

Ordered,

That at today’s sitting, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn as if the day were an Opposition Day; and proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Opposition Day

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Un-allotted Half Day

Government’s EU Exit Analysis

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

12:57

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the EU exit analysis which was referred to in his response to an Urgent Question in the House on 30 January by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union be provided to the Exiting the European Union Committee and made available to all Members on a confidential basis as a matter of urgency.

The saga of the Brexit impact assessment rolls on. This all started back in December 2016, when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union first told the Brexit Committee that the Government were working on “sectoral impact analysis” in 57 areas—later, one was added to make it 58. In October last year, he got rather carried away with the idea and elaborated, saying that the analyses were “excruciating detail”, throwing in for good measure that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet had read the summaries. When various right hon. and hon. Members sought disclosure of the impact assessments, they were met with a flat refusal.

Things moved on. In November last year, we presented and won a Humble Address requiring the Government to disclose the impact assessments arising from the Government’s analysis—an important statement of principle. So far, so good. Some documents were made available, and I was one of those who went to the Treasury to see them. I was escorted to a room, where I had to pass over my phone and sign a document on confidentiality. I sat down, and two files were solemnly brought to me; I was allowed to read them and take some notes. We now know that those documents contained a description of the sector that could have been found in any House of Lords or Select Committee report, a summary of the EU law and policy—surprising that I had to give up my phone to read that—and then a very generalised view from the sector. I went through the footnotes to that third section and struggled to find one that did not relate to open-source material. Press releases and evidence given to Select Committees were there, all of which I solemnly noted before I handed the files back, got my phone back and left the premises. Those documents are now available online, minus the sector analysis and therefore the open-source material.

In September, when questioned by the Exiting the European Union Committee about the rest of the documents, the Secretary of State said that the Department had not done any impact assessments on any sector of the British economy. He made the point that the use of the word “impact” did not mean that an impact assessment had been done within the formal definition used by the civil service. As a former defence lawyer, I was struck by that defence. It was technically right that someone cannot be censured for contempt for failing to hand over impact assessments because they have not done any, but I was never sure which was worse: relying on that technical defence, or not doing the impact assessments in the first place.

Roll on one month, and in the past two days it was leaked that an assessment called the “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” does in fact exist. It is reported that that document looks at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on current EU arrangements with the range of predictions. Consistent with the principle established back in November 2017, the Opposition yesterday called on the Government to release that analysis. In true groundhog fashion, the Government said no, as they did last year.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a distinguished career in law before he came to this place. Does he condemn the leak of a Government document? To what extent are any Government documents to be regarded as confidential? Will he condemn the leak?

[Keir Starmer]

Before I was in this place, I held the post of Director of Public Prosecutions. We took leaks from our department or any other civil service department very seriously. I can only assume that an inquiry is in place in relation to this leak, and in the circumstances we should say nothing more about it.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I have repeatedly raised concerns that the north-east and other regions will be hard hit by the very obvious risks of Brexit. It seems from the leak that the Government share that view. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my view that it is completely unacceptable that the Government think it is okay to keep businesses and people in regions such as mine in the dark?

[Keir Starmer]

My hon. Friend demonstrates that hon. Members have been trying on behalf of their constituencies and regions to get a proper analysis of the impact of Brexit on the individuals, businesses and communities they represent. That is why it is so important to have that information. It will mean that we can have an informed debate and hold the Government properly to account.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman described his experience of dealing with leaks. Does he accept that we have a curious cult of secrecy across Government today and have had for some years? A leak is a serious matter and I deplore leaks when documents are revealed whose contents compromise the national interest or are loaded with party political or other significance, but it is impossible to see how an objective analysis of the economic consequences of the various options that the Government are considering compromises the national interest. A properly open Government should make such information freely available to all those who have a legitimate interest in the subject, including MPs.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. It is significant that the original documents that were requested last year were initially refused on freedom of information grounds, only then to be made available in the form I described, and then to be put in the public domain in any event, which demonstrates the point that many Governments—this Government are doing the same—put their arms around information that ought to be in the public domain to inform the debate. It is the wrong way of doing business.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way one more time and then make progress.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

If the Government are eventually forced to release the impact assessments, as I suspect they will be—I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman suspects the same—and if they confirm that any deal the Government strike will be worse than the one we have with the European Union, will he and the leader of the Labour party change their position and campaign much more vigorously to keep us in the European Union?

[Keir Starmer]

We will look at information when it is put into the public domain. We have been looking at analysis and data for months, and have been visiting businesses and communities for months, to inform our position.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I have taken a number of interventions and will make progress. I will allow interventions later, otherwise I will not get very far.

Yesterday, standing at the Dispatch Box, I asked the Government to release the documents referred to in the leak. As I have said, the Government said no. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is in his place, advanced three defences for that position, none of which withstand scrutiny. His first defence—that the analysis is rubbish—was astonishing. He was asked whether he could name a single civil service forecast that was accurate. He glibly replied: “They are always wrong”. He may have forgotten that he is now part of the Government, and yesterday transposed himself back to being spokesperson for Vote Leave. Ministers and the Government commissioned those papers, and it is frankly ridiculous to attempt to rubbish them as an excuse for not publishing them.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will complete this point and then give way.

There is a serious point. Is it seriously Government policy that impact assessments are so inherently unreliable that it is better to proceed without them? That is the logic of the position described yesterday. Is it not better to adopt the approach tweeted last night by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who said:

“The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence. We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too”?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

Before I give way, I will make one further point about the line of defence of rubbishing the analysis. It is deeply discourteous and disrespectful to the civil servants who have worked on those papers and are presumably continuing to work on them, often in difficult circumstances. In my experience, having been a civil servant, and having had civil servants as staff, they do a very good job whether or not they agree with the instructions given to them. To glibly answer that they are always wrong was deeply disrespectful to them. I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who will speak for the Government today, will take the opportunity formally to apologise to the civil servants who prepared those papers in good faith, and assure them of the support we all have for the work they are trying to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and then to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes the good point that, yesterday, we saw a pretty grim approach to economic forecasting, which was full of jokes and did not address the seriousness of the situation. Does he agree that an opportunity presents itself? The Conservative Government created the Office for Budget Responsibility—independent forecasters who could do the job of providing the public with the facts if only the Government would tell them what their policy is.

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree, and that is a very important point. Essentially, the OBR is saying that it cannot do its job because it does not have the information to do it. That is why it is far better to proceed on the basis of assessments of risk and impact, and to allow the OBR to do its job.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

rose—

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in one minute, but may I just finish this point?

Having been a civil servant for five years and having engaged in risk assessments, I can say that the purpose of the exercise is to identify the risk, the size of the risk, and the likelihood of the risk. The fourth column, which is always the really important one, is what the Government will do to mitigate the risk. That is why these risk assessments are so important.

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I agree with him on the important work of the civil service. Many real stakeholders, including the digital industry, the banking industry and the legal services industry, have come to me this week to say what a good job our civil service is doing in preparing for the Brexit negotiations. My understanding of this paper is that it suggests that the no-deal scenario is not very attractive and that cutting and pasting the Canada or the Norway deal is also not very attractive, but that is not what the Government are proposing. Does he not agree that it would be better if our Ministers got out of this House and on with their work to deliver a better deal?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Lady will remember that one question I asked of the Minister yesterday was whether the model that the Government are pursuing has also been subjected to an impact assessment. I did not actually get any of the questions that I asked—about six—answered or even addressed by the Minister yesterday. I hope that some of them might be addressed later on today.

[Anna Soubry]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Can he help us with this: has he established the status of these documents? From what I gather, these were not some loosely put together drafts of a document. Has he been able to establish whether these are the documents that were to be made available to members of the Cabinet—next week, I think, if not this week—under lock and key and subject to them not making notes? This is really important. Are these documents the ones that were deemed to be of such importance that the Cabinet should see them?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will answer it, and make a second point as I do so. This is a really important point. The second line of defence that was deployed yesterday for not releasing these documents was that they are not complete, they are at an early stage, and they are just evolving. As I recall it, that was exactly what was said about the first set of documents that we were trying to have released last year. We have heard that one before. I have not yet ascertained the status of the documents, but, as I understand it, they were being shown to key Ministers ahead of an important Cabinet Brexit Sub-Committee meeting next week. No doubt, the Minister will be able to confirm that. If those documents are in such a form that they can be shown to Ministers to brief them for an important meeting next week, they are certainly way past the stage of an early script that has not been approved.

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I promised that I would give way, and I will.

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that, this morning at Welsh questions, the Wales Office Minister, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), said “We have many assessments as we go through this process”, so it is not just the one, but many? Will it not be essential that the Government release those assessments when they become available as we go through the process?

[Keir Starmer]

I think that it is, because, otherwise, all that is available are the increasingly stale assessments that were put—eventually—into the public domain last December.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on. [Interruption.] I will give way once, twice and then a third time to a Member on the Government Benches, just to be fair.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) makes an important point on where the devolved Administrations have already done their work on the assessments. Therefore, is it what the Minister said yesterday at the Dispatch Box that the Government will not assist them with that work, because many of these areas are partly devolved and partly retained?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it is consistent with the point that was made earlier about the regions. Each of the regions and nations needs to understand the risk that it faces, so that it can then, if necessary, put the various mitigations in place. We need to press on these issues, so that is vital.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Government had at their disposal any economic evidence or forecast that backed up their chosen approach, it would already be in the public domain; it would not be called a leak?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree that it would be highly likely that such material would be put into the public domain.

I come back to this serious point: the choice now to be made is how we leave the EU and what the future relationship might be. That is a profoundly important question. There are many different choices, and we absolutely need—and there should be—a robust impact assessment that we can all see and all discuss.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way once more, and then I will get on to the third point.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Is it his party’s policy to remain in the European Union’s customs union—yes or no?

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, I rather thought that the point of interventions was to engage in the debate that was going on, rather than to make a completely different point. Our position on the customs union has been made clear very, very many times, and I do not see that that is an intervention on the point that I am making, so I will press on.

The third line of defence that was advanced by the Minister, who now seeks instructions from the civil servants he disparaged yesterday, was that any disclosure might harm or undermine the negotiations. Again, we have heard that one before. We have always accepted that anything that genuinely undermines the negotiations should not be put into the public domain, but there is a difference between that and something that is simply embarrassing to the Government, a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) yesterday afternoon. This motion provides for confidentiality. That defence was immediately undermined by the Minister himself yesterday. When there is a leak, Governments usually say that they will not comment on the leak, and that they do not rely on the information in the leak, because if it is not to be in the public domain, nobody should rely on it. But the Minister not only commented on it, but sought to rely on the leak to advance his own case. When challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about the customs union, he prayed in aid the figures, saying that

“there is economic growth under all the scenarios in the economic assessment.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 683.]

One cannot simply say, “I will rely on the figures to advance my own case, but I won’t publish the full figures so that anyone can question me properly on what I am saying.” We now need to go back to first principles.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on, but I will give way again in a minute.

As I have said, only question was asked on 23 June 2016, which was whether we should leave the EU—not how and not what the future relationship should be. These are incredibly important questions. We need an informed debate, including on the likely economic impact of different approaches. Publication is needed in the name of transparency; publication is needed in the name of scrutiny. There has been an indication that the Government will accept this motion, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. When he does so, may I caution him, because his fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe, yesterday found himself saying, at the beginning of his answer that

“this economic analysis is not what is formally known as an impact assessment.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 680.]

Let us not go there again—where a motion is accepted only for later there to be a quibble as to whether the precise wording was sufficient to release the documents. If the motion is being accepted, it needs to be accepted in spirit, in form and in full. Secondly, let there be no confusion about editing or redacting. That is not provided for in this motion, just as it was not provided for last time.

Finally I ask the Minister, if the motion is to be accepted, when do the Government intend to release the documents? I remind the Minister that when this question arose at the end of our first Humble Address, Mr Speaker was asked what he considered to be a reasonable timeframe for the Government to respond. On that occasion, Mr Speaker said:

“One can take a view about this, one can consult “Erskine May” and one should reflect in a sober and considered fashion, but if the hon. Lady is asking me whether I envisage this being something that needs to be deliberated on over a period of several days, the answer is no.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 932.]

The Opposition anticipate and expect the same sort of timeframe to be kept to in this case.

11:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

The Government will not be opposing this motion. As the motion is therefore expected to pass, I will focus my remarks on three important points: first, how we plan to comply with the terms of the motion; secondly, an explanation of exactly what the analysis to which the motion refers is and the significant caveats to the status of the analysis, so that all Members fully understand the preliminary nature of the analysis and the challenges around this type of modelling more broadly; and, thirdly, the fact that there are parts of the analysis that remain negotiation-sensitive and should not be put into the public domain. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who speaks for the Opposition, has recognised the latter point in his motion, which refers to confidentiality. A key part of this is about the importance for Government of being able to conduct internal thinking when it comes to preparing policy.

Let me start with the terms of the motion. We will provide the analysis to the Exiting the European Union Committee and to all Members on a strictly confidential basis. This means that we will provide a hard copy of the analysis to the Chair of the Committee. A confidential reading room will be available to all Members and peers to see a copy of the analysis, once those arrangements can be made. This will be under the same terms as previous arrangements in similar circumstances, under this and previous Governments.

[Hywel Williams]

We have heard many requests and demands for this information to be published here today and in the press. Has the Minister had any similar requests from the devolved Government in Cardiff for Welsh-specific information from these assessments?

[Mr Walker]

I personally have not yet seen such requests. We do intend to make this information available to the devolved Administrations, as we did with the previous reports that we made available to this House. It is then a matter for the devolved Administrations to ensure that such documents are handled with appropriate confidentiality; we have no objection in principle to their being shared with Members of the devolved legislatures on the same basis of confidentiality.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

As the Minister is a former economist, can he persuade me that it will be worth my while to visit this reading room, given that every economic forecast that I have ever seen has been wildly inaccurate?

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would like to turn to the analysis itself, so he pre-empts some of the caveats that are important to mention.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Walker]

I will give way in one moment.

The document is preliminary, unfinished and has only very recently been presented to Ministers in any form at all. It contains a large number of caveats, and sets out on every single page that this is

“draft analytical thinking with preliminary results”.

The analysis has not been led by my Department or, for that matter, by any single Department. This next stage of analysis has been a cross-Whitehall effort to support our negotiating priorities. It is not yet anywhere near being approved by Ministers, and it has only been brought together in a draft paper for them to review this month. Even the ministerial team in my Department have only just been consulted on this particular paper in recent days, and have made it clear that it requires significant further work. It does not yet reflect this Government’s policy approaches and does not represent an accurate reflection of the expected outcome of the negotiations.

It would not be right to describe the figures as Government numbers, as they have not had formal Government approval or sign-off as most analysis or policy would. The primary purpose of analysis at this stage was a preliminary attempt to improve on the much criticised analysis published around the time of the EU referendum. It is there to test ideas and to design a viable framework for the analysis of our exit from the European Union.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Since the Conservative party governs with the support of the 10 Democratic Unionist party Members—of whom I am not one—I am very curious to know whether any Member of the DUP will have advance notice of this economic analysis ahead of the Select Committee or, indeed, in addition to the Select Committee.

[Mr Walker]

The simple answer is no. We would make this information available to the whole House on the same basis, while responding to the points on confidentiality that are covered in the Opposition motion.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

If the hon. Lady will give me one moment, I will give way. I just want to complete my point about the caveats to the analysis.

At this very early stage, the analysis only considers the off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist, and we have been clear these are not what we are seeking in the negotiations. It does not consider our desired outcome, which is the most ambitious relationship possible with the European Union, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech—such an agreement is in the interests of both the UK and the EU—and, to be crystal clear, it does not consider a comprehensive free trade agreement scenario as some reports have suggested, but simply an average FTA. We believe that we can do much better, given our unique starting point and shared history. Therefore, the scenarios in this analysis continue to suffer from the flaws that we have seen in previous analyses of this type.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady after I have given way to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).

Yesterday, a number of Members of this House spoke eloquently about the challenges of modelling uncertain outcomes over an extended period. The analysis presented by many organisations prior to the referendum is a clear example of those challenges. To date, we have seen outcomes that are quite different from some of those that were set out.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I find this conspiracy theory so absurd. The Treasury published very clear and totally wrong short-term forecasts for the referendum debate, and it published very clear and, I think, equally wrong long-term forecasts before the referendum debate, so that the whole nation could engage with these wrong forecasts. The latest lot of leaks looks very much like the wrong long-term forecasts that the Treasury previously published. I look forward to the Minister getting some more common sense into the thing, because there is absolutely no reason at all to suppose that leaving the EU will cause any hit to the long-term growth rate of the UK.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend makes his point well. I think that the point on which we would all agree is that there have to be caveats to any form of modelling. As Members will see when they look at the analysis, it sets out the caveats very clearly.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am so grateful to the Minister for being very patient and giving way to me, but I must press him on this point. It is curious to think that the Government are at this moment planning their negotiating strategy without having considered adequate impact assessments. I went to the so-called reading room in December. It was laughable that I had to sign a piece of paper, a copy of which I was not allowed to remove, in order to promise that I would not reveal what was in the documents. If there is going to be another reading room, I will do exactly what I did last time and reveal what is not in them, which is quite a lot. When will the Government work out that they need these impact assessments to have a decent negotiating strategy?

[Mr Walker]

As we have said many times, the Government are informed by a wide range of analyses, but I am responding to the motion from the hon. Lady’s Front Benchers that respects the importance of confidentiality in this case.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in a little while. I just want to finish my point about the nature of the analysis and the caveats that are contained in the document, as Members will see when they view it. Economies of all sorts face an uncertain future in the face of new technologies and the next phase of globalisation, which presents both challenges and opportunities.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

Not right now.

Of course, there is a specific role for this sort of modelling, but it must be deployed carefully and appropriately alongside a full range of policy work in our EU exit plans. On its own, no model or analysis will be sufficient to provide us with the full picture of the various benefits and costs of different versions of Britain’s future relationship with the EU. Such models cannot predict the future. It is the Government’s job to use these sorts of models appropriately and to develop them as best they can. Despite this—and, in many cases, because of it—the analysis remains extremely sensitive.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Surely the million dollar question is this: if the Government have not yet assessed the model agreement that they want, when are they going to tell the British people what it is that they want, cost it and publish the results?

[Mr Walker]

The Prime Minister has set out a very clear strategy for developing an FTA between the UK and the EU that goes much further than previous models. As I am explaining, the analysis under discussion looks at the existing models and compares some of them, which is not the same as what the hon. and learned Lady sets out.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for announcing that the common-sense decision has been made overnight to stop trying to withhold these documents. I accept what he says about the caveats attached to all forecasts, although the idea that they are all rubbish is a new and sensational claim made by some of his colleagues.

Just to be clear about the status, is it not the case that the perfectly responsible Government Departments that produced these papers have reached the stage of briefing and informing Cabinet Ministers as they go to the next stage of discussions to try to create a policy for where we are going in the negotiations with the European Union? That status is the same as that for forecasts put to a Chancellor before making a Budget. Does my hon. Friend therefore accept that, although his words about caveats in economic forecasts are wise, we should not be tempted to drift into the rubbishing of the whole thing, which his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), rather unwisely embarked on yesterday?

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. and learned Friend knows a lot from his own experience as Chancellor about the confidential information presented to Ministers ahead of Budgets, but that process has to go through a number of stages. As I have said, this information, which is preliminary and not yet finished, was presented to Ministers for the first time in recent days. It is, therefore, not in a form that is approved to go forward in the way he describes.

Despite, and in many cases because of, the points I have made, the analysis remains sensitive. Let me stress that the only reason we do not oppose the Opposition motion is that it makes clear that the analysis is to be shared with the Select Committee and Members on a confidential basis. We are about to embark on exploratory talks with the European Union regarding our future relationship and will be in formal negotiations over the coming months. Having an incomplete analysis such as this in the public domain would not serve the national interest in the upcoming negotiations. I cannot imagine that any reasonable Member of this House genuinely believes that it is in the national interest for the Government to have to publish at the start of the negotiation unfinished, developing analysis of scenarios that we are clear we do not want.

There is, however, another equally important reason why this analysis should not be put in the public domain, and it is simple: the functioning of Government—by which I mean any Government—about which my right hon. and learned Friend knows a great deal. I ask hon. Members who have been Ministers, who aspire to be Ministers or who have ever held a position of responsibility how they would feel about having to publish their team’s work in progress partway through a project. I am sure they would agree that publishing unfinished initial findings can be extremely misleading, and I am confident that they would join me in ensuring that that does not happen on a routine basis.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

There is another reason why this set of analyses is peculiar and quite different. I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he is wrong on this count. This is not like advice to a Chancellor. This analysis, as I understand it, comes out of the back of the reality that all the previous forecasts, heavily reliant as they were on a gravity model of economics, have proved so wildly wrong that a variety of ways are being looked at to try to rectify that. There is, therefore, an experimental nature even to the economics, not just to the straight analysis, and that is why it does not have a massive bearing on the Government’s negotiating strategy at this point—because they themselves are questioning whether it is feasible to make a serious analysis or forecast that may be even slightly correct.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I will leave it to Members to consider it when they see the actual information under discussion.

Throughout this process I have been impressed—and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has been clear repeatedly that he has been very impressed—by officials across Departments and the way in which they are rising to the challenge of delivery of our exit from the European Union. To do that, however, we need to have the space to undertake internal work and to challenge preconceptions.

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for saying that the information will be made available to all Members in a confidential room. I remember making that suggestion when speaking about the sector-by-sector reports, which I have been to see and some of which are extremely useful. How many Members of this House have actually been to see them? I believe that the figure is probably fewer than one in 10, and I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members are having a huge fight but not bothering to follow up on the real details that matter to real jobs in this country.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes her point very well. I do not have the answer to her question, but we can certainly look into it and perhaps write to her in response.

[Keir Starmer]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I want to complete my remarks and give other hon. Members a chance to speak, but of course I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Keir Starmer]

I assure the House that I and many of my colleagues have been to see the documents and discussed what I thought was not in them.

[Mr Walker]

Returning to the hard work of our officials, if every time any element of their work leaked we were forced to present unfinished work for the scrutiny of Parliament, the public and the press, there would be a very real chance that the quality of that work would suffer. It is simply not conducive to an open, honest and iterative process of policy making in government. That is as true for all the Government’s work as it is for EU exit. I do not believe that a single Member of this House believes that that would be in the national interest, so I urge the Select Committee, whose Chairman is here, to provide some assurances, in good faith, that, for those reasons and reflecting on the words of the motion, which recognise the confidential nature of the document, this preliminary analysis will not be made public.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have to say that, of all the Ministers, I think he does an outstanding job in exceptionally difficult circumstances. I thank him for the work he does. However, with bucket loads of respect, the Government cannot have it both ways. Either these are rather meaningless analysis documents that have not been done on any proper modelling and cannot be relied on and all the rest of it—in which case, publish the wretched things, because they are not of any value to right hon. and hon. Members—or they are indeed of great value and must be kept secret and highly confidential. Which one is it, because at the moment we do not know?

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as always, for her kind praise, but I think I have already answered the challenge she sets as to the reasons why some of the information in the report should be kept confidential. That is something on which the two Front-Bench teams clearly agree, because it is in the Opposition motion. I also just want to emphasise that the misrepresentation in some of the press reporting of this leak makes this an exceptional request that the Government agree to on an exceptional basis. They do not accept a precedent for future action.

Finally, it is also for those reasons that I believe that forcing the release of partial and preliminary analysis risks undermining the functioning of Government at a vital moment.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

Not now. The public have voted through a referendum to leave the European Union. We must deliver on that result, in the national interest. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras that we should work together to ensure that, and that must include scrutiny.

Only yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe committed to ensuring that Parliament has the appropriate analysis on the terms of our exit from the European Union ahead of the vote on the final deal we agree with the European Union. That is entirely right and we will deliver on it. However, delivering on the referendum result, in the national interest, does mean being able to have a stable and secure policy-making process inside Government. It means Government taking seriously their obligation to preserve the security of our analysis and the work underpinning our negotiations, and receiving that analysis means Parliament sharing in that responsibility and obligation. As all Members of this House come together to deliver for the people the best possible outcome of the referendum result, it is with that sentiment that we will comply with the motion.

11:54

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate and I commend the main Opposition party for securing it.

I am wondering why we are here because, yesterday, the Minister’s colleague beside him on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), spent over an hour valiantly, loyally and completely unsuccessfully trying to persuade the House that the sky would fall down if this information were shared with anybody. Now we are being told that it can be shared at the very least with 650 people.

Incidentally, part of the reason why relatively few MPs—certainly those in the Scottish National party—went along to the “Kremlin” reading room to look at the sectoral analysis is that, having seen part of the papers, I told a lot of my colleagues not to bother. It simply was not worth their time to go through the security checks to read stuff that they could get by looking online.

Again, we are seeing a symptom of the fact that, despite all the assurances we get that Brexit will restore “sovereignty” to Parliament, this is really about trying to restore the alleged sovereignty of a minority Government over the will of Parliament. Parliament is supposed to tell Government what to do, but every time it looks as if Parliament is going to tell the Government to do something they do not want to do, it causes absolute panic on the Government Front Bench. It also causes a headache for civil servants, as one of their main responsibilities is supposed to be to prevent Ministers from doing anything that causes political embarrassment to the Government—good luck to them. If they can achieve that, they must be quite remarkable people.

[Stephen Kerr]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a very simple question? Does he condone or condemn the leaking of Government papers? It is an important question.

[Peter Grant]

At this point, the answer is no: I neither condone nor condemn because I do not know what the circumstances were.

I walked away from a potentially successful career in NHS financial management. I wrestled for six months with my own conscience, seeing things that I knew had to be brought to public attention but knowing there was no way I could do that, and knowing that the public were being deliberately misled about what was going on in the health board that I worked in. The only way I could bring it to public attention was to resign and walk away from the job. So I will never, ever condemn anyone who believes they are acting in the public interest by doing something that they are not supposed to do.

I would be very surprised if there is a single Member in the Chamber today who is not at this very moment considering an important constituency case that has been brought to them by someone who technically was breaking the rules by raising it with a Member of Parliament. There are times when the public interest has to outweigh all other considerations, and until I have seen the full circumstances of why this information was disclosed, I am not going to condone or condemn, and I do not think anyone else should prejudice the case by commenting on it now.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a distinction between a leak and whistleblowing? Whistleblowing is in the public interest. The provisional evaluation of the economic impacts, be it incomplete or imperfect, and given that good is not the enemy of perfect, should be in the public arena. This is a whistle blow, not a leak.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful for that intervention. We have to be careful about language. There is whistleblowing as defined in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and it is not clear whether this incident would comply with that.

As a council leader, I sometimes found myself having to respond to information that technically should not have been disclosed. I always took the view that, if the motivation was clearly public interest, we should seek to protect those who did that, even if they had not technically done it in the correct way. The question today should not be about the motivation or principles of whoever disclosed this information into the public domain. The question should be first about what the information tells us, and secondly about what the Government’s determination to hide this information from the people tells us about the Government’s handling of Brexit.

I hope that, when the Under-Secretary of State responds, he will do what the Minister did not do earlier, and tell us when the Government started to prepare this analysis. Is this the homework that the Secretary of State had to confess to a Select Committee he had not done yet when the House asked for it? It looks suspiciously like this is not only the Secretary of State’s late homework but that he copied it off his new pal Big Mike in the high school up the road in Scotland. The similarities between the Scottish Government’s analysis that the Government rubbished two weeks ago and the Government’s own analysis are so striking that it would be a remarkable coincidence if the people who prepared those analyses had not been copying from each other.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is clearly important to get this information out into the public domain or in controlled circumstances. Is he as worried as I am that, despite having information out in the public domain that tells us that Brexit, whatever version we go for, is going to cause us huge damage, not only the Government but, it seems, those on the Labour Front Bench are still going to proceed none the less?

[Peter Grant]

Again, this may not be the time for that debate. My position is perfectly clear. We have the results of four national votes and we have to seek to respect those as far as possible. We cannot respect them all because two of us want to leave and two of us want to stay, and the European Union does not allow bits of nation states to stay or go. However, on the Government Front Bench and, to a lesser extent, on the main Opposition Front Bench, there has been a failure to distinguish between leaving the European Union and leaving the single market, the customs union and various other European institutions, which is where the real damage exposed by these analyses lies. It is possible to leave the European Union, to comply with the referendum result, and not to bring down on ourselves, for example, the potential 8% reduction in Scottish GDP as a result. That can only be done if the Government admit that they got it wrong and step back from the red line on single market and customs union membership. There was no referendum about the single market or the customs union. At the moment, we only have unilateral political dogma from the Government, telling us that we have to leave.

The real reason why these analyses were never done and they were kept secret for as long as possible after they had been done is that they show that, in deciding to take us out of the customs union and the single market, the Government got it badly wrong. All we need is for the Government to admit they got it wrong and this whole debate then becomes an irrelevance.

The Government’s behaviour demonstrates again the fallacy of the argument that Parliament holds the Government to account. In effect, we do not have an electoral system that is designed to produce a proper Parliament. We have an electoral system for this place that is designed to produce one winner and one loser, and it does not like it if there is more than one party on the alleged losing side, because the system cannot cope with having more than one big Opposition party. It does not like it if it is unclear who the overall winner is. This place is always in turmoil if a coalition has to be formed and there is a minority Government. The whole procedure of Parliament—the way that Bills are produced, the way that time is allocated and so on—is based on the assumption that the Government decide and just every once in a while Parliament tries to tell the Government that they should have decided something different.

In the discussion we had about the first batch of Brexit papers before Christmas—there have been elements of it again today—we heard that it is disloyal to the country and to our constituents for any Member of Parliament to suggest that the Government have got it wrong and should be doing something different. Whether it is in relation to publishing or not publishing the papers, to handing them over in secret to a Committee or not, to the decision to take us out of the customs union in the first place or to any other decision that the Government take and announce without having the full mandate of the people, it must be open to any Member of Parliament to criticise and seek to change it.

When I keep hearing Members—not so much those on my Benches, because we have a clear mandate from our constituents—on either the Government Benches or other Opposition Benches being denounced as traitors and enemies of the people simply for standing up in this place for what they believe in, we have to ask ourselves what is going on with democracy in these four nations. In some ways, that is even more fundamental than our membership of the EU and its related institutions. We have to get a grip.

It was disappointing to hear comments yesterday from Government Back Benchers about London-based elite remoaners. No one on the Government Front Bench picked up on that and said that that kind of language is not acceptable. There should never be any need to question the integrity or motivation of anybody in the Chamber simply because we disagree, however passionately, with what they are saying.

[Vicky Ford]

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the sector-by-sector reports and I think I heard him say that he had told other colleagues not to bother to go and read them. My understanding is that we need a trade deal that works for all sectors of the economy and especially for areas such as food, agriculture and farming. My memory of those sector-by-sector reports is that that is an area that is enormously detailed, so perhaps he will think again about encouraging other Members to go and look at this detailed information.

[Peter Grant]

Part of the Government’s response earlier today to the disclosure of these documents was that the quotation or citation was selective and incomplete. I am afraid that is what we have just heard from the hon. Lady.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Grant]

May I deal with the first intervention first, please?

What I said was that the reason I had told my colleagues that it was not really worth while for them to hand over their phones, make appointments and so on to go and see the documents, was that there was nothing in there that they could not have got quite easily on the internet. Is it really a good use of a Member’s time to go through a security check more severe than at an airport, in order to read in a classified document that Airbus and Boeing make aeroplanes? To read in a classified document that gambling legislation in Northern Ireland is devolved but not elsewhere? These are all things that were in the documents that the Government said they could not disclose. To read in the sectoral report on the electricity industry that lots of people in the United Kingdom rely on electricity for domestic and commercial purposes?

Come on, Madam Deputy Speaker: there may well be information in the latest batch of documents that there is good reason for wanting to keep classified and confidential, but the Government’s attitude is that they tell the people and Parliament as little as they can possibly get away with. We all know that the reason for the change of heart from yesterday to today is nothing to do with the Government’s having decided that, because part of the documents had been published, they might as well give Parliament everything. The Government are not opposing the motion today because they know they would go down badly if they forced it to a Division. They do not have the support of their own Back Benchers; I doubt if they even have the support of their own Front Benchers. Their culture of excessive secrecy no longer has the support of their own people. They are not forcing the matter to a vote today because they know they would not only lose, but lose so badly that it would call into question the continuation of the Government in its entirety.

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I did say I would give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

[Joanna Cherry]

As usual, my hon. Friend is being modest. He is not explaining to the House that he is a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee and has been part of the project to produce detailed reports of sectoral analysis, so he knows, like anyone who has bothered to read the reports—I see the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) is still sitting beside the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr)—that all the information in these top-secret documents is already in the public domain.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware of the time, and I do not want to impinge too much on other people’s—

[Stephen Kerr]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will give way once more, but I hope the intervention is a bit more relevant than the earlier one.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious approach to my intervention. It is just that he is contradicting himself. He says that the Government are not responsive to Parliament—that Parliament is some kind of constitutional eunuch—and in the next breath he says that the reason there will not be a vote today is that the Government cannot control their own side. He cannot have it both ways. This Parliament is very successfully holding the Government to account and is being very thorough in its scrutiny. In defence of the honour of this Parliament, I needed to intervene to say that.

[Peter Grant]

The reason why Conservative Back Benchers will abstain in this debate is that the Government Whips have told them to abstain. The reason why the earlier motion on the main Brexit sectoral analysis was not opposed was that the Government told their Back Benchers not to oppose it. Since then a number of Back Benchers, sitting in this Chamber, have said that they would have been quite happy to lead a move against that Humble Address before Christmas but the Government Whips told them not to. The fact of the matter is that all too often the Government hold Parliament to account, not the other way around.

We shall not fix that today, but if we appreciate that that is the background against which this fiasco has developed, it is easier to understand how it is that, as soon as there is a Government who do not command a substantial majority in the House, there are problems. The British electoral system has a phobia against minority Governments or coalition Governments, despite the fact that in numerous other places—some of them not too far north of here—there are examples of Governments operating very successfully indeed, either in coalition or as a minority Government.

The Minister, as part of his argument to try to discredit his own Government’s analysis, points out that it is based on average free trade agreements, as opposed to the all-singing, all-dancing with bells and whistles free trade agreement that the Government keep telling us they will achieve within the next year or two. What is that assurance based on? What grounds does this Parliament have to believe that the Government have a snowball in hell’s chance of finding anyone to give the United Kingdom on its own a better trade agreement than they are willing to give to the 500 million people of the European Union single market? Have the Government done an analysis to tell them that they are going to get better trade deals? I hope not, because if they have done such an analysis, that analysis is quite clearly rubbish as well.

Given that analyses that come out of Her Majesty’s Treasury are no longer to be trusted, may we now take it as the Government’s official position that we can no longer believe what was said in the 16 analyses that were done by Government Departments in 2013-14, showing what a disaster a yes result in the Scottish referendum would be? And can we just cut to the chase, and save everybody a lot of time, by getting the Government to admit now that the bucketsful of analysis that they are going to produce next time around are also worthless and incomplete and selective, so they can just not bother producing them and save us all a lot of time?

Madam Deputy Speaker, when you get a Government who have to defend their own excessive secrecy by telling the people of these islands that they cannot rely on information that comes out from the Government, whether it was meant to come out or not—when the Government tell us we cannot rely on information that the Government themselves are producing—that is what undermines Britain’s negotiating position with the European Union. It is not the fact that information might be published that the EU could have put together itself quite easily; it is that the Government’s action in attempting to conceal that information and then seeking to discredit it demonstrates to our EU partners what they probably knew—that they are negotiating with a disorganised, disunited, shambolic and incompetent Government. That weakens Britain’s negotiating position more than any release of Brexit analysis papers could ever do.

13:56

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), although obviously I did not agree with much of what he said at the end of his speech.

I am delighted that the Government have had the good sense to agree to the motion. I am concerned about the circumstances in which these documents will now be made available, in some sort of secrecy, despite the fact that they can clearly be read on the internet. Why we are going through that farce, I do not know.

May I gently say to my Government, this madness has to stop. If we were in the middle of the summer, I might say that it was overexposure to a hot sun that seems to have caused a collective outbreak in the Government of a form of madness. Their inability to grasp Brexit and do the right thing, frankly, is now at a point where, as I say, it has got to stop. We have to start to do the right thing; and the right thing is to get this Brexit sorted out, to form a consensus in this place and within the country, and deliver—deliver not just on the referendum result, but on the hopes and aspirations of our people that we will have an economic future out of the European Union that will be safe and secure for generations to come.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment.

The reality of these documents, of course, is that finally it seems that our Government have decided they are actually going to make some choices; they are actually going to form a view in Cabinet. It has only taken 19 months since the referendum to work out what they want from Brexit.

The Prime Minister told us, in her Lancaster House speech, what she did not want, but what nobody in the Government—in the Cabinet—has told us is what this Government do want by way of Brexit. And if I am agitated—and I am—I can assure the Front Bench that whilst I think most of the people of this country are just fed up to the back teeth, the people of this country are also agitated, because they are worried and they are nervous. And being blunt, there are millions and millions of people in this country who do not believe that either of the two political parties in this country represent their views, and indeed will forward their views.

I see it in these terms. I think there is a group of people—the hard Brexiteers—and you are not going to change them. In my party, my Government believe that somehow they can “manage” the 35 hard Brexiteers, who for decades have been banging on about Europe in a way that I think is not, at times, particularly good for their mental health—and they think they can “manage” them. They cannot be managed. Even if they were given what they wanted today, they would complain that it had not been done yesterday. For many of them it is a battle to the death, and they will not hesitate to destroy this party or our Prime Minister to get what they want. They can see the prize and they will be damned if anybody is going to get in their way. The Government need to wake up to that reality. So we have that problem to cope with, and that is the way to deal with it: see it off, build a consensus, and jump into the middle ground and put this country’s interests before anything else. As the CBI said, “Goodbye ideology; wake up to the interests of our country.”

Over on the other side is a group of people who still want to fight the battle of the referendum—they are remainers, they are angry and they cannot and will not accept that we are leaving the European Union—but here in the middle is the majority of people. They are like corks, bobbing around in a sea. They feel queasy and uneasy, and they are worried about their own futures and their children and grandchildren’s futures, yet there is nobody for them—no thing, no vehicle coming along upon which they can jump; a big, warm ship that says to them, “Come on board. You’ve got a great captain at the wheel and we can see the land of our destination over there.” It might be Norway; it could be the European Free Trade Association—actually, I would like it to be the single market and the customs union, but hell, I will compromise. I will take EFTA. Why? Because I want to form a consensus to get the best thing for our country.

That is there, but at the moment there is nothing for people to get into that will save them from what, unless this madness stops, will undoubtedly be a catastrophe. Call it what you will—“walking off a plank” is how I think a noble Lord quite properly described it yesterday. Others have described it as “sleepwalking to a Brexit disaster” or “jumping over the cliff”. Whatever metaphor one wants to use, if this Government—and it can only be this Government—do not get a grip on the situation at the top, we will indeed walk into a Brexit nightmare.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

My right hon. Friend said that the Prime Minister had not set out what she wanted. I contend that she has done precisely that. Of course it is arguable whether she will get it, but as for the boat that my right hon. Friend wants to welcome everybody on to, the Prime Minister has set that out.

[Anna Soubry]

With great respect to my right hon. Friend, that is absolute nonsense, and the good people of this country now require honesty and transparency. Some of us have been over to Brussels. Many people—right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom I can see on the Opposition Benches—have spoken to people at all levels of the 27 nations and to ambassadors from other countries. They have been over to Brussels and spoken to all manner of people, and no, we are not pleased. Don’t patronise; we are not stupid; we know when we are getting a line. We have spoken to disparate people, and every single one of them says, “Wake up, Britain. You’re not going to get a bespoke deal. You’re probably going to get Canada.”

I do not want us to be like Canada. That is not what people in my constituency voted for. They did not vote to be poorer—and they would be poorer, God help us if we got a Canadian deal. People have a right to know what the consequences of the various options are. The problem with the Prime Minister’s position is that she has told us what she does not want—the customs union, the single market and the European Court of Justice—and that has seriously reduced the options available to our country. By drawing those red lines and refusing to move, she puts the EU in a position whereby it is limited in what it can offer us. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that we are deluding people if we continue to peddle this nonsense.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is giving a passionate speech. The one thing that the Prime Minister has said she wants is to keep frictionless trade in Northern Ireland. The problem is that that is utterly irreconcilable with what she said she does not want, which is the single market and customs union. Therein lies the fundamental confusion that is causing so much difficulty in the country right now.

[Anna Soubry]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I nearly called him my Friend, although on this he is, because he is absolutely right. The agreement made in December between the European Union and ourselves is such a fudge that it is impossible to put it into a text that could become a treaty. It is a superb fudge, and it has delivered the political outcome, but the reality, which has been accepted by this Government, is that in order to solve the problem in Ireland we are staying in the—not “a”, but “the”—customs union and single market. That is what the Government basically agreed to do in December.

[Alison McGovern]

The right hon. Lady has hit on the heart of the problem, which is that the Government will not say what they want. However, turning to this issue, does she agree that the reason why the public are in the dark is that we have excellent independent economic forecasters in the Office for Budget Responsibility who say that they simply cannot do their job because we are all in the dark about what the Government actually want? Ought they not to rectify that?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Lady is quite right—she can be my Friend in this debate, because she makes an important point. What responsible Governments do, quite properly, is to say to impartial, objective officials, “Right, these are the options. Cost them out, or assess them, and so on and so forth,” and yet bizarrely the Government did not put forward their own preferred option. What on earth does that say about our Government’s position? What further evidence does anybody want that they have not worked out their position? They have got to do that, because at the end of March the European Union will publish what its position is going to be, and there is every chance that our Government will still be messing about, fighting off hard Brexiteers and not grasping the nettle and doing their duty by the country.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Lady on this issue. Does she agree that we would not be hearing any of this stuff about the reports being negotiation-sensitive if the Government could lay their hands on a single report that said there would be economic benefits to Brexit, rather than economic costs?

[Anna Soubry]

This is an astonishing idea. The right hon. Gentleman—he is definitely my Friend today—seems to be saying that if there was a report saying that going off the cliff or some other madness would be beneficial to our economy, the Government might publish it, because it would help in their dealings with the hard Brexiteers. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

What the Government have done, to their credit, is to ask the objective analysts to go away and look at the options, albeit apparently not their preferred option—although we have made that point, so I will move swiftly on—and they have come back, having no doubt done their job, as they always do, thoroughly, openly, honestly and exceptionally well. We now know that these reports were prepared, and apparently some Ministers have already seen them. According to reports, I think in The Times, Cabinet Ministers were to go and see them under lock and key. They were to read them, they were not to take in their phones and most certainly not to make any notes, and they were to inform themselves, so that finally our Cabinet could perhaps come to a conclusion about what we want from Brexit. Yet apparently these very same reports are so useless and flawed—they are based on weird modelling and cannot be trusted—that they have to remain top secret. They were not good enough—or were they?—to inform Cabinet members. It is nonsense.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister said that these analyses are provisional, incomplete and not fit for purpose, so is the right hon. Lady as amazed as I am that the Prime Minister should conduct phase 1 of the negotiations with no economic analysis? No wonder we are the laughing stock of Europe.

[Anna Soubry]

Well, no, because I thought the conclusion to phase 1 was actually quite good, so I am certainly not going to undermine it, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Many hon. Members sat through the many hours of debate during the Committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and, at the end of it, one thing on which those of us who take a sensible approach to this all agreed was that we had had some terrific debates. The dreadful irony was this: if only we had had those bloomin’ debates before the European Union referendum. What is undoubtedly happening is that people are becoming better informed. They understand now the huge complexity that Brexit is. They realise that there are serious consequences to our decision to leave the European Union, and that is why they are darned worried, not just for themselves but for their children and their grandchildren. People have a right to know. My constituents who work at Boots have a right to know the consequences for them and the pharmaceutical sector, based on the different models and choices that are still available to our country. The people who own and run Freshcut Foods have a right to know about the consequences of, say, duties on imported fruit and vegetables from European countries and what those will mean to them, in the real world, doing the job that they do.

That is at the heart of all that is happening now. People want to know, because they are finding out about the promises they were made. The £350 million for the NHS is all gone; they were lied to—they were conned—on that. They were told this was going to be the quickest trade deal—I think I am right in saying they were told it would take a day and a half to do a trade deal.

We are nowhere near doing that trade deal, and we will be nowhere near doing it, because the other Brexit reality is this: we are not going to have a meaningful vote in this place—we are not—because there will not be anything meaningful to vote on. What is going to happen, unless the Government get into the right place, is that, yes, we will have an agreement on the divorce—that will be there in the withdrawal agreement—but in terms of the actual relationship we will have with the European Union once we have left, we will have a few woolly heads of agreement. That will mean pretty much nothing—not even to those of us who have spent what feels like a lifetime now looking at these options. We will have a series of heads of agreement. That is not meaningful; that does not give us the ability to decide whether this is in the interests of our constituents and our country. It will have no meaning whatever. Again, people—my Government and everybody else—have to wake up to the reality of what we are going to get in October.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I am hoping that she might say that I can be her Friend as well, but maybe the question I am about to ask will not allow that to happen. Does she think that we can have a meaningful vote in this House if that does not include the option of voting to stay in the European Union?

[Anna Soubry]

The right hon. Gentleman and I used to be Friends, because we used to be in coalition, so he can be my Friend today. [Interruption.] Actually, I am very proud to have served in the coalition, because it was one of the best Governments we ever had, but in any event, we will move swiftly on.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, because the other danger is that we sleepwalk into some trap that will be set—that if we do not vote for this woolly agreement, the alternative will be “off the cliff”, and, of course, there are alternatives. It would be wrong to say to the European Union, “Can we come back and negotiate?”—the EU is amazing in the way it has put up with so much nonsense and with still not knowing what our country wants—but I do not think we will be in that position. However, the EU has already made it clear that if we want to remain in the European Union, that option is still open to this country; indeed, if we want to remain a member of the single market or the customs union, that option, too, is available to our country. So, in that sense, it should be a meaningful vote.

However, let me just say this. Such is my concern as events have developed that I have come round to the very firm view that it is not just in this place that we should have a meaningful vote; the people of this country, too, are entitled to a meaningful vote. We had a referendum, and I have always respected the result and will continue so to do. However, as this Brexit reality unwinds, and as people and even Members of this House—we know that some did not even know what the customs union was—[Interruption.] Oh, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody when I say it is wonderful to have you back. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We know your pain, and we all love and have great affection for you and, indeed, your family. We wish you all well.

That is the view I have come to. It is not for us to undo this EU referendum result, and we cannot; it has to be the people, and this has to be led by the people. The people are entitled not just to know the facts about Brexit but to have a say. I am forming the view, based on conversations I have had with my constituents, that many of them are now saying, “I did not realise how complex this was. I did not realise and appreciate how many cons and tricks had been played on me and how many untruths had been told. As I think about my future and my children’s future, I now want a real, meaningful say in this.”

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I will quickly give way before the bird lands.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a truly outstanding speech, and I really commend her for it. On the point she made earlier about the ability of the United Kingdom to change its mind, does she agree that the olive branch extended by Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron means that it is open to this country unilaterally to change its mind and revoke the article 50 notice?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. and learned Lady is right—she, too, could become my Friend for the day. In all seriousness, she is absolutely right. I am sure that it was a pure coincidence that, the day after certain members of the all-party parliamentary group on EU relations went over to Brussels, Tusk and Juncker—I am not sure whether it was Juncker, but, anyway, Members know who I mean—tweeted in the way that they did. They made it very clear that if the people—and it has to come from the people—want to change their mind, we can stay in the European Union, and if the people want to retain membership of the single market and the customs union, that option, too, will be open to us in October.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are starting to have that very important discussion about the fact that, as I put it, the people must finish what the people have started. That is by no means a disrespectful way of looking at the first decision; the two decisions are separate, and we are talking about a review and an update or a confirmation. This is by no means about talking down to people who voted one way or the other; it is about being very mature about the fact that we have all learned a great deal in the last 18 months.

[Anna Soubry]

I agree with most of what the hon. Lady says. The point in all of this is that this has to come from the people. Arguably, we—as politicians and Members of Parliament—are one of the reasons why the 52% who voted to leave voted in the way they did, because they feel so disconnected from us and feel that we do not represent them. Actually, they always think their own MP is rather good; it is just that all the others are not, which is always interesting. It does not quite make sense, does it?

It is really, really important that we get this right. This has to come from the people. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, they started this. We gave them the power, and we must let them still have that power and exercise it. However, as I say, my real message today is to my Government and my Prime Minister: get a grip, and let us start leading on this. They should see off those people who do not run this country and who do not represent Conservative voters or the people of this country. They should park them to one side and build a consensus, never forgetting that, if there was a free vote in this House tomorrow or next week, I believe that the majority of hon. and right hon. Members would vote certainly for EFTA, and also for the customs union. So let us now be big and brave and do the right thing by the people of this country and the generations to come.

14:18

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I echo what she said to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of all of us in the Chamber about seeing you back in your place. We feel for you enormously.

Such is the interest in our debate today that we have been joined by a robin—[Interruption.] Not that Robin—I was thinking of the other one, which has been hopping around the Gallery.

Well, well, well, this is all rather familiar. However, as well as the despair expressed by the right hon. Lady, I feel a growing sense of puzzlement. Let me give Members just a little history. We were led to believe in the first instance that the Government had been carrying out assessments of the impact of Brexit on different sectors of the economy. Then we were assured by the Secretary of State that they had not. Now we discover that, in fact, they have, although clearly those are not the same assessments we had mistakenly been asking for before. If I understand it correctly, they are now the assessments that will be shown to Cabinet Ministers in the locked room over the next week or so.

I want to say something about what the Minister’s hon. Friend—the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—said yesterday. We on the remain side need to be honest and acknowledge that forecasts have been made that have proved to be spectacularly wrong. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe just referred to a forecast by the International Trade Secretary, whose precise words were that a post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU should be the “easiest in human history”. In 2016, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union forecast that by September this year, the UK

“can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.”

Well, that forecast was wrong too, and then there has been the repeated assertion by many Ministers, including the Prime Minister, that no deal is better than a bad deal. All of us know that is nonsense, because no deal is the worst possible deal of all, which merely proves that when it comes to talking about inaccurate forecasts, some Ministers live in very, very vulnerable greenhouses.

If Ministers in the Department do not trust any of the forecasts, it prompts the question: why did they bother to commission them in the first place? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe, has tried today to soothe the no doubt ruffled feathers of his civil servants with a tweet—I do not habitually follow his tweets, but they were drawn to my attention—saying that

“I still love them and my critique is of economic method, not individuals”.

I am sure that will be of great reassurance to hard-working and professional civil servants.

Then there is the very perplexing question that it would be good to hear an answer to. What confidence should we have when the Minister said yesterday from the Dispatch Box that we do not need to worry about the gloomy forecasts, because the very same analysis shows that under every one of them, the British economy would continue to grow? How do we know that that forecast is true if it is being produced by the same people whom the Minister said from the Dispatch Box always get their forecasts wrong? It is a farce—it is a Whitehall farce.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend just pointed to the extraordinary circumstance whereby we see Ministers against civil servants, and I have never seen that situation in my lifetime. Does he not agree that at the heart of this is honesty and transparency for Parliament and the public in the most important debate that we will have for generations?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree absolutely. Indeed, I made the point yesterday about the importance of transparency and about a lack of transparency not being in the national interest. I gently say to Ministers that trying to have a go at people who are asking questions about what analysis has been done and what it shows, and attempting to suggest that all of them are trying to undo the referendum result, is an unwise approach. I think it reveals a great defensiveness and a lack of confidence on the part of Ministers about the position that they have put the Government in.

[Tom Brake]

I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the issue of growth. Yesterday, the Minister said that all the forecasts suggest there would be some growth. Does he remember, as I do, how keen the Government were to claim that the UK was until recently the fastest-growing economy? Now, Ministers are clearly saying that if there is some growth—however small that is—it is excellent news for the United Kingdom economy.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed, that is the case. Ministers have made those arguments and, of course, when the growth is better than that in any other countries, they would. However, what the analysis appears to show cannot be avoided: in all the options that it looked at, the country would be less well off than we would otherwise be.

We are told that the analysis is preliminary. Nineteen months after the referendum, how on earth can it still be preliminary—really? We are told that the people who are meant to be in charge had not seen it until two nights ago, when it is about to be shown in a locked room to members of the Cabinet. We are told, as has been said, that it does not include modelling of the Government’s preferred option. Why on earth not? The answer is a simple one: the Government do not know what their preferred option consists of. Therefore, they cannot model it.

Apart from anything else, the Government said that they really hoped with the Florence speech last October to get the European Council to move on to phase 2 of the negotiations, but we clearly were not ready then, because we now know that they had not done the modelling, and we are still not ready now, in view of what we have been told. As any teacher would understand, there are only so many times that the family dog’s eating habits can be offered as an excuse for not producing homework.

Being told graciously, as we all were yesterday, “We will give it to you eventually, when the deal has been done,” was not on. I very much welcome—I say this to the Minister in all sincerity—the fact that overnight Ministers have had a rethink and will accept the resolution. I say on behalf of the Exiting the European Union Committee—because we are buying some more lever arch files—that we will handle the material when it is given to us in the same, I hope, professional way that we handled the last lot of information, in line with the commitments I gave to the Secretary of State.

This shambles—I use the word deliberately—is a symptom of a fundamental problem that the country faces. First, the Government took decisions early on, such as leaving the customs union, leaving the single market, having nothing to do with the European Court of Justice and no free movement, without having made any assessment of what impact that would have on the British economy—none. The decisions were taken for ideological reasons, without looking at any evidence.

[Anna Soubry]

May I take the right hon. Gentleman one step back? Does he now share the view of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side that the other mistake was to trigger article 50 too early as well, and that has not helped us in our negotiations either?

[Hilary Benn]

In retrospect, there is force in the right hon. Lady’s argument, but since the Government chose the date on which to trigger it, we would have expected them to plan how they would be in a position to be able to negotiate what was required.

The second thing that the Government have done is to demonstrate their complete inability thus far to set out what they would like in phase 2 negotiations—that deep and special partnership. Why? It is an open secret that the Cabinet is in disagreement about the right way forward—that is not just among 35 Government Back Benchers, but inside the Cabinet. Every day we open the newspapers to find the symptoms of that inability to reach agreement spread all over the pages. Heaven knows what the people we are supposed to be negotiating with make of all this. As a result, neither this House nor the 27 other member states are any the wiser about what we or they will be asked to consider when the Government finally reaches a decision.

What is the task now? The Government need to tell us what they will be seeking. Much more importantly, they need to indicate what trade-offs they are prepared to make to achieve the things they say they want, because the choices have consequences that cannot be avoided. It is clear that the Government face, apparently with equanimity, the prospect of going into a negotiation from which, whatever they achieve, we will come away with less than we currently enjoy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) absolutely hit the nail on the head when she said that if there was any evidence to the contrary, boy, would we have read about it already.

The Government need to face up to the consequences of their own red lines for the border in Northern Ireland. I reinforce the point that has been made, including by my hon. Friend, because the Select Committee was in Dublin last week, and we went to look at the border in December. It is not just a fudge. We could describe it as an attempt at alchemy, because the Government are hoping that they can turn the base metal of full alignment into the gold of an open border, when nobody knows how that extraordinary achievement can be brought about, given the utter contradiction between the two positions that they have set out.

The Government also continue to insist—I hope at some point they will stop, because it does not add to their credibility—that between now and the end of October this year, we can negotiate and reach agreement on all these things: trade in goods and services; security and foreign policy co-operation; policing; information sharing to fight terrorism; the regulation of medicines, aircraft and food safety; the transfer of data; the mutual recognition of qualifications; and our future role in the 30 trade agreements that the EU has negotiated on our behalf—and everything else—the Minister sitting there knows better anyone what a long list it is—and that we are going to get a final agreement by October, and by the way, even if things go well, the negotiations will not even start until March! That is why we do not know—the right hon. Member for Broxtowe was right—what will be on offer by the time we get to the end of the article 50 negotiations.

I conclude with the issue that the House is going to have to confront—and we had better start thinking now about how we are going to deal with it, because the House is going to have the final say: we are going to vote on the draft agreement. Before it does so, however, the House needs to make it clear that we will expect to know what our future relationship, when it comes to trade in goods and services, is going to be. The vague offer, come October, of a possible post-dated cheque for an unspecified agreement simply will not do. Ministers should not rely—I say this with all the force I can offer—on the House of Commons just accepting whatever they come up with, on the grounds that the alternative is no deal at all; it is not the only alternative, and if Ministers do not start exploring those alternatives pretty quickly and doing the analysis to support what the implications of those alternatives will be, they may well find that Parliament ultimately decides it will have to do it for them.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Rachel Maclean.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Oops. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke. You were not on my list, but you have just been added.

14:31

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The Speaker got an ambiguous reply from me, and I will explain why in a moment, but first may I add my sympathies to those already expressed in the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, and say how delighted I am to see you back in the Chair?

I will explain why I hesitated when the Speaker asked me if I wanted to speak. First, I think—I will have to check—I agreed with every word that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just said. I was also hugely impressed by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I was not at all sure, therefore, if I would try to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I did not wish to detain the House by simply repeating the arguments they gave, as other people want to speak. By my standards, therefore, I hope I shall make what might be described as a long intervention—I usually intervene for longer than other people anyway.

I want to comment on the status of these economic analyses and how one should use economic analyses, and what has been presented here. Brexiteers make a great deal in their arguments, when they try to dismiss the documents we are all going to see, of the inaccuracy of some of the documents put out at the time of the referendum. There is no doubt that the authorities then put out forecasts, in good faith, in which they overestimated the short-term consequences of the vote. It has to be said that some of those campaigning on the remain side—David Cameron and George Osborne, I am afraid, who are both friends of mine—grossly exaggerated the material they had, such that the arguments on the remain side in the national media, at times, were almost as silly as those on the leave side—on the question of money for the health service or Turks coming to this country. It was a wholly unsatisfactory campaign.

We should not exaggerate how wrong those forecasts were. The vote to leave has already made this country poorer than it would have been. The living standards of many people in this country are lower now than they would have been had we voted to remain. The vote produced an unfortunate devaluation in the pound and a surge in inflation at a time when very many people’s wages could not follow it, and that has had consequences. On the lack of any policy, I would defend my Government’s not having a policy yet on what they are trying to negotiate by pointing out that the Opposition party does not either. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wisely declined to answer the question of whether the Labour party was in favour of staying in the customs union because he has not a clue what the Labour party’s view will be once it has settled its internal arguments—but that is a diversion.

The fact remains that we have already damaged ourselves. We are experiencing some economic growth, although it is not benefiting every section of the population, but that is because the global economy is, to everybody’s surprise, doing rather better than was expected six months ago. There is global growth. No one is quite certain why. I am certainly not, but it is beginning to look quite strong—it is strong in the United States and the European Union, and it is not too bad out in China—and as always we are benefiting from that. It was unforeseeable when the forecasts were made last summer, but now we have this strong surge, and we do not know how sustained it will be. It all looks a little fragile—there are one or two uncertainties about—but it is lifting the British economy a little, and I am glad that it is. But, because of the impact of the referendum, growth in this country is pretty feeble compared with the rest. We are the laggard in the G7. We are the laggard among the European economies against which we normally match our performance. That is the damaging consequence of the vote cast in the referendum in 2016.

[Alison McGovern]

Does the Father of the House agree that the extraordinary actions taken by the Governor of the Bank of England in response to the vote are very poorly understood, which creates an even worse impression of the forecasts made beforehand?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must inform the House that there will be a six-minute limit after the current speech, and if people intervene I will have to bring it down further. I do not want to stop debate; I just want to warn everybody.

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. The Governor actually lessened the impact that the Bank forecast by taking very prompt action to minimise the consequences. He would still agree with me, however, and has done publicly, that there has still be damage to the economy already, and he has tried to quantify the effect on GDP as a whole.

I will conclude with one last point—I said I would be short—about these forecasts. I hope we get more full information from the Government as events unfold and some impact assessments of their policy, once they have decided what it is, but it is almost inevitable that the impact will be detrimental to some extent. I know of very few economists who believe in market economics at all who would say that leaving the largest, richest multinational trading agreement in the world can be anything other than, to some degree, detrimental. I look forward to someone such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), with whom I often agree on economic policy, trying to explain to me how leaving the single market and customs union can have anything but a negative impact on the economy. How on earth can tariffs and customs barriers between us and our major market on the continent—the planning permission for those lorry parks, the recruiting of those thousands of staff—have a positive effect? How can regulatory divergence, which will damage trade, particularly in goods and services, have a positive effect? Whatever the best efforts of economists in these and future papers, they will be trying to measure the detrimental effects on the British economy that this step is bound to have. The country will be poorer if it pulls out of its present economic and trading relationships with the EU. It is our duty in this House, on a cross-party basis, to do what we can to minimise the damage.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is now a six-minute speaking limit. I call Emma Reynolds.

13:20

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

In the referendum, people were asked to decide whether or not we should leave the European Union. They were not asked about the form that Brexit should take; that was not on the ballot paper. However, as was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the choice now is about how we are to leave the European Union. There are many different options and models. We need to secure the best possible deal to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods, and we therefore need to pursue policies based on evidence, not ideology.

Let me say gently to Ministers that the debate which took place in our country about the EU referendum was one of the most divisive that I can remember. It divided the country pretty much straight down the middle. It divided cities, regions, rural areas and towns. It divided generations, and in some cases it divided families. I will admit that it divided my family: close family members voted to leave the EU, and we had many robust debates about it, although thankfully we did not fall out over it in the end.

Surely the role of the Government in the 19 months since the referendum should have been to try to unite the country again, to bring the country together, and to stand above the fray and do the right thing, rather than getting their hands dirty in the fray and levelling accusations at Members. I say to Ministers—not the thoughtful Minister from whom we heard today, but perhaps the Minister who spoke yesterday, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—that they should not question the integrity of Members of this House. I see it as my duty, in representing the people of Wolverhampton North East, to ensure that leaving the European Union does not make them poorer. I will hold to that very firmly, and I will not be cowed by Ministers or any other Members who tell me that I am not acting in the national interest.

Some of the extremists—or Brextremists—on the Conservative Benches advance the same arguments day after day, week after week. If any of us dares to question the mess that the Government are in, we are told that we are acting against the national interest. If we ask what impact a certain model or option for Brexit will have on our constituents, we are told that we are betraying the will of the people. Ah—the other Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe, has entered the Chamber at a very appropriate time.

If economists, or any other trade experts, warn about the consequences of leaving the customs union or the single market, they are told that they are always wrong and it is rubbish. I am afraid that we are descending into a position in which a Government are making decisions solely on the basis of ideology, and not on the basis of evidence.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful and passionate speech. The report appears to highlight the fact that the biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision both to leave the customs union and to leave the single market, neither of which we have to do if we leave the European Union, and the fact is that both decisions were made without proper debate, scrutiny and the presenting of evidence in the House. Is that not interesting?

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said earlier, those options were taken off the table soon after the referendum result. They were not debated very much in the House. There were no impact assessments, or economic analyses, whatever the difference between those may be. There was no discussion about the impact of leaving the customs union and leaving the single market. What will be the impact on the car industry in our country? What will be the impact on Jaguar Land Rover, which employs thousands of people in my constituency, and on Honda, whose representatives gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee? They said that if we left the customs union, the delays at the border would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and could lead to job losses. Why are we not listening to those people?

When the Secretary of State appeared before the Exiting the European Union Committee, we asked him about the automotive sector, and about the evidence presented to us by businesses. He said that

“existing trade associations tend to reflect the existing interests of existing factories, businesses and so on. They tend to be small-c conservative. In other words, they support the existing trade and do not think too much about future trade.”

Wow. Gosh. So we should not even bother to listen to the existing factories and existing businesses that employ tens of thousands of people throughout the country. Ideology will see the position in its own way. That is what we have been reduced to. If we follow the argument to its logical conclusion—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made this point—why should we bother to have the Treasury? Why should we bother to have a Budget? Why should we bother to set up the independent Office for Budget Responsibility? If we are going to rubbish all the experts all the time, we do not need to listen to anyone; we can simply follow our own ideology to its logical conclusion. I cannot believe that we have come to this, but we have.

Let me say this to the Government. We need a better analysis from them—a proper analysis—of the impact on the car industry of leaving the customs union. I am also very concerned to read in the leaked reports about the impact on my own constituency and my own region, the west midlands. This is a serious point. I want to know what more is behind the analysis that suggests that the midlands, Northern Ireland and parts of the north will be hardest hit, and I also want to know what exactly is the solution to keeping the border invisible between Northern Ireland and the Republic. When the Select Committee was in Dublin last week, we were told that the Government proposed that regulatory alignment, as agreed in December, would apply to 142 areas, not six, as the Secretary of State told the Committee.

I am afraid that the Government need to take this issue much more seriously. I am sick of the blunder. I am sick of the arrogance that tells us that everything will be okay. Where is the evidence that the trade agreements that the Government want to forge with other countries around the world will replace the jobs and the other benefits of the trade that we already have with our nearest neighbours in the European Union?

14:39

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Let me begin, Mr Deputy Speaker, by associating myself with what has been said by Members in all parts of the House. We are so glad to see you back in your place.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and agreeing to publish the statements. I think that, on the whole, transparency is a good thing. I also join in the praise that has been given to the civil servants. In my experience, they are fantastic. My daughter is a civil servant and I know how hard they work.

It is a shame that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who has just left the Chamber, was unable to say, when pressed: whatever the results of those statements were, what would be the position of the official Opposition? I think we all accept that forecasts vary: they have a range of outcomes and a considerable degree of uncertainty is built into them. However, the official Opposition have been unable to say today what their position would be on the basis of the figures that appeared in any statement, whether the implications for the country were negative or positive. They are unable to tell the millions of people who voted for their party, including those in their constituencies, whether they would change their position. Would they, as a Liberal Democrat asked earlier, call for a second referendum? Would they call for us to go back into the European Union? They have been unable to say. I think that they are letting down their voters and I think that that is a shame.

I am a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. We have spent considerable time looking in detail at economic analysis covering a range of sectors. Let me say at the outset that I am not an ideologue. Indeed, I do not think that there is a label that describes me. I am definitely not a Brexiteer. I did not campaign on either side of the referendum and I was not in the House then. I ran a small business for more than 20 years before I came here. I spent my entire career working with other small businesses in Birmingham and the west midlands. I can say to Members in all parts of the House that, when running a business, there is no such thing as certainty. Certainty in business is an illusory concept. We are trying to get certainty from economic forecasts for the Government to set out a negotiating position. That is an inherently impossible position. There is no such thing as certainty—as any entrepreneur or small businessperson will say, if asked.

When my business went bust and we had to start it all over again, I did not expect the Government to give me certainty to start my business again. I just got on and did it because I had to pay the mortgage and feed my children. That is what businesses up and down this country do. They deal with ambiguity and make contingency plans.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Businesses always look at forecasts, do modelling, look at outcomes and then make investments accordingly and choose which option to take. What we are seeing from the Government is a lot of muddling and not much modelling.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman is right that businesses create forecasts, but they also understand and accept that in any forecast and in any market there is uncertainty and they have to develop contingency plans—alternative plans in order to make their business successful. If he were doing business with the United States under Donald Trump and wanted to export, does the hon. Gentleman think there would be certainty in that? I would argue that there is not, but many successful businesses trade with the United States.

[Anna Soubry]

The one thing businesses want—this is the message I and others have received for a very long time now—is certainty. Of course they know that things can change. Does my hon. Friend not accept that we are in a situation at the moment where British business is going to want to know absolutely that the transition arrangements are firm and will be met to give them that certainty by March? It is in March that they start to make their plans.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Absolutely: when we have spoken to businesses in the Select Committee hearings, of course they want certainty, but the point I am making is that it cannot be provided, whether it is Brexit or not, in any economic situation to the extent that some people seem to want.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does the hon. Lady not agree, however, that there is a difference between uncertainty in a macroeconomic climate and legal certainty about how we may be trading with our neighbours?

[Rachel Maclean]

I agree that there are various areas where uncertainty can exist, but there is legal uncertainty when a business enters any new market or develops any new product. That always exists and businesses need to take that into account. The debate today seems to be about the need to provide certainty for businesses. It would be very desirable to provide certainty, but it cannot ever be done in quite the way suggested by forecasts and economic analysis.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I think it is agreed across the Chamber that we cannot create absolute certainty for absolutely every situation. This is why we have modelling, where uncertainties are already built in, and that is what we are talking about: different scenarios with different built-in possibilities and uncertainties. But that at least needs to be done, with the work published.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I think the Government and the Minister have agreed to publish this, so businesses can look at it and form their own view. However, I am certain that every single business I know—small growing businesses—will look at that but not take it as being handed down on tablets of stone. They will seek a range of outcomes and make their plans based on that.

We clearly have a difficult task in these negotiations. It is a negotiation—it depends on both sides. There are calls in this House for the Government to set out exactly what is going to be achieved. Again, that cannot be done because so much depends on what the other side will do. It is a negotiation that involves two parties—two sides.

I started by saying that there is no label that comfortably sits on me. I am not driven by ideology. What I am driven by is, genuinely, the wisdom of our voters and constituents—the wisdom of crowds and the wisdom of democracy. We might not like it. It might make it very difficult for our Prime Minister and Government. They definitely have a difficult and extremely challenging task to deliver in the best interests of this country. My personal view is that I would like to back them to get on with it and deliver in the best interests of our constituents.

14:55

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

First, may I add to the earlier comments about how good it is to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).

The debate has been conducted in a cordial and respectful manner. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of previous debates about the impact assessments and many of our Brexit debates, when Members on the Government Benches have repeatedly impugned the motives and questioned the patriotism of Members not only on my side of the House, but on their own Back Benches. This kind of conduct has to stop because debate in this Chamber cannot function on that basis.

When we take our Oath of Allegiance of office, we swear to act in the national interest, in faithful service to those who elected us, and we do so on the understanding that everyone else in this place does the same. Although I may believe that other Members err in what they hold to be in the best interests of our country, I would never for one moment doubt or question the sincerity with which they hold those views, I would never question their patriotism and I would never impugn their motives.

The contest of ideas that illuminates and enlivens this Chamber is one of different solutions, predicated on a common understanding that we all place the interests of our country first, even if we differ over what best serves those interests. Without that common understanding, our democracy breaks down.

That is just one part of a worrying shift in our political culture, however: one where parliamentarians simply trying to do our job are dismissed as traitors or saboteurs; and where the civil service is told, “We’ve had enough of experts,” because they do not give Ministers the answers they want. The job of civil servants is not to tell Ministers what they want to hear. It is to tell them what they need to hear—to speak truth to power.

Parliamentarians requesting information are not betraying our country. We are simply trying to do our job and stand up for our constituents. So when we call for the release of these documents, it is not about undermining the process; it is about improving the process. Parliamentary government requires an informed legislature. That means we must have access to this information. It is not good enough to tell us to wait until October, because by then it will be too late, as we are entering a crunch-point in the negotiations right now.

Earlier this week, we saw the EU agree its transition negotiating guidelines in just two minutes and, as we have seen, once Mr Barnier gets his marching orders he does not deviate from them. In about six weeks the EU will agree the negotiating directives for the final trade deal phase of the withdrawal talks. We should let that sink in for a moment: in six weeks, we will be asked to make the most important choice in our post-war history.

We talk of the fantasy Canada plus plus plus, but these leaked reports give the game away. They do not have anything on a Canada plus plus plus scenario, because such a scenario does not exist. It cannot exist. The “plus plus plus” is presumably supposed to mean the services sector, which accounts for over 80% of the British economy, but just two weeks ago at the Brexit Committee we heard from Christophe Bondy, the lead Canadian negotiator on CETA—the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—who said there is no way for services to be part of a CETA-type deal. The fact is that a Canada-style deal would be about as much use to this country as a chocolate teapot.

It is crystal-clear that the most seamless and secure Brexit—the Brexit that is best for Britain—is an EFTA-a EEA-based Brexit. That is the only Brexit that protects jobs and opportunities, while also delivering control and influence. An EEA-EFTA Brexit ensures maximal access to the single market, being an internal market with the majority of the single market. It therefore protects jobs and investment, strengthens our hand in taking on multinationals such as Google and Amazon when they fail to pay their fair share, and protects vital workplace rights.

[Peter Grant]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s desire to retain access to the single market, can he explain why he does not want to just stay in the single market? Would not that provide the best possible access?

[Stephen Kinnock]

One of the key issues in the referendum was the free movement of labour and, as I shall go on to explain, there is an important provision in the EEA agreement that enables the application of an emergency brake on free movement. That is an important distinction between the EEA and the single market and it is one that we should look at seriously.

An EEA-EFTA-based Brexit would let us take back more control. It would end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and direct effect, ensuring that British courts had sovereignty. It would also allow us to shape the rules of the internal market through the EEA joint committees and veto those that did not work, with the right of reservation as enshrined in the EEA agreement. An EEA-EFTA Brexit would allow us to reform free movement by triggering articles 112 and 113, following the protocol 15 precedent, potentially allowing us to introduce a quota-based system to manage the inward flow of labour.

Above all else, an EEA-EFTA Brexit would allow us to reunite our deeply divided country. The Brexit referendum was won on a narrow margin, but the result was clear, and that was why I voted to trigger article 50. The Prime Minister then called an election, hoping to secure a mandate for a hard Brexit, but she had her majority cut substantially. The country said no to a hard Brexit. Any rational Government would accept that decision and commit to a sensible Brexit, rather than ploughing on through this fantasy hard Brexit land of rainbows and unicorns. The country said no to a hard Brexit. It said yes to a Brexit that bridges the divide. Our future relationship with our most important commercial, diplomatic and political partner is on a burning platform, and we have only until the end of March to put out those fires. I therefore urge the Prime Minister and her Cabinet to show some leadership, get off the fence and commit unequivocally to an EEA-EFTA Brexit.

15:02

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I also welcome you back to your place? You are much loved in this Chamber, and you have been deeply missed.

The best thing to do with these forecasts is not to hand them to the Brexit Committee but to put them in the nearest waste bin. I will explain why. I backed remain in the referendum, partly on account of the Treasury’s forecasts in April 2016 setting out what it thought would happen in the case of a vote to leave the European Union. It provided two scenarios: “shock” and “severe shock”. There were no categories entitled “success” or “continued economic brilliance for our country”. The “shock” scenario predicted recession and a sharp rise in unemployment. It also predicted that GDP would be 3.6% lower and that unemployment would be 500,000 higher, with 74,000 jobs being lost in the south-east alone. It wanted to ensure that everyone understood how badly every single region of the country would fare.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a great point. We all remember “Project Fear”. Will he confirm beyond doubt that those Treasury predictions related not to effects that would happen after Brexit but to what would happen immediately after we voted to leave the European Union?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am looking at the forecast of 500,000 more unemployed, and it relates to the beginning of 2018. The Treasury produced a little chart showing just how bad it would be, how joblessness would rise and how if people did not vote the right way they would lose their jobs and be visited by recession.

Under the second category—“severe shock”—it was forecast that GDP would be 6% lower and that unemployment would increase by 800,000. Those forecasts made me think that there was a big risk involved, and that we ought to back remain. I advised my constituents to back remain, but they advised me that they did not agree and that they wanted to leave, by a margin of about two thirds. So I thought, “Well, we will make do, and try to secure the economy as best we can, because things are obviously going to be really dreadful and I am really worried about the employment situation.” But what has actually happened? I have not seen a recession. In fact, growth has continued in this country. There are 32.2 million people in employment, and 1.4 million unemployed. That is an unemployment rate of 4.3%, and unemployment is at a 42-year low. Rather than going up by 500,000 or 800,000, it has in fact fallen by 250,000.

We do not hear about that from Opposition Members, do we? We do not hear them saying, “Well, wasn’t that Treasury forecast completely and utterly wrong?” All we hear them saying is, “Don’t be mean to civil servants who come up with forecasts that are hopelessly wrong.” We do not hear them asking why those forecasts were wrong. There has been no recession, and GDP and employment have continued to grow. It is hard to think of any part of that dossier that was correct. Indeed, it is now notorious as the “Project Fear” dossier.

I have asked questions about this in the Treasury Committee, of which I am a member, and every time I ask a Bank of England official or a Treasury official about it, they shuffle nervously and sometimes give a little cough. Sometimes they say, “The reason we did not have a massive rise in unemployment and a recession was that the Bank of England cut interest rates by 0.25%.” Interest rate cuts can be assimilative, but I am not sure that a 0.25% cut really made that much difference to 500,000 jobs. I think that the Treasury’s predictions in April 2016 were wrong, and if they were wrong before, the chances are that they could well be wrong again.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I, too, was worried about “Project Fear”, and I wrote to the Treasury after the referendum asking it to name and shame the 80% of economists who had claimed that there would be absolute meltdown if we voted to leave the European Union. The Treasury refused to name and shame them. I wanted their names because I wanted to ensure that they never got a job anywhere near government because their predictions were so bad, but the reason that the Treasury would not name and shame them was that they were already working there. They are the architects of this latest report.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a forceful point, and these people are not just in the Treasury.

The shadow Secretary of State—a knight of the realm, I should add—was kind enough to come down from St Pancras to see us in Dover recently. Grandly, he came down to tell the people of Dover that we ought to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union. Everyone understood what he meant. He meant that we should stay in the single market and the customs union, that we should continue to have a trade policy made in Brussels rather than in Britain, and that we should continue to have uncontrolled EU immigration into this country with completely open borders. My constituents are very clear on one thing: they do not want uncontrolled immigration into this country. It has not helped them or their families, and they do not feel that it is helped their prosperity. They do not want trade policy to be made in Brussels. They want it to be made in Britain. That is why this Government are right to be leaving the single market and the customs union.

This is not a question of forecasting; it is a question of a mandate. That mandate was handed to us by our electors when they voted to leave the European Union. I understand that there are those on the other side who wanted to remain and who still want that. I respect that. I do not really respect their constantly re-fighting the referendum, but I respect the fact that they feel passionately that we should be back in Europe. However, that is not my mandate from my constituents, and it is not the mandate given to a lot of Opposition Members who represent constituencies in Wales and in the north of this country, who ought to spend a bit more time talking to their electors on the doorstep and a bit less time at grand dinner parties enjoying elite establishment-type conversation about how terrible it is all going to be.

Let me move on from Hampstead to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). She was absolutely right that we cannot predict the future, so why is it that the EU-funded CBI so passionately wants Britain to stay within the single market and within the customs union and says that businesses do, too? The answer is that it loves the regulation produced by Brussels, which helps to keep things in their place, but we need to become more competitive as a country. If we become more competitive, we will grow more quickly.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I will not give way as I have given way twice already.

The Treasury analysis was wrong in the first place. The Treasury did not predict containerisation or innovations such as the internet. We are about to have an automation revolution, with cars driving themselves, and a revolution in solar power, which will reduce our unit energy bills, and this country is well placed to become much more competitive than any Treasury forecast would predict, but we can all see that that kind of future is coming down the road. To make sure that we embrace that future, this country needs maximum freedom, maximum discretion and the maximum ability to diverge from the policies and laws of the European Union and to embrace the wider world.

In the future, 90% of global economic growth will not come from the European Union, but from the world outside the EU. Over the past 40 years, it is an historical fact that the EU’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% to just 15%. That is relative decline. We do not need to see relative decline. The future for this nation is global.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This has been such a heated debate that we must now reduce the time limit to five minutes.

15:12

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in this debate under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I normally find it a pleasure to debate the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), but being referred to as an “elite” by a representative of the Conservative party sticks in my craw. Coming from an ordinary background and having fought to get here to speak on the behalf of my constituents, who take all kinds of views on the economy, it pains me to be attacked and accused of being part of some kind of elite that is unconnected from my constituents. That is a disgraceful way to conduct this debate.

I want to make two simple points. The idea that all forecasts are wrong and that everything will be all right in the end is a myth. It is the easiest thing in the world to stand up here and say, “Blame the economists. Blame the forecasters. This is all crystal ball stuff,” and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), gave us an excellent example of that kind of nonsense yesterday. An economic forecast is a set of assumptions and a set of data for the current state of the world and then a long sum that allows us to make some conclusions about what particular circumstances might mean for GDP, employment and a range of other economic variables. It is just maths.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Has the hon. Lady ever heard the phrase “garbage in, garbage out”? If we use garbage figures and make garbage assumptions, we will get garbage out of the other end.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman just made my point for me. It is just maths. It is clear and transparent. There is a set of assumptions, a set of data and a set of conclusions. If he thinks that some of those assumptions or some of the data are garbage, it is up to him and those who agree with him to show their working. All that they have to do is do the maths better than the forecasters. We do not have to have a stupid row about whether forecasters get everything wrong all the time, with people saying that we should not believe them anyway. We just have to be transparent and show our working and then we can disagree honourably and openly, rather than making constant ad hominem attacks against people who are not here to defend themselves.

To be frank, I have criticised how economics has been conducted in the past, and I agree with some criticisms of the traditional assumptions made in economics, but this debate is not about that. This is about whether we ought to know about the economic consequences of the various options before the Government, and it is certain that we need Government economists to model various outcomes. The last person to have a massive pop at economic forecasting was our friend George Osborne. I remember well that he loved to tear a strip off the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s economic forecasts, thinking that it was a great old argument to accuse the then Labour Government of fiddling the figures. What did George Osborne do? He set up the Office for Budget Responsibility so that we would have independent forecasts, and I will return to that when I conclude my remarks.

I caution Members against making the kind of remarks that we heard earlier in this debate—that things will somehow be okay in the long run, and that short-term forecasts and estimates of the fall in GDP do not really matter because things will all work out in the end. All that will obviously be true if we wait long enough, but how long will we have to wait? I urge Government Members to consider not just the “it will be all right in the end” point of view, but the damage done in the meantime. The past shows us that we cannot just wait forever. If a regional economy is de-industrialised and damaged, we know how long it takes to recover. Economists call it hysteresis—the act of scarring. If a factory in a town is shut down, that town may never recover economically. That is why this is not just about the long term. Brexit has the capacity to exacerbate inequality severely and significantly, so we cannot accept that things will be all right in the end.

We need proper modelling of not just the global effect on GDP or the effect on employment, but of the effect of the Brexit proposals on each and every town in our country. The OBR has asked the Government on numerous occasions for a statement of policy so that it can make a forecast and model it. The spring statement is coming up, so I say to the Minister, as I said yesterday, that he should do the decent thing—do what George Osborne would have wanted—and give the OBR a statement of policy and let it be modelled. Then we can all see what the Government’s Brexit has in store for our country.

15:17

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to make a few points about the politics of all this and what that says about our politics. I do not need to go over the pantomime of the Government saying that there were economic assessments in excruciating detail, then that there were none at all, and then that there were two lever arch files. That has all been well documented. We then saw this week’s report, and what has the response been? Yesterday, the Minister turned up at the Dispatch Box to rubbish the Government’s own document and to attack the civil service and the Bank of England in tones more hostile than I have ever heard a Minister use. He capped it all by telling us that discussing such things was really not in the national interest and that it would undermine our negotiating position. The first thing that we can learn from this saga is that winging it has become a point of principle for those in charge. I do not know whether we reached this point through carelessness, a tendency to busk or something worse, but the way that things have been handled has been extremely corrosive of trust in the Government and has left people asking not only about what is known, but what is being hidden.

The documents say that in every scenario modelled, the country will be poorer than it would otherwise be, with the effect being felt most keenly in sectors such as chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, cars and retail, and felt most deeply in the west midlands, the north-east and Northern Ireland. Those sectors and those parts of the country collectively employ millions of people and generate billions in tax receipts for our public services. If the lower growth depicted in the documents transpired, we would have lower incomes and a lower standard of living than would otherwise be the case.

How should we react to this? My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) is correct. If the Government had a forecast showing economic benefits from Brexit, we would not hear these arguments about negotiation sensitivity. It has been said far too much that those who ask questions are somehow undermining the national interest. Ministers are trying to create a world in which they are the sole owners of information, and in which the public and Parliament are allowed to see that information only when Ministers decide.

This is not just a conventional political argument; it is an attempt to downgrade the role of representative democracy. The irony is not hard to see, because the real danger to the national interest comes not from asking questions about the economics of Brexit but from pursuing a policy that we know will make the country poorer than it otherwise would have been, in order to satisfy the nationalist ideology driving the project. It comes from putting the appeasement of a faction within a political party above the leadership task of securing the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people. The Government are governed not by the analysis but by those political imperatives, which is the real point.

Those of us who want to see the information do not want to see it because we are necessarily saying that the forecasts are correct to every decimal point. That is not really why Ministers do not want to publish the forecasts or do not want us to see them. The exam question for them is not the economic consequences of Brexit but how to keep the right wing of the Conservative party happy.

The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, told us the other day that there are 35 “hard Brexiteers”. The reason why the Government rubbish the economics is that, for them, it is not about the economics. My plea is for honesty and for Ministers to say, and to admit, that they actually do not care, first and foremost, about the economics of Brexit. This is about putting politics above the economics. It is about keeping the Tory party together and, in particular, it is about appeasing the right wing of the Tory party. I cannot think of anything that downgrades the national interest more than that.

15:22

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

This has been an interesting debate, and I appreciate the intent behind it, but we have to be a bit more basic in our expectations. Everybody with any sense of how the world works, or even the tiniest ability to listen to experts, knows that leaving the EU is a disaster in slow motion. It is an omnishambles.

Like a train in a spaghetti western running on to a half-collapsed bridge, we know that the plunge is coming, but the people driving the train are shovelling more coal into the boiler—they have never looked over the side and they are fairly sure the train can make the jump to safety on the other side. Frankly, the blank refusal to look at what is actually happening makes blind faith look like scepticism.

The assertion that we will trade jam with China and scones with Brazil to make up for loss of access to the world’s biggest barrier-free marketplace, and the claim that 27 countries will be crippled without our expertise, is madness, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in the Chamber, said.

I do not know what is in the tea in Whitehall, but it is pretty strong. If the analysis is anything like as rubbish as the policy position, its value, as has already been said, will be questionable, but I agree with Labour that it should be published. I am happy to hear that we will get to see the analysis, but it should go further. The people who put us here, and who pay for everything that gets done here and in our names elsewhere, are entitled to know just how much ignorance is at the heart of Government strategy and what the Government’s best forecast is of just how much disaster we are facing.

We all know there is a cliff edge, but none of us knows how high the cliff is. We have seen some analysis, most pertinently from the Scottish Government, and no one is predicting benefits. The best that anyone says is that there might be some way to ameliorate the worst effects, some way to make the pain a little less.

Leaving the EU is bad; walking away from the customs union and the single market is worse. Voters had many reasons for voting to leave. I have heard people offer different reasons, but none of them reckoned that we would end up with better trading relations. The people who will have to suffer the blunt trauma of this exit deserve the scant respect of having these forecasts opened up to scrutiny.

Labour’s motion calls for Members to be allowed to see the forecasts, and I acknowledge the Government’s movement, but I regard that movement as only a good first step on the way to everyone having sight of the forecasts. Frankly, I do not understand why the Labour motion is so narrowly drawn. In fact, I cannot for the life of me understand why there is so little opposition to exiting the EU, the single market and the customs union among Labour Members.

I appreciate there was a substantial leave vote in many of the seats that Labour worries about, and that there was a bit of a UKIP vote against a fair number of Labour MPs, but I cannot understand why an entire party would abdicate the responsibility of leading. Contrary to the Tony Blair doctrine, politics is not always about finding out where people are already heading in order to try to lead them there; sometimes we have to stand and say, “It is this way.” Sometimes we have to say that we believe something is the right thing to do, and the right thing to do now is surely to seek to protect, to the greatest extent possible, our membership of the single market and the customs union.

As we are where we are—heading down a track that comes to an abrupt and uncompromising end—the Government should at least have the courtesy of letting us see what they think are the best-case and worst-case scenarios. On courteous behaviour, I ask the Government to confirm that the analysis will be sent to the devolved Administrations at the same time as it goes to the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee.

The public should also be offered the courtesy of a glance at the research. We are told by the Brexit Department that everything is going swimmingly and will be all right if we just have enough faith and patience, so I cannot see why there would be any reluctance to publish the intellectual musings of the Brexit Secretary and the underpinning, in-depth research that I am sure went into those musings.

All might be for the best in the best of all possible Brexits, but we have no way of knowing what kind of Brexit is heading our way, what the great vision of the Government is or what kind of economic disaster zone is heading our way. I have seen nothing plausible to counter those who say that the economic outlook is almost apocalyptic—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I call Geraint Davies.

15:27

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Being Welsh, I enjoy a leak, but when does a leaker become a whistleblower? Although we have to take precautions, I would contend that the information is in the public interest and should be in the public arena. The Government say this information is unreliable because they have not finished their economic analysis, so I wonder why we have ended up in a situation in which the Prime Minister appears to be going into a negotiation with no idea of the economic impact of different scenarios even in phase 1, particularly in relation to the Irish border.

It appears that the Government are intent on keeping secret any information that is put together, which reminds us all of what Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind.” The Government want to conceal the facts so that people do not see the awful truth of Brexit and of what it will mean to the economy.

Of course, people can see with their own eyes the damage that has already been done. Every family will have to pay £1,000 for the divorce bill. The London School of Economics has said that inflation is 2.7% instead of 1.7%, because of devaluation, which is costing every worker a week’s pay each year. We are now at the bottom of the G7 for growth, having once been at the top, and we have growth only because there is global growth. What is more, people and businesses know there will be a two-year transition period. People and businesses around the country want to know what the sectoral analysis is. In Wales, where 70% of exports are to the EU and where there are 25,000 jobs in Swansea bay, there is great concern. If we face a cliff edge and no deal, the steel in south Wales will be decimated by the Chinese, and the agricultural industry will be decimated by any trade deal with New Zealand. We therefore need to know the facts and to have a vote in this place in October. People should have the final say on the deal on the table, and the sooner we get this information, the better.

There are benefits and opportunities outlined in this paper, contrary to what people have said. Those opportunities have been identified as the opportunities to deregulate environmental, worker and other standards. People in my constituency and elsewhere are worried about the fact that workers’ rights will be reduced to reduce business costs; that the Government have been taken to court on numerous occasions by the EU for poor air quality; and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is saying we will have only recycled or reusable plastics in 2042, whereas the date for the EU is 2030.

We are worried that all our standards will fall below EU standards, and that we will give away public health safeguards and food standards in our dealings with the United States. This is not what people voted for. People want to have on the table in front of them precisely what this will mean for their families, regions and countries. The Government are intent on denying us that information. They expect us all to go into closed rooms and not to disclose outside them what they have already said is not reliable data. It is time for them to come clean, and for us to have clarity of where we are going and the data on which we are basing our decisions.

The reality is that the Government do not know where they are going. We are told that in conversations between the Prime Minister and Mrs Merkel the latter asks, “What do you want?” and our Prime Minister says, “What can you offer me?” There is a circular dialogue, with nobody knowing what they want. We know that the EU27 will defend their interests, and defend the integrity of the single market and the customs union. We have a choice before us. It is my considered opinion that as the facts emerge we should think again. This is not what people voted for when they voted to leave; they have a right now to have a look at the deal on the table and they should have the opportunity to have the option of staying in the EU if they do not like what they see. If someone orders a steak in a restaurant and gets a bit of chewed up bacon, which is the best we can hope for from this Government, they should have the right to send it back. People should have the final say and the Government should come clean.

15:32

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. It is one of a series that reflect the historic period this is for our country. In the decisions we are making, we are shaping the future of this country for generations to come. Nobody in this House should underestimate that responsibility. It is unfortunate that today’s debate appears to have been largely boycotted by both the mainstream Conservative party and, unusually, by the ideologues of the European Research Group, with the exception of its two former chairs, who were careful to flank the Minister in his opening remarks.

I guess that we had much of the real debate yesterday, in response to the urgent question tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), so I want to make reference to some of those comments, too. There have been moments during the past couple of days when the debate has risen to meet the responsibility that we have to the country, but too often it has fallen short. Accusing Members of being saboteurs or mutineers, or of thwarting the will of the British people, for wanting information released is as unhelpful as it is dishonest; this is a little ironic coming from people who have spent much of the past 43 years seeking to overturn the will of the British people as expressed even more strongly in 1975. Releasing information is not about whether we leave the EU, as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) argued yesterday—that was settled when this House voted to trigger article 50. The debate now is about how we leave, and clearly a small minority in this House are so dogmatic in their hostility to the EU that they would crash out at any cost. But they are, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) pointed out, a very small minority. So it falls to the majority of us in this House to ensure that that does not happen, and being provided with the information that we need to inform our decisions is crucial.

The Opposition are therefore pleased that the Government have recognised that that majority would have found its voice this afternoon and supported our motion, and they have therefore pre-empted this by accepting the proposal we have put before the House. However, let me seek reassurance on the nature of the release of those papers. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), set out terms along the lines of those set out on the last occasion—this very much has a sense of déjà vu—but he will know that those documents were rewritten before they were released. So I hope that the Minister who concludes this debate will confirm that the papers to which this motion refers will be released in full and unamended. That should not be a problem because they are already in the public arena.

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, in opening the debate, described the papers as “work in progress”. In order that we do not have to keep repeating this farce, will Ministers commit to releasing the final versions of the papers following the discussions with members of the Cabinet, which, apparently, they were prepared for? Will they also commit to releasing future analyses as they are completed, so that this Parliament can fulfil our responsibility to make informed decisions?

In yesterday’s discussion, it was said that we would weaken our negotiating hand by sharing assessments and that the EU27 would never do such a foolish thing. Oddly, the EU does not seem to see it that way: the European Parliament has published dozens of impact assessments, on a range of sectors and areas; and a number of departments of the Commission have made their Brexit readiness documents available. With a quick search, I was able to find on the internet the Swedish Government’s assessment of the impact on borders and trade, the Danish Government’s report on the fishing industry, the German Economic Ministry’s assessment of the impact of a hard Brexit on German GDP and the Irish Finance Minister’s “Getting Ireland Brexit Ready” document. The transparency that other Parliaments and other Governments are giving to their people should therefore be replicated by our Government.

Without wanting to add to the discomfort of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, at the praise heaped on him by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, I want to welcome the different approach taken today by him in his opening remarks. It marked a sharp contrast with that adopted by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe yesterday. Denouncing the work of his own civil servants is both unacceptable and dangerous. Does he suggest that the Government should adopt the same approach to all economic assessments? Should we disregard the work of the Department for Transport on infrastructure investment or the modelling done by the Department for Work and Pensions? Should we just reject any economic analysis that suggests there may be post-Brexit options that might not offer the sunny uplands that he promised in a previous life? I have to say that, yesterday, it sometimes looked as if he was not certain whether he was speaking for the Government, or from where his heart is as a former chair of the European Research Group.

The hon. Member for Worcester said today that the end relationship that the Government want has not been modelled. Clearly, that needs to be done, but there is a crucial first step: they need to say where they want to be. As a former DExEU Minister said in another place yesterday,

“there are still no clear answers to those basic, critical questions. All we hear day after day are conflicting, confusing voices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1423.]

That option needs to be realistic and honest. In today’s debate and yesterday, there was lots of talk about respecting the British people, and that is absolutely right, but it is about more than respecting the outcome of the referendum. We fulfilled that responsibility by triggering article 50. It is about being honest with the British people about the journey on which we have now embarked, consequent to triggering article 50. It is about setting out the options—realistic options—and sharing the consequences of the different choices available. And there are different choices. There is no evidence that the British people want the extreme Brexit favoured by the European Research Group, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Those who campaigned so hard for a referendum on our membership of the European Union said that we should trust the people. Now, they should trust them with the information on the consequences of the options before us. They also argued for the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Now, they should accept that too. The British people have a right to know, and we as their representatives have a duty to know. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said yesterday:

“It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way. We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less”.

He is right. The Government need to respond to our motion today not just by accepting it, but by honouring it in full.

15:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

This has been a great debate, and I am grateful to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I apologise to those whose speeches I was not able to hear today; I know they were listened to closely, and I look forward to reading them in Hansard.

I am sure that we are all proud to be part of one of the world’s oldest parliamentary democracies. It is right that Parliament holds the Government to account for the decisions they make, but Parliament should be careful not to pursue a course of action that would harm Britain’s national interest, or one that would jeopardise the UK’s prospects during this crucial period in her history.

In drafting their motion, hon. Members have highlighted the need for material to be kept strictly confidential and unpublished during the negotiations, and we are grateful for that; but I cannot emphasise enough the importance of maintaining that position, in the national interest. In seeing the analysis, Members of the House will be sharing in the responsibility and obligation that the Government have to ensure the security of negotiation-sensitive materials.

We have reiterated many times that the publication of negotiation-sensitive information would be fundamentally detrimental to the UK’s negotiating position. We would risk undermining the hard work of our tireless officials, seeking to achieve the best deal for the UK in Brussels. The civil service is, quite properly, doing a huge amount of work to support the Government as phase 2 of the negotiations gets under way. As part of that work, analysis is being done as we define the end state. A first draft of that work was being looked at, and Ministers provided comments and asked for further work to be done, and that is the right process.

At this point, I wish to take on some opening remarks in which it was suggested that I had said that this analysis was rubbish. I said no such thing. It was suggested that I had been disrespectful to civil servants. I did no such thing. In fact, I paid tribute to our excellent officials three times in my remarks yesterday, and I am very happy to work with such high-quality, dedicated, intelligent officials, applying themselves to the task at hand irrespective of how they voted at the referendum. To pick up on the themes explored by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about the conduct of the debate, I wish to state on the record, in the light of today’s press coverage, my admiration both for the Cabinet Secretary and for the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, who I am absolutely sure are carrying forward the Government’s policy diligently and properly. They do not deserve the criticism they have received in the press.

In making the critique I made yesterday, I relied on three things: the caveats that Members will see on the face of the analysis itself, historical experience, and my own long-held beliefs, which I believe are well founded—if I do say so myself. I relied on arguments that I have made in this House throughout my years here, whether in the Chamber or in the Treasury Committee, and I certainly do not resile from what I have said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) picked up on the theme of uncertainty. The point here is not to rubbish all analysis, but to do what I suggested at the end of my remarks yesterday—to ensure that we have a healthy scepticism in this Chamber for reports and for analysis of economics based on the things to which I have referred. Parliament has rightly agreed in this House that Ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiating position. We have an obligation to the people of this country to ensure that we strive to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. Forcing the publication of this analysis would put that at risk. Despite the repeated assertions of Members of this House, this draft document is not an impact assessment or a statement of Government policy; it is a very preliminary draft only seen by DExEU Ministers this week and does not constitute a meaningful commentary on the expected outcome of the negotiations.

As I attested to yesterday, the document has been circulated only to test ideas and design a viable framework for the analysis of our exit from the European Union. As we have said repeatedly, this work is constantly evolving. The report does not consider our desired outcome—the most ambitious relationship possible with the European Union, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. All Members must surely agree that the Government cannot be expected to put such analysis into the public domain before it has been completed, particularly when it is sensitive. As I have said before, this Government will not provide a continuing commentary of the analysis we are undertaking. It would be speculative and damaging, especially as the analysis does not reflect the UK’s preferred outcome in the negotiations.

I wish to emphasise that it is the Government’s view that this is an exceptional request today given the misrepresentation in the press of the reporting of this leak. This motion will therefore be agreed to on an exceptional basis, and it does not set any precedent for future action.

[Deidre Brock]

Could the Minister confirm, as I asked previously, that he will undertake to release the analysis, at the same time as releasing it to the Select Committee, to the devolved Administrations?

[Mr Baker]

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has just told me that he has already given that assurance, but what I will say is that we will work with the Chair of the Select Committee to ensure that we comply scrupulously with the motion. In particular, we will need to discuss the requirements for confidentiality to which the House will be agreeing today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. I take it from what I have heard in the Chamber that this is a sort of evolving document. It is more like an aide-mémoire to help the negotiators. It is not something set in stone and it will change during the negotiation. Is that the sort of document to which we are referring?

[Mr Baker]

As we have said many times, we conduct a wide range of analysis to support our negotiating position as we proceed through this process.

To reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I reassure him that we will comply scrupulously with the motion, working with the Chair of the Select Committee. We will ensure that we comply with the confidentiality requirements of the motion and that the House is satisfied. He asked me about future analysis and the reassurance that I gave yesterday stands. We will ensure that, at the time of the meaningful vote, the House is appropriately equipped with the analysis that it needs to make a decision.

[Paul Blomfield]

I just want to be absolutely clear: the papers that we are talking about today are a work in progress and, in discussion with the Chair of the Select Committee, they will be released in full. And given that they are a work in progress and the suggestion is that we should therefore be looking to the final documents as the crucial guidance to this House, will they be released when they are completed?

[Mr Baker]

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said the first time, but the commitments that we are giving are that we will comply scrupulously with this motion and that we will make available to both Houses analysis at the time of the meaningful vote. That is the commitment into which we are entering, but I have heard his request for a continuous evolving analysis. What we have said is that we will not give a continuous rolling commentary on our analysis. We will proceed to ensure that the national interest is protected. We made a commitment to provide Parliament with the appropriate analysis it needs to make a decision on the final deal at the time that we vote, in the way that is set out in the written ministerial statement that we laid.

The Secretary of State has been consistent in stressing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Brexit process. We have done this willingly to ensure that the parliamentary process is followed. I endorse the actions that we have taken, as I accept collective responsibility regarding the point that was raised earlier.

Finally, as I reiterated yesterday, the people of this country on 23 June 2016 took the decision to leave the European Union. The purpose of the analysis that we have conducted is not to question that decision—which this House voted to respect when it supported triggering article 50—but to ensure that we have the best possible outcome for the British people. We are accepting this motion today on the exceptional basis of the poor reporting of a leak.

[Mr Speaker]

Is the Minister giving way or has he concluded his oration?

[Mr Baker]

I have concluded.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has concluded his oration, and we are grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the EU exit analysis which was referred to in his response to an Urgent Question in the House on 30 January by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union be provided to the Exiting the European Union Committee and made available to all Members on a confidential basis as a matter of urgency.

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government not having voted against the motion, it is—as I understand it—carried, which is a victory for transparency and accountability. Can I seek your guidance that this motion is, as the previous motion was, considered to be binding on the Government? Further, may I ask your guidance on what you might consider to be a reasonable period of time within which the Government should comply with the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is twofold. First, yes, the motion is binding. I think that the Government are clear about that, and the Minister has indicated the intention of the Government to comply with it. Secondly, if memory serves me correctly, the motion refers to “a matter of urgency.” Therefore, the expectation must be that the report that is the subject of the debate will be released, published or made available to those persons mentioned in the motion as a matter of urgency.

I have now to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. In respect of the Question relating to capital gains tax, the Ayes were 306 and the Noes were 240, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Business of the House (Restoration and Renewal)

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That at today’s sitting :—

(1) proceedings on the motions relating to Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster in the name of Andrea Leadsom may continue, though opposed, for up to three hours at which time proceedings on the Motion on Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee) shall lapse if not previously disposed of;

(2) the Speaker shall then put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to Restoration and Renewal (No. 1), should it be moved by a Minister of the Crown;

(3) should that Motion be disagreed to, the Speaker shall then put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to Restoration and Renewal (No. 2), should it be moved by a Minister of the Crown;

(4) the Questions referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;

(5) proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption, and

(6) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply in respect of proceedings specified in this Order.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Forty-fifth Report of the Public Accounts Committee of Session 2016-17, Delivering Restoration and Renewal, HC 1005, Thirteenth Report of the Treasury Committee of Session 2016-17, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster: Preliminary Report, HC 1097.]

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the debate on restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Before I ask the Leader of the House to open the debate, it might be helpful if I explain the meaning of what is on the Order Paper and the implications of particular votes, so that there is clarity at the outset and no one is under any misapprehension.

Motions 5, 6 and 7 on the Order Paper will be debated together. I inform the House that I have selected the amendments that are listed on the Order Paper. I will shortly invite the Leader of the House to move motion 5 on Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee). Debate may continue for up to three hours. At the end of the debate on motion 5, it is expected that the Leader of the House will move formally the Restoration and Renewal (No. 1) motion. I will then call Members to move the selected amendments for decision without any further debate.

If the Restoration and Renewal (No. 1) motion is not agreed to, I expect the Leader of the House to move formally the Restoration and Renewal (No. 2) motion. I will then call Members to move the selected amendments for decision without further debate. If the Restoration and Renewal (No. 1) motion is agreed to, the Restoration and Renewal (No. 2) motion will fall and neither it nor the amendments to it will be moved.

I think that, among my perspicacious and highly intelligent colleagues, there is no need for puzzlement. It is all pretty clear if they look at the Order Paper, but if any right hon. or hon. Member proclaims ignorance of the meaning of these matters, that Member can always beetle along to the Chair at a suitable moment and seek enlightenment. I am sure, however, that they are all far too sagacious to require that.

15:55

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move motion 5,

That this House has considered the report of the Joint Committee on Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster (HL Paper 41, HC 659 of Session 2016-17).

[Mr Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following:

Motion 6—Restoration and Renewal (No. 1)—

That this House–

(1) affirms its commitment to the historic Palace of Westminster and its unique status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Royal Palace and home of our Houses of Parliament;

(2) takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster 'Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster', HL Paper 41, HC 659;

(3) accepts that there is a clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in this Parliament, whilst acknowledging the demand and burden on public expenditure and fiscal constraints at a time of prudence and restraint;

(4) accepts in principle that action should be taken and funding should be limited to facilitate essential work to the services in this Parliament;

(5) agrees to review before the end of the Parliament the need for comprehensive works to take place.

Motion 7—Restoration and Renewal (No. 2)—

That this House–

(1) affirms its commitment to the historic Palace of Westminster as the permanent home of both Houses of Parliament;

(2) takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster 'Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster', HL Paper 41, HC 659;

(3) agrees that there is a clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure; including steps to safeguard the safety of visitors, schoolchildren, staff and members;

(4) notes that works in the Palace should commence as early as possible in the next decade;

(5) authorises necessary preliminary work required to avoid unnecessary delay, without prejudice to a parliamentary decision on the preferred option;

(6) endorses the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority be established by legislation to commission and oversee the work required, and the establishment of a joint Commission to lay estimates;

(7) agrees that steps be taken now to establish a shadow Sponsor Board and shadow Delivery Authority, and to ensure that its members have a range of relevant expertise;

(8) instructs the shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority to undertake a sufficiently thorough and detailed analysis of the three options of full decant, partial decant and retaining a parliamentary foothold in the Palace during a full decant; to decide whether each option properly balances costs and benefits, and whether or not the identified risks can be satisfactorily mitigated; to prepare a business case for the preferred option for the approval of both Houses of Parliament; and thereafter to proceed to the design phase;

(9) instructs the shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority to apply high standards of cost-effectiveness and demonstrate value for money, and to include measures to ensure: the repair and replacement of mechanical and electrical services, fire safety improvement works, the removal of asbestos, repairs to the external and internal fabric of the Palace, the removal of unnecessary and unsightly accretions to the Palace, the improvement of visitor access including the provision of new educational and other facilities for visitors and full access for people with disabilities;

(10) instructs the shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority to ensure the security of Members, Peers, staff, and visitors both during and after the work;

(11) affirms that in any event the delivery option must ensure that both Houses will return to their historic Chambers after any essential period of temporary absence.

[Andrea Leadsom]

This debate arguably should have taken place about 40 years ago, so I can say that I am delighted that here we are today, finally discussing the future of the Palace of Westminster. There are difficult decisions to make on how we best protect one of the world’s most iconic buildings for future generations, but we must address those decisions head on.

In any mention of this topic, I am sure the House would like to join me in first paying tribute to the excellent work done by the Joint Committee on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the right hon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston. A number of members of that Committee are present in the Chamber today, and the House owes them, along with the restoration and renewal programme team and our engineers, a debt of gratitude. Their work, and that of our colleagues in the other place, has laid the foundations for the House to take an informed decision on this important issue.

The Palace of Westminster is the seat of our democracy, an iconic, world-famous building—and it is in dire need of repair. Both motions and all amendments on the Order Paper recognise the need for that work. Anyone who has read the report of the Joint Committee will be aware of the two core difficulties we face. The first is one that none of us can shy away from: the costs associated with a programme of works of this magnitude will be significant. While it is our responsibility to safeguard this UNESCO world heritage site, it is equally our responsibility to ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We have been clear that there can be no blank cheque for this work, and value for taxpayers’ money will frame the choices we make today.

The second issue is the state of disrepair within this building. The issue is not a structural one. As the Clerk of the House noted in his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the building is believed to be

“beautifully built and structurally sound.”

The problem, rather, is the services infrastructure that supports the ever-increasing and shifting demands of Parliament—and it is under considerable strain.

Since 1850, we have developed the hotch-potch of pipework and wiring to such an extent that our essential services are now aging faster than it is possible to repair them. Much of the building is supported by infrastructure that is still in place decades after the substantial rebuild of the Palace following the second world war.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

If these matters are so pressing, urgent and obvious, why have we been having September sittings, which enormously disrupt any programme of work?

[Andrea Leadsom]

In truth, work is going on the whole time, whether we are sitting or not, to manage essential repairs. Of course, the engineers are able to get on with more work when we are not here, but the reality is that we have to take a serious decision today about the future for generations to come, as opposed to the patch and mend that has been going on not just for a couple of years, but for 40 years and more.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every Member of the House will have a free vote on this matter and that Ministers will not be subject to a payroll Whip?

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the Government side of the House, there will be a free vote for all Members, and for Ministers.

[John Spellar]

It is the same on the Opposition side.

[Andrea Leadsom]

It sounds as if it is a free vote, and all Members are free to make the choice they wish to make.

There are some critical risks in the Palace of Westminster. First, the lack of fire compartmentation increases the risk of fire, meaning that 24-hour fire patrols are necessary to keep us safe. Over the past 10 years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire. Secondly, there is a huge amount of asbestos packed into the walls that needs to be carefully and expensively removed to enable repairs. Thirdly, many pipes and cables are decades past their lifespan, with some now being impossible to access. The likelihood of a major failure grows the longer the systems are left unaddressed.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As a doctor, I know that asbestos is dangerous when it is exposed, not when it is hidden and packed in walls. To what extent does asbestos hidden and packed in the walls, where it is not disturbed, act as quite good fireproofing for the building?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I am really not qualified to answer, but I agree that the health risk is in moving and removing asbestos.

As Leader of the House, I work closely with the Clerk, the Director General and others who are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of those in this building to ensure that risks are minimised. There are more than 7,500 people working in Parliament, and we welcome 1 million visitors each year, including many schoolchildren. Nevertheless, keeping everyone safe is becoming a growing challenge with each passing year.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

That is one point that I must confess I fail to understand. We hear the Armageddon scenario that we are going to be washed away in slurry, burnt to death or electrocuted, and yet we have thousands of visitors from the public in this place every day. I see no signs to say, “Welcome to the death trap.”

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises the core issue. We make every effort on the House Commission and through the House authorities, the Clerks, the Director General and the engineers to keep this place safe. We have all the certificates required to evidence that we keep this place safe. The point is that it gets harder to achieve that safety with every year that passes. That is the key point that we are seeking to resolve.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would it be wise to have thousands of visitors coming into a building where the walls have been opened and asbestos is floating around in the atmosphere? What recourse will members of the public have should they get illnesses as a result, given that there is supposedly Crown immunity in this building?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have made clear, that would not be allowed to happen. We take every step possible to minimise risks. We do not take risks with people’s health and safety. We do not wish to do that. The point I am making is that with every year that passes, it gets more difficult to manage.

What is the next step? Just as the need for works is pressing, so too is the need to be sure that we are acting in the right way, with the right planning and design capabilities in place. The way forward on R and R must be supported by the House. At the same time, we have to be able to justify to our constituents and to taxpayers that we are doing what is necessary to safeguard the Palace of Westminster and that we have thoroughly examined the costs.

I have listened carefully to Members, and I thank all those who have come to drop-in sessions, explored the basements and toured the Palace with the R and R team. I have reflected on all the amendments proposed to the motions I tabled the week before last. Today, there are very clear options before the House.

I turn first to motion No. 1. This motion recognises that, given the scale of the challenge ahead of us, Members must first consider the vast cost associated with any programme of work. With competing demands on our public services, and calls for capital investment in other areas, Parliament will want to think carefully about the impact this will have on the taxpayer, and may ultimately choose to limit spending on the Palace to essential repairs. The case for further work to be done is, however, compelling, and it is important that we do not impede future progress in any decision made today. So this first option also agrees to reviewing the need for comprehensive works before the next general election.

The full cost of an R and R programme under this scenario would not be incurred until late into the next decade.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Leader of the House accept, after all that she has said up to this point, that there is no cheap option here? If the public think, or if the press think, that we can find a cheap option, they are deluded. There is necessary work that needs to be done, and necessary money that needs to be spent.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government believe that it is for Parliament to take this decision, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a very strong and compelling point.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is quite rightly talking about other people, outside this place, who have a concern and have an interest. When I inquired, at the display table this afternoon, what consultation had taken place with the many thousands of people who work in this building, I was told, “None.” I was told that senior stakeholders were consulted but the workforce were not. What answer does she have? Is it not correct that the people who work here have no voice here this afternoon?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There has been much extensive consultation, formal and informal, over many years, so that is not the case. In fact, reports from the Joint Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee, and the recent financial and explanatory memorandums, have all been useful tools for Members and staff of this place, who wish to acquaint themselves further with the issues around cost and complexity. These documents have also made clear the wide range of views on costs and varying approaches to the works.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

As someone who served on the R and R Committee, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) that there was consultation, and we were very keen that the staff of the Palace were very much involved in this whole process.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification and grateful to him also for his contribution to the Joint Committee.

That brings me to motion No. 2. If the House accepts that it will bear the cost from the taxpayer’s purse, it will be concluding that the work should be undertaken only on the basis of the most robust cost assessments possible. So the second motion seeks to establish an Olympic-style delivery authority, overseen by a sponsor board that will have a majority of members who are parliamentarians. That would produce up-to-date, fully costed proposals for restoration and renewal as soon as possible. The establishment of an Olympic-style delivery authority with external professionals will guard against unacceptable cost and timetable overruns of the sort that we saw with the Elizabeth Tower refurbishment.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

If these proposals are to be agreed by the House, can I implore this place to become its own planning authority, so that we are not dependent on the Greater London Authority or Westminster City Council; and not only to be our own planning authority, but to extend that remit to areas such as Parliament Square and even Abingdon Street?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I think part of the role of the delivery authority will be to look at the best combination of cost, respect for our parliamentary democracy and, of course, the right solution for this Palace, which is what this debate is all about.

If motion No. 2 is successful, the sponsor board and delivery authority must consider three options: first, full decant; secondly, partial decant with access to one Chamber at all times; and thirdly, full decant with a parliamentary foothold, allowing for parliamentary access during the works, such as to Westminster Hall and Elizabeth Tower. It is important to note that the second motion before the House today does not commit to a final decision. By asking a delivery authority to further evaluate those three options, parliamentarians and the public can be confident that the delivery authority will take into account the risks, costs and benefits of each approach, as well as accommodating the needs of our parliamentary democracy, before recommending its final, preferred, fully costed option in 12 to 18 months’ time. The motion allows those who support the Joint Committee’s recommendations to see them properly stress-tested.

For the clarification of Members, motion No. 2 differs from amendment (b) to motion No. 1 in two key ways. First, the amendment recommends a single option of full decant. The first problem with this is the lack of decant accommodation available to us under the current plans until 2025. The amendment does not allow us to proceed any quicker with a full programme of work than motion No. 2 allows for. The second problem is the fact that the Joint Committee report itself acknowledged that, while recommending full decant, it had not fully costed that option. Amendment (b) therefore does not settle the issue of value for taxpayers’ money.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But the problem is that neither motion makes a decision, and in the end this place is here to make decisions on behalf of the nation. It is time we got a grip and made a decision. I do not mind what the decision is in the end, but make a decision we must, surely to God.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on this, but the reality is that we have to look at the best value for taxpayers’ money, not simply at the one proposal made by the Joint Committee, which it acknowledged it had not fully costed. To quote the Joint Committee report:

“We recognise that there is still work to be completed in order to validate our conclusions.”

The costs allocated were not budgets for the programme, and there are real concerns around value for taxpayers’ money arising from the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady is seeking to say that her motions suggest better value for the taxpayer, but if we make a decision with three options that have to be fully worked up and costed, that will mean a considerable cost in time and taxpayers’ money. However, making a decision now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, will mean that we can get on with it, set the path forward and get value for taxpayers.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry, but I must absolutely disagree with the hon. Lady. The problem with going for the one solution that she suggests is that the Joint Committee itself made it clear that it had not fully costed the options or even considered the options for fully decanting both Houses. She is also wrong, as is the amendment, on the grounds of the capability for full decant. If Members consider the challenge of decanting from this place, what exactly are they proposing? The planning that will go into fully decanting potentially 7,500 people—the works of art, the furniture, the books—will take a considerable amount of time in itself. That has to be properly planned, properly costed and properly evaluated, so the option for partial decant could, potentially, be a better, more valued option for the taxpayer than the proposal for full decant.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The delivery authority that my right hon. Friend has described will, she said, contain a majority of parliamentarians. For the sake of clarity, can she tell the House whether the parliamentarians will be allowed to vote, or will all kinds of other people be able to vote on our future too?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The sponsor body will, in effect, be the client of the delivery authority. The delivery authority will be made up of professionals who have expertise in a project of this size and the historical expertise we would need to be able to look at how best to resolve the problem. Parliamentary involvement in the sponsor body will ensure that the views of parliamentarians are taken into account at all points, until the delivery authority comes back to both Houses for a final vote.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—she is getting a lot of requests. On the subject of decanting, and just for the record—I will speak to this later—the House should know that until very recently there was a contract with Church House, under which, should we have needed to decant at short notice in an emergency, which can happen at any time, Church House had always stood ready to accommodate Parliament, as it did during the second world war.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point about an emergency decant from this place. The security advice is that it is not safe these days for MPs to be coming in and out of the secure parliamentary state, so that would rule out a decant option off the estate. Secondly, and very importantly, on the day before the recess I attended—as I think you did, Mr Speaker—the emergency decant preparations done by the House in the event of the sudden need to move from this place, so those preparations are going ahead. However, what we are talking about here is about being out of this place for a significant length of time, so options such as Church House would simply not be suitable.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Lord President of the Council for giving way. I was on the restoration and renewal Committee, and the conclusion that we came to, preliminarily favouring a complete decant, was based on the assumption that a temporary Chamber could be put up in Richmond House. We now understand that the measurements we were given which led to that conclusion were wrong, and that Richmond House would have to be pulled down completely. That is a completely different cost basis, and I for one would not have come to that conclusion had we known the true picture.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises another key point, which is that the options for decant have recently been examined by the House Commission, with all the various options for refurbishing the northern estate, which many hon. and right hon. Members will know is also in dire need of refurbishment and work on the mechanical and electrical facilities. My hon. Friend is exactly right to point out that, in terms of Richmond House, and having costed the different alternatives, it now becomes clear that to knock down all but the grade I listed facade and to rebuild the building behind it is, in fact, the one solution that has the same cost estimates attached to it as all the various temporary solutions. Yet that project—rebuilding Richmond House—would give a permanent legacy, with better Committee Rooms, more accommodation for staff in this place and a proper business contingency Chamber, as well as offering a solution for the decant.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am going to make some progress, and then I will take some more interventions.

Crucially, the approval of an arm’s length sponsor board and delivery authority allows the project to be led by those with the necessary skills and the experience of delivering large-scale projects. On behalf of Parliament, the sponsor board will oversee the work of the delivery authority. As it will be crucial for Members’ views to inform and shape the programme as it develops, parliamentarians will have a majority of members on the board. In short, motion No. 2 invites the House to make a clear statement about the need to act with urgency, but it also ensures that a rigorous and professional business case will be drawn up that will provide confidence to Members and to the public.

[Simon Hoare]

On that point, would my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will just continue for a moment.

If the second motion is carried today, the final recommendation, fully costed, of the sponsor board and delivery authority will come back to this House in 12 to 18 months for a vote. Following that vote, the House-approved business case would immediately progress to the design phase.

The Palace of Westminster will, in all cases, remain the home of our Parliament. That has always been the plan. To make it absolutely clear to all hon. and right hon. Members, full or partial decant will not take place until 2025 at the earliest.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The Leader of the House is completely right that we do not yet have anything like enough information to evaluate which option the House should now pursue. I was predisposed to support the decant proposal, but I regret to tell the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), that I took my name off her amendment, having done some preparation for this debate. I do not think we begin to have the information, but setting up the delivery authority is a no-brainer for a project of this scale and nature.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The need for action is absolutely vital. Each of the motions provides that opportunity, but it is vital that the House itself makes the decision.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I say a huge thank you to my right hon. Friend and her team for all their excellent work, but does she not agree that the time for talking is over? We have to grasp this do the right thing. I cannot believe I am going to say this, but in this instance, in supporting amendment (b), absolutely everybody vote leave.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my right hon. Friend for joining that sentiment. I point out that in terms of progress of work, neither motion 2 nor amendment (b) is suggesting any faster progress. As I set out, the difference between them is that amendment (b) offers only one solution. The motion 2 offers the opportunity to discuss the best combination of value for taxpayers’ money as well as solutions for parliamentarians.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Leaving aside for a second the merits and demerits of supporting the project or not, the Leader of the House and others have stressed the desperate urgency for this work to be carried out. Why on earth, then, have the Government prevaricated and wasted 18 months in getting this debate to the Floor of this House, before even getting it to the House of Lords?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There has been no waste of time. There has been consultation, and work has been ongoing to make some vital repairs. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the cast-iron roofs are being repaired—[Interruption.] No, he must appreciate that there is a need to consult, look at different options and make the right assessment. This decision could, and probably should, have been taken 40 years ago. I do not accept his accusation that there has been any prevarication, and certainly not on my watch.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

On the subject of value for money, does the Leader of the House share my concern that, actually, a decant has already happened? The essential maintenance work that is due to happen around the cloisters, which are heavily damaged, for which offices have already been evacuated, has been brought to a halt, with expensive equipment shoring up the stonework of this place. No date for getting on with it has yet been set. That is a huge waste of money and does not bode well for getting on with the more substantive project we are discussing today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes two important points. One is that we do need to get on with it, and the second concerns the importance of planning for this. It is vital that we get good value for taxpayers’ money. Roughly, the projections show that we will be spending £90 million a year, of which roughly half will be throwaway once we get on with R and R, and the other half will be work that needs to be done anyway and will not be throwaway. They are the sorts of numbers we are looking at. We do need to get on and take a decision, but we must fully cost the best value for taxpayers’ money.

I have listened closely to the very real concerns expressed by colleagues—that in some way we might be forced out, never to return to this place. Both of today’s motions are intended to make it explicit that this is not, and will not be, the case. To put the matter beyond doubt, and recognising the depth of concerns from some colleagues, I am happy to confirm today that were the House to agree that we must take action now, the commitment to returning to the Palace will be enshrined in the legislation that the Government will subsequently introduce to set up the sponsor body and delivery authority. It will be on the face of the Bill, putting the matter beyond doubt.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend clarify something? If we adopt the idea of a delivery authority—I take the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made about it being, in many ways, a no-brainer—will it not mean that in 18 months we get a simple “take it or leave it” decision? We will either accept what the delivery authority says or reject it completely. Would it not be better if the delivery authority did the proper costings he rightly said were needed so that we could then make an informed choice?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: that is what the delivery authority would do. It would look at the best combination of options—value for taxpayers’ money along with the right solutions for the restoration and renewal of the Palace—and come back, in 12 to 18 months, with its recommended option, which would then be put to the House for a final “take it or leave it” vote.

[Michael Fabricant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I fear it may be a point of frustration, or perhaps a point of attempted clarification, but nevertheless let’s hear the fella.

[Michael Fabricant]

I do not think it is frustration. I think my right hon. Friend may have misunderstood a point I made in my lengthy question. Is it not the case that we will not be able to choose from a number of options put forward by the delivery authority, but will have either to accept its recommendation or to start from square one, which would not be satisfactory?

[Mr Speaker]

That was really an intervention without permission masquerading as a point of order, but never mind—we have heard it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I am delighted to answer my hon. Friend, because it is an important point. The whole purpose of the sponsor board having a majority of parliamentarians on it is to ensure that throughout the deliberations of the delivery authority it can take soundings from parliamentarians, and it will be the sponsor board and the delivery authority that will finally decide on the best combination outcome to put to both Houses for a final vote.

I have set out the options before the House. This is a matter for Parliament, rather than the Government, and for my party—and, I think, for all parties—it will be a free vote.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will give way one last time.

[John Redwood]

I am very grateful. It is on a point of clarification and information of general interest. In the costings for the grander scheme—where we leave these premises—how much of the cost is for essential replacements and renewals, and how much is for the nice-to-have additions and changes?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. About 75% of the cost of the works to the Palace of Westminster is for work that is non-cosmetic—it will be dealing with mechanical and engineering works, the fire risks, and so on—but aimed at preserving essential services for future generations. We have a duty to do it. This is not about carpets and curtains, but about profound and essential services, for the largest part.

[Simon Hoare]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way any more.

The Government do not have a position on this and will respect the views of the House, but as a Member myself I would like to take a moment to share my own position on this very important subject. When I became Leader of the House, I took on the restoration and renewal project with a healthy degree of scepticism. I, like many, felt that the case for a major restoration programme had probably been overstated, that the Palace looked fine and that we could continue to patch and mend as we went along, as we have done for many decades. However, during my seven months in the job, I have, as they say, gone on a journey. I have lived and breathed this topic. I have visited the basement and seen for myself what our engineers are up against.

Should a catastrophic failure happen in this place, I want to look back to this moment and know that I chose to protect the Palace for future generations. I want to be clear that we do everything we can to minimise the risks this building faces, but we must recognise that as time passes without comprehensive action those risks only increase. My role has brought me close to the heart of these issues, and I am not the only Leader of the House to have arrived at this view: both of my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), share my desire to take action. Today I will be voting to take action. I will be voting for motion No. 2.

16:29

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her comprehensive speech about this very important issue. I was pleased to learn that the two motions tabled in her name are amendable; I had previously thought that they were not. I agree with her that we need to take action immediately, and I feel that amendment (b) to motion No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), will enable us to make an immediate decision.

I want to deal with three main issues. The first is the issue of the reports that have been published. A Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons was appointed by both Houses in July 2015. It took evidence, and a report was published on 8 September 2016. The Committee deliberated, and reached the conclusion that there should be a full decant of Parliament because that was the most cost-effective option. The Committee proposed that there should be a shadow delivery authority, a sponsor board, and updated costings. A second report was published by the Public Accounts Committee on 10 March 2017. The PAC endorsed the Joint Committee’s recommendation. In particular, it said that the feasibility of a full decant must be demonstrated clearly and beyond reasonable doubt, with a comprehensive risk analysis, before a final decision was made. Both reports were produced on a cross-party basis, and I thank the Committee members in both Houses for all their deliberation and hard work.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, whichever option we choose, it is important that we do not break the 1,000-year link between the governance of the country and this site, and that we should therefore have a debating Chamber on this site while the restoration works continue?

[Valerie Vaz]

I will come to the issue of what will happen about a debating Chamber on this site, but I am afraid I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the link might be broken through factors beyond our control. We would be forced to leave if there were a fire, or any other act of God.

I thank the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who did try to find time for a debate. As I said earlier, the PAC’s report was published in March—I emphasise that date—and I then had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, who was very keen to get the debate going, but what we had not realised was that the hills were alive with the sound of a general election. As a result of the election, the response to the report was not made by the Government.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Lady confirm my understanding—this is really in response to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that we cannot bind our successor Parliaments, whether in legislation or by other means, to abide by any measure that we pass? It can be revoked, and it can be changed. Is that also the hon. Lady’s understanding? Many of those who take my position on the issue fear very much that were we to leave this place, 101 reasons would be found for why we could not return.

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot bind future Parliaments, but I disagree with his other point. I think that when he has heard the rest of what I have to say, he will recognise that that is not the case.

The second issue is that there are new threats. Security, as well as safety, is now a key factor. While work is taking place in Norman Shaw North, Norman Shaw South and Derby Gate under the northern estates programme, all the security considerations will be taken into account. We know what happened at Westminster on 22 March. Our friend and protector PC Keith Palmer died; we were in lockdown. For all sorts of reasons, we need a contingency Chamber. The northern estates programme is on to that; discussions are ongoing with Westminster Council and they have been quite productive. Since the Department of Health and Social Care has now moved out into Victoria Street, it may well be possible to use the space behind the façade of Richmond Terrace, and that could very well be our contingency Chamber; it will become the contingency Chamber when we move back to the House.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the shadow Leader agree that amendment (b) guarantees that all Members will return to this site under paragraph (8)? That is essential for anyone who loves the history of this site; they recognise that coming back here is important, but if they really care about the historic nature of this site, we will make sure it is maintained for future generations by properly restoring this building.

[Valerie Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman sums it up perfectly, and I cannot add anything more to that.

The governance of the project is another major area of concern. There will be a sponsor body and a delivery authority. We had a very helpful seminar, which we might be able to set up for Members. It looked at the two successful projects of Crossrail and the 2012 Olympics and how the sponsor body and the delivery authority were set up and operated; we on the House of Commons Governance Committee, which I sat on, heard from Sir David Higgins on how he operated with those two bodies. He said he spent time building up the relationship and the two bodies acted in concert. As Members will know, Baroness Jowell was, when a Member of this House, successful in ensuring the delivery of a very successful Olympics. I know the situation now is slightly different as we do not have an end-date as we did with the Olympics, but Sir David Higgins made it very clear that so long as the professionals, who will be on the delivery authority, have a Gantt chart—I did not know what it meant then, but I do now—so there is a timeframe and the costs are allocated, there should not be any need for any overrun.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

What does the hon. Lady say to the argument that if Members were still somewhere in this place, they would be able to have far greater oversight of the works in progress, which would incentivise the building works, because if we decant that incentive goes away?

[Valerie Vaz]

As with everything, we do delegate things to people—we do delegate things to professionals. I am pretty sure it would be impossible for 650 Members to have their say on how this place operates. That is why we have the delivery authority and the sponsor body.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady believes there will not be an overrun, but when work on the Elizabeth Tower, which houses Big Ben, is to take five years, does she think six years for the entire Palace of Westminster is a realistic estimate?

[Valerie Vaz]

I cannot look into the future, but I will address those points later.

[Michael Fabricant]

Does the hon. Lady understand the concern I raised with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: if we leave it to the delivery authority, with just a few Members on it, and we end up with a take-it-or-leave-it decision to make, the final decision will in effect be made by the delivery authority, and not really by this House? I used to build radio stations and did a re-equip of Broadcasting House and other things, so I have some small experience in this, and in reality there will be choices to be made. Of course we want the data from the delivery authority, but this House should finally make the choice between a number of alternatives, not just have a take-it-or-leave-it one.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me his resumé. Perhaps he is suggesting that he should be on the sponsor body. Actually, it is the delivery authority, which has the experts on it, that will be accountable to the sponsor body. The sponsor body will have Members on it, and they will be the custodians and guardians of the project.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

The two biggest projects in this country in the past few years have been the Olympic games, which involved a complicated build and had to be delivered on time, and Crossrail. As the hon. Lady rightly says, Sir David Higgins was involved in both those projects, and they were both delivered on time and to budget. We have got better at this, and following that particular procedure is by far the best way.

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Those two amazing projects have been, and continue to be, delivered.

[Mr John Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked about the delivery authority and who will make the decisions. It is clear that that authority will make many critical decisions and, as the hon. Lady says, it will contain experts. Will those experts be voting members? Will they take key decisions? Or will it just be the parliamentarians who will be voting members on the authority?

[Valerie Vaz]

The delivery authority, with its experts, will carry out the day-to-day work. They are the experts in every aspect. Members here have other jobs to do, and they will be on the sponsor body. However, the delivery authority will be accountable to the sponsor body. As I have explained, Sir David Higgins is an absolute expert at this, and he ensured that both the projects that have just been mentioned were successful.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Valerie Vaz]

May I just finish addressing some of the issues that have been raised?

Some Members have asked whether we could move one Chamber at a time. Anyone who has visited the basement, as many Members have, will have seen all the wires and pipes. When the new technology was put in place, it was a patchwork effect. For example, the wi-fi was just slapped on, alongside the pipes. Those systems run along the whole building. Fires and floods do not respect any boundaries between the House of Lords in the House of Commons; for them, this is just one building, so if work has to be done, it has to be done to the whole building.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does that not underline the fact that decanting half the building would be problematic, because the services run throughout the whole of the building and we therefore cannot decant just half of it?

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree. I cannot add anything further to that.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I took part in the basement tour yesterday. It was made clear to us that a significant amount of the asbestos had been removed over the past few years, adequately and safely, while we remained here and while members of the public were able to use the building safely. Does that not illustrate the fact that significant repairs can be carried out while we are here, safe and well protected?

[Valerie Vaz]

The asbestos is just one aspect of this. We are talking about much more than that. We are talking about electrical cables, water pipes and all sorts of things including the telecoms system, so it goes well beyond just the asbestos. May I just say for the record that the place is safe? We would not allow people into the building unless the accounting officer was convinced that members of the public and parliamentarians were safe. That has nothing to do with the fact that the work needs to be done, but please do not let us give everyone the impression that this is not a safe place.

Turning to costs, the Public Accounts Committee has said that weak governance would increase costs and that good governance would cover that. The Committee recommended that the National Audit Office should have a role in this, and the Committee and the NAO will work to ensure that best value for money is achieved. As I have said, the delivery authority will be accountable to the sponsor body, which will have Members on it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we know from various engineering projects, the projections for the final costs can only ever be notional?

[Valerie Vaz]

That is absolutely right. As we have seen from Crossrail and from the Elizabeth Tower project, we never know what we are going to find. The Elizabeth Tower had structural issues, which was why the costs increased. With Crossrail, they actually found bodies. We do not know what they are going to find under here. There might be the odd monarch or two, or perhaps the odd Member or two following the basement visit. Who knows?

[Mark Tami]

Where’s Boris?

[Valerie Vaz]

Yes, Boris’s mummy. [Laughter.] Not another Johnson! Although people say something similar about me, too.

Blacklisting has been mentioned, and some Members referred to a certain company that may have been involved with the Elizabeth Tower project. That would be a matter for the delivery authority, but things clearly need to be tightened up because blacklisting is against the law. The project will obviously require specialists, but fewer and fewer companies offer such skills, so we need to consider the heritage issues.

[Mike Gapes]

I declare an interest in that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary Crossrail group. Artefacts may be found and important discoveries may be made when the work is done, so can we ensure, just as with Crossrail, that the work is not done in such a way that will destroy the historic things that could be added to the displays about the heritage of our Parliament?

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree. I have a daughter who studied archaeology, so I know about that. I also have a friend who is an engineer on Crossrail who got very cross with the archaeologists, but this is about our heritage and it is important that we protect it.

Another question that arose was, “What will our constituents say?” Well, this work is necessary for safety, and everyone agrees about that. We need to do the work now and it cannot be delayed, because any delay will just increase the costs. We will also be investing in skills for the future.

I had the opportunity to go to Canada, where exactly the same is being done. A chamber is being built in the courtyard, and it is extremely impressive. However, the Canadians also have a long-term vision and a plan that came from looking at the work that must be done to Government buildings over the next 10 years, which is something that we should certainly consider.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House mentions the work taking place at the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa and the temporary chamber that is being built in one of its courtyards. If there is to be a full decant of this place, does she agree that a temporary chamber should be built within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster to ensure that there is parliamentary footprint on this historic site, even just once a year?

[Valerie Vaz]

That is where some of the misinformation has arisen. We may be leaving this building, but we are not leaving the parliamentary estate. We will be around. We are going to be here.

I do not know whether Members have seen the helpful memorandum by the accounting officer on the costings for options 1 and 2, but I hope that further costings will be drawn up if any amendment is passed.

In conclusion, we have a duty to protect this beautiful heritage building in which we all work. We have the chance to upskill people and to showcase our skilled workforce to the rest of the world. We can train the engineers of the future and encourage more women and girls into this area. There are 11-year-olds today who could be the apprentices working on this building, and they would be able to say to their children and grandchildren, “I worked on Parliament.” We can make Parliament truly accessible for people with disabilities. What a legacy it would be if we could move the education centre, the lease on which will be running out, to the contingency chamber. We will have more meeting rooms and an up-to-date, compliant building. We could leave behind a great legacy in skills and in civic pride. We will be able to do our work here safely and securely on behalf of our constituents in their Parliament.

16:49

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am aware that we are already one hour into this three-hour debate and that there are lists upon lists of people who want to speak, so I will not take interventions and will be as succinct as possible.

This building is probably more important to me than to many here, because I come from an ethnic minority Commonwealth background and was brought up looking at the photographs of this fantastic building. It is a real honour to be here, so it was a shock when I became aware of the disaster that lurks around us, below us and above us. I believe we need a full decant because of the nature of the building’s infrastructure.

Most Members will be aware that the House has a basement, which has a long passageway that runs the length of the building. There are 86 vertical chimneys running from that passageway and they were originally designed for ventilation. That of course means a fire could travel laterally and vertically extremely quickly. At present, the chimneys carry a mass of electrical services of varying age, many of them clearly defective. We have gas pipes, air conditioning conduits, steam pipes, telephone systems, communications fibres and, of course, a hugely overloaded sewerage system, which I understand the Leader of the House discovered to her mishap—possibly through her shoes—when she visited.

The infrastructure serves the whole building from end to end, moving up through the chimneys, and there is a small duplication in the roof. In the days before the dangers of asbestos were known, that dangerous material was literally and liberally splashed everywhere by brushes from buckets, but asbestos can be dealt with. The infrastructure dangers are other than asbestos.

The sewerage system consists of two large steel tanks that collect from a very large pipe that runs the whole length of the building. The system was put in place in 1888 and it is just waiting to repeat the bursts we have already had. If those bursts go over some of the equipment and infrastructure, the disaster will stare us in the face.

We try to make not only the sewerage system but all the other systems fit our demands. This means that we are pushing on a door that is solidly locked. We have to take the infrastructure out. Despite the suggestion, it is not likely that we will find bodies because we will be repairing and renovating the infrastructure, not the structure of the building. We will not be digging down to look for Guy Fawkes or one of his relations.

The point we have to understand is that the longer we wait, the risk of a catastrophic collapse of services nears upon us. If my memory is correct, the risk is rated such that by 2020 we will have a 50:50 chance of a catastrophic collapse of our services. That does not just mean fire; it also means a collapse of our electricity or gas services, for example. About a dozen fires broke out last year. It has been asked, “Why wait?” I support amendment (b) to motion No. 1—the amendment tabled by the Chair and deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—because we need to assess the situation. We should not wait, but we have to assess before we go any further.

All the connected infrastructure needs to be removed and replaced. I am disappointed by the two motions. Motion No. 1 would kick the whole problem into the long grass and, to a major degree, so would motion No. 2. Both motions would mean extra expenditure when we are staring a full decant in the face. The thought that we could take out the infrastructure in half the building is engineeringly ludicrous. While we did that, we would have a long delay and more expense, and the other half of the infrastructure would continue to deteriorate while we sat and stared at the problem in the first half of the building.

Amendment (b) to motion No. 1, in essence, takes the Joint Committee’s recommendations on repair and renovation. As has been said, it is a bicameral, cross-party report. Many members of the Joint Committee were as cynical as anyone, including me, when they went in but, after the evidence, their conclusions were unanimous and conclusive. They took extensive advice from many who should and do understand the problems and solutions, and that is in the report and its conclusions.

I hesitate to use the word “experts” because it has become traditional to sneer at experts but, as a part-time dentist, if I have a patient with a very severe condition such as cancer, they want to see an expert. This building has a very severe and potentially fatal condition, so we need to take notice of the experts. Any method other than a full decant will vastly increase the costs, the time taken to do the works and the risk of disaster, and that risk is getting worse day by day, as I have said.

The security risk from a partial decant is obvious if one pauses to think about it. I have read the letters and papers from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). His amendment entails a partial decant. That has been rejected by the Joint Committee, by the Public Accounts Committee and by many, many other—if I dare use the word—experts. The approach the amendment sets out will, in essence, double the time for works, double the costs, increase the security risk, and increase the risk of fire and of a complete breakdown of the services in the other half. The thought of cutting a sewerage system—or the electrics or any of the other works—in half does not make sense because of the nature of the building. I am sorry to say this, but I would not give my hon. Friend—I hope he remains a friend—a LEGO set to play with.

I did say I would be as succinct as possible, so let me just say that it would be a severe derogation of our duty to not move expeditiously, and I urge support for the amendment standing in the name of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the PAC and of many others, including myself.

16:56

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Of all the things this House can do to endear itself to our constituents, spending billions of pounds on renovating our place of work is not one of them. In these days of austerity and tightening of belts, and with the impending economic disaster of Brexit coming our way, I would bet this would be near the bottom or at the very bottom of the public’s concerns. The sums involved are simply eye-watering—£3.6 billion rising to £5.7 billion, and that is before all the unforeseen difficulties and the additions that hon. Members will certainly want to factor in. So it is no surprise whatsoever that people are making an estimation that this could come in at a cool £10 billion to £12 billion.

As with so many things that fundamentally impact on my constituents, I thought I would ask a few of them what they thought about these proposals. It was no surprise that they were not seen all that favourably. Mrs McLeod from Pitlochry just said curtly:

“You must be joking”

Mr Morrison from Errol said:

“In these days of food banks and austerity I am sickened that they are even thinking about this”.

Mr Mac Donald from Kinloch Rannoch just casually inquired:

“why are you even still in that place, it’s time to come home to your own Parliament here”,

a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly concur.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will make a bit of progress and give way in a moment.

Surprisingly, no one in my less-than-scientific survey of a few people in Perth and North Perthshire thought there were any admirable qualities in spending billions on a parliamentarians’ palace. I am pretty certain that, even if I went looking for anyone who thought there were, I would not find any in my constituency.

Let me compare and contrast what is happening in this Chamber with what has just been happening in the Scottish Parliament, where we are setting out our budgets. We are allocating billions of pounds to socially useful programmes that will enable our citizenry. What are we doing here? We are talking about spending billions of pounds on a royal palace to accommodate Members of Parliament. Nothing could distinguish better the priorities of these two Parliaments.

I do, however, accept that we have an issue. [Hon. Members: “ Oh really!”] Yes. Because of the decades of prevarication and indecision, this building is practically falling down. The failure of successive Government to face up to their responsibility in looking after this place means we now have a building that could, as people have said, face a catastrophic failure at any time.

The mechanical and electrical engineering systems are already well past their use-by date and the risk of that catastrophic failure rises exponentially every five years. Some of the high-voltage cables in the building are decaying, and fire is an ever-present risk, only compounded by just how easily any fire would spread. Most worryingly, as we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House, there is a substantial amount of asbestos in the building. Mice and other vermin are a common feature, and I have heard that some staff even have names for the mice that they frequently acquaint with on a daily basis. It is not a robin we need in this House, but a flipping big eagle to pick up some of the huge mice that kick about this place. The Palace of Westminster is simply falling down.

The most important aspect that we have to consider is our responsibility for the staff who work in this place. This is a workplace for thousands of people, and we are putting them at significant risk by staying here.

[Chris Bryant]

I sympathise with some of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is simply untrue to say that this building is falling down. It is not. There is work that needs to be done, not least to protect staff and give them a proper place to work in, and to provide decent disabled access, but if we simply let either motion go through, we will be committing more money than if we vote for the amendment in the name of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. That is what I fear.

[Pete Wishart]

I have an elegant solution to the difficulties and travails of this House, which is to consider making this beautiful building a tourist attraction for people from all around the world. There are immense development opportunities in this UNESCO world heritage building. Let us design and create a Parliament for the 21st century—one that will be useful for 21st-century parliamentarians—rather than try to shoehorn all this activity into a mock-gothic Victorian tourist attraction. That is what the hon. Gentleman should support this evening, not billions of pounds being spent on some parliamentarians’ palace.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No, I want to make some progress.

We have a duty of care to the staff and for their wellbeing and safety. It is therefore disappointing that the motion seeks, once again, to kick any future works into touch and to delay the decision. The simple fact is that the decision should have been made a decade ago, not kicked into touch for another Parliament to deal with. The whole story of resolving our difficulties in this House is littered with prevarication and indecision. We will not support any measure that leaves our staff here for a minute longer than is absolutely necessary. We are not prepared to have them continue to be put at risk.

It will not come as any surprise to you, Mr Speaker, or any other Member to hear that I, as a Scottish National party Member, do not share the dewy-eyed affection and nostalgia that some Conservative Members feel towards the Palace. I love this building—it is fantastic. It is one of the truly iconic buildings in the world, and it is a real pleasure and privilege to see this place as I walk into it, but I have to concede that I could probably discharge my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament from somewhere else. I think I would just about manage. On the distant date when all these works may be completed, I and my Scottish colleagues will be well gone from this place. We will be sitting in our own independent Parliament in Scotland, considering the issues that all normal states have to deal with. Probably, when all this is concluded, the first colony on Mars will be thinking about independence.

When I look at this building, its stunning architecture and the condition it is in, I see it as a sad metaphor for Brexitised Britain: dilapidated, falling to bits around our ears, generally unloved and in need of a lot of attention and support. Does not that just sum up where this nation is?

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not the case that it would take a crowbar and a pint of Irn Bru to wrestle my honourable cousin from Scotland from this place—that he actually loves it here? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) may be seeking to recover his composure—I certainly did not exhort him to resume his seat. We want him on his feet so that we can hear him continue.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I will enjoy a refreshing cup of Irn Bru with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) any time, but on his substantive point, I assure him that I cannot wait to get away from this place and for my nation to take control of all its own affairs.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Is it true that there are only 22 voters in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who separate him from fulfilling his wish?

[Pete Wishart]

Yet again, there is a cunning plan in place, because a precedent has been set. If I, for whatever reason that I cannot foresee, was less than successful in the next election, defeated Members for Perth and North Perthshire are simply given a peerage in the House of Lords.

We have proposed a sensible approach to the current issues facing this House. There is nothing wrong with considering a new-build Parliament off site. It is deeply disappointing and depressing that when that was sensibly presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to the Joint Committee, it was rejected out of hand and did not even get the time of day as a proposal. Is that not absolutely shocking? It was a failure of true diligence of this House to consider all available options—just rejected immediately. It would have been a solution. Just imagine developers lining up to get a share of this place, a UNESCO site; just imagine what they could do. We are trying to shoehorn a Parliament into this mock Gothic building. We need a 21st-century Parliament designed with all the features that we require as 21st-century parliamentarians to do our job, and that cannot be achieved on this site without decades of work and billions and billions of pounds.

That brings me to amendment (b) to motion No. 2. This is really, really important. For goodness’ sake let us at least end the useless tradition that actively eats into our productivity as Members of Parliament and restore electronic voting in whatever approach we pursue. [Interruption.] Another proposal that has gone down particularly well with my Conservative friends! We waste days of parliamentary time just stuck in the packed voting Lobby, waiting to make that simple binary choice of yes or no.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am conscious that I am probably one of the few Members who have taken part in the debate so far who was actually only elected in 2017, but one thing that struck me when I got here was going to the education centre and the bemused look on the children’s faces when I explained to them that to vote in this place, I have to walk through doors, yet in the education centre, the kids get to vote by electronic keypads.

[Pete Wishart]

As my hon. Friend will remember, only two weeks ago, we wasted up to two hours on voting in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. We could have been debating, legislating or taking up issues on behalf of our constituents. WebRoots Democracy came up with a report today that said that one month—one month—was lost on voting in the Parliament between 2010 and 2015, at the cost of £3.5 million in Members’ time. This nonsense has to end.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is presupposing that a month was lost in voting in the House of Commons. Do you have any information as to how much of that month was taken up by voting on SNP amendments?

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter on which I have taxed my mind, and I do not think that I am required to do so, but I have known the right hon. Gentleman since we first jousted together in 1983 at a half-yearly Federation of Conservative Students conference, and I knew his puckish grin then and I know it now. He has made his own point in his own way and we will leave it there.

[Pete Wishart]

It is a puckish grin with which I am also familiar. All I want to do is to assist hon. Members: help us in our campaign to reclaim our time so that we can properly spend the time debating and looking after our constituents—[Interruption.] Yes, take back control, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

On that very issue, how can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that time in the Division Lobby is wasted. On the Conservative Benches, we find it quite useful talking to our friends and colleagues. Is that not true in the SNP?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know how much of a blessing it is to Front Benchers when hon. Members get backstage and buttonhole them. And this is what we get—the shrieks of, “Oh, we need to meet up with our ministerial colleagues in the Lobby.” But that prerogative is exclusively the right of Conservative Members. I do not detect many Government Ministers, as we spend most of our time voting with Labour, and I am pretty damned certain that no Labour Members have encountered a Government Minister in their Lobby over the course of these years. The Conservative Members may have that right, but it is a right that is not open to the rest of us.

I will help Conservatives Members with this one: we could have electronic voting that we would have to do in the vicinity of the Chamber. We would all have to come here and we would get some sort of device, because the technological solution would be to press a button that is handed out to us. We would all be here, so if hon. Members wanted to speak to Ministers or talk to the Leader of the House about a particular issue, they could just go up to them and say, “Hello, Leader of the House. Can I have a word with you please?” None of that would be stopped.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman just clarify that he is saying that we should have individual desks?

[Pete Wishart]

A number of solutions have been designed in Parliaments around the world. In some Parliaments, that solution may include desks. What I am suggesting is a technological solution, whereby we would come to the Chamber and press a button to vote. We could vote on anybody’s proposal and time would not be wasted.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I have served in the Scottish Parliament, which uses electronic voting. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an issue—I saw this a number of times—with SNP MSPs who incorrectly press the wrong button?

[Pete Wishart]

Let me use the hon. Gentleman as an example. Sometimes he is not even there to vote on these issues because he is away refereeing football games, earning thousands of pounds, so it is really good to see him in his place today, prepared to vote.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

According to the Public Whip website, in the last full five-year Parliament, the hon. Gentleman voted in only 49.9% of votes. Does he want an electronic system so that he can boost his own record without doing any real work?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman misses when it comes to these sorts of issues. I vote for issues that are reserved here in this Parliament and this House. Conservative Members are trying to stop me from voting, through English votes for English laws, so we are in a situation where these particular difficulties exist in the House.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is it not also true that the Public Whip does not record the fact that there are England and Wales only votes that we are excluded from in this House?

[Pete Wishart]

The whole trend of EVEL legislation is to ensure that we do not vote on those particular issues; they have put in mechanisms to stop us doing that.

I will conclude, although I know that the House has very much enjoyed the alternative view on the issue. I want this House to move on in where we work and in how we do our work. But I have a sneaking suspicion, from my 17 years in this House, that neither of these things will be delivered any time soon.

11:30

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I will be brief because I want to concentrate on only one aspect of the debate, which is safety. I know that there are important issues to be discussed about costs, timing, and whether we have a full or partial move. For the record, I support those who say that we must be clear that Parliament should stay in the Palace of Westminster in the long term. But before we consider these long-term issues, we need to look at what is happening here, today and every day. What is happening is that we are asking not only ourselves and our staff, but also thousands of visitors, to come to a building that is not safe.

It might be an exaggeration to say that Parliament is a death trap, but it would not be a wild exaggeration. Anyone who has taken the tour of the basement will have seen the full horror of the current arrangements. We have already heard about the regular fires that break out. I think the Leader of the House said that there have been 60 over the past 10 years, and 12 in the past year alone. Chunks of masonry have fallen off high parts of the building. We are lucky that no one has been killed so far because of this. It is not remotely conceivable that people would be allowed to work here if this were a normal building, let alone that thousands of tourists would be allowed to visit it.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s tour of the basement, did he happen to give any consideration to the working conditions of the individuals who are tasked with undertaking repairs in the basement areas? Having seen the basement myself, it seems incredibly unsafe and unfair to expect them to continue in those conditions.

[Damian Green]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The wider point about safety was put very starkly by the recently retired Black Rod, David Leakey, who said:

“There could be a major fire, there could be loss of life.”

The one thing we know—the one unarguable fact we know—is that the more we delay, the more likely some horrific outcome becomes.

We need to be clear about who statistically is most likely to be affected. It is not us. There are about 1,500 legislators in the two Houses. There are 15,000 people who have passes to come into this building. About 1 million people visit every year. The Education Service has more than 100,000 visitors a year, most of them, of course, children. It cannot be right to increase the risk of catastrophe for those people by continuing to delay.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the ways we can protect ourselves and our staff and visitors is by engaging with the fire safety training module on the intranet? It is good for us, our staff and our visitors, but fewer than 20% of Members undertake the training.

[Damian Green]

I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make that public service announcement.

I want to address directly one of the arguments that has been used to advocate delay and continuing to muddle through in the way that we have done for too long. The argument is that in the wake of the terrible tragedy of Grenfell Tower, we cannot be seen to be spending large sums of money on this place. I would turn that argument absolutely on its head. Having seen the appalling effects of a fire in a building that had inadequate protection, I think it would be the height of irresponsibility not to take action to make safe a building that we know is barely safe now and that is getting more dangerous every year.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I did the underground tour as well. It was very frightening to see the gas pipes alongside the electrical wiring, but the most frightening thing I saw was the sheets of metal sitting above that wiring. They were full of water that was dripping down through the building and were there to stop the wires getting soaking wet. Given that we work in such conditions, how can we not make urgent efforts to get the work done in this building?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady’s point illustrates the general one that those who have spent most time and effort looking at the conditions of this House, either on various Committees or, indeed, inside Government, are the ones who are most keen to take early and decisive action. No one’s conscience should be comfortable with the potential consequences of delay and inaction in these circumstances.

I have great sympathy with and support for the Leader of the House, who has been energetic and active in bringing this matter before us. I agree with those who say that this should conceivably have been dealt with 10 years ago, but I assure the House that the Leader of the House has been very energetic in bringing it before us and we should be grateful to her.

The conclusion I draw is simple: get on with it—just get on with it. In the spirit of that conclusion, I will support amendment (b) to motion No. 1, as that is the best way to minimise the chance of a disaster happening as a result of inaction—a disaster that would reflect appallingly on this House.

17:18

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I confess to being one of those who holds this building in enormous esteem. There are bits of it I do not particularly like, but I have to say that the experience of walking through Westminster Hall, looking up at the angels, carved in probably the 14th century and supporting the roof, is one of the great joys that I would want every single one of my constituents to be able to experience at some point. It is against that background that I care passionately about what we do.

It is not just that we enjoy being here and fought to be here, because we wanted to come into this building and change the world and this country in the way we think is right according to our particular light; it is that we know we are trustees of this building for future generations. The best political generations in our history are the ones that have taken that responsibility the most seriously. In the early 19th century, they did not do it well and it led to a massive fire in 1834, which destroyed ancient paintings and buildings that had been here since the 13th century and before. My terrible fear is that if we do not take our job as trustees seriously now, regardless of party political advantage or, I say to my SNP friends, of ideological interest, we truly risk losing one of the great treasures of this country.

The problems have already been laid out. As the Chair of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), said, there is a single 130-year-old drain that could burst at any time. There is a high-pressure steam heating system next to high-voltage electricity cables, with wires that are decaying into flammable dust every day, next to gas pipes, phone cables, broadband cables and running water, all wrapped in asbestos.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) about asbestos, about two years ago the Clerk had to ring the Leader of the House to say that part of the central heating system had burst through some of the asbestos around the cabling, which was immediately next to the air conditioning system of the Chamber of the House of Commons. There was a real danger that he would have to close the Chamber and Parliament indefinitely until that was sorted out. The real problem is that we have a central heating system that is elderly, at high pressure and could burst at any time. It normally takes us about two and a half weeks to switch it on because of the fear of its doing that. That is the real problem about asbestos in the building.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My point was that we are told that these wires and cables are in tall stacks, which are full of asbestos. We are also told that they are going to burn, but they are clad in asbestos. My point was about the assessment that has been made of the fire protection provided by that asbestos, which we know to be one of the most non-flammable products.

[Chris Bryant]

This is the problem. In many of the spaces we are talking about, which are effectively very narrow chimneys, there is very little room, because they were intended to be ventilation shafts, in essence, but are now so full of generations of heating, electricity and other kinds of cabling that it is impossible to get in there to check. It is even impossible to get in there to check the extent to which the cabling has decayed.

We know that there is asbestos in some places, but we do not know whether there is in others, so of course we have to take precautionary measures. That is the problem; we do not know where all the asbestos is. A lot of it will have to come out because we have to remove other things, not because we are specifically removing the asbestos.

There are long corridors with no fire doors. We have 98 risers in the building and miles of inaccessible and narrow wooden tunnels that would act as funnels for a fire that, I tell you now, would speed through the building faster than most of us in the Chamber could run. We do not meet the national fire safety standards that we impose on other buildings in the country, so we have fire wardens patrolling the building 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Remember the fire at Windsor castle? The major problem was that it spread rapidly because there was no compartmentalisation. The only royal palace in the country that has not had compartmentalisation brought in since that date is this one, which is the most visited by the public. It is a nonsense.

[Mr John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making the measured case that I expected him to, but surely the characteristics he attributes to this building are shared by many great historic buildings. We think of cathedrals, which are widely visited every year and have the same problem with stonework. We think of the great houses that have the same fire risk. Many historic buildings have the same problems. The issue is not those problems, which we of course need to solve; it is how we solve them.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about big houses; I think he is asking me to advertise my book on the history of the aristocracy, which is in all the good bookshops at the moment. I would simply say to him that nearly every one of the major houses that fell into disrepair in the last 100 years did so as the result of a massive fire. I think we should take a lesson from that, which is that we must be very, very cautious in this building. When that fire comes, I would not want to be a Member who had voted against taking direct, clear action now; I truly would not.

It must surely also be a disgrace that this Parliament, which introduced proper legislation to ensure disabled access in every other public building in the land, has the worst disabled access of any public building in the land. It is almost impossible for somebody with mobility difficulties to get up into the Gallery, although the staff try really hard. On top of that, the building is very dark—it is almost impossible for many people who are partially sighted to see their way around—and we should, as a matter of honour, be putting that right.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions fires, as a number of hon. Members have done. We have talked about actual fires. Only a few months ago, in my office there was a smell of burning and soot falling from the grates in my ceiling. I phoned the emergency number, but by the time I had reached the door of my office there were fire wardens in the corridor. That is the reality of preventing fire, and happily, so far, it has been successful.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As several others have already said, this is not primarily about us; it is about the safety of the thousands of people who come to visit the building, the 8,000 who work in it, and the 15,000 who have passes.

The hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) was absolutely right to say that it is crazy that great big scaffolding has been put up in the cloisters to make work possible on one of the most beautiful bits of the Palace, one of the other bits that survived the 1834 fire—the cloisters that were put in by Henry VII and then Henry VIII. The problem is that at the moment we simply do not have the capacity and the capability within the House authorities to get those major pieces of work done in the House. That means that parts of the building are falling apart, water is coming in where it should not, and we are degrading a national asset. That is why it is so important, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, to set up a proper sponsor body and delivery authority to do this properly—to bring in really high-quality staff and to make sure the work is delivered on time and on budget, as we can do in this country.

In all honesty, motion No. 1, if left unamended, says, broadly speaking, “Let’s not do anything in this Parliament.” It is not the long grass; it is the very, very long grass. I believe that would be an utter dereliction of our duty, which is why Historic England, who are, after all, the Government’s own advisers on the built heritage in this country, have said that if we were to go down that route, they would have to put this building on the at- risk register. That is a profoundly shocking thing for us to be told if we are not going to take action.

Motion No. 2 is mildly better. I am a bit disappointed in the Leader of the House that she is not going any further than that motion, because it also means that we refuse to make a clear decision now. It means that we try to set up a sponsor body and a delivery authority, for which we want to get the best people, without giving them a clear direction of travel. It means that they will be repeating the work that was done by the Joint Committee.

We produced our report 16 months ago and it is only now that we are getting the debate, so my bet is that when this sponsor body reports, with the three options that it has looked at, the Government will not want to table the motions. There will be a general election coming up; there will be some issue that has to be sorted out, and the debate will be another two years after that. I say to hon. Members that if they are thinking of voting for motion No. 2, they will have to make this decision all over again in four years’ time, by which time the risk will have increased—and the cost.

That is why I support amendment (b) to motion No. 1. It implements the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Committee and the Public Accounts Committee; it sets up a sponsor body and a delivery authority; and it takes an in principle decision. It is the only way to take an in principle decision today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I just want to set the record straight, because the hon. Gentleman is attributing inaccuracies to my remarks. Motion No. 2 will ensure that the best combination of urgent action can be taken in a cost-effective way. The delivery authority will come back to this House with a final preferred solution within 12 to 18 months and with proper costings. As for his proposal to go down just one route, his own Joint Committee acknowledged in its report that it had not done the costings properly.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, we disagree, because I know what has happened over the last 10 years. Governments have repeatedly fought shy of bringing motions to the House. I have enormous respect for the Leader of the House. She has worked very hard on this, but as she said to me last week, it may be that somebody else is Leader of the House in future and that person might not be so keen on bringing anything to the House. My guess is that when we get closer to a general election, no Government will want to bring the matter back to the House. Therefore, much as I admire and respect her, I just do not think that her solution is the answer.

I want to say just a few other things. The first is about trying to stay in the building while the work is being done. I appeal to colleagues to think hard about that. We are talking about 10 times as much work happening on a daily basis as is happening now. That is 10 times as many people hammering, drilling, sanding down buildings, moving cabling, bringing in vast amounts of material and all the rest, and 10 times as many portakabins. Earlier today I was on the roof of Westminster Hall, looking at the work being done there. Because people have complained about the noise, the people there are only able to work at night, and guess what that has done to the budget? It has tripled it. When work was being done on the Royal Gallery, the House of Lords said, “We can’t hear ourselves think,” and so decided that the work could be done only at weekends and at night, and guess what? That added £1 million to the work. The truth of the matter is that if we try to stay, we will dramatically increase the cost of the work, and we will be going bananas.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Talking of which.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Does he agree that an emergency decant, should for example we discover something horrible in the woodshed—or rather, in the basement—or should something go wrong with clearing the asbestos, would massively increase the costs of us having to find alternative accommodation?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why, incidentally, to those who say, “If we ever move out, they’ll never let us back,” I say, “Who is this magical ‘they’ who’s going to prevent us from coming back in?” The truth is that whether we choose to come back will always be a decision for Parliament. If future generations decide that things should be done differently, good luck to them, but we should not make a decision now that makes it impossible for us to protect this building, because—this is precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman made—the most certain way for us to be permanently excluded is to have a catastrophic failure in the building, such as a fire or a flood.

[Mrs Moon]

Before casting their votes tonight, those Members who want to remain should nip into the Library and read sections of “Mr Barry’s War”, in which they will see the absolute chaos when Parliament refused to decant the last time. It was horrendous. It drove Pugin almost mad. We must leave.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is a great book and it, too, is available in all good bookshops, although it is not by me.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I am swaying between the amendment that the hon. Gentleman is promoting and motion No. 2. The reason I am drawn more to the motion No. 2 is that I would like us to have the occasional foothold in this place—the occasional use of the Palace in an extended period. Is there any way that the amendment can achieve that?

[Chris Bryant]

“A foothold” is a difficult thing to specify, but some people have said, for instance, that we should keep the Chamber functioning—I guess that is what most people mean. The difficulty with keeping the Chamber running is that the Chamber is not just the Chamber. It is not a hermetically sealed unit; the air conditioning, the heating, the electricity and all the rest of it come from somewhere. The public have to have access through large parts of the building. We would also have to access from somewhere, and it could not just be through some kind of polytunnel. It is actually phenomenally difficult to achieve that.

There was one other option, which was for us to sit in Westminster Hall. I love the idea of sitting in Westminster Hall. The hon. Member for somewhere down in the south-west—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—and I were joint advocates of that. The problem is that the floor is not solid—there are no solid foundations—and we would have to put something inside the roof, which could destroy it, so there are real problems.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should point out to the House that Members are free to intervene if the Member on his or her feet wishes to take the intervention, but there are now 80 minutes left. I must, in all courtesy, warn Members that a lot of Members who want to speak will not be called. Some of them are also seeking to intervene, and I am sure they can join the dots.

[Chris Bryant]

I have maybe one small paragraph more, Mr Speaker, which is simply to say that I am very fond of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I disagree with his views on this, because, in the end, they are not in the long-term interests of the Palace of Westminster itself. In particular, the idea of us sitting in Portcullis House, I am afraid, is for the birds. The advice from the security people is that it is simply begging somebody to use the fact that Portcullis House sits on top of the tube station, so I would say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a non-starter.

My final point is that there is only really one proposal on the table that allows us to make a clear decision and to move forward more swiftly, and that is the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).

17:36

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am also very fond of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I do disagree with him on one fundamental. What the whole House is united about is our understanding that we need to get on with this job. That is why I have lived and breathed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is sitting on the Front Bench, why we took the motion to the Backbench Business Committee with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), and why we have constantly encouraged the Government to bring these motions forward.

The work needs to be done, but the question I have to pose is, if this work is so important—if the building is so dangerous—why, in these decant options, are we waiting until 2025? That is the question we have to ask. I ask why the work is not proceeding far faster and at a pace. I ask myself why we still have so few fire doors and why the Library corridor, which is 100 yards long, has no fire door in it. Those are the sort of points we should raise. We are united—I say this to the hon. Member for Rhondda—on the need to take action, but I do ask why, if this work is so urgent, we are waiting until 2025. This whole debate about the decant has muddied the waters. Frankly, the Government should have been taking action years ago. If it is inconvenient to us, so be it. That is the most important point.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and I first saw the report, we were not saying that we were the experts. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that nobody suggested we were setting ourselves up as experts. I deliberately went out and consulted experts; I did not just consult my own conscience.

Like everybody else, I love this place, but I am not so important, and we are not so important. What about the 1 million people who visit this place every year? What about the fact that this building is the iconic centre of the nation, particularly as we try and resolve the very difficult questions of Brexit? Do we really want to take the enormous political decision, at this very difficult time for our nation, to move lock, stock and barrel from the iconic centre of the nation?

Members should understand that if we vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—it is the crucial amendment tonight—we are taking the decision. It is not motion No. 2 tabled by the Leader of the House and it is not asking for further assessment. If we vote for the amendment, we will be taking the decision now, and there will be no going back on it—we will have to move out. Members should not believe that it will be for only five years. They should look at the Canadian Parliament. I predict that we will be out of this building for 10 or even 12 years. The Canadian Parliament, which is building a replica Chamber, is moving out for 12 years. We have to think of our constituents and ask ourselves this question: do we really believe in this at this time of unparalleled austerity? In particular—I have seen Opposition Members make this point many times—do we believe that we should take the decision this evening to spend £5 billion up-front on our own workplace? It is a very difficult decision and a very difficult argument to make to our constituents.

When we started consulting experts, many other issues really got us worried. For instance, not a lot has been said so far about the fact that the decant proposal is to build a replica Chamber. Although we have heard a lot about the Joint Committee, it did not get all its facts right: it wanted to build the replica Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House, but unfortunately, it was five metres out. That is not a very competent process. Therefore, the Leader of the House was right that we cannot risk voting for the amendment, because there has not been sufficient assessment of the proposals. When it says that this is a unanimous report, it has to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who was on that Committee. He has now changed his mind—

[Mr John Hayes]

rose—

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot give way very often because the Speaker asked me not to speak for long, but I had better give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Hayes]

To be fair to the Leader of the House, as I think we want to, she has been absolutely clear that the proposal is to demolish Richmond House—she has been certain about that—and to build the replica Chamber nearby us. The message we would send to our constituents is simple: not only have MPs voted to leave Parliament, but they have voted to build another building to occupy and another Chamber a stone’s throw away. What a nonsense!

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Could we imagine for a moment the United States Congress doing this, or the French National Assembly? This is actually on the table. [Interruption.] The United States Congress is building a replica Chamber? I think not.

[Dr Johnson]

On the original costings of £3.52 billion for the full decant, I was told today in a meeting with the business director of the project that at the time, they assumed that a building was available of the right size and in the right location. In fact—it has not actually been properly costed yet—the estimate is that the new work on Richmond House would cost an additional £550 million.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are worried, and we are right to be worried, about the costs of the replica Chamber. It has been said to me that it may be necessary at times, if we carry on with this work—nobody is denying that we should proceed with it as fast as possible—that this Chamber may have to leave. I fear that if the replica Chamber is built, we will be out of the Palace of Westminster for up to 10 years. We will be too comfortable, so we have looked for and have consulted on alternatives. We tracked down Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect of Portcullis House. Nobody had raised this idea with him before then—he built the most bomb-proof, the most secure and the most expensive, by metre, building in the country—but the atrium of Portcullis House is exactly the right width, with this Chamber and the Division Lobbies, for an emergency Chamber for a few months. It would not be too comfortable there, but it is possible. Westminster Hall has been mentioned. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), mentioned Church House, which is built to bomb-proof standards. There are alternatives if we have to move out, so get on with it.

The argument that the Joint Committee has established beyond peradventure that it is cheaper to have a full decant is not accepted by many experts—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. It was not accepted in the Deloitte report, which talked about net cost analysis. The Joint Committee report did not take sufficient cognisance of the cost of the replica, the work of the patch-up, which will have to be done in the coming years and months, the security costs and the VAT costs. All these costs have been factored into the Deloitte report. There is no time to go into detail, but do not accept the facile argument about the two proposals. We have the decant proposal, which would stop 1 million people a year visiting this building and have all the other disadvantages that I have talked about—do not accept that the decant proposal is much cheaper. Many accountants and experts take an alternative view.

Before we proceed to a vote, let us listen to the hon. Member for Ealing North and remember the thousands of employees working in this building. Of course, we want them to be safe, but we also want them to have a job, and what would happen with a full decant? This is urgent. We must get on with the work now, build the fire doors and so on, and let us remember this historical point—the hon. Member for Rhondda has made many historical points, and I will end on this one: when this House of Commons Chamber was destroyed by firebombs in 1941, Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee, representing the best in their two parties, made a conscious and absolute decision that this House of Commons would not be bombed out of its historic home, and that was why we moved to the Chamber of the House of Lords.

I commissioned an architect, pro bono, who proved conclusively that this would be perfectly possible. He looked at all the wiring issues, the sewage issues, all that we have talked about, and found that it would be perfectly possible. Are we really being told that in this day and age we cannot divert sewerage and electrical wiring? They do it all the time in the private sector. They build pop concert arenas for tens of thousands of people in two or three days, but we are told by the experts that it is impossible to resolve this problem. I return to my historical point: when the chips were down in 1941, Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill decided that this Chamber would not move from this building. I therefore urge colleagues to vote down the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and vote for motion No. 1. We must get on with the work.

17:46

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I want to be brief, so I will not take interventions.

It seems a very long time since we had the pleasure of sitting on the R and R Committee—it seems a very long time because it was in fact a very long time ago. We reported in September 2016, and it is now the beginning of 2018, so it has been the best part of 17 or 18 months, in which time the Government have ducked, dived and dodged, and done everything but bring this issue to the House. Finally, they have tabled two motions, the purpose of which, as hon. Members have said, is to kick the can down the road. I really thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), therefore, for tabling her amendment today.

It is crazy that this is a half-day debate. Regardless of hon. Members’ views—whether they are in favour of or against moving out—it is crazy that one of the most important buildings in the country, the home of our democratic institutions, only merits a few hours of debate. When the R and R Committee first met in July 2015, I started with the view that we should stay. We had been here for hundreds of years and I thought we could do the work around us. How difficult could it be? Like other Members have said, the fear that, if we moved out, we would never move back again was certainly doing the rounds.

I changed my mind. I recognised that the only sensible choice was a full decant—not a partial decant and certainly not staying here and somehow muddling through for 30 or 35 years. I came to that decision because I—and, indeed, the whole Committee—looked at the evidence. I know we live in world today where evidence and facts are to be ignored—or if we do not like them, we just create our own or find other ones that suit our case—but we did not do that. By the end, every member of the Committee recognised that remaining in the House was not a sensible option, for a whole host of reasons.

Cost was one of those reasons, but today I want to talk about just two aspects: safety and security. I advise those who have not taken the tour of the basement to do so and to see for themselves what other hon. Members have talked about: the state of the plumbing and electrics, and the constant measures that have to be taken because of the risk of fire.

A very important point is that every year we are spending tens of billions of pounds—[Hon. Members: “Millions.”] I am sorry. We are spending tens of millions of pounds just to patch and make do, and that figure is growing. Sadly, whichever option we choose, much of that work will be ripped out because it is a muddling-through solution. We are not even standing still: the building is getting worse by the day. We are falling further and further behind and we face the real prospect of a catastrophic failure. If a fire started and was funnelled through the 98 or so risers in the building, the effect would be devastating. I think it fair to say that, if someone had to design a building to burn down, this would be a pretty good one to start with.

We hear a great deal about the possibility that Members would be elected and would then not be able to sit in the Chamber, but what about their safety? And what about the safety of the thousands of employees who work in the building? We should be thinking about them when we vote tonight. A lot of work is being done on fire safety, but we must be honest: it is badly behind schedule. If a fire broke out and then took hold, and there were people working on the top floor of the building, what would be their chances of getting out? I know that that sounds dramatic, but we know the facts and we are sitting here talking about, effectively, doing nothing about them—and possibly voting to do nothing about them.

However, as other Members have said, fire is not the only risk. Asbestos is a huge problem. When we know exactly where it is, we may be able to leave it in place, or at least know how to handle it, but we do not know exactly where it is. Large parts of the building may contain asbestos, but we just do not know, so we have to establish precautions. Even if we decided to stay, we would probably be evacuated on a regular basis because a ceiling had come down and asbestos was present.

As we have seen, security is an existing and growing problem for us. Some Members think that we can maintain security while working in a building site, but I do not see how that could work. I have been here long enough to remember—I was sitting on the opposite Benches at the time—when the pro-hunting protesters entered the Chamber. And how did they get into the building? They pretended to be contractors. The threat that we face now is far more severe than that. I think there is no doubt that if we stayed, security would be compromised.

We need to face facts. A full decant in conjunction with the programme of work on the northern estate, utilising Richmond House as a secure zone, is the only sensible option. Of course it is a difficult decision and it does involve a lot of taxpayers’ money, but we are here to make difficult decisions and to defend them if we think that they are right. Nothing will be served by dithering and delay. Let us get on with it and deliver a Parliament that preserves its rich history, but is fit and safe for the 21st century.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A five-minute limit will now apply to each Back-Bench speech.

17:53

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

There can be a broad measure of agreement that the House needs to be maintained properly. All those who have spoken would acknowledge that work needs to be done, and indeed, that has always been the case. Since William Rufus commissioned the building of Westminster Hall, there have been major refurbishments of the Palace. Geoffrey Chaucer was Clerk of the Works for one of them. After the great fire of 1834—

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously got my book.

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed.

After the great fire of 1834, there was the major refurbishment—in fact, it was largely a rebuilding of the Palace—that led to the place where we now sit. Buildings of this kind are always hard to maintain and will always require constant maintenance work. This is not a moment; it is a process. It will be an ongoing process whatever decision we take tonight. Let me make my case as quickly as I can—particularly given your advice, Mr Speaker.

I could make this case on cost grounds. Indeed the report produced by the Leader of the House is very honest about that. The report heavily qualifies the estimates therein. It says that there is significantly more work to be done by professionals before budgets can be set and the accounts therefore made certain. We are not absolutely certain what the costs of the decant would be, nor are we absolutely certain what the costs of staying here would be. But what I think we can say, from all of our experience and intuition, is that they are likely to be considerably greater than the provisional costs that we have now. Every building project I have ever known has run over budget and over time.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, I will not give way, as Mr Speaker has advised me not to, much as I adore my hon. Friend.

The best comparisons we can offer are Portcullis House and the building of the Scottish Parliament. When the Scottish Parliament was first envisaged, the cost was thought to be about £40 million—it cost £400 million. When Portcullis House was first envisaged, the cost was thought to be a fraction of the cost of the eventual outcome and it took years longer than anyone imagined. So do not be persuaded by any argument on costs because I would bet a pound to a penny that those cost estimates will be very way far off the mark when the final accounts are settled.

I could make the argument on the basis of tradition. It is true that traditions matter and this is the heart of our democracy. Imagine the headline that says, “MPs vote to leave Parliament”. What nonsense that is. And imagine what our constituents would think of us and how we would be diminished in their estimation, and rightly so.

So I could make the argument on the basis of tradition. We do tred in the footsteps of giants here. In Richmond House we would be stepping in the footsteps of Stephen Dorrell and Frank Dobson. Much as I admire them both, I do not think either would claim to be giants.

But I am not going to make those arguments. Instead I am going to make the argument on these sole grounds; it is the argument about people. It is about the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this Palace every year and are inspired and enthralled by it. Some of them will end up being Members, as I did after I came here as a schoolboy. It is about my constituents who visited the House today and sat in the Gallery and watched the proceedings of the House. Do they want to go to some alternative? Are they going to be excited and enthralled? Are they going to believe in our democracy when they visit Richmond House with its fantasy duplicate alternative Chamber? Surely not. That is not what people expect of us or of this place and it is vital that they can continue to come here to enjoy that experience.

There is another group of people who are voiceless in this debate: the staff who work in this place, the staff who have given, in many cases, 10, 20, 30 or 40 years’ experience. No one seriously believes that all of those will be accommodated in the new arrangements. We know what would happen. It would start with early retirement and then there would be voluntary redundancy, and then redundancy.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We will now have a Pound; Mr Stephen Pound.

17:59

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I was not too happy about the mention of early retirement before you called me, Mr Speaker.

I rise to support amendment (a) to motion No. 2. In doing so, I find myself in some slightly strange company: the principal sponsors of the amendment are four aristocratic knights of the realm, the Chair of the Defence Committee and my humble self. That shows that this issue arches across any political divide.

From listening to the debate, it worries me that some are casting this in terms of mods and rockers—traditional, antediluvian tweed-wearing crusty port sippers who want nothing to change whatever, and the young meritocratic thrusters, epitomised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose normally sunny and pleasant disposition has, I suspect, been poisoned by the awful reality of the cost-overrun at Holyrood.

There are two emotions permeating the debate today that we really need to consider. In everything we say and do, we must give credit to the Leader of the House, who has done an extraordinary amount of work on this. In some ways, it must be tempting for her to take this Gordian knot and just slice through it. One of those emotions can be summed up in this way:

“If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly”.

That was a tribute to our Scottish friends. The second emotion involves recognising that this building is not just a matter of stone, porphyry, marble and stained glass. It is not just a structure; it is a home, a statement and a place of democracy. It stands for something in this nation and beyond, far more than mere bricks and mortar. This is the place where democracy lives. It is so easy to say that we could move elsewhere and that it would still be a Parliament, but it would not be the Palace of Westminster. It would not be the building that has survived fire and bombing—it has survived the most horrendous impacts and we have somehow come through—and it is crucial that that footprint be retained and we maintain our presence in this building.

When the Leader of the House introduced the debate today, she twice used the word “iconic”. It is one of the most overused words in the British language. It is a word that we toss around; we call London taxis iconic. We use the word very promiscuously, but if ever that word had a resonance, a meaning and a reality, it is in respect of this building. This is the iconic building. Let us not even think about the tourists who come here and who would be displaced if we moved to the QEII. Let us not think about those things. Let us just think about what this building means as an icon of representative democracy, where the people’s voices are heard in this building, in this Chamber, in this Palace of Westminster. We cannot lose this. We have fought too hard over generations to maintain and keep it.

Yes, there is work to be done, but is it really beyond the wit of humanity to come up with some kind of compartmentalised, bulkhead system whereby we could do the work in sections? There is only one sewage pipe—I do not want to go into the dreadful scatological details—but surely we could section it off and work on one bit and then another. I am prepared to lay down my liberty and to work in that coprophiliac hell down there if that needs to be done. What needs to be done must be done quickly. Let us all agree on that. Let us also agree that moving to Perth is not an option. But whatever we decide tonight, let us not take lightly the duty and responsibility that weighs on our shoulders to preserve, maintain, keep, endorse and support this place, this home of democracy, this true icon of all that we hold dear.

18:03

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment (c), and I hope that in so doing I can be helpful to the House in explaining an option for a decant that has historical precedent. This would not be the first time that the Commons and the Lords had met in other places. Westminster Abbey Chapter House has been used, and Church House was used extensively during the second world war. Church House was first used as a contingency Chamber on 7 November 1940, and it was used during three main periods during world war two. In fact, in 1944, both Houses of Parliament were forced to decant to what was then known as the Churchill club, as Church House was sometimes described. I would like to assure Members that the corporation of Church House still stands ready to speak to the Government about once again accommodating Parliament, should the need arise. Many of Churchill’s famous speeches were made in Church House. The then Prime Minister announced the sinking of the Bismarck and the loss of HMS Hood in Church House in 1941, and a plaque can be seen in the Hoare memorial hall, where he made the speech, commemorating that event. Heritage is taken seriously, and any visitor would immediately be aware of the links with Church House.

I will give Members a quick guided tour of what is available at Church House. The main assembly room has exactly the same number of seats as this Chamber, and it was designed with a bombproof roof to increase security after the experience of world war one. The assembly room is set within two sets of exterior walls to address the security needs of the time, and that would address today’s needs, too. Dean’s Yard, with which Members are probably familiar, has a secure entrance with a narrow archway and barrier and contains a quadrangle with no access from outside, around which cars can circulate securely. It would be possible to close the relatively little-used Great College Street and Great Smith Street without great disruption. There are many committee rooms and reception rooms, and Bishop Partridge Hall, which is roughly the same size as the Grand Committee Room, is often used for events—Members may have been there. There is a chapel, a large dining area, catering and, yes, licensed refreshment facilities.

All that is why Church House had a contract with the parliamentary estate until recently to provide a default setting to decant at short notice in times of emergency. It is worth emphasising that it would take less public money to adapt Church House for the needs of one or both Chambers than to construct a replica building. The optics for parliamentarians are therefore strong, because explaining to our constituents, as taxpayers, why we are spending such an amount of money gets a bit easier when we can explain that it has been done before.

To add a little more historical information, Church House has been used for the state opening of Parliament. A simple ceremony was conducted with little of the picturesque tradition that we see in a full state opening, but it was 1939. The King himself made his speech from the throne in Church House, so it has even been used for that purpose.

I simply wanted to provide colleagues with some thoughts on how decanting could be done more quickly. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House, and she said that we would be decanting in 2025—the middle of the next decade—which, in the spirit of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), is not very rapid. Church House would stand ready to help, as it has done before, and there is a strong historical precedent that can be used to explain to taxpayers why it may be an entirely practical solution to address the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

18:07

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow so many erudite speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He is a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I have enormous respect for him, but I was puzzled to hear him say that he wanted quick action, but also that he did not want to make a decision tonight. He and I share a healthy scepticism of experts—someone does not get to chair the PAC without being able to challenge experts—and that is why the Committee considered the work of the Joint Committee of this House to assure ourselves and help to assure the House that its work was robust and thorough.

It is no accident that the Deputy Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), 13 Select Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) back my amendment (b) to motion No. 1. We regularly consider large projects and how they are managed. We routinely and regularly criticise Departments for their poor procurement, poor project management and poor contracting, and it is important that we get all that right. It is also important that we bottom out what we are trying to achieve right at the very beginning and that we work through the figures. We know that the Joint Committee did not draw up full and detailed costings, which would take a long time to get right, but its figures were robustly reached and were orders of magnitude of the cost. However, the costings are still pegged to 2014 prices, so let us not use them as though they are the actual figures. That is why further work needs to be done. It cannot be done unless we make a very clear decision tonight. That does not mean kicking it into the long grass; it means making a firm decision about the options. That is why I propose a decant, because we know that moving the project quickly, specifying it well and doing it over a short period of time will be a lot cheaper.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My concern is that the figures are not, in fact, robust—they are out by 16.5 feet in the proposals for Richmond House. We had hundreds of pages of consultants’ reports, and this key fact is wrong. If that key fact is wrong, how many other facts are wrong?

[Meg Hillier]

My Committee’s work did not particularly look at that aspect. We were looking at the refurbishment side. The hon. Gentleman sat on the Joint Committee and agreed its report. The National Audit Office assessed the robustness of the methodology used in that report—it did not do a full analysis, because such assurance is a very long job—and it assured us that the work was thorough and credible.

There was a sampling of some of the examples we have heard from other hon. Members tonight, and the costs were considered in order to extrapolate the indicative cost figure—the order of magnitude. The work of the Joint Committee was robust and thorough, as far as it could go, but until Members of this House make a decision, we cannot go into the full detail of the figures. That is why we need to make a decision.

The Palace of Westminster is, of course, a world heritage site, which means it comes under UNESCO rules. I have been in touch with Francesco Bandarin, UNESCO’s assistant director general for culture—I have copied our correspondence to the UK permanent delegation—and under UNESCO rules the UK Treasury is responsible for funding this building and making sure it is preserved as a world heritage site.

By December 2018 the Government have to provide information to UNESCO about their plans for this building, and in 2019—incidentally the year that we are expected to leave the European Union—we will also be on the world stage because UNESCO’s committee will consider the Government’s decisions and proposals and assess whether they are acceptable and will do enough to preserve this world heritage site.

As other hon. Members have said, it is not about us. It is about members of the public and the staff who work here, but this is also an internationally iconic building. Are we really saying that we are unable to make a decision tonight to ensure that we work up full costings and a full programme of work so that we can get on with the job, as the Public Accounts Committee concluded?

I have also seen correspondence from David Orr and Jennifer Wood, the external members of the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal programme board, who wrote to David Natzler, the Clerk of the House, in March 2017 and last week to reiterate their “serious concerns” about the “continuing delay” in holding debates on this issue, so I congratulate the Leader of the House on ensuring that we had this debate today. They also say that

“the idea that the debates…will not be a Decision in Principle but instead would give approval to a shadow Sponsor Board and shadow Delivery Authority and commission them to study further options before bringing the matter back to Parliament”

is a matter of concern. They say that one of the motions

“envisages only essential work doing this Parliament followed by a further review before 2022 to consider the need for comprehensive works…We are dismayed by these developments and seriously concerned about the level of risk that is being tolerated.”

We have heard about the risks and safety issues, and it is a real concern to me that we must move forward. We cannot keep putting this into the long grass. We have to make a decision.

Let us be clear: we are a group of people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, aspire to run the country. In doing that, we have to make decisions. We need to make a decision tonight about this building. Of course it is going to cost money but, let us face it, it is not as if the Treasury is going to give that money to something in my constituency—we cannot see such things as equivalents.

This building is at risk unless we make a decision. Let us move forward and get the full costings and the full programme of works so that we can get on with the job.

18:14

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

There is good news in this debate, which is that there seems to be universal agreement, from Members in all parts of the House, that where urgent work needs doing to guarantee the future safety of those who work in this place and those who visit, we should press on with it. Indeed, there is a strong feeling that there is a need for greater urgency in such work. From most things that I have read and heard, it seems that rewiring is a very urgent priority, as that is where the worst fire risk seems to come from. Substantial pipe work may also need doing, where pipes need replacing or re-routing as part of a safety plan. These things can all be done through compartmentalising—taking things in stages and linking up as appropriate. We know we can work alongside builders and maintenance companies, because we are doing that all the time. I pay tribute to those who are working on the Elizabeth Tower at the moment. They are getting on with their work in a way that is not disruptive of our work at all. They must be working in confined and difficult circumstances, but they have so far done it in a way that is entirely compatible with the work of Parliament. So I hope that the Leader of the House would take away the sense that urgent work for the safety of people here in future and for the safety of the very fabric of the building might be accelerated, with options looked at so that we can press on with it in a timely and sensible way.

I find myself having more difficulties about the much bigger scheme being launched any time soon. As we have heard, quite big elements of it have not been properly thought through or costed, which makes taking a decision in principle a bit more difficult. I find myself in that interesting position where many parliamentarians find themselves: having been entirely of the leave faith on the referendum issue, now, showing flexibility and how I am always influenced by the facts, I find myself firmly in the remain camp on this parliamentary discussion.

Let us first address the issue of decanting to an alternative Chamber, which we would have to build. We hear there are problems with the site for one of the potential alternatives. I just do not think our constituents would understand our spending a very large sum on producing a temporary replica of this Chamber for a limited number of years—we are told it will be a short period, but some of us think it will be for rather longer—when there are so many other priorities. My constituents want us to spend more on health and social care, the military and so forth, and I agree with them.

[Andrea Leadsom]

For clarity, let me say that what is being talked about is a permanent business contingency in Richmond House that provides a real legacy gain to the parliamentary estate and is a secure gain for all parliamentarians for future generations.

[John Redwood]

I am grateful for that correction, and I did understand that, but the public are saying that this is really only going to be used for a few years because we will come back to use the main Chamber, and this is a very expensive investment in contingency, particularly as one hopes the contingency never occurs. We know from history that there are other ways of dealing with a disaster contingency, as unfortunately people had to do during the second world war. We would cross that bridge in the awful event that we needed to do so, but investing a lot of money in such a protection would be a strange thing to do—I rest my case. I do not think my constituents would regard that as something they would want their taxpayers’ money spent on at the moment. I agree with them that we need to spend a bit more on health and social care. Those would clearly be the priorities if we had this extra money to spend.

Finally, let me say that I agree with those who think there is something very special about this place and something important about it for our democracy. This is the mother of Parliaments and this building does have great resonance around the world, being associated with the long history of freedom, and the development of the power of voice and vote for all adults in our country. It would be strange indeed to be turning our back on that for a period, particularly when we are going through a big constitutional and political change in order to implement the wishes of the British people as expressed in the referendum. Particularly during this period, it is important that our visitors can come to be reminded of our national story and why we are where we are. All those of us who seek to represent people should be daily reminded of that national story when we come here—

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Redwood]

No, as I am conscious of time.

We need to be reminded of that story as we go past the memorial to suffragettes, as we go past the statues and paintings of those who made such a contribution to past political battles and debates, and of those who were part of the story of wresting control from the monarch and establishing the right of many more people to vote and have their voice heard through Members of Parliament. That proud history makes this more than an iconic building, more than a world heritage site; it is a living part of our democracy. Our interaction with it and our presence on this grand political stage is the very essence of our democracy. I do not want us to move away for a few years at this critical moment in our national story.

18:20

[Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

It is good to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), but I wonder how many times people have said in this place, “This is a critical time of national importance, and therefore we should do nothing.” I am sure those words have rung in many people’s ears.

I declare an interest: after the 1840 fire, the stone for the building we now sit in was brought from my constituency. Quarried near a village called Anston, it came via the Chesterfield canal. This icon we have lived in for all this time is something that the people of my constituency like and enjoy, and they—especially children at local schools—are very proud of where it came from. Most of those who, like me, worked in industry and have looked at the health and safety issues here say, “You need to sort that out, Kevin. It’s not as it should be.”

This place is changing quite rapidly. I have been here longer than most, but for the last few weeks, for the first time, I have had workmen outside my office window. There would be nothing surprising about that, except that my office is at the very top of the building, above Speaker’s House, overlooking the Thames. As everyone here knows, work on the roof has been going on for quite a long time now, because of the state the roof is in. When I came to the Chamber today, along the corridor by the Hansard offices to a lift that brings me down to Members’ Lobby, I saw some steel props holding up the roof. It looks a bit like my workplace before I came into Parliament—Maltby colliery. There are some yellow covers, but the props are pinned on the carpet and holding the roof up in the corridor—such are the needs that this House has.

Many hon. Members have talked about the money, so let me look in this excellent publication answering Members’ frequently asked questions about the restoration and renewal programme. We have been—I have three decades’ experience of this—in a position of patch and mend in this place. The publication states:

“Nearly £60 million was spent on essential work to the Palace during 2015/16, £49 million was spent the year before that, and the backlog of essential repairs”

was

“estimated at more than £1 billion in 2012”.

It continues:

“in turn, the risk of system failure, is growing significantly over time. By 2020, some 40% of the mechanical and electrical plant…will be at an unacceptably high risk of failure. By 2025, it will be more than 50%.”

I worked with my hands before I came here, and I would not want to be responsible for some of the kit I have seen when looking around. When I worked underground as an electrician, I was responsible for keeping equipment in proper order so it would not blow up, probably taking hundreds of lives with it. Some of the work here needs to be sorted out, and sorted out quickly.

I listened to the talk about cost, and I looked at the 2014 figures for the three options we have. The cost given for the rolling programme, taking place over 25 to 40 years, is £5.67 billion; for the two-phase approach, taking between 9 and 14 years, £4.42 billion; and for the full decant, single-phase approach, £3.52 billion.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Kevin Barron]

No, because other people want to speak.

Last night, the HS2 Bill was debated in this Chamber. In 2010, it was estimated that it would cost £32.7 billion, and then it went up to £55.7 billion. In 2016, the National Audit Office said it had a running cost overrun of some £7 billion, and most people on the Conservative Benches voted in favour of it. I can tell the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is no longer in his place, about the cost overrun on most things—you know about them if you get somebody in to build an extension on your building. They cannot put in a bathroom without cost overruns. It is about time that this House took the right decision and sorted itself out. Of course we love this iconic place, but we will not like it if we cannot sit in it because of emergencies that may come along. I shall be supporting amendment (b) to motion No. 1 in the Division Lobby tonight.

18:25

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I want to go back to this 16 and a half feet—16ft 5in to be precise. When we sat on the Committee, we looked at and studied the report from Deloitte, we took evidence from experts, we sat for hours and we came to a conclusion based on the possibility that an inexpensive temporary Chamber could be put in Richmond House. That was fundamental to what we concluded. It turns out that that was wrong—that actually the measurements were out and therefore it would not work. That seems to me to undermine all that we tried to do. If the people responsible could not even measure a courtyard, how could they possibly get the figures right on the overall proposals that were being made? I regret that the work that we did and the conclusions that we drew have been fatally undermined by the fact that the figures we were provided with on an essential basis for our conclusion were wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not on this occasion because time is so limited. I do apologise. I always like to give way, but I think that I had better not on this occasion.

That troubles me. The other thing that troubled me throughout the Committee process was that we never looked at the figures on the basis of a discounted cash flow, and so the assumption that was made was that a pound spent in 40 years’ time had exactly the same value as a pound spent tomorrow. That is incorrect. A pound spent in 40 years’ time obviously has a lesser value. When we consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General about that, he said in evidence that that was not how Government projects were done: Government projects look at the economic return that one gets on the expenditure, and not on the discounted value of money that one may spend in future. However, this is not a project that reveals a return; it is not an investment in that sense, but a cost. Therefore we need to look at the discounted cost, at which point the remaining in becomes the cheapest option by a considerable margin. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) may shout no, but that is what the figures show when we apply a sensible discount rate.

The other thing that has concerned me throughout this process is that we are being too precious and we are assuming that we will not accept any modest inconvenience. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that costs go up because work has to be done at night. We have to accept that, in this process of saving this building and ensuring that we are here, there may be some modest inconvenience to Members of Parliament. Are we really so precious that there must never even be the slightest sound of a hammer bashing a nail into a piece of wood? Are our ears so sensitive that we cannot bear that strain upon them?

I, along with the hon. Member for Rhondda, was extremely keen that we should sit in Westminster Hall, because Westminster Hall is not part of the main restoration and renewal project; it is outside it. The argument that we got against Westminster Hall was the most negative naysaying approach that we could have had—that the roof put up by Richard II would fall upon our heads if we had a little bit of heating in there. The naysayers wanted to put us in a glass pod—a temperature-controlled pod to ensure that we were kept at the perfect temperature, boiled to the right level in Fahrenheit or centigrade, whichever you prefer. This is a building that has survived for 800 years, not a hot air heating system. Once they said it was a glass pod, the glass pod was then too heavy for the floor. Whatever way we look at it, they were naysayers. It seems to me that we could have sat there in our overcoats, as that would have solved the problem in the winter. And in the summer, some hon. Members more racy than I am might have felt it possible to take off their jackets. It seems to me that there is an easy, affordable solution whereby we maintain a Chamber in our historic residence. That is what we should do and that is what we should vote for.

11:30

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I first congratulate the officials of the House on all the work that they have done on the various aspects of R and R? We think that it has been first class. It has been detailed and considered. Anything that my hon. Friends or I say today is in no way a criticism of the professional way in which the House staff have gone about their work. That includes the recent issuing of the client advisory services contracts not least to ensure that the building is safe for the thousands of staff and visitors who are here every single day, and to minimise the risk of catastrophic failure. As it is a House matter, it may well be that this House concludes that an expensive restoration of this royal palace, in whatever guise, is the right thing to do because some argue that this is the historic home of the UK Parliament. If that is the decision, although I may not agree with it, I will certainly respect it.

My criticism of the motions before us today and the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is twofold. First, it is flawed that we are not even prepared to consider, on cost-effective grounds, the delivery of a new Parliament on a new site. My second criticism is that we are prepared to proceed without taking this once in a 160 or 170-year opportunity genuinely to modernise the way we work.

On my first point, the Leader of the House has outlined a delivery body to investigate the three options before us: a full decant, a partial decant, and a full decant while retaining a foothold. Motion No. 2 clearly includes a cost-benefit analysis of each option. But if we are to agree to the creation of a delivery body with a sponsor board doing a cost-benefit analysis of these three options, surely we should do the same cost-benefit analysis of the delivery of a new Parliament on a new site.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has been repeated a number of times in this debate, which is that all three options—in his case, four—should be worked up. It costs a lot of money to work up options to the level that Members are asking. We need to consider that, which is one of the reasons why I am proposing a clear decision tonight.

[Stewart Hosie]

I respect that the hon. Lady is proposing a clear decision. The problem is that the decision that she is proposing and the other options on the table explicitly exclude even an analysis of what we believe would be the most cost-effective grounds.

Under any of the other motions before us, we would end up in the ludicrous position of agreeing to proceed on the basis of a decision to rule out that which might be the most cost-effective option. At the same time, we are expected to allow a delivery body to reinvestigate three options or proceed with a single one, when those options were priced in 2014. Those costs may now be wildly inaccurate. We will be abandoning the opportunity that a new Parliament building might offer.

Depending on the option chosen by the delivery body mentioned in the motion of the Leader of the House, and given that the timescale for completion could be anywhere from eight to 40 years, we may also be in a position—although we cannot be certain—in which what appears to be a sensible or cost-effective decision today looks absolutely bonkers in a few years’ time when the floor is up, the roof is off and people look behind the oak panelling. In short, to prohibit the delivery body from even doing a cost-benefit analysis of a new Parliament building is short-sighted. This is important because when the new build option was ruled out in 2012, it was after a pre-feasibility study had been completed, and that study suggested that a new parliamentary building might cost £800 million. I understand that updating those figures for inflation, using the tender price index from 2012, and applying a 22% optimism bias would still give an updated net capital investment figure of £1.4 billion. That figure may be completely wrong—it may be double, treble or quadruple that—but for goodness’ sake, if the starting point is lower than all the other options, surely we are duty bound to have the delivery body investigate it.

On the second point of concern, namely that of modernisation, I very much support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We simply must have seats for every single Member in both the temporary and permanent Chambers. The only argument I have ever heard against the modernisation proposal—we heard it earlier today—is that Members can accost a Minister if they happen to be in the same voting Lobby. I have never had any difficulty contacting a Minister or their Parliamentary Private Secretary if the situation is urgent, and I have never once heard that criticism raised by those in the Scottish Parliament, where electronic voting is the norm.

My hon. Friend made some fun of this issue earlier, but let me add a little weight to it. The 10 votes we had on 17 January took a combined total of 1,200 man, woman or people hours—two hours per MP—which is time that could have been far better used. In the Scottish Parliament, those votes would have taken 10 minutes.

Given that neither of the motions in the name of the Leader of the House or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch accommodates our ambitions, we are unable to support any of them.

18:36

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I want to start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for tabling the motions and for the very able way in which she opened the debate and put the arguments so very clearly.

Nobody wants to leave this House—of course we do not—but we do have a duty and an obligation to future generations to make sure that it is looked after and repaired properly. That is the most important thing.

I hope that the delivery body will look at working on this site 24/7. This is an island site: there is no reason why it cannot be worked 24/7. As I understand it, the proposals that would take seven or eight years are based on working a normal week. This is an island site with no neighbours. I fully agree with the point made earlier—I was going to suggest it myself—that we should give ourselves planning permission on this site. We should be able to deliver that. As a world heritage site, there will be certain obligations, and that is absolutely right. That is why I am much more optimistic that this project can be done quicker than the previously proposed timescales.

During my period as Secretary of State for Transport, I was very fortunate to see some remarkable projects in this country, one of which was London Bridge station, which has just been completed. It was awful that people had to suffer the development of London Bridge, but we can now see that it is a great example of English engineering and people doing a job. However, it would have been done much more cheaply and much quickly if we could have closed it. The fact is that when we operate in buildings at the same time as engineering work is being done to them, the work takes longer and it is more expensive.

Some colleagues say we can segment the work and do it in sections. I would like to know how many of them have done the basement tour. I suggest that they go and work there for six months—actually, I think six hours would probably be enough for them to realise that the conditions are absolutely intolerable for people to work in.

I have reservations about the proposal to build a completely new Chamber. If we are sensible about this, the simple fact is that, if we give two and a half years, and no longer, to do this work, there is no reason why we could not find alternative accommodation. The House sits approximately 146 days a year. It is not always as full as this. In fact, quite often it is a lot emptier. I very much doubt that we would need an exact mirror of the Chamber for the emergency period.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I would rather not, because I know that other Members want to speak, and time is rather tight.

Those are some of my suggestions about the way forward. We should set the delivery body up and move forward, and that body should be instructed to look at doing it a lot more quickly and efficiently; 24/7 working would suffice. That would mean we would be out of this place for a lot less time. On the basis that we have to get on with this job and have been delaying it for far too long, I will tonight support amendment (b).

18:40

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On behalf of the House Commission, I would like to set out briefly for the House the background to the northern estates programme and its link to the proposed restoration and renewal of the Palace.

The northern estates programme covers Norman Shaw North and South, 1 Parliament Street and Derby Gate, where works are due to start later this year. Those buildings house around a third of Members and our staff. The Norman Shaw buildings were brought into use as offices for Members and their staff in the 1970s and now require major works, as does 1 Parliament Street. The Commission gave its approval to a major programme of refurbishment and renovation of the northern estate at the end of 2015, following scrutiny by the Administration and Finance Committees. The plans approved were to do the minimum necessary.

The plan at the time was to decant Members from the northern estate to 7 Millbank, do the works on the northern estate and then return Members to the northern estate. However, during 2014-15, security advice hardened against the use of 7 Millbank for Members. At the same time, Ministers were persuaded to pass Richmond House to Parliament. We finally got the keys to that three weeks or so ago.

The plan changed, and this time it was to decant northern estate Members into Richmond House after some improvements. It also became clear from the Joint Committee report that the courtyard of Richmond House, which has been referred to a number of times, was the only viable location within the secure perimeter for an interim Chamber.

Now a much more ambitious programme of works is being planned on and around Richmond House. It involves construction of what is, in essence, a replica Chamber for use during R and R that can be used as a contingency Chamber in the longer term, as agreed by the Commission in September. It also involves construction of immediate surrounds of Lobbies, business offices and so on, as well as Committee rooms and the necessary decant space for the third of Members and their staff whose offices are in the Palace.

Subject to the outcome of today’s debate, we will probably sequence the main work on the rest of the northern estate, decanting one building at a time while we prepare the Richmond House block. The costs are substantial, with very roughly half attributable to the need to restore the old northern estate and half to a decant to enable restoration and renewal of the Palace. In return, we will have a contingency Chamber that can have many functions and a legacy building that can play a vital part in our education and outreach efforts, as well as providing space that should, in time, enable us to end our reliance on expensive leased office space for hundreds of parliamentary staff.

Those were words from the Commission. I would now like to say a few words of my own. We must get on with this, and that is why I support amendment (b). I have been involved as Deputy Leader of the House, in a ministerial capacity, from 2012 to 2015 and then on the House of Commons Commission, and I am afraid there has been much delay and procrastination on this. I agree that the Leader of the House has grasped this and is moving forward, but there has been much delay. The excuses for why we cannot proceed have been multiple.

This is an opportunity to create a Parliament fit for the 21st century. I agree with the earlier point on electronic voting and also that we should have a horseshoe Chamber in which every Member of Parliament has a seat, which most people in most environments would expect to be the norm. We need a fully accessible Parliament for visitors and Members of Parliament. It is not right that Members of either House who are in a wheelchair cannot in some cases even get into the Chamber and certainly cannot sit, for instance, with their own party. That is something that needs to be addressed as well.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

Finally, we have an opportunity to create an exemplar environmental building, incorporating state-of-the-art retrofitted environmental measures, built to the best environmental standards and minimising the environmental impact of the building—by transferring waste and building supplies up and down the river, for example.

I fully support the delivery authority and board model that is proposed. That model was very successful in delivering the Olympics, partly because all the parties were bound together and agreed to proceed with that project. I hope that we might reach the point where we agree to do the same in relation to the renewal of the mother of all Parliaments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members can do as they wish, but I would discourage the taking of interventions in the upcoming speeches, if we are to have an orderly conclusion to the debate.

18:45

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The problem with today’s debate, and the reason I will be supporting motion No. 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is that in many ways we are being asked to take a bit of a punt and a bit of a guess. What I like about the motion is paragraphs (4) and (5), which amendment (b) seeks to amend, because I honestly do not believe that we have enough facts before us. We should have been given a plan set around a timeframe, showing how and when certain components could be delivered.

We are told on principle that we must all just leave, and that it will cost billions. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) pointed out, some of the facts in the report are not correct. But regardless of that, when I was listening to the speech by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I noticed that the project has become a shopping list to which we can add new items. The cost goes up and up. Even in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, only 75% of the projected costs are for the necessary work. So at a time when there is tightness on the public purse, it appears that we are bringing in a shopping list of things that we may not need. I find that very hard to defend to my constituents. I have rightly told them, and will carry on doing so, that the Government have a responsibility to live within their means, but now it seems that with our own buildings, money is no object.

I will be supporting motion No. 1, but I would like to see more detail, especially with regard to paragraph (4)—

“funding should be limited to facilitate essential work”.

Because there is that other aspect of this debate, and for all the Members who say that there is absolutely no way that we would not return to this Chamber, there has been movement. The SNP has now made it quite clear that it does not think we should come back, and we have just heard that the Liberal Democrats think we should change the way we do our democracy—that we should have a horseshoe, and that we should sit at desks. We are a debating Chamber. We do not sit here and read things into the record, like they do in the United States Congress; we debate. This afternoon, I have sat through this debate and it has been excellent; I respect all the points that have been made. At times this afternoon I was wondering where I might be going tonight, but I have listened very carefully, and the arguments I have heard tonight in this great Chamber have led me to believe that at this moment in time, motion No. 1 is the one to support, because we need more details about exactly how the work will be carried out, when, and at what cost, and that process needs to be developed and brought forward in a more sensible way.

None of us in here would like to create a situation where the health and safety and wellbeing of the people who work here would be seriously put at threat. But one cannot on the one hand argue that we must move because there is a 50:50 chance that a fire will occur by 2020, which could kill everyone on the top floor, and then say, “But we would not leave until 2025.” We have heard that in the second world war, this Chamber was bombed and we moved to another area. Well, we could go from the invasion of Poland to the moment Adolf Hitler shot himself, and we would still wait another year before we left the Chamber. So if the urgency for health and safety reasons is that great, why are we not doing anything until 2025?

Many points have been made. I absolutely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said about working 24/7. That absolutely should be mandated, to get on with this work, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also to look at the parliamentary timetable and what we do in those two weeks in September. Can they be redistributed in the year? Could that be the tour of the United Kingdom that many people are suggesting? Three months at 24/7 over the next seven years would give us quite a lot of time to get a lot of the work done—including the total decant out there.

I want to see a lot more robust detail laid out, and motion No. 1, in the name of my right hon. Friend, allows that to happen. We are taking action today: we are having this debate. It has fleshed out a lot of the arguments, and there has been movement on both sides, but I feel that the time has come for us to have things laid out more clearly and more succinctly.

18:49

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

To everything there is a season, to every time a purpose: a time to break down and a time to build up. Words written 3,000 years ago surely are apt today for this building, which is 1,000 years old.

I served on the Joint Committee. I attended that Committee as a sceptic, believing that we were only being pushed out of this place for some false reason, but the evidence led to one undoubtable and unalterable conclusion: in order for us to preserve a building that we love, a heritage that we cherish and a history that we are in charge of, we have to decant from this building, refurbish it, restore it, renew it and revive it, and on that basis allow ourselves to have a new building for future generations.

We should dispel the nonsense that there is no easy solution. We must take the difficult choice and we must take it expeditiously. No more dilly-dallying should be allowed to take place. There is not a cheap option. Some Members are trying to hide behind the costs—“If we do the work over time, it will be cheaper.” That is a fraud upon all of us and it does not fool any of us. It does not fool anyone out there in the general public, up there in the Gallery or, indeed, in any newspaper across this country.

We do not own this building; we are custodians of it for future generations. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) made a strong case when he spoke about the security and safety needs of this building, but those of us who care about the history of this building have probably never even visited the cloisters because we cannot. We are largely excluded from going there because it is crumbling. That most historic part can be preserved and revived only if we embark upon an ambitious plan to rebuild those parts of this crumbling building.

As Members of this House, when we enter each day we walk over stones that were laid by William the Conqueror’s descendants. We walk where Cromwell marched his army. We hear echoes around this building, the place where Wilberforce chanted the call for freedom. We pass through corridors where the smoke of Winston Churchill would have passed by. Indeed, on this great Bench, our heroes of Craig and Carson—and, indeed, my da—actually sat. If we really love this building, as many say they do, we should be brave and urge, as amendment (b) does, that we get on with this process expeditiously.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Peter Aldous. You have a minute and a half, max.

18:53

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

For 27 years before arriving in this place, I practised as a chartered surveyor. Although I was a general practice surveyor, not a building or quantity surveyor, I spent a large part of my working life inspecting a wide variety of buildings.

The Palace of Westminster is the most iconic building in the UK. It is not ours; it belongs to the nation. We are the custodians, with the responsibility of passing it on to the next generation in a better condition than we inherited it. For my part, the evidence is compelling. We need to get on with this work as soon as possible. If a chartered surveyor had made a recommendation to delay the work, and there was then an incident such as a major flood or fire, they would be sued for professional negligence. There is a real risk of fiddling while Rome burns, so we need to implement the Joint Committee’s recommendations as soon as possible. Time really is of the essence, and thus I will be voting for amendment (b).

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no time for an effective speech.

18:55

Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the motion lapsed (Order, this day.

The speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to take this slowly so that we all know exactly what we are doing—we now come to motion 6, which is to say the Restoration and Renewal (No.1) motion. I call the Leader of the House to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House—

(1) affirms its commitment to the historic Palace of Westminster and its unique status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Royal Palace and home of our Houses of Parliament;

(2) takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster ‘Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster’, HL Paper 41, HC 659;

(3) accepts that there is a clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in this Parliament, whilst acknowledging the demand and burden on public expenditure and fiscal constraints at a time of prudence and restraint;

(4) accepts in principle that action should be taken and funding should be limited to facilitate essential work to the services in this Parliament;

(5) agrees to review before the end of the Parliament the need for comprehensive works to take place.—(Andrea Leadsom.)

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to move amendment (c).

Amendment proposed: (c), at end of paragraph (2), insert:

'(2A) regrets that no detailed assessment has been carried out of the cost-effectiveness of relocating Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster, and calls for any future review to include such an assessment.'—(Pete Wishart.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:56

Division 111

Ayes: 47

---

Scottish National Party: 31
Labour: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 3
Green Party: 1

Noes: 410

---

Conservative: 234
Labour: 162
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Liberal Democrat: 4
Independent: 2

Amendment proposed: (b), delete paragraphs (4) and (5) and at end add:

'(4) accordingly endorses the unanimous conclusion of the Joint Committee that a full and timely decant of the Palace is the best and the most cost-effective delivery option, as endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority;

(5) accepts that expenditure on the Palace during this Parliament will be limited to preparatory work for the comprehensive programme of works envisaged, together with works essential to ensure the continuing functioning of the Palace;

(6) endorses the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority be established by legislation to develop a business case and costed programme for the work to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and to commission and oversee the work required, and that immediate steps be taken now to establish a shadow sponsor Board and Delivery Authority;

(7) instructs the shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority and their statutory successors to apply high standards of cost-effectiveness and demonstrate value for money in the business case, to report back to Parliament with up to date costings and a realistic timetable for the duration of the work, and to include measures to ensure: the repair and replacement of mechanical and electrical services, fire safety improvement works, the removal of asbestos, repairs to the external and internal fabric of the Palace, the removal of unnecessary and unsightly accretions to the Palace, the improvement of visitor access including the provision of new educational and other facilities for visitors and full access for people with disabilities;

(8) affirms that the guarantee that both Houses will return to their historic Chambers as soon as possible should be incorporated in primary legislation.'.—(Meg Hillier.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:11

Division 112

Ayes: 236

---

Labour: 158
Conservative: 66
Liberal Democrat: 7
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 220

---

Conservative: 164
Scottish National Party: 34
Labour: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 1

Main Question, as amended, put,

19:24

Division 113

Ayes: 234

---

Labour: 155
Conservative: 68
Liberal Democrat: 7
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 185

---

Conservative: 166
Labour: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 2
Independent: 1

Resolved,

That this House–

(1) affirms its commitment to the historic Palace of Westminster and its unique status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Royal Palace and home of our Houses of Parliament;

(2) takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster ‘Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster’, HL Paper 41, HC 659;

(3) accepts that there is a clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in this Parliament, whilst acknowledging the demand and burden on public expenditure and fiscal constraints at a time of prudence and restraint;

(4) accordingly endorses the unanimous conclusion of the Joint Committee that a full and timely decant of the Palace is the best and the most cost-effective delivery option, as endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority;

(5) accepts that expenditure on the Palace during this Parliament will be limited to preparatory work for the comprehensive programme of works envisaged, together with works essential to ensure the continuing functioning of the Palace;

(6) endorses the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority be established by legislation to develop a business case and costed programme for the work to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and to commission and oversee the work required, and that immediate steps be taken now to establish a shadow sponsor Board and Delivery Authority;

(7) instructs the shadow Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority and their statutory successors to apply high standards of cost-effectiveness and demonstrate value for money in the business case, to report back to Parliament with up to date costings and a realistic timetable for the duration of the work, and to include measures to ensure: the repair and replacement of mechanical and electrical services, fire safety improvement works, the removal of asbestos, repairs to the external and internal fabric of the Palace, the removal of unnecessary and unsightly accretions to the Palace, the improvement of visitor access including the provision of new educational and other facilities for visitors and full access for people with disabilities;

(8) affirms that the guarantee that both Houses will return to their historic Chambers as soon as possible should be incorporated in primary legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the petition. If, inexplicably, there are right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to hear Mr James Cartlidge present his petition, a decision that would be the source of considerable bafflement to me, I hope that they will leave the Chamber quickly and, preferably, quietly, with Mr Watling conducting his important private conversation outside the Chamber—the hon. Member for Clacton should conduct his conversation outside the Chamber, as we can then have the remaining pleasure of listening to Mr Cartlidge in an atmosphere of sobriety and respect as he speaks to his petition.

Sudbury Bypass

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

19:37

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This petition is about the restoration and renewal of the road infrastructure of Sudbury. As it happens, we had a suspect package in a bank in Sudbury, which caused the closure of the road through the centre of the town and massive gridlock, resulting in my receiving a huge number of social media messages saying that it is a perfect day to introduce a petition for a Sudbury bypass. Sudbury is a beautiful historic town, the birthplace of Thomas Gainsborough, but it suffers from terrible congestion and pollution, so I am therefore delivering a petition signed by 3,768 citizens.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, has suffered from heavy congestion for too long, hampering the development of the town, causing dangerous levels of pollution and reducing the living standards of its residents; further that the Department for Transport should recognise the strong business case, the support of the Suffolk County Council, the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership and the Haven Gateway Partnership; and further the Government should provide support for the construction of a Sudbury bypass, including any necessary funding, to improve the future of the town and surrounding areas; and further that a local paper petition and online petition on this matter received 3,711 signatures.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Transport to support the construction of a Sudbury bypass.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002106]

British Jihadis (Iraq and Syria)

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

19:38

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am afraid that many of my remarks on this important subject are going to be somewhat critical of the Government, but let me say first that I do recognise the strong commitment, from the Prime Minister downwards—I am sure this extends to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is valiantly standing in for her colleague today—to counter the threat posed by the evil of militant, expansionist Islamist extremism. Nor do I wish to pick fault in the basic direction of the Government’s counter-terror strategy. A number of voices from all parties criticise the Prevent programme, and in particular its methods. I think they are mistaken. My fear, and my reason for calling the debate, is not that the tools available to the Government to combat extremism are being focused wrongly or used inappropriately; it is that those tools, in particular the legal framework, are insufficient to tackle a threat that would destroy our way of life and everything we stand for.

I remind the House that it is not just a handful of UK citizens who have returned from Iraq and Syria. The Government’s latest estimate, expressed by the Minister for Security and Economic Crime in his letter to me last week, is that just under half of approximately 850 UK-linked individuals of national security concern who have travelled to engage in the conflict in Syria and Iraq have returned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue and outlining it very quickly. Does he agree that the research carried out by the Soufan Centre in October 2017 estimating that at least 425 British ISIS members had so far returned to the UK—the largest cohort in Europe—is worrying, and that this House has a right to know how many of them are still in sight and on the radar of our security forces?

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman captures succinctly the essence of my speech. Not only has the institute made that estimate, but the Government corroborate the fact that just over half of those 850 people have returned to the UK.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on calling this debate. Is he as surprised and appalled as I am that these people are allowed back into the country, after going abroad to fight with our enemies and to threaten our lives and our freedoms?

[John Woodcock]

I guess I am, but can the hon. Gentleman come up with something that would persuade another Government to take such a UK citizen? I would like them never to set foot back here again, but I know that we would never allow a foreign resident who had committed a terrorist atrocity to stay in our country.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are individuals being kept in jails in, for example, the Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria who have not yet been tried for any activity. They are being held there, but the British Government refuse to interact with them on the grounds that they are in Syria, even though they cannot leave. Does my hon. Friend understand that there is also a problem for the people who have not yet been tried but whom the British Government do not seem willing to take any responsibility for?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend and I have spoken about her constituent and the distress caused to her family. It is important that there is due process that is transparent both for the individuals involved and the public.

Lest anyone doubt the relationship between travelling to jihad conflict zones and radicalisation, it is worth noting that research from the Institute for Global Change, which surveyed a sample of prominent jihadis from the middle east and Africa, found that nearly two thirds had fought in one of the three major hubs of jihadi conflict over the past 30 years. Here in the UK, Salman Abedi travelled to Libya shortly before his terrorist attack, which killed 22 people at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester last year. Two of the London Bridge attackers, Khuram Butt and Youssef Zaghba, had expressed an interest in travelling to Syria to join Daesh.

Are more than 400 of those returning individuals in jail or going through the court system? We simply do not know, because the Government will not release the figures, despite repeated requests. There is strong demand from the public to know how many who travelled to fight foreign jihad are currently free in British communities. Those men and women are escaping justice, despite having been prepared to fight British troops in the name of a sickeningly evil cause. If they are not locked up or deradicalised, they are potentially able to import back to British streets brutal killing techniques learned on the battlefield. The Government must know what the figure is. It is simple to collate, and they were prepared to give it back in May 2016 when Advocate General Lord Keen responded to a parliamentary question stating that, at that point, there had been 54 successful prosecutions of returnees from Iraq and Syria, with 30 more cases ongoing.

The refusal to update the number of prosecutions is fuelling the suspicion that in fact only a fraction of returnees are being charged because it is often too difficult to amass sufficient evidence that is admissible in an open court. That suspicion extends to suspected terror suspects who are deported back to the UK. Here, the lack of prosecution cannot be attributed to someone slipping into the country unnoticed, difficult though that in itself should be. Deportees are directly handed back to the UK authorities by another nation. They should be delivered straight into the judicial system and made to pay for their crime, but how many are? Again, at present we do not know because the Government have claimed that they do not hold the information in this form. That is simply not credible.

Last month, I was granted special access to a British woman in a removal centre in Izmir, Turkey. The Turkish authorities wished to deport her back to the UK with her two young children. I hope that the Minister will share my concern over the detention of those children, who are aged just three and one, and will report to the woman’s Member of Parliament about what they are doing on this case.

The Turkish authorities gave me the identities of six other British nationals, two adults and four children, who they said had been deported from the Izmir removal centre in the past 12 months. In speaking to the Security Minister before this debate, I was asked not to name these individuals on security grounds. On this occasion, I am content to agree to that request, but I will say this: it comes to something when a foreign country is prepared to be more forthcoming to a British MP about the terror threat posed by particular British citizens than Her Majesty’s own Government.

Some will claim that this obfuscation is based on a laudable need to maintain a deterrent effect rather than on a desire to save the Government from embarrassment; that it is better to remain vague because future generations are less likely to be deterred from following the next call to global jihad if they know how few of their brothers and sisters have been jailed for previous attempts. Yet such a view surely grossly underestimates the sophistication of the jihadis’ communication capacity. If British justice is falling short, Daesh, al-Qaida and whatever is the next strain of this evil perversion will be able to get that message out to potential recruits. Will the Government take this opportunity to be more transparent on this vital issue?

In her response, will the Minister answer the following questions: how many UK nationals deported back to the UK have been subject to a managed return because of their suspected support for ISIS, as described in the Home Secretary’s response to me here on 8 January; how many of those have been charged with a terror-related offence; how many of the aforementioned “approximately 850 UK-linked individuals” were deported back to the UK; how many of those have been charged with a terror-related offence; and what is the total number of these 850 who have been charged with a terror-related offence?

Finally, rather than attempting to hide the weakness of our legal system in regard to returning jihadis, will the Government consider the following proposal to strengthen it? The Home Secretary has already said that she will consider extending the period of pre-charge detention to allow the authorities more time to prepare a case, but will the Government consider the steps that have been taken in Australia where it has been made an offence to travel without a verifiable legitimate reason to certain designated terror hotspots—as Iraq and Syria were while that conflict was taking place. The declared area offence law is in its infancy in Australia, having only been on the statute book since 2014, yet the independent reviewer of terror legislation there has just recommended that it be extended for a further five years. Surely there is value in following our ally to create our own UK jihadi travel ban, placing the burden on the suspected terrorist to give proof of legitimate purpose if he or she travels to a designated conflict zone.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I respectfully say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely on to something there because, crucially, there is evidence that can be provided to prove the case. The difficulty in so many other cases is that, if we want to uphold our way of life, that means not prosecuting people unless we have sufficient evidence to put them on trial and convict them. Unfortunately, it is very often difficult to establish what they have been doing in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to bring a prosecution. His idea is a good one.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister.

[Alex Chalk]

Not yet!

[John Woodcock]

I am sorry—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is absolutely right.

The approach that I have described would reflect the reality that, for the overwhelming majority, there is no legitimate reason whatever to travel to a jihadi conflict zone. The fact of their going is proof enough that they are supporters of terror. By following this simple step, which is already on the statute book in other countries to which we are allied, we would have a better chance of ensuring that these people face the consequences of their actions if they survive their experience to return to the UK.

11:30

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for calling this debate; it is a pleasure to follow him. This is an important debate, following the appalling terror attacks in Britain in recent years. I hope that my words will be complementary to his. I wish to shed a little light on some of the difficulties faced by the military, and people in the foreign affairs and security worlds, regarding this issue. I had some knowledge of the ISIS campaign while working in the armed forces prior to my election to this place.

We are in a muddle about how to deal with British jihadis. I am very sympathetic to the Government, who are doing their best, but I feel that they have been somewhat hidebound by human rights and policing legislation, and laws from earlier Governments that make military action in some foreign states extremely difficult. The reality is that it is easier to kill a British jihadi in that state, rather than to arrest, turn or rehabilitate them. I do not mean that in either a positive or negative way; merely it is a statement of fact. My understanding is that this is down to what are known as detention pathways. These are processes that stipulate the rules and procedures to be followed when making arrests in order to do so lawfully and to respect the detainee’s human rights, whether people think they should be respected or not. This works on two levels.

First, the detention pathway in states that do not control their own territory, such as Syria and the Syrian regime, is non-existent. It is therefore incredibly problematic for the United States or UK allies in Syria to be able to make an arrest legally and without challenge, and therefore equally difficult for the UK to take possession of that prisoner. Is that person a prisoner of war, a terrorist or a criminal? It becomes even more difficult in cases involving proxy forces whose understanding of the Geneva conventions may be somewhat murkier than one would sometimes wish.

Secondly, even in allied states such as Iraq—for example, in the Kurdish territories of northern Iraq—detention pathways are still problematic because they can be challenged in or from the UK by human rights lawyers here if they think that human rights violations are taking place. We have seen some pretty appalling examples of ambulance chasing on an international scale, and I am very glad that some of those lawyers have been struck off. Those states are fragile for a reason. The rule of law and the behaviour of soldiers are not always as good as one would wish or as is almost always the case in our own standards.

The use of UK law overseas—especially the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which regulates the police in the UK—has been problematic. Please do not misunderstand me, Mr Deputy Speaker: one of the principles of ethical war is that it is legal. However, warfare that becomes too overtly legalistic and belongs more to a box-ticking culture, rather than a culture of a fundamental, natural understanding of ethical law, is not necessarily moral. I know from my modest experience that there is evidence that some of the legal hurdles that UK forces operate under make war neither more legal nor more ethical. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) wrote a pamphlet a couple of years ago called “The Fog of Law”, which is well worth reading.

In summary, through no fault of our own the Government have inherited a difficult position and a difficult problem with regard to the application of lethal force and UK law overseas in fragile or collapsed states. I do not have a simple answer, because it is a deeply complex problem and I saw it somewhat in action. Those laws do not always take into account local circumstance, failed states or fragile states, and are perhaps more evidence of the proof of unintended consequences.

19:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this debate and on raising an important issue on which he has done much work. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime, on whose behalf I am speaking tonight, very much values his contribution. May I also thank all colleagues who have contributed this evening, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely)?

The safety and security of our country, our people and our communities remains the Government’s No. 1 priority. Regretfully, our country and, indeed, this House have seen the tragic impact of terrorists who seek to use violence to undermine and destroy our society’s commitment to liberal values. Of course, their cowardly actions serve only to strengthen our resolve and our determination to protect the United Kingdom and to disrupt those who engage in terrorism.

Central to that work to protect the public is our management of the threat posed by British-linked individuals who aspire to travel, and who have successfully travelled, to Syria and Iraq to fight for Daesh. The Government have also planned and prepared for the risk posed by those who return.

We have been clear over the past few years that people should not travel to Syria and parts of Iraq. The horrific nature of Daesh’s brutal regime is well documented and there is no doubt that anyone who, for whatever reason, has travelled to those areas against UK Government advice is putting themselves not only in considerable danger, but under justifiable suspicion.

As we have stated previously in the House, we know that more than 850 UK-linked individuals of national security concern travelled to engage with the Syrian conflict. We estimate that over 15% of those who travelled have been killed in fighting in the region and just under half have returned to the UK. A significant proportion of those individuals who have already returned are assessed as no longer being of national security concern. The Government have been clear throughout the conflict that any British national who has travelled to Syria or Iraq and chosen to fight for Daesh has made themselves a legitimate target while in the conflict zone.

[Alex Chalk]

As a distinguished barrister, my hon. Friend will know, however, that the difficulty for prosecuting authorities is establishing what those individuals were doing in those foreign fields. Given that we apply the rule of law and believe in justice, that inevitably means that, all too often, under the current system people who were probably doing something will get away with it.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He brings his legal learning, knowledge and experience to the House, to great effect. He is right and has hit the nub of the problem, namely the tension that this democratic, liberal country faces when dealing with people who have gone overseas and to whom we require, rightly, the rule of law to apply as it does to any other citizen. The difficulty posed by that, of course, is the gathering of evidence to prove the case to the required standards.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Does she accept that another part of the problem is that the British Government in some situations do not appear to be willing to do what many other countries have done, which is to repatriate those who are, for example, in Kurdish-run jails in Kurdish-run areas of Syria and require those people to stand trial? That is creating a Kafkaesque situation for some British citizens who have not yet been proven to have engaged in these activities. Will she engage to look at that?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will ensure that the Minister hears the hon. Lady’s concerns. As I said at the beginning, national security is very much at the forefront. I will ask the Minister to write to her on that point.

[John Woodcock]

Can the Minister tell me, or get her colleague to write to me on, the proportion of the 850 individuals who are no longer deemed to be of national security concern and whether any of them have been tried? It is quite possible for them to go over and commit crimes, find out it is all terrible, and come back and no longer be of security concern, but they still need to be held accountable for their actions while they were over there.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am told that a significant proportion of the 850, minus the more than 15% of those who have been killed in the region, are assessed as no longer being of national security concern. Again, I will ensure that the Minister responds to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

We have been equally clear that anybody who does return will be investigated by the police to determine whether they have committed criminal offences or pose a risk to national security. Whenever possible, British nationals fighting for Daesh should be brought to justice either in the UK or in the region. Where there is evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service will seek to prosecute these individuals. Of that, the House can be completely certain.

Indeed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service have already investigated and prosecuted a number who have returned. For example, last month an individual was sentenced to 10 years after being found guilty of possessing an AK47 gun, receiving £2,000 for terrorist purposes and membership of Daesh. That conviction demonstrated our ability and commitment to work with our international partners to use evidence from the conflict area to support a successful prosecution.

Of course, prosecution decisions must be taken independently by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service where there is evidence. As hon. Members have identified, given the nature of this conflict, it is not always possible to gather sufficient evidence to seek prosecution. However, in these cases I can reassure the House that this Government and the police have a range of tools and powers to manage the threat returners may pose, and we are using them. For example, we can use the royal prerogative to cancel British passports where they are at risk of being misused.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) raised about banning people from the country, the Home Secretary may deprive a person of their British citizenship where satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good. That may only happen, however, if the person would not be left stateless as a result. That is in line with our commitments under international law, as a signatory of the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. We can remove passports where someone is of dual nationality, but we have to abide by the law when it comes to citizens who have only a British passport.

We can impose travel restrictions for individuals subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, subjecting them to a range of conditions. We can also use temporary exclusion orders to prevent individuals who are suspected of involvement with terrorism from returning to the UK, except where they do so in a strictly controlled way, and to place in-country conditions upon return, including regular reporting to a police station.

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness raised Australian exclusion zones. My right hon. Friend the Security Minister, following a meeting with his Australian counterpart last year, instructed officials to examine the Australian legislation and assess its usefulness in a UK context. As with all our counter-terrorism legislation, that option is kept under review. We are not aware of any prosecutions of Australian nationals as a result of criminalising travel to specific areas of Syria or elsewhere. The complexity of that legislation was perhaps demonstrated when, last November, the Australian Foreign Ministry revoked the declaration of Al Raqqa province as an area where travel was not permitted for Australian citizens. That decision reflected the fluidity of the situation on the ground in that conflict zone and the difficulty in maintaining an effective and proportionate travel ban in such circumstances. The whole of Syria remains a do-not-travel destination under Australia’s travel advice, as is the case with our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it is kept under review, in line with all other counter-terrorism legislation.

I know that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness understands, as other hon. Members do, that when it comes to matters of national security we cannot reveal how we are managing certain operations or cases, or we risk undermining this critical work. That means, I suspect, that I cannot answer some of the questions he has posed today, but I can reassure the House that the figures covering the use of these powers will be shared in the annual update to the Government’s transparency report on disruptive and investigatory powers.

[John Woodcock]

The key question is whether that update will match those, without naming names, to the 850 who were known to have travelled to Iraq and Syria. That information is missing at the moment, and the House deserves to hear it.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Security Minister considers that, as well as the five questions that the hon. Gentleman posed in his speech.

Before I finish, I would like to discuss the deportation of suspected Daesh fighters to the UK from Turkey or other countries, as it is obviously a matter of interest to Members across the House. Because Governments do not necessarily disclose whether they have any security or terrorism concerns regarding individuals they deport, it is not possible to provide a figure for how many may have been deported to the UK due to suspicions around Daesh membership. However, the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that where we have security concerns regarding any individual being deported to the UK, their case will be treated with the utmost attention and determination. We have done, and we will continue to work extremely closely with the deporting country to manage that return, share any evidence that might be available, investigate the individual upon return and mitigate any threat they may pose through the powers I have mentioned previously.

I have listened to the thoughtful and well argued contributions from Members on both sides of the House this evening and I recognise the attention that this issue rightly receives from Parliament and the wider public. I can assure the House that the Government treat this issue with as much attention and commitment as possible, to ensure that we continue to do everything we can to keep this country safe.

20:08

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

Division 110

Ayes: 306

---

Conservative: 296
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 2

Noes: 240

---

Labour: 201
Scottish National Party: 28
Liberal Democrat: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 31st January 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Henry Bellingham

† Cartlidge, James (South Suffolk) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Doyle-Price, Jackie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health)

† Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

† Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)

† Hodgson, Mrs Sharon (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

Kyle, Peter (Hove) (Lab)

† Letwin, Sir Oliver (West Dorset) (Con)

† Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con)

† Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)

† Morton, Wendy (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con)

† Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)

† Whitford, Dr Philippa (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

† Woodcock, John (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)

Mike Everett, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 31 January 2018

[Sir Henry Bellingham in the Chair]

Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2018

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.

The draft regulations are part of a wider set of measures to implement European Union directives that set quality and safety standards for donated human tissues and cells used in treatments for patients. They will amend UK legislation to strengthen requirements relating to tracing tissues and cells from donor to patient, and imports from countries outside the European economic area. They establish a standardised EU-wide coding system to ensure the traceability of all human tissues and cells and set out what licensed establishments need to do to demonstrate that tissues and cells imported from countries outside the EU meet high safety standards.

I am sure the Committee agrees that UK patients should have every opportunity to access the life-changing therapies and treatments covered by the draft regulations, such as stem cells to treat blood cancers, corneas to restore sight, heart valves to treat heart conditions, and skin grafts to treat burns, to name but a few. Such tissues and cells may be donated in the UK, in European countries or anywhere in the world, so we need to know that they are safe to use. The group of directives is underpinned by a simple aim: to ensure that tissues and cells used in treatment meet high standards, wherever they come from.

Being able to trace tissues and cells from their original donor to their final use in patients’ treatment, and back again, is important for identification purposes, so that if a patient suffers a serious adverse reaction, donors and other recipients can be traced quickly to minimise the risk of further harm. It is also important for patient safety that tissues and cells imported from countries around the world meet the same quality and safety standards as those from within the EU. The draft regulations will achieve that.

As the world leader in tissue banking, the UK has welcomed the proposal to introduce a European tissues and cells directive since it was first made in 2002. We were already taking action to ensure high standards of quality and safety for human tissues and cells, but we supported the directive because it meant that the voluntary tissue bank scheme already in operation would be made statutory, improving confidence that all tissue banks would meet the highest standards across the EU.

Although I am pleased to say that the UK has not experienced any major incidents involving problems with identification or traceability, the draft regulations will guarantee that no such problems will arise in future. It should also be noted that tissues and cells regularly move between licensed establishments and across international borders, which makes an internationally recognised identification code necessary.

Although UK legislation largely achieves the aims of the coding and import directives, it does not yet meet all their specific requirements. The regulations will transpose the directives’ provisions into UK law and make us consistent with the EU. Our priority is to maintain the same high standards of safety and quality after our exit from the EU. Regardless of our future relationship, the draft regulations are important for the safety of all patients.

Requirements for reproductive cells are set out in the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations, which amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Requirements for all other human tissues and cells—other than organs and blood, which have their own legislation—are set out in the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) Regulations, which amend the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007. We intend both draft regulations to come into effect on 1 April.

A range of consultation activities have taken place to consider how the provisions of the draft regulations will work and to assess their impact on licensed establishments. I am aware that the competent authorities have done a lot to prepare licensed establishments for the regulations’ implementation, and I am grateful to them for that work.

Although there are gains for the UK in transposing these directives, there will of course be a cost to those establishments, including those in the NHS, in implementing the regulations. For some it will involve investment in new IT software, but the regulations will be drafted to ensure that there are no unnecessary administrative burdens or costs placed on these licensing establishments. They transpose the directives while avoiding any element of gold-plating, which we have done to minimise the cost to the NHS.

In conclusion, the regulations fulfil a UK obligation as a current member of the European Union. More importantly, they bring into UK law provisions to enhance our already robust controls that ensure that donated human tissues and cells used in the treatment of others meet the highest quality and safety standards. We recognise that these tissues and cells are increasingly travelling between countries, so we all want a safety system that protects patients and also supports wide access to treatment. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:35

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I want to make it clear from the outset that the Opposition welcome the amendments to the regulations. As the trade in and use of human cells and tissues becomes more complex, it is important that any risks are premeditatedly addressed, and the regulations will help us take a step in the right direction towards achieving that aim.

However, it is important that we never miss an opportunity to press the Minister on points worthy of being raised. We agreed with the chief executive of the Human Tissue Authority, Allan Marriott-Smith, when he said:

“These objectives support our aim to make sure human tissue is stored and used safely, ethically, and with proper consent.”

He went on to say:

“We are committed to working with our stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition and proportionate approach to implementation.”

That is a crucial point that I am sure the Minister will keep a close eye on, as the regulations are implemented. She will be aware that I will also be keeping a close eye on them in my Front-Bench role. I am especially interested to know how she expects to mitigate the high cost of implementation of these changes, as was highlighted in the consultation that preceded the draft regulations.

With those brief remarks, I will conclude. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and to the Minister’s closing remarks.

14:37

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I, too, support the regulations. It will be important that the UK, as it becomes a third country, matches the regulations and is able to export human cells and tissues into the EEA, as well as being able to import them now.

Two matters have been referred to: the need to have a single code that is traceable right across Europe and to have clear standards for countries that are outside the EEA. All of us would welcome that. I have a little concern about what is referred to as the one-off exemptions. That implies that for certain patients there could be repeated one-off exemptions. I would urge the Government to look at that to ensure that it does not become a loophole that would allow repeated import of something substandard, even if it were designated for a single patient, which is how it is identified.

Although organs and blood are obviously outwith this measure, we are well aware of the CJD––Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—and infected blood scandals. Those happened at the time when we imported blood products from America and people were not thinking about it. It is important to think ahead, so that if there is an issue, it is identified and traced quickly and the supplier shut down.

I welcome both the importing controls from third countries, particularly when we hear of some quite frightening trades in stem cells, organs and tissues in parts of Asia, and also the traceability of having a single code. I echo the point that that will obviously require a little bit of investment.

14:39

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank both Front-Bench speakers for the constructive way they have engaged with the regulations. It is testament to the fact that we are all interested in one goal, which is improving safety and standards for patients. It is absolutely right that we probe the important issues that have been raised here.

With regard to the one-off exemptions, what we are trying to do with the coding is for tissues and materials that are stored. The one-offs that we have referred to tend to be when we find a match. They are not stored and are unlikely to be between different countries. However, things can change and we need to future-proof all these regulations to ensure that patient safety is guaranteed.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire rightly reminded us of CJD and contaminated blood. Those issues illustrate powerfully what can happen when things go wrong or we do not maintain those standards. I assure her that within the Department we will be keeping an eye on changing standards internationally. These regulations have come from the European Union, but we are always keen to learn from international experience about how we can improve safety standards. We should never stop being vigilant in pursuit of that.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West also mentioned the issue of costs, which is a fair concern. I appreciate that with the implementation of any regulation there will be a cost to establishments, and that includes the NHS. We have done everything we can to keep those costs to a minimum. We have avoided any gold-plating, which Governments of all colours have often been criticised for in the past. We have been keen not to create additional significant costs for establishments.

We think that the biggest cost will be within the fertility sector. There will be 92 establishments that will have to implement the regulations. We believe that the costs will apply only to special kinds of printers, staff training and the upgrading of IT systems. We do not expect that that will be very onerous, but we will keep an eye on it. With that, I thank the Front Benchers and commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT HUMAN TISSUE (QUALITY AND SAFETY FOR HUMAN APPLICATION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2018

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

14:42

Committee rose.

Draft Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 31st January 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Laurence Robertson

† Allan, Lucy (Telford) (Con)

† Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Davies, Mims (Eastleigh) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Drew, Dr David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)

† Ford, Vicky (Chelmsford) (Con)

† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

† Martin, Sandy (Ipswich) (Lab)

† Percy, Andrew (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

† Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

† Pow, Rebecca (Taunton Deane) (Con)

† Powell, Lucy (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Seely, Mr Bob (Isle of Wight) (Con)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Walker, Thelma (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† West, Catherine (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 31 January 2018

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

Draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

08:54

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that littering is lazy and irresponsible. Time is running out for litter louts. Roadside litter is particularly problematic. Clearing it from the side of busy roads is a dangerous and expensive job for councils and their employees, and for the legions of voluntary litter pickers who do our communities proud. It also costs a lot of money, and those funds could be better used to provide the range of important services that we rely on our councils to deliver.

Following the first ever litter strategy, which we published last April, we are bringing forward the regulations, as promised, which will make it easier to take action against people throwing litter from vehicles. Littering is a criminal offence, but when litter is thrown from a vehicle it can be hard for council enforcement officers to identify the offender with sufficient certainty to issue a criminal sanction. We have listened to local authorities, which have told us how difficult they find it to take enforcement action against those who throw litter from vehicles.

The purpose of the regulations is to make it easier for councils to take enforcement action to tackle littering from vehicles, by removing the need to identify the litterer and holding the “keeper” of the vehicle responsible. The statutory instrument confers a power on district councils in England, outside London, to require the keeper of a vehicle to pay a fixed civil penalty if there is reason to believe that a littering offence has been committed from the vehicle.

In this context, the term “district council” includes any metropolitan, borough, unitary or other district councils, including the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which has the statutory duty to collect litter—such an authority is also known as the litter authority. I should point out that London borough councils already have similar powers, but I was surprised to learn that Wandsworth is the only borough council to use them. I encourage other London boroughs to include the use of those powers in their armoury for tackling litter on London’s streets and roadways.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree fully with the sentiment behind the regulations, but does the Minister agree that perhaps one reason why many councils that have the powers have not yet used them is that, given the huge scale of local government cuts, they lack the resources to enforce the measures as they would like to, particularly on littering?

[Dr Coffey]

The amount of money spent by councils on tackling the issue could well be used in different ways. We are sending a strong message that powers will be available for councils to use if they wish. Fines can be used, of course, to improve all sorts of refuse, recycling and collection services, to make sure that the focus is on keeping streets clean.

Enforcement officers have to be satisfied to the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—that litter was thrown from the vehicle in question. A penalty notice is a civil fine, which, unlike a criminal penalty, does not carry the risk of a criminal prosecution, and therefore does not require the offence to be proved to a criminal standard of proof. The penalty amount payable is set by the litter authority, and must be the same as the amount of any fixed penalty for littering in the area. Hon. Members will be aware of our recent regulations, under which penalty limits will rise and which are intended to have a deterrent effect. Those new levels are reflected in the statutory instrument.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

In my constituency there is often praise for our clean city centre and parks, but I also get complaints about litter beside verges, particularly down dual carriageways such as the A12. Does the Minister agree that the regulations will encourage motorists to chuck less litter out of cars? Clearly when litter is at the side of motorways and dual carriageways it can only have come from vehicles, as there are no pedestrians. Are the regulations a measure to help everyone have a cleaner environment?

[Dr Coffey]

There is certainly a clear message in raising the issue that councils will have powers to do that. For our highways, and particularly our strategic road network, Highways England has an arrangement with the litter authority, whereby the litter authority is still responsible for clearing the litter from that side. It is perfectly possible for councils to work closely with Highways England once they have these powers, to use the camera footage that will be available to try to tackle and identify those who litter. The key thing we want to do is deter the behaviour in the first place.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

What do the Government propose to do for taxi drivers? If a passenger throws litter out the back of a car, will the taxi driver be fined, or will they try to find the passenger?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady has pre-empted part of my explanation of the draft regulations, which specifically includes that point. Let me first finish the point I was making about the process of issuing fines.

The process for issuing the penalty notice and the payment and appeals process are akin to those for other penalty notices levied by councils, such as parking tickets. A number of grounds for making representations deal with circumstances in which the person was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time, for example because the vehicle had been sold, stolen or was hired to somebody else. In addition, public service vehicles, including buses, taxis and private hire vehicles, are exempt from liability of a civil penalty notice if the offence is committed by a passenger.

To answer the hon. Lady’s point, I suggest that if there was appropriate evidence to show that the litter was tossed from the driver’s window in a taxi, I would expect there to be reasonable grounds to believe that it was the driver of the vehicle. If the litter came from different windows, there would be good grounds to accept that that would be a passenger.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Do the Government have any plans to introduce other measures in support of the draft regulations, for instance educational resources for drivers on the economic, environmental and societal effects of littering, or a campaign bringing this to life for all road users?

[Dr Coffey]

We work closely with a number of organisations, and we push litter education programmes. I am very fond of something that the official Government comms do not like: I am prone to using the hashtag #dontbeatosser, which is a slogan that came from Australia and was adopted by my local radio station, BBC Suffolk—I think some people have different thoughts about what it might mean. I am quite keen to escalate the activities, which is why we are working closely with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that we tried #dontbeatosser on the Isle of Wight, but the Campaign to Protect Rural England felt that we were a little too genteel for that. Excuse my ignorance about this—I am new to this place and to Delegated Legislation Committees—but what is the process by which councils are informed of these decisions that are taken in Parliament? What does she expect councils to do and how active should they be in getting that message out? Clearly, as she says, this is about public information.

[Dr Coffey]

Councils have been asking us for the opportunity to have these powers. Our estimate is that about one third of councils are minded to take them out. The point is that we are giving the councils the powers to do that. I encourage my hon. Friend to go back to the Isle of Wight and proclaim that from 1 April, if both Houses of Parliament agree, the council will be able to have these powers, and drivers should look carefully, consider their local environments and recognise that other people may be watching them to make sure they do the right thing. At the end of the day, we have to have the kind of behaviour—I think we do generally—where littering becomes unacceptable. We need to keep reinforcing that with positive powers and messaging.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify something? If a driver is informed that litter has come from his vehicle, but it is clear that it was not thrown from his window, and he does not know or is unwilling to divulge who threw it, who will be fined?

[Dr Coffey]

The draft regulations specifically make it the responsibility of the “keeper of a vehicle”. I will not pretend to be a transport lawyer, but it is the registered keeper of the vehicle; one never knows exactly who buys a car and who its registered keeper is. I do not want to go down a cul-de-sac—literally—on that concept. [Interruption.] I have just been passed a note by one of my officials. I should make it clear to the Committee, and to anybody who is listening, that only Parliamentary Private Secretaries are allowed to pass notes to Ministers. I apologise to you, Mr Robertson, and to the Committee for that.

In conclusion, by giving councils the additional power to take action, we believe that the draft regulations will operate as a greater deterrent to those who might be tempted to litter and will reduce the build-up of litter on our roadsides and verges. They demonstrate our commitment to reducing litter and littering behaviour. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

09:05

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to her place—I also welcome the civil servant to his place; maybe he will give the answers.

This is an interesting, if not worrying, topic. I am a little surprised that we have been through the whole of the Minister’s speech, not to mention the draft regulations and the explanatory notes, but not yet had a number. This is quite a worrying issue, and the number of incidents is increasing. I was involved in the passage of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, through which the previous Labour Government put this into primary legislation.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal would be particularly beneficial for our waterways? A lot of the rubbish that people throw out of cars ends up in our waterways, canals and rivers, and even blocks up drainage —it goes right down to that level.

[Dr Drew]

As the proud possessor in my constituency of the Gloucester and Sharpness canal and, hopefully one day, the completed Stroudwater canal, I totally agree.

Let us put some numbers to this, to give some context for why it is important. In 2016-17 local authorities in England dealt with more than 1 million incidents of fly-tipping—I will use that term because no one else has, and because it was referred to as fly-tipping in the 2005 Act—which was a 7% increase on the previous year. Two thirds of incidents of fly-tipping involved household waste, and the total number of incidents increased by 8% from 2015-16.

There is a consistent relationship between where people tip and how much they tip. Clearly, most of that takes place on our highways—some half of all incidents—and again, that is increasing. Sadly, quite a lot is tipped. That is something I will ask the Minister about. I am a little bit confused by what we mean by littering. If I truck up in my four-by-four and chuck four used tyres in the nearest layby, is that littering or is that covered by some other legislation?

That is the nature of what this is. It is not just chance, although clearly people chuck things out of their car windows. A lot of this is people getting rid of things that sadly they would otherwise be charged for. I know a little bit about this because, as you will know, Mr Robertson, in the good old days Stroud did not charge for the disposing of large items, so the good people of Gloucester used to come and dump them in Stroud. We now charge for them, so there is no reason for people to dump them in Stroud anymore. However, it is an issue, because people will dispose of rubbish, and unless they are prevented from doing so, or fined when they are caught, this will grow.

It is estimated that the cost of clearing fly-tipped waste in 2016-17 was £57.7 million, which is not an inconsiderable sum. Local authorities carried out 474,000 enforcement actions, costing about £16 million. That is staggering, because we think it is difficult to follow up fly-tipping, but there is actually a lot more action by local authorities, which cost some £900,000.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is not only expensive and unsightly, but very harmful to our environment and the wildlife that lives along the roadsides?

[Dr Drew]

Of course, that is one of the problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, rubbish ends up in waterways or being swallowed by animals, and we know the consequences. There is a big financial pressure on local authorities, which is why in the consultation they are asking not necessarily for greater powers, but for the fines to be more conversant with a proper process for dealing with the problem.

[Lucy Powell]

Is it therefore my hon. Friend’s calculation that there is a net cost to local authorities of enforcing it, that there will not be profits for local authorities from issuing fines, and that they will spend more on administering it and identifying people than they will get back from any fines?

[Dr Drew]

Of course, that is a problem we must dwell on: if the cost of trying to pursue someone is much greater than the benefit in fines, most local authorities will give up. The figures do not show the actual number of cases, because many local authorities will find them difficult to pursue.

[Mr Seely]

It is going to be very difficult to enforce this anyway, because the problem is that we will have “he said” or “she said”, versus somebody else saying, “I saw somebody throw something out of the car,” which then they deny. It is about social pressure. A lot of it is not necessarily about enforcement through the law, but a sense of social enforcement; chucking litter out of cars should be seen to be wrong. It will not affect everybody, and it will not change everyone’s behaviour, but this law simply being enacted should change some people’s behaviour, which would have a positive result. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just about cost?

[Dr Drew]

Of course it is about changing behaviour and attitudes, but we have to punish people who are blatantly getting rid of something that they should dispose of in another way. That is why I use the word “fly-tipping”. It is about not just the casual removal of stuff from cars, but people doing it in a much more organised way.

In a nutshell, we are looking not just at passing a new regulatory instrument, but at how it will be enforced and funded. We are really looking at the complexity of the waste sector, which is an important part of the issue, and at what is hidden and disguised, because it is not being pursued. In due course we will have to look at primary legislation, because waste is now a very important, and very political, area.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just how it is enforced, but who it is enforced by? We are talking about not just specific waste enforcement officers, but all sorts of other officers, who may or may not have been available in the past, who will no longer be available. For instance, in the area around Ipswich all the countryside officers are losing their jobs because the county council has stopped funding the countryside service. They are the sort of people who might have been able to enforce the regulation in the past, but their role no longer exists because of local authority cuts.

[Dr Drew]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Clearly, local authorities are, in a sense, hit in every which way. They are losing staff, so their eyes and ears are diminishing. It is expensive to pursue such cases. They can fine more, but they still have to go through processes that, as I will say in a minute when I talk specifically about the order, possibly lead to appeal, which would result in even more expense and possibly not getting any money back if they lost.

The Local Government Association largely welcomes this development, and sees it as very important. It estimates that the problem is costing councils £57 million a year—money that is not spent on elderly persons’ services, education, homelessness, and other issues. Councils would always take a zero-tolerance view, but I reiterate that they do not necessarily have the means to pursue it. Litter is also a particular problem on roads, and the highway authorities are at a loss to know how they can deal with this environmental hazard. Councils wish the process for taking people to court, if that is the result, to be expedited—this is a fining process, but people might go to court in a more major case of littering or fly-tipping—because that process is what costs the money.

Keep Britain Tidy also has its threepenny-worth on this issue, while welcoming the measure. To give an idea of the scale, Keep Britain Tidy estimates that 150,000 sacks of litter are collected by contractors each year—that is 411 sacks every day, or 83 bags per mile of Highways England motorway network. We are talking about a scale problem and, at £40 a bag, that is the same as mending a pothole. That also gives us an idea of why we do not mend enough potholes—as you know, Mr Robertson, in Gloucestershire we had some problem with potholes. As we have discussed, we are not talking about a futile exercise of making the place look tidy; this is about damage to wildlife, our water courses and the rest.

To finish on the figures, however, because they are important, it is estimated that 82% of main roads have cigarette litter. We have not mentioned cigarettes yet, but they are a predominant problem. Sixty-seven per cent. of main roads have confectionary or sweet packaging or wrappers on them, 62% have soft drinks litter on them—cans, bottles and cartons—and 50% have fast-food packaging on them. We sometimes wonder why those who sell such things do not pay a price, given that they are at least partly responsible for the litter.

Perhaps the most worrying figure of the lot is that about one in seven drivers readily admits to throwing things out of the car window. That is a lot of people. For heavy goods vehicle drivers, that figure rises to one in five, but we will pass on from that quickly. The problem, dare I say it, tends to be a male one, and people who smoke tend to be more likely to throw things out of the window. That is some background to a scale problem.

The secondary legislation is important, but in future we may have to look at the need to toughen the primary legislation, which is now more than 10 years out of date. This statutory instrument is entirely dependent on the 2005 Act. I have some specifics for the Minister to respond to. I am a little confused about why London is different. Perhaps London is always different, but the draft regulations exclude London, so it would be useful to know what the situation in London is. Is it better because it is different, or are the draft regulations catching up with London?

On the orders being served against people, I am a little confused about the relationship between the police and the local authorities. I understand that local authorities have to follow things up, but if the police catch someone throwing something out or, more particularly, if someone sees a person going to a lay-by, so the police come along and catch the person, what is the relationship between the criminal and civil law? That would be useful to know.

[Dr Johnson]

Is not one of the advantages of the measure, under which the civil burden of proof has to be met when someone throws litter from a vehicle, that people need not throw litter in front of a police car in order to be caught? Dash-cam footage from members of the public could be submitted to the council as proof. That will have a huge deterrent effect, because people never know who is behind them or who will do what with such evidence.

[Dr Drew]

I understand that, and that is important, but what I am intimating is that we are talking about not merely people throwing things out of vehicles casually, but people who are very organised in how they dispose of their litter. It is likely that a farmer would ring the police to say, “Someone is tipping lots of stuff on to my field.” Whether the police get there in time is another matter, but the important thing is that it could involve police action.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He keeps referring to fly-tipping has but also said that one in seven drivers throws litter from their car. Presumably this measure aims to remedy that. In my constituency, we have slip roads off the M54 on which there is a huge issue with litter from cars, in particular around the service station on junction 6. I would be grateful if he confirmed that that is what this legislation will tackle, not fly-tipping.

[Dr Drew]

I would welcome the Minister explaining that; we are still the Opposition, though we can but dream. The regulations do not mention fly-tipping, but I do not know what the difference would be.

[Dr Coffey]

Just to be clear, fly-tipping and littering are separate matters, covered by separated regulations.

[Dr Drew]

But that is the problem, because one person’s fly-tipping is another person’s disposing of litter.

[Hon. Members]

No, it’s not!

[Dr Drew]

Hon. Members ought to come to my part of the world, where people disposing of things from vehicles—[Interruption.] Please tell me what the difference is between someone who is casually throwing litter—

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Dr Drew]

Oh, we will have experts now!

[Vicky Ford]

In my part of the world, there is an issue with fly-tipping. There is an issue with individuals taking large vehicles and dumping very large quantities of rubbish, sometimes builders’ rubbish, on to agricultural land. That is fly-tipping, and the fines for it should be way in excess of the £100 for chucking a bit of rubbish out of a car. This piece of legislation, which I have read, deals with litter. In my understanding, that is a very different subject, and I thank the Minister for clarifying that.

[Dr Drew]

I am sorry to disagree, but they are very much the same issue. The way in which people dispose of rubbish has been made worse, and it is sad that local authorities do not necessarily offer a full range of services now. I would argue—the Minister can clarify this—that while we are largely talking about litter that is casually thrown out of vehicles, the overlap with fly-tipping is a growing and worrying problem, from the numbers I have given.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that fly-tipping is when someone parks a car, goes and gets rubbish out, and throws it down at the side of the road? This legislation is to do with litter being thrown out the window of a vehicle, stationary or moving.

[Dr Drew]

I think that is a moot point. At the end of the day, it is clear that we have a growing problem of people disposing of litter in various ways. If the Minister wants to say that this is clearly not about fly-tipping in any way at all, she can clarify that when summing up. I am making the point that sadly there are many more people who casually tip things from their car. It might be their cigarette ends, but is that fly-tipping or is it casually removing things from their vehicle? That is what is going on out there, and it is costing a large amount of money to deal with it.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in the statutory instrument that identifies the dimensions of what is thrown out of the window? Some vehicles have quite large windows, and substantial quantities of stuff could be thrown out of them.

[Mr Seely]

rose—

[Dr Drew]

I will give way finally to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will move on and try to get through this debate on this measure.

[Mr Seely]

Has the hon. Gentleman ever tried chucking a large plastic bag out of a moving car? It is a difficult thing to do. I understand his point that fly-tipping and chucking out a sweet wrapper are both, sui generis, chucking stuff out of a car, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire said, there is a significant difference between unloading 15 fridges and leaving them in a field and throwing a McDonald’s out while driving. Those are very different things, and I understood this debate to be about the latter, not the former.

[The Chair]

Order. I think we have had quite a discussion about the meaning of these regulations. The Minister is probably best placed to explain it more fully when she gets back to her feet. These are the draft littering from vehicles regulations. Having had that debate, perhaps we could move on.

[Dr Drew]

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Perhaps we will be back here with another statutory instrument to consider the relationship between fly-tipping and littering. However, I will say no more on that, and I will not take any more interventions on it.

I am intrigued to know why, under one part of the regulations, Plymouth City Council has a specific exemption. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is sitting behind me; we were both quite intrigued to read that. The appeal process is still quite difficult to understand, particularly given that, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire identified, the keeper of a vehicle is not necessarily the person who has littered from it. How will that work under the regulations? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

I am always intrigued by who an adjudicator is and how they are chosen. The regulations refer to that process, but it would be good to understand what sort of person adjudicates when there is a dispute over rubbish that is disposed of in this way. If someone has littered and they are driving on behalf of a business, it is not totally clear to me what the responsibility of the business is. It looks as though the littering is the responsibility of the individual, but there could be the additional problem of the business either taking action against that individual or, more particularly, condoning what they have done. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the regulations operate in that regard.

On the costs, the consultation is very interesting, because it effectively urges the Government to go further faster, by introducing higher fines and providing more resources to follow up the introduction of these regulations. It would be useful to know what the Government intend to do to help those local authorities that have responded to this issue and intend to take it seriously.

Regarding rental companies, I cannot see what would happen if someone rented a car and was caught throwing litter from it. They are not the keeper of the car, and they may not have been seen throwing the litter; somebody may have seen the litter coming from the car. The hire car company will then be blamed, rather than the individual. How will that issue be pursued? There are also dash-cams. The regulations say that video evidence can be used, but are dash-cams likely to be the way in which we can crack down on this issue? I ask that because eventually we have to stop people littering, given the scale of the problem. We had the argument earlier, but littering is a much bigger problem than these regulations perhaps make us think. Is that how we see this going? Will the regulations make sure that people are prevented from littering, given the scale of the problem?

I welcome all the contributions today. These regulations are one of those statutory instruments that address what seems to be a very minimalistic, almost minor, issue, but the scale of this—the figures involved, which I have given to the Committee—shows that this is a big, growing problem, so the Government have to address it. They may do so initially through these regulations, but there are arguments about how we determine how litter gets out of a car and into the countryside, making it look worse. In time, another clean neighbourhood Act may be demanded, because the current one is clearly not working as well as it could.

09:29

[Dr Coffey]

The draft regulations have obviously exercised hon. Members. I will not say that a lot of rubbish has been spoken. Far from it; searching questions have been asked, and I shall be pleased to try to provide some illumination.

It is true that the powers granted by the regulations extend from those in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, but that Act amended and clarified the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It identified smoking-related detritus as litter and gave councils further powers. The draft regulations set out the relevant primary legislation that authorises them.

As I mentioned, fly-tipping is a different legal offence. Councils already have separate powers to issue penalties or prosecute for fly-tipping, including powers to seize vehicles. The Environment Agency has thanked us for granting those powers, which certainly act as a huge deterrent. Littering is defined in section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act, while under the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse, any discarded item larger than one black bag should be considered fly-tipping.

A question was asked about the police and criminal enforcement. Frankly, if littering can be identified and there is sufficient evidence of a criminal offence, that evidence can be used to prosecute the alleged litterer. However, the draft regulations do exactly what councils have asked for: they grant civil enforcement powers, and it is up to councils whether to use them. The origin of the legislation for London was the London Local Authorities Act 2007; we had to make some corrections to that Act in 2012, because it was not working as it should, but London already has the necessary powers. I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is a former council leader. It will be for local councils to decide to apply their many statutory powers, including those on littering and fly-tipping. I know that some councils are keen to get on with this, and it will be their choice to do so.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for mentioning local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central said, enforcement depends on funding. It would be wonderful to have a special environment fund for boroughs to really tackle the issue, because there is huge public support. There has been a culture change—the Minister may remember that I did some press work on that when I was chair of London Councils’ transport and environment committee in 2007.

[Dr Coffey]

I have to admit that I do not recall the work from 2007, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will encourage her local borough to think again about how its spending on littering issues balances against the potential for recouping its costs through enforcement. Again, that is a decision for councils.

The reason for citing Plymouth in the regulations relates to the definition of licensed private hire vehicles. Like London, Plymouth licenses its own private hire vehicles, and we wish to ensure that it can continue to do so.

The appeals process is fairly standard. There is a PATROL—parking and traffic regulations outside London—adjudication joint committee of councils that considers traffic regulations. The adjudication process can happen through traffic tribunals. The process is straightforward and akin to the process for parking tickets.

Hon. Members raised hire cars. There are exemptions in cases when it is clear that the registered keeper was not using the car, because it had been hired out to someone else or stolen. I expect that councils will not enforce the measures against hire companies, but as happens when other offences are committed by people who hire cars, it may be possible for the hire car company to provide evidence to the enforcement authorities so that they can pursue the matter.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I have two quick points for the Minister to consider. First, the main enforcement tool for the draft regulations, which I support wholeheartedly, will probably be automatic number plate recognition cameras. Does she have any concerns that an unintended consequence of the regulations might be to push the problem out of urban areas and into rural areas not covered by cameras? Secondly, has she any sympathy for a registered keeper who faces vicarious liability when they may not have been the litterer or even have been in the car when the offence occurred?

[Dr Coffey]

Of course, the registered keeper of a car has to give permission to whoever drives it. There are other matters, such as the use of seatbelts, for which the person in charge of the vehicle—perhaps the registered keeper—is responsible. In essence, they have to be accountable. As we are making clear to the owners of cars, we are giving councils the power to say that they will be held liable. I think that is reasonable.

As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, this is a problem. Councils have asked us for these powers because of the challenges in bringing prosecutions. The powers we are giving to councils are sensible and straightforward, and there are appeal processes. There has to be a reasonable balance of belief and proof that the offence has happened. This is sensible legislation that I think our constituents will welcome. My #dontbeatosser tweet, in which I identified the number plate of a litterer’s vehicle, is possibly the most popular I have ever posted. I did not name the driver, because I did not know who they were.

I genuinely hope that councils will take advantage of these powers. Once Parliament agrees to the regulations, it will be down to councils to decide whether they wish to do so. The powers will come into effect on 1 April.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

09:36

Committee rose.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (First sitting)

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: James Gray

† Antoniazzi, Tonia (Gower) (Lab)

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Gibson, Patricia (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

† Masterton, Paul (East Renfrewshire) (Con)

† Newlands, Gavin (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

† Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Prentis, Victoria (Banbury) (Con)

† Quince, Will (Colchester) (Con)

† Sandbach, Antoinette (Eddisbury) (Con)

† Soames, Sir Nicholas (Mid Sussex) (Con)

† Yasin, Mohammad (Bedford) (Lab)

Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 31 January 2018

[James Gray in the Chair]

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee to this stage of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton’s private Member’s Bill. My inclination is to apply the same rules on general behaviour in Committee as we do in the main Chamber as regards dress, not drinking coffee and all those things, as well as the normal procedures and courtesies, if that is all right by everybody.

Before we do anything else, we need to deal with the sittings motion, which stands in the promoter’s name.

Resolved,

That, if proceedings on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee shall meet on Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 2.00 pm.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

[The Chair]

On the basis of that motion, and given that the required notice period for amendments in Public Bill Committees is three working days, amendments should be tabled by the rise on the House on Fridays for consideration on Wednesdays. Therefore, the deadline for any amendments for consideration next Wednesday is this coming Friday. If possible, submit amendments prior to that. As a general rule, I will not call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. If you want amendments to be discussed next Wednesday, get them tabled by Friday.

We come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. As neither clause 1 nor 2 is to be amended, my inclination is to have a stand part debate on them both, rather like a Second Reading debate, and then move on to the more detailed stuff.

Clause 1

Parental bereavement leave and pay

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will set out briefly the purpose of the Bill. No one would doubt that losing a child is the most harrowing experience for any parent. It is the thing we dread most. As a father of four, I know that is every mother or father’s worst fear, and one that never goes away.

First, I pay tribute to members of the Committee, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Eddisbury and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran—and, of course, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his incredible work in this area. I am fortunate to have the opportunity hopefully to carry the Bill through to its final stages, and I am keen to do so as quickly as possible to ensure that we get it over the line. So much good work has been done in this Parliament and the previous one to ensure that this important piece of legislation comes forward.

Many charities have been in touch to express their support for the Bill, such as Child Bereavement UK, Bliss, Together for Short Lives and Jack’s Rainbow, as well as the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care, and my constituents, Annika and James Dowson, who first drew my attention to their terrible tragedy with their daughter, Gypsy, who was stillborn. They—like many people in such situations—have found a way to channel their grief by using their efforts to alleviate the suffering of others in the same situation. In their case, they have raised much money for the bereavement suite at Scarborough hospital.

I am also grateful for the cross-party co-operation we have seen—we are all keen for the Bill to progress. Many other people have been involved, including the parliamentary digital outreach team, who helped us to get in touch with many people who have suffered these terrible tragedies and let us learn of their experiences.

The Bill puts on the statute book for the very first time that parents will have a day-one entitlement to two weeks’ leave if they should suffer this tragedy. We talked to many people about this Bill, and when we explain its provisions, people say, “Why is that not the case already?” That is a good start to introducing new legislation; there is clearly something wrong when such legislation does not exist already.

The entitlement is for a child below the age of 18. I know that there are some amendments that we will debate, which ask whether we have all the provisions in the Bill in the right place. I am very keen to hear from members of the Committee about whether the current qualifying criteria are correct.

There is also the rate of pay for this leave. After 26 weeks, there is an entitlement to statutory pay—£141 a week, or 90% of earnings. There is also flexibility in taking the leave—those two weeks over the first eight-week period. Again, I know that is something we need to discuss in this Committee.

We will also consider eligibility. Is the leave for biological parents, or for a wider group of people who come under that umbrella term, “parents”? These days, of course, people tend to have a number of parental figures in their life and we need to take time to consider such points properly.

I think that we are all aware of the fragility of the private Member’s Bill process. We are delighted to have Government support for this Bill, but we are very keen to ensure that we get it through at the earliest opportunity, so that those people who have lost children receive the support they need.

On examination of the Bill, all hon. Members will have noticed, of course, that clause 1 is uncontroversial and simply allows for consideration of the substance of the Bill—the schedule that is referred to. Clause 2 is just a procedural clause, which provides for the date on which the Bill will come into force, the extent of any amendment or appeal as set out in the schedule, and the short title of the Bill.

With your agreement, Mr Gray, I propose that we do not dwell on clause 2 and instead move on to the substance of the Bill, which is in the schedule, once we have considered the proposed new clause.

[The Chair]

I call Laura Pidcock to speak. It would be helpful if Members who wish to speak stand up.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Gray, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to come to this Committee and work on this Bill, which is the first Bill that I will consider in my new role. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has outlined what the clauses do; I will not repeat that. I will just say that I support the purpose of the clauses.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the fact that this legislation does not exist already is almost unbelievable; I cannot believe that it has taken until 2018 to table such a measure, and create the right to parental leave and pay. I am therefore pleased that, through this private Member’s Bill, we will create such legislation. I give thanks to the hon. Gentleman. By the way, we agree that everything is better up north; that is one of the few things we agree on. We also agree on the purpose of this Bill and we will use this Committee not only to improve the Bill—potentially—but to ensure that it is passed.

I have to say that I am humbled to speak in this debate alongside people who unfortunately have first-hand experience of losing a child, and I place on the record how much I admire all of them and all their strength.

The principle should be that if someone is in work—whatever type of work they do and for however long they have done it—when catastrophe strikes and their child dies, either as a result of a long-term health condition, a freak accident, or anything in between, they should have time off to recover and there should be no financial detriment to their taking that period of recovery. I just cannot imagine the pain and grief that someone experiences when they lose the closest person to them, and the fact that they need to function so quickly after they have felt such grief is impossible to comprehend.

As has been mentioned in previous debates, there are of course employers who will be very understanding and who will make time for people to grieve and to make arrangements. However, we also have to acknowledge, as I think this Bill does, that there are employers who do not show the same compassion at this most dreadful time.

All the statistics tell us something. For example, the National Council for Palliative Care says that a shocking 31% of people who have been bereaved in the last five years felt that they had not been treated with compassion by their employer. In my view, that is an astounding statistic and it is also proof that the Government must take action, and rightly are taking action, to provide protection for these people.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

This is, indeed, a very exciting day, and the culmination of nearly three years’ work. I fully support the Bill, amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 and giving parents who sadly suffer the loss of a child the statutory right to two weeks’ paid leave. I first introduced a Bill on this matter in the previous Parliament. The issue was, and remains, one of the burning injustices that I wanted to address during my time in Parliament, which is why I am so supportive of this Bill and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.

Why is this issue so important to me? It is important because it is personal. Having gone through the experience of losing a child in 2014, I saw the impact that it had on not just me but the wider family, and my wife in particular. We had all the protections that come with a stillbirth: the full rights of maternity and paternity, which do not exist for those who lose a child after six or seven months.

When I joined Parliament I started researching this subject and looking at why there was this gap in provision and no statutory protection. I came across a similar Bill that was introduced back in 2013 by the former Member for Glasgow South, Tom Harris. He recognised that there was an issue here, based on a personal case in his constituency. I have been liaising with Tom, who has been hugely helpful and supportive of my Bill coming back before the House as a ten-minute rule Bill and its continuation in this Bill. I also met a lady called Lucy Herd who set up an organisation and charity called Jack’s Rainbow. She sadly lost her child who I believe was around two years old, and she has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for several years.

Although Tom did not get as far as starting to draft his Bill, he presented a ten-minute rule Bill that kicked off the process of getting Parliament to think about the gap in provision. With the help of the Table Office, we then drafted a Bill that was an initial variant or incarnation of what we see in front of us today. Sadly, the Session timed out and we were not able to take it through to get it on the statute book.

Along with a number of colleagues from across the House who care passionately about this issue, we campaigned as hard as we could on a cross-party basis, and as a result managed to get this policy in all the four main parties’ manifestos, which was no mean feat. I will be eternally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for picking up the baton and running with this Bill. When a Member comes high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, they are inundated with requests from charities, different organisations and local, constituency cases from people who want them to take on their cause and campaign. Within about 20 to 30 seconds of a phone call with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton when I knew that he had come up high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, he did not hesitate to say yes. That is a credit to him and shows how passionate he is too about addressing this issue.

I also thank the Government for their support for the Bill, and in particular the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has been so supportive. From the point at which my Bill fell in the last Parliament, we had a number of meetings in the Department to work out ways in which we could thrash this issue out and bring it forward again.

I also welcome the new Minister to his place. Knowing him as well as I do, and from the work that we have already done on this important issue, I know that he is as passionate as we all are about getting the Bill over the line and on to the statute book. I thank all Members from across the House who have supported this campaign and the Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, all the different charities and organisations that have been so supportive of the Bill and have fed into the process with their different ideas. We will not agree with all of them—some of them are not entirely practical—but we might agree with some of them, and the point is that they have been very forthcoming with their ideas and views.

Why is the Bill needed? Why is it so important? To put it bluntly, it is because there can be few more distressing life events than the loss of a child. I know that a number of hon. Members across the Committee have experienced that loss. Personally, I can only speak having gone through a stillbirth. I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child at one, three, five, 15 or 17. Up to 5,000 children die every year in the UK, which means that thousands of parents have to go through that personal tragedy.

14:15

Having gone through our experience of losing a baby through stillbirth, I must stress how important it is to have the time to come to terms with the huge loss. Often, by their very nature, an infant or child death is a sudden one. People need the time to come to terms with what has happened, and to make those necessary arrangements.

We have spoken a bit, and I have seen correspondence with different charities, about the age limit. The age limit of 18 is partly because there has to be an arbitrary figure, and also because up to that point there is no person other than the parents, who have the sole responsibility for making arrangements such as registering a death, organising a funeral and letting the wider family know. That responsibility falls almost exclusively on the parents, which is why the Bill is entitled Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay). It is specifically aimed at dependants.

The hon. Member for North West Durham pointed out that the vast majority of employers are already brilliant and act with compassion, kindness and huge amounts of sympathy. The vast majority bend over backwards to make it as easy as possible for their employees to come to terms with what is a most horrific life event. But sadly, some do not. That is why this statutory protection is so important. I mentioned that when a child is stillborn—after 24 weeks—parents are entitled to full maternity and paternity rights. That is the same if parents lose a child neonatally. However, if parents lose a child after that point, technically they are entitled to nothing. Why should parents who lose a child in the first few weeks and months of life not have the same type of statutory protection? It cannot be right, and that is why we have to address the matter in law.

The position of the law as it stands, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, is that people are entitled to time off for dependants. There is a rather vague definition of a reasonable amount of time. To be frank, what is reasonable to one person is not necessarily reasonable to another—it is purely at the employer’s discretion. Although the vast majority of employers are brilliant, some have not even allowed their staff to have the time off to attend a funeral. That is simply unacceptable and it is why we need this statutory protection.

There are countless cases of employees being pressurised into going back to work. At the moment, we have that theoretical right of a vaguely defined reasonable amount of time, but there is no statutory right at all for that time off to be paid. Many employers will keep their staff on full pay during that period, but some do not. I am aware of the pressures on business—we should take their needs and requirements into consideration. We do not want to put unnecessary burdens on business, but the Bill is good for business because it creates an element of certainty.

The Bill was never intended to state what must be provided in every case, but rather the bare minimum that must be provided under statute. Most employers will go much further and we all encourage them to do so, because if they take care of their employees at the most difficult time in their lives, that buys a huge amount of loyalty. Those individuals will respect that hugely. The statutory provision on pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton outlined, means that businesses will be able to recoup some of that money, so there will be a financial incentive for businesses to do the right thing.

Every bereaved parent is different. Some will want this Bill and some will not. Some will choose to take parental bereavement leave and some will choose not to. Some will want to take it immediately and some will want to take it later. There is a strong argument that fathers in particular want to go straight back to work as a coping mechanism. I will not say whether that is right or wrong—it is entirely up to them—but we want to ensure that the legislation is as flexible as possible and that it is a fair and reasonable compromise between the employee and the employer.

The Bill is about statutory protection. There are some European and worldwide precedents for such measures, but it is important to say that if we pass this Bill, or a variant thereof with a few minor amendments and tweaks, we will have some of the best workers’ rights in this area in Europe, and indeed in the world, which is something that we can be hugely proud of.

The hon. Member for North West Durham pointed out that the Bill is not perfect. We will no doubt, I suspect, have minor disagreements about what we want the Bill to include, in particular perhaps about the length of time when the leave can be taken and about the eligibility criteria. Indeed, I have tabled amendments of my own. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning: the Bill is the result of more than two years’ work, so please let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. This Bill must pass. We have to get it on to the statute book. It is a hugely important first step that gives thousands of parents up and down the country the statutory protection that they rightly deserve and the time and peace to grieve.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want to echo some of what has been said. I most sincerely and profoundly thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing this very important Bill and for all the work he has done to ensure that we reach this point, building on the work of the hon. Member for Colchester and the former Member for Glasgow South.

The anomaly of bereaved parents and the injustice they face of not having any protection in employment law is finally being addressed. This is a good day for Parliament. The Bill is warmly welcomed by every one of my Scottish National party colleagues and has support across the House, as we would expect. As has been said, most employers are perfectly decent, but we all understand —perhaps this is where the Bill arises from—that such an important matter cannot be left to the good will of individual employers.

Many of us have had the tragic and life-changing experience of having to bury our own child, but the Bill is not for us. It is for all those men and women who will have to undergo that agony in future. We in public life, especially those of us who have gone through that traumatic experience, have a duty—a desire by which we are often driven—to improve the situation for those who in the coming years will suffer the same terrible fate of losing a child.

It is important that we all approach the Bill in a non-partisan manner, which is always a pleasure because it happens so infrequently in this House. Some things are just too important to be considered party political and go well beyond the realms of party affiliation, which is why I am hugely encouraged by the tone of hon. Members’ opening remarks. My regret is that in the run-up to the Bill, I was not insightful or prepared enough to work with other hon. Members to table cross-party amendments. That would have given the important signal that this is not a party political issue. I hold my hands up to that.

Many people who have not undergone the experience of losing their child will not understand that there is no protection—they have never had any reason to make inquiries into that. It has taken us so long to get to this point because it is so difficult to even broach the subject of the death of a child. It has been taboo for too long, and thankfully, that is changing.

For too long, parents have had no formal protection under employment law. Together, today, we can seek to put that right. By passing some of the amendments, I hope we can put it right in a way of which we can be truly proud.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

Like the hon. Member for North West Durham, this is my first appearance in a Bill Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

[The Chair]

You are doing well so far.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I know you have a reputation for being a hard taskmaster, and that you do not suffer fools gladly, but I hope you will be at least a little gentle with the Front-Bench Members as we proceed in this important debate.

As a Minister with the vast experience of some two weeks in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, it is actually very humbling to be here and to take part in this important debate. We come into public life and into politics to help people and to make a difference. As a child of the ’80s, I am reminded of the M People song:

“What have you done today to make you feel proud?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and everybody involved with the Bill can feel proud that we have reached this point. The Bill will change the lives of those affected by the death of a child. It really will make a massive contribution, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such significant progress with this important Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester on the work that he has done.

I have been in the House since 2010, and Bills and debates have come and gone. Sometimes they stick in our minds, sometimes they pass us by and the amount of time and energy given to them in our thoughts is fleeting. One thing that I remember incredibly vividly in this place was listening to the Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think back in November 2015—and, of course, the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. The raw emotion in the Chamber during those speeches was incredible. I do not think a single Member was not moved almost to the point of tears, and beyond that in some cases, by the devastating human story that we heard play out and the desire that no other parent should have to go through that. It is an old adage that no parent should ever bury their child.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about this being almost a taboo subject—something that we do not wish to talk about. That reminded me of my own experience. I am delighted to say that Mrs Griffiths is with child. When I became a Business Minister, the first thing they told me on the day I walked through the door of the Department was that the next day I would be answering Women and Equalities questions, and that the first question would be on flexible paternity. I had to declare an interest, as I intend to take my full paternity leave.

I therefore look at this through the lens of a dad-to-be. I am reminded of the other evening. We were sat at home in Burton, and my wife, who is now getting bigger by the day, was on the sofa. She was enthralled by “Dancing on Ice” and I was deep in my red box, doing my ministerial work. She shouted out because she had her mobile phone resting on her belly and the baby—we do not know yet whether it is a boy or a girl—had kicked the mobile phone off her belly. We are just going through those emotions of realising that there is a little person in there; there is a little Andrew or a little Kate growing inside my wife, and it is hugely exciting and emotional. To think that the unthinkable could happen, that all the potential of that little child inside my wife might come to nothing, that it might all be wasted, is something that none of us want to talk about.

From my perspective, I am very proud of what I do as a Member of Parliament, but my wife is even prouder. Normally, whatever I am doing in the Chamber or in the House, I will text her, particularly if it is something that might be visible and that she can see on TV. She loves to sit at home in Burton and turn on the Parliament channel and watch my wonderful oration. It just dawned on me that I had not told her about this debate, and it was a deliberate thing. I deliberately chose not to tell her that I was taking part in this debate, because I did not want her to have to think about it. I did not want to plant that seed in her mind at a time when she is excited, nervous, apprehensive—all those things. I did not want to plant the seed that something could go wrong.

14:34

It is for all of us, particularly us in this place, to come to terms with these things and address them, and to plan. None of us wants to be in that situation; as I said, we have heard such moving speeches setting out the pain, devastation and anguish that come with the loss of a child. It is right that we are tackling it in this Bill. I am grateful that we have cross-party support to take it forward. I am mindful of what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester says. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on the dexterity he has shown so far in getting the Bill to this point.

In a previous life, however, I was a Government Whip. I learned a great deal as a Government Whip, not just about our colleagues and how reliable or unreliable they can be but about the vagaries of this place and the way that the system works for private Member’s Bills. It is a precarious process. There are so many twists and turns and dead ends that a private Member’s Bill can find itself in, and it takes great skill, great perseverance and a great deal of luck to get such a Bill over the line and have it become legislation.

We must all recognise the precarious nature of the Bill and how important it is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester says, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. That is a wonderful phrase. This Bill will do great good, but we must ensure that we get it on the statute books. As we have heard, with the skilful drafting of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, this is a framework Bill. It allows and enables the Government to come forward with legislation through secondary legislation, but it is important that we get it on the statute books. That is the one thing I would try to impress on all parties in this room today: we must make progress.

I am the new face of the Government in relation to this Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge. Her brief—my new brief—is a massive one. I am the small business Minister, but I am also the Minister for the labour market, the postal service, competition, insolvency, unions and the retail sector. When she did her handover to me when she left the Department and I took over, she had to impart knowledge and bring me up to speed as regards what was happening in the portfolios on a whole host of issues. But the most important thing she talked about, the one thing she impressed on me more than anything else, was the necessity of getting this Bill through and delivering. She cares about it in the same way as hon. Members have demonstrated, and as I do.

As the new face of the Government, I can confirm that the Government stand resolutely behind the Bill. We want to see it enacted and benefiting all those people who are so terribly affected by the loss of a child or by stillbirth. It is an important measure and we want to see it in place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that clauses 1 and 2 are the means to give effect to the schedule and the relevant procedural information. We should therefore progress towards consideration of the schedule, which is where the detail and the meat of the Bill is.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all members of the Committee for their wonderful contributions. I am delighted to see cross-party support for this very important Bill, and I am keen to move on to the substance of the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Parental bereavement leave and pay: review of extension of entitlement

‘The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay a report before Parliament reviewing the extension of entitlement to parental bereavement leave and pay to people who are self-employed or are employed on zero-hours contracts.’—(Patricia Gibson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the extension of parental bereavement leave and pay to self-employed people and those on zero-hours contracts.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patricia Gibson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Parental bereavement leave is a contributory benefit. As set out, those bereaved parents who are envisaged to be eligible for leave under the Bill will need to meet the minimum requirements relating to continuity of employment—they will need at least 26 weeks with their current employer. During that leave, earnings will be paid at the statutory flat rate, which is set at £140.98 a week or 90% of average earnings, whichever is lower. Later, under other amendments, we can have a debate about how far short those provisions fall of what we want, but I urge the Minister to consider how these entitlements for bereaved parents will be extended to those in precarious work, such as those on zero-hours contracts.

That is important because, as we have all agreed, the Bill is about supporting parents who suffer the awful experience of having to bury their own child. This surely cannot and should not be reduced to a matter of work contracts. Our starting principle is the loss of a child, so I urge Minister to include as many bereaved parents as possible within the Bill’s remit. Remember, many people on precarious contracts are on them because it is so difficult for them to find the permanent, secure employment that we would all wish to have. Many of them are struggling because there are too few employment protection rights anyway. If they do go through the awful nightmare of losing their child, they will continue to lose out.

I remind the Minister that the loss of a child can often lead to the complete breakdown of a marriage. Sadly, in the ordinary course of events, 50% of marriages end in divorce, but some studies show that the death of a child makes the bereaved parents eight times more likely to divorce than other couples. There is a social cost to divorce, and it is often borne by the state as well as the families. Bereaved parents are more likely to develop depression and other mental health issues. Some turn to drink or other forms of self-medication; some even drop out of the workplace altogether and become economically inactive. I say that to the Minister because apart from the compassion that the Bill should show to bereaved parents who might be excluded from it under its current terms, from a purely financial perspective—leaving the compassion behind—it makes sense to offer that monetary support during the critical early days following a bereavement.

I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to including these provisions in the Bill, so that parents who are doing their best and working hard, but do not enjoy the security of a permanent contract and all the rights that it confers, do not miss out should they face this awful tragedy. We should extend the rights to them as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the hon. Lady’s arguments. The world of employment is changing rapidly. We are in a new world. Although I have been self-employed virtually all my life and I see self-employment as a wonderful opportunity for people to get on in life, there is no doubt that some companies are using another kind of opportunity to circumvent the employment laws that have been developed over centuries, so that it is easier and cheaper for them to employ people. The concern is that that is also being done to avoid the other obligations that employers have to employees, which is the point the hon. Lady was getting at.

Truly self-employed people tend to have more flexibility in their work, so they have other means of taking the time off that is required in these tragic circumstances, but we do not want future employers to use that to circumvent legislation. We need to look at that, and the Government are looking at it in the form of the Taylor review, which considers modern working practices. In July, as the hon. Lady knows, it reported on the overall context of legislation, including its impact on self-employed people and whether the gig economy is being abused to get round employment rights. The provisions in the Bill generally mirror other parental entitlements. The Taylor review may well recommend that some other parental provisions apply in these circumstances, which may affect this legislation in future. We need to look at the difference in entitlement between employed and self-employed people.

Throughout the process, we were keen to engage with charities and to listen to how we might improve the legislation based on their experiences. I mentioned some of them in my opening remarks. They include Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance, the Rainbow Trust and Bliss. Other bodies such as Unison have submitted points to consider; people will be familiar with many of them. Charities suggested that we look at the issues around self-employment. We and the Government should consider that in the context of wider employment legislation.

Another matter that I do not have much influence over in this Committee, and which would complicate things in a way that none of us wants, is the impact on the Exchequer. It is important to state that we are spending taxpayers’ money. The financial context is that under the new clause, the Exchequer would pay the statutory pay for people in these circumstances. We have to take that into account. That amount has not been calculated, so that could cause more delays.

[Patricia Gibson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there may well be a social cost if people do not get the support that they need. The statistics around bereaved parents do not make for comfortable reading.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I would not argue against that for a minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talked about the impact of the employer treating his workforce properly and how that can lift morale, or certainly does not damage morale, and how treating people with consideration can get people back to work more quickly. I am sure that that applies in a wider social context.

My point was that for any legislation, we look at the impact assessment, including the obvious hard-cash impact. In this case, that would require a revisitation of the assessment, which could cause delays in the Bill process. At this point, it is probably fairer to let the Minister have his say, because he is best placed to respond to those points.

14:44

[Laura Pidcock]

I agree strongly with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. When we think of any of the provisions in the Bill, it is quite easy to think about who is entitled, but much harder to think about who is not. Morally, the disqualification of people who have been through such a horrendous experience does not sit well with any of us.

There are 4.5 million self-employed people in the UK. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton rightly said, working practices in this nation are becoming less secure. I do not say that in a judgmental sense, but there is more fracture, there are more self-employed people and nearly 9,000 people in the UK are on zero-hours contracts. The Bill will be meaningless for them unless the extensions are included.

Let us be honest: most people across the nation do not have the option of not working. People take whatever work is available in their area, whether it is secure or not. Many people cannot choose their hours or their income, but when bereaved, they face exactly the same pain and grief. We have discussed how the Bill mirrors other entitlements, but I think the whole Committee would agree that it deals with exceptionally painful circumstances, so it is right that exceptional provision should be made.

I agree that a saving for the Treasury in one place could mean a cost in another. As has been mentioned, the TUC is gravely concerned about zero-hours contracts and self-employed people. Until greater rights and freedoms are established in law to allow precarious workers to organise, it is up to the Government to extend entitlements to them. Thankfully, we are not talking about a huge pool of people nationally, so including agency workers and people on zero-hours contracts would be a small extension to the Bill. Unfortunately, the number of childhood deaths per year has stayed the same on average.

I do not think that it is beyond the Government to make this commitment. I support the new clause.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for tabling the new clause and for focusing on the social cost, which is very important. We can get caught up in the amount of money involved or the cost to the Exchequer, which I will come back to, but this is fundamentally about the cost to human lives, relationships and happiness. As she rightly says, the grief that ensues after the loss of a child can easily cause family breakdown or divorce.

One issue that I have tried to tackle in my time as a Member of Parliament is drug and alcohol addiction. I do a great deal of work with a rehab organisation in my constituency, the Burton Addiction Centre. I regularly go there to talk to people in various stages of recovery. There is often a trigger in somebody’s life that can tip them into alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence or any of a whole host of things that make their life spiral down. Putting those people back together again and dealing with the consequences of crime and antisocial behaviour brings about a cost to society that the Government are aware of and are working to address.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Government have made some important progress with the national bereavement care pathway. The lack of support given to parents at the point of loss often means that they turn to legal or illegal medication that may not be good for them. The 11 pilots being rolled out will mean that every parent, whatever loss they suffer, will get some kind of bereavement support. I hope that that support, going hand in hand with the Bill, will make a real difference to parents’ lives and minimise the risk of that path being followed.

[Andrew Griffiths]

There have been and there continue to be many occasions in this House when I listen to a debate and think, “Crikey! There are so many people who know so much more about this thing than I do.” The biggest example of that is the experience of some hon. Members in this Committee room today. I am in awe of and humbled by it. My hon. Friend has been a beacon in trying to change the Government’s approach to this issue. She speaks so powerfully, and with such emotion and passion, and it is understandable why she does so. She has been hugely successful in making the Government sit up and notice these things, and do something about them.

There has not been a lack of desire to tackle these issues on the part of the Government. It is just that within Government, in the daily work, pressures and all the other things come across Ministers’ desks, sometimes these things can get forgotten. What my hon. Friend has been brilliant in doing is making sure that we do not forget; she has been a voice for people affected in this way. She is absolutely right that the Government have done many things that we should be proud of and that will make a massive contribution, and I thank her for the role that she has played.

Fundamentally, new clause 2 deals with those people who are in irregular work—those people who are either on zero-hour contracts or in some way working in what is often called the gig economy. The Government have to be aware of the changes in the way that people are working.

I am sure, Mr Gray, that you are an avid user of Uber.

[The Chair]

I would lose that illusion, if I were you. Black cabs for me, thanks.

[Andrew Griffiths]

And you are always ordering your takeaway on the app on your mobile phone.

[The Chair]

Again, I think you should be cautious about what you predict.

[Andrew Griffiths]

But it is absolutely right that the way in which people work and are employed, and the way in which consumers engage with services and contractors, has changed dramatically because of technology and the way that our lives are developing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, the Government have instigated the Taylor review. Matthew Taylor was commissioned to undertake an in-depth, detailed review last year of modern working practices. The question around the balance of rights and benefits between the employed and the self-employed has become much more relevant as we move away from conventional employment relationships, and there is a greater prevalence of new business models and employment practices.

I met Matthew Taylor just last night to talk about his review and his aspirations. It became clear from that discussion that his review is a stepping stone, and that these kinds of employment practices will continue to change and develop.

[Will Quince]

Many of us, me included, are broadly sympathetic to the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is making. The concern on the Government side—certainly it is my concern—is about overcomplicating the Bill, thereby putting it in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Taylor review, which is particularly interesting. Could he give me comfort by confirming that this Bill, if it remained unamended in this regard, would fall under the scope of the Taylor review and its recommendations?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that I can give him the comfort he seeks. The Taylor review made a number of recommendations, including some relating specifically to the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts, as has been said. It might be helpful for the Committee if I clarified the position on the employment status of people who are engaged on zero-hours contracts.

There is a perception that individuals who have flexible work contracts—or who work on zero-hours contracts, as they are termed—automatically have fewer employment rights. That is not the case and an individual’s employment status is established by the reality of their working relationship. An employer cannot and must not remove statutory rights for an individual simply by getting them to sign up to a contract with flexible hours of work. That means that individuals who are on zero-hours contracts, part-time contracts or any other type of flexible arrangement can still be eligible for the same statutory employment rights as any full-time employee doing the same work. An individual on a zero-hours contract might already qualify for parental bereavement leave under the terms of the Bill. It is important to ensure that that point is not lost in these important discussions.

The Government’s response to the Taylor review is long awaited. We hope we can publish that review very shortly. I cannot at this stage give a definitive time, but I think the term “imminent” is—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very ministerial.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Yes. There is a great expectation that in the very near future, the response to the review will come from the Government, and I think it will address such issues. The review included comments about the approach to tax, parental leave and pay entitlements for self-employed people. I suggest that this is not the time to include the new clause in the Bill. I think it is presumptive for us to talk unilaterally about this issue when in a short period of time, wider employment rights—

[Patricia Gibson]

I just want to be clear that I understand the Minister correctly. Is he assuring us that when the Taylor review reports, and the Government reflect on it, any concerns raised in new clause 2 will be addressed by the Government?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government’s response to the Taylor review will, I am sure, specifically address the points made by Matthew Taylor in relation to flexible working, zero-hours contracts and parental benefits. I think I can give her some comfort that those are exactly the kind of things that Matthew Taylor is passionately promoting and that the Government are keen to respond to in the near future.

It would be easy for us to get caught up in the wider discussion about employment rights and what will happen in response to the Taylor review. It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Bill, and the previous Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I understand his nervousness about over-complicating what is in effect a framework Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whose Bill this is, makes the clear point that the Bill has to be properly costed. All Members of the Committee will understand. We have among us an eminent colleague with ministerial experience at the Treasury who is looking at me. I understand what is going through his mind. He wants to ensure that there are rigorous numbers attached to this. Accepting the new clause would make the process much more complex and should be avoided.

The Bill and its predecessor have come about because, at a time of tragedy, time away from the workplace was either not allowed or extremely limited. That is the issue we are trying to address, and I do not want to lose sight of that as we debate these important issues.

[Laura Pidcock]

I just want to be absolutely sure about the Taylor review. The Minister mentioned that matters such as self-employment will be discussed. Would the Bill, if enacted, retrospectively cover those people? Would it be stated in detail that the Bill would be covered by the Taylor review? The same goes for precarious work. I just want a guarantee.

14:59

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that the response to the Taylor review will consider the issue of flexible working, those on zero-hours contracts and their access to benefits. It will be covered; I can reassure the hon. Lady of that.

With those reassurances, I hope we can agree that it will be best to consider issues of rights and entitlements for the self-employed and those working on zero-hours contracts in the round, rather than in isolation as we would be doing with the new clause. Since those issues are being actively considered elsewhere, the Bill is not the right place to address them. On that basis and with those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

[Patricia Gibson]

In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Parental bereavement leave and pay

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“Such relationship with the child may include—

(a) the mother as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(b) the father as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(c) the step-parent of the child, by virtue of marriage or civil partnership with the mother or father at the time of birth, and

(d) the adoptive parent of the child.”

This amendment would give specific examples in the definition of a ‘bereaved parent’ for the purposes of taking parental bereavement leave.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in schedule, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“Such relationship with the child may include—

(a) a person with parental responsibility, as defined by section 3 (Meaning of “parental responsibility”) of the Children Act 1989, for the child, and

(b) a person who is the child’s foster parent.”

This amendment would give examples in the definition of a ‘bereaved parent’ for the purposes of taking parental bereavement leave. This would include foster parents.

Amendment 22, in schedule, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purpose of this section “foster parent” means—

(a) a local authority foster parent within the meaning of the Children Act 1989,

(b) a person with whom a child has been placed by a voluntary organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act, or

(c) a private foster parent within the meaning of section 53 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.”

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 21 and provides a definition of foster parent.

Amendment 17, in schedule, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“Such relationship with the child may include—

(a) the mother as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(b) the father as identified on the child’s birth certificate,

(c) the step-parent of the child, by virtue of marriage or civil partnership with the mother or father at the time of birth, and

(d) the adoptive parent of the child.”

This amendment would give specific examples in the definition of a ‘bereaved parent’ for the purposes of taking parental bereavement leave.

Amendment 23, in schedule, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“Such relationship with the child may include—

(a) a person with parental responsibility, as defined by section 3 (Meaning of “parental responsibility”) of the Children Act 1989, for the child, and

(b) a person who is the child’s foster parent.”

This amendment would give examples in the definition of a ‘bereaved parent’ for the purposes of taking parental bereavement leave. This would include foster parents.

Amendment 24, in schedule, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purpose of this section “foster parent” means—

(a) a local authority foster parent within the meaning of the Children Act 1989,

(b) a person with whom a child has been placed by a voluntary organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act, or

(c) a private foster parent within the meaning of section 53 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.”

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 23 and provides a definition of foster parent.

[Victoria Prentis]

Given that this is the first opportunity I have had to speak, I pray your indulgence, Mr Gray, as, like other Members, I thank people for the enormous work that has gone into the Bill. I thank the Government for their support. I also thank the Treasury in the form of a former Minister who is sitting here. Some of my happiest moments during my time as an MP have been when I see “money resolution” attached to a Bill and think, “This is really going to happen.”

The Bill is very exciting for those of us who started the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss in the middle of the night in the Tea Room during our first months in this place, along with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who is not here. It was lovely to be joined later on in our journey by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. We were glad to have her on board. The Bill is an exhibition of what we have been trying to achieve. In some cases, that has gone on for many years outside this place. It is exciting to be here and to have got this far.

The amendments are simple. They merely seek to identify a parent. One might have thought that was obvious, Mr Gray. I do not need to explain it further. I had a brief conversation with the hon. Members for Swansea East and for Gower earlier. It is nice to see Swansea so well represented on this Committee. My grandmother, like Mrs Griffiths, is an avid follower of parliamentary proceedings. She and the Gower will be very proud that we are all here. She feels very strongly about this issue, too.

The hon. Ladies from Swansea make a powerful point that foster parents should possibly be included in the definition of a parent. I am happy to leave that to the Government. This is a framework Bill, and I am happy for the definitions in it to mirror those in other such Bills. I say that as the very proud Member for Banbury, who has Adoption UK in her constituency. I am particularly live to the issues faced by adoptive and foster parents, and it is important that we include those who should be properly included in the Bill. I, too, am sorry that we did not have the discussion far enough in advance to ensure that we had one amendment on the amendment paper. With that in mind, I ask that you consider the amendments together, Mr Gray.

[The Chair]

The answer to the hon. Lady is that amendment 16 is being considered alongside amendments 21, 22, 17, 23 and 24. They are all grouped together, which is practical.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. First, may I say how passionate I am, as a bereaved parent and a campaigner to get as much support as possible for bereaved parents at the darkest and most painful time of their parental lives, to see the Bill come to successful fruition?

The amendments would extend the definition of a bereaved parent to include foster parents for the purposes of taking parental leave. The latest figures from March 2016 show that there were 51,805 children and young people in foster placements, and that evidences the vast number of families that the amendments would account for. While local authorities may on paper be the legal parent of children in the care system, it is the foster parent or carer who delivers the parenting in their homes as a family. Although many foster placements are short-term interventions, a huge number of children are placed with families for much longer periods of time. Currently 47% of all independent fostering agencies households and 38% of local authority households are offering either long-term or permanent placements.

Irrespective of whether children are being fostered in the short term or the long term, foster parents and carers form very strong bonds, often in the most difficult circumstances. The strength of that bond is highlighted by the growing numbers of young people choosing to stay with their foster families after their placement has ended.

We are now seeing more and more foster carers reporting that they are having to take on paid employment to subsidise their allowances, if indeed they have any allowances to start with. They are just as much working parents as anyone else and therefore deserve the same recognition.

To finish, I will use the words of Marie, a foster carer from Leeds and former member of GMB, the union for foster carers:

“Foster carers feel too, we are not super humans and go through the same grieving process as everyone else. To provide our young people with the emotional support they deserve from us, we need to be afforded the time as every other worker is to come to terms with the loss of a loved one.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is a place of debate and discussion, but there are no words that could possibly describe or give comfort when people talk of their personal experiences of losing a child. We have all heard stories in the Chamber and are humbled by them. It is important that we hear the personal experiences and tragedies to make sure that we consider the points around the legislation and to connect us to the wider world of other people who have suffered terrible experiences.

Defining a parent is without a doubt one of the toughest jobs we have here. In the world we live in, there are lots of different people who would consider themselves parents and lots of children who might define that in different ways than we might. Through the engagement we have had through Facebook and with charities on the issue, stories about all kinds of different elements that need to be properly considered have been relayed.

On Facebook, Mandy Ruston told us about her partner, not a biological parent, who, after they lost their child in a hit-and-run accident, was told by his employer to return to work in the early days after that tragedy. That is a situation that I am sure we would want to cover. Nicky Clifford talks about the child’s grandparents, who felt they suffered a double loss when Mrs Clifford’s son died. Together for Short Lives, along with Holly Simon, who contacted us on Facebook, believe that leave should be extended to legal guardians, working grandparents, aunts and uncles. The Rainbow Trust, which does such fine work providing support for families where children are diagnosed with life-threatening or terminal illnesses, felt we should extend the leave and pay to legal guardians such as foster carers, a point covered by the amendment. Unison, which represents 1.3 million trade union members, proposes the definition of a parent be set as wide as possible, including legal guardians and those with formal parenting responsibility.

I do not think we have time in this Committee to look at such matters in their totality. There is much debate and, although it is useful to consider the issues and it is very good to hear different perspectives from Committee members, I return to the point about the fragility of the Bill and the time we have to consider it in Committee and the Chamber. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury stated, this is a framework Bill that allows the powers to be debated and discussed properly and to go through consultation to ensure we get this right.

[Will Quince]

There are all sorts of amendments before us today and lots of us would like the Bill to go further than it does. There are many reasons why that is not practical or necessarily the right thing to do at the moment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is the beginning of the process? As we have seen with many other pieces of legislation, they get amended over time to increase the scope, bring more people in and provide further rights, but it has to start with a statute.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all want to see this legislation on the statute books. To borrow a phrase I heard the Minister use, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. We need to get this legislation through, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

This is not only an enabling framework piece of legislation, but a signal to employers. It gives the minimum possible standard that employers should give to their employees. I am an employer outside this place—as well as inside it, as we all are. I am sure if one our team members suffered a tragedy such as this—whether they were a grandparent, a brother, an uncle, or, obviously, a parent—we would all be considerate and give time off. I imagine we would give time off at full pay, rather than statutory pay. That is what we expect.

Today we are setting the signal and framework, not just in the legislation but for employers to recognise the terrible tragedies and the impact on their workforce. I do not want to agree to amendments at this stage because of issues around timing and proper consideration. We could end up in ping-pong with the other place, with redrafting and other ideas about the definition of a parent, which would take time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made some very good points about examples of parents—biological parents, step-parents by virtue of marriage or civil partnership, the mother or father at the time of birth, and adoptive parents. It is absolutely right to consider all of those. The concern would be about who we are missing, as that is probably not an exhaustive list. We need to consider this properly.

I have often heard the hon. Member for Swansea East speak with passion about these issues. I accept many of her arguments, such as including a person with parental responsibility or a foster parent. It is absolutely right that we should consider those. I have those same concerns but I am also concerned to ensure that the legislation gets through in good shape and good time, and that we have a parallel process for consultation on the definition of a parent in order to get it absolutely right.

I would be in favour of widening that as much as possible but we clearly need to have consideration for employers as well, to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Minister has officials from his Department looking at consultation on the definition of a qualifying parent. It is important to consider the outcome of that consultation. I am sure the Minister and his Department’s officials will do that. We will make sure that we properly consider these issues.

I encourage all Members to continue to input into the process to ensure that we get this right, without making a firm decision at this point. I hope my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Swansea East agree it is sensible not to press the amendments. To ensure we get this right, we will give it proper further consideration to ensure we have a proper, systemic approach to define accurately a parent in this regard.

[Laura Pidcock]

The anxiety with which hon. Members want the Bill to go through is almost palpable. There is twitching, nudging and a few sweat beads in case any of us might wreck it. Of course I understand that and would not want to be the person who—two weeks into a job—ruins the Bill. However, it is imperative that we question the Government and the Bill’s promoter, because all the time, we are saying, “That can come later; that can be considered later,” but that is not an assurance or a warm signal to people who are in precarious work, are foster carers or are not directly mentioned in the Bill. The Bill is to be celebrated, but it leaves lots of people out. I come back to the point that was very helpfully—

15:16

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says that the Bill leaves lots of people out. It does not leave people out at all. The question is whom we put in. That is what we need to get right—not whom we leave out, but whom we put in, to ensure that they are covered.

[Laura Pidcock]

I understand that, but at the moment, for the purposes of this Bill, the argument is not for foster carers, self-employed people or people on zero-hours contracts. I understand the concerns, because it would be hard to convince the Treasury that what we propose could be financed at this time, but I would just like to ask, quite humbly, how hon. Members should proceed. If my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East wanted to push this issue on Report, would she be pushing at an open door? Would we be able to include all those people? It has taken two years to get to this point, and this place can be quite frustrating. It would allay the fears and worries of people who might be bereaved in the future to know that they might be included in some provision. I would just like some assurances in that respect. Sometimes I am not that confident about guarantees, and I am very anxious to include as many people as possible and to hear that foster carers would be considered on Report.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury moved the amendment in her own inimitable style—the style that we would expect. She is, I think, a force of nature. Whatever she is doing in this place, whether she is campaigning on this issue or harrying us all to support Singing for Syrians, we either get with the programme or get out of the way, it appears to me. I am delighted that she has committed herself so totally to delivering this provision for bereaved parents. I understand exactly her intentions in tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member for Swansea East spoke about her amendment with great dignity and perfect intentions. We talk about bravery, and we see many different types of bravery—in our military, in our public servants, in the police and so on—but it takes great bravery to suffer a personal tragedy, something that is so private and raw as it was with the hon. Lady and her son, Martin, and to lay all that pain bare for everyone to see. That takes real bravery, but because we all understand that, it makes it so much more valuable; it has so much more force behind it. I have the utmost respect for what the hon. Lady has done, and continues to do, for people in such miserable and desperate positions and I congratulate her on it.

The hon. Member for North West Durham gets, I think, the level of sensitivity in this room today. There was laughter when she said what she did, but it was nervous laughter, because everyone wants to make sure that nothing goes wrong. Unintended consequences are something that a Government have to deal with all the time—if only we could plan for all unintended consequences. With the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, lots can go wrong. We need to ensure that nothing goes wrong with the Bill.

Bereaved parents, at an already heartbreaking time, should not be put in the difficult position of needing time away to grieve while being required to be at work because their employers will not agree to their taking leave. On Second Reading and at the evidence sessions, we heard about all the brilliant employers that offer fantastic, compassionate support for their employees at the worst of times. That is to be commended, but some employers do not do that—there are some that put profit ahead of people. It is those that we wish to address.

Supporting the Bill was therefore a natural decision to make. More needs to be done on such an important topic, and the Bill provides a minimum standard—this is not the benchmark or the gold standard, but the minimum standard, which will protect employees who do not have the security of the reasonable and compassionate employer we have discussed.

Defining exactly who is eligible as a “parent” is not as easy as I first thought. When I heard that I was dealing with this Bill, I thought that defining a parent would be the easiest thing—a parent is a parent; we all know what a parent is—but then I read the responses and about the different perspectives and points of view, from people who have the right intentions, the best of intentions. The hon. Lady asked why people should be left out, and I understand why she talked about that, but I honestly assure her that we want not to leave people out but to ensure that we do not leave anyone behind. We want to get this right first time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton stated on Second Reading:

“As a society, we have clearly moved on from mum, dad and 2.4 children.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1161.]

Family units are now hugely varied, and extending this provision to the biological parents alone would be too simplistic. People’s lives are different and more complicated. Society has changed and we all need to get with that and to support those new family units as they develop.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Approximately 25% of all parents in the country are single parents, but the fact remains that they may have, or have had, a partner while still married to someone else, because they have not sorted out their divorce. Legally, the husband would automatically be assumed to be the parent, without actually being so. That is the kind of complication that the Minister is alluding to, and why there is a need for much greater investigation. We now live in a society of hugely extended families in which it is not uncommon for someone with one or two children to have a partner with another one or two children.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is right. Facebook used to be a thing for young people—kids used to do Facebook—but now old people like me use it. Someone’s Facebook status may say “Married”, “Single” or even “It’s complicated”, and life is complicated. People’s personal arrangements are much more complicated than they have ever been before. If I tried to define some of my mates, my friends, and the complicated personal lives they lead, that would be a heck of a consultation. We have to be aware that there are a number of potential groups to extend this provision to beyond the biological parents. That is the point—more time and work is needed to identify which of those are the right groups to include.

Officials from my Department recently met their counterparts from the Department for Education, which has responsibility for adoption policy, for example. During that meeting, they discussed the different situations in which a person can have some form of parental responsibility for a child, and which of those groups of people should be considered parents for the purpose of this policy. It was clear from that meeting that there is a bewildering range of arrangements in which a person can be seen to be acting, to some extent, as a parent to a child. Thankfully, the majority of those arrangements, such as adoption, are legally recognised, and so considering such groups when thinking about eligible parents is straightforward.

However, there are arrangements in which a person is not legally responsible for the child but still has a connection with them and would benefit from time away from work if the unthinkable happened and the child died. It is important that such arrangements are properly considered when we define a bereaved parent. That is why officials from my Department are in the process of preparing a consultation—the hon. Member for Swansea East will be interested in this—to discuss how we will approach that definition. It will form part of a wider consultation on the other parts of the Bill covered by secondary legislation.

Amendments 16 and 17 require examples of groups that should be included within the definition of bereaved parents to be specified. Furthermore, amendments 21 and 22 propose specific examples that should be included, yet the examples proposed in those amendments are different from those proposed in amendments 16 and 17. That contradiction illustrates how complex defining a bereaved parent for the purpose of this Bill is. Although I understand why some of those amendments were tabled, I do not think it is right to specify types of parent at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton set out a sensible and cogent argument for taking time to consider the definition of parenting through a consultation.

Amendments 22 and 24 follow from amendments 21 and 22, and provide a similar definition of a foster parent. I said that officials from my Department recently had discussions with the Department for Education about that subject. One type of parent they discussed was foster parents. Amendments 22 and 24 include private foster parents within the wider definition of foster parents. Concerns were raised in that meeting about private foster parents and about the fact that such arrangements are often not made known to local authorities. They are private arrangements, and it is therefore difficult to identify those foster parents. It is even possible that people acting as private foster parents do not realise that that is what they are. They are just looking after somebody, and they do not realise that they are defined as a foster parent.

As I said, we need to identify qualifying parents in a straightforward way, based on clear facts, and we must provide clarity and certainty to them and to employers. Further thought is required to correctly define bereaved parents. We should make a decision only once we have given this matter the right consideration, based on evidence and representations. I do not want to rush the decision and risk making a mistake. As I think everybody recognises, there are clear time pressures in relation to the passage of this private Member’s Bill, which makes it impossible to produce the right answer at the moment. We must not allow the Bill to be derailed.

With that in mind, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Swansea East agree that now is not the right time to try to define a bereaved parent, and that it is sensible not to press their amendments. I give them both a guarantee that the consultation will take place during the passage of this Bill, so they will have plenty of opportunity to take part in it and see what it contains. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, and that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Carolyn Harris]

In the interests of the Bill, I will not press my amendment to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will withdraw my amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider carefully the complicated lives that people now lead, and to consult the relevant agencies, such as Adoption UK and fostering organisations, about the proper wording that should be included in the Bill.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am very happy to make that commitment.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kevin Hollinrake.)

15:30

Adjourned till Wednesday 7 February at Two o’clock.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 31 January 2018

[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]

Personal Independence Payments

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

This debate is rather over-subscribed. More than 20 people wish to speak. If everyone takes two minutes, I might be able to get most of you in; if people take four or five minutes, I will get seven or eight in. If you take interventions, the number will go down. It is all in your hands. I cannot impose a formal time limit, but think about your colleagues when you are into your sixth or seventh minute.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the claimant experience of the personal independence payment process.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I am going to be really stingy with interventions. I can already feel the wrath of my colleagues, but I have to do that because of the number of people who have put down their name to speak.

I called this debate because of the sheer volume of casework my constituency office receives regarding personal independence payments. My constituents find many aspects of the process difficult, not because they are not capable but because the forms are confusing and the assessment procedure is complex and exhausting. There are more face-to-face consultations, more regular reviews and more reassessments of awards than under the preceding benefit, disability living allowance.

The initial impetus for this debate came from my constituents, but as soon as I asked on social media for people to tell me their experiences, I realised the huge scale of this issue in North West Durham and all over the country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that the Government made the situation significantly worse by passing regulations in 2017 that have been found to be blatantly discriminatory against those with mental health conditions?

[Laura Pidcock]

I agree strongly. That ruling was a wake-up call for the Government.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will make a bit more progress.

I asked people to comment and send me emails about their experiences, and I was absolutely deluged. I received more than 600 emails and 1,500 messages on Facebook and Twitter. Most of those people took a great deal of time to tell me what had happened to them. Individually, their stories are shocking; collectively, they shame the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. They are testament to a broken and cruel system. I will come back to those harrowing stories in a second.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She mentioned her Twitter appeal and so on. An official survey shows that 76% of people in the system responded to say that they were satisfied. That itself is not a happy position, but it shows that her representation of people’s average experience as wholly negative on the basis of a Twitter appeal does not reflect the results of a scientific survey.

[Laura Pidcock]

What an absolute joke that is. To diminish those people’s experiences, which made me weep, is an absolute disgrace. Those people took their time in extremely difficult circumstances to tell us about the difficulties with the system. To talk about another survey to try to diminish those experiences is a disgrace. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions. The Child Poverty Action Group handbook on personal independence payments states that the Government’s case for replacing DLA with PIP was that it had become an outdated benefit.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I have to make progress—just give me a minute.

DLA was criticised for having complex and subjective criteria and inconsistent decision making, resulting in too many awards and too few reviews of awards. The Government say that the PIP process is

“a more active and enabling benefit”.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The introduction of PIP was another cuts exercise. The coalition Government made the need to make savings a clear aim of the new benefit. [Interruption.] They said it themselves. According to the Library, PIP was expected to reduce expenditure by £1.5 billion, and 607,000 fewer people were expected to receive PIP by 2018. That kind of reduction cannot be achieved without the anguish and suffering of thousands of people.

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Let me share the experience of a constituent from Kirkby who is a long-time claimant of DLA because of his post-traumatic stress disorder. He is unable to leave the house, so he has always had a home assessment. Since his last assessment, his wife has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was told, “No, we won’t do a home assessment this time.” Is it not a disgrace—[Interruption.] Well, he was denied. He came to me; I sorted it out. The Government need humanity, compassion and, frankly, some common sense.

[Laura Pidcock]

Those stories are so, so common. The changes have hit those most in need of a social security system while reducing the overall welfare budget, and have taken away the safety net for a massive number of people. When cost-cutting is the motivating factor behind changes, we hit trouble, just as we have with universal credit. Let me take Members through some of the difficulties that my constituents and many other people—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I am making progress. There are 20-odd people down to speak; it would be disrespectful to them not to do so.

The initial claimant form is often daunting and time-consuming. People have to rely on stretched services and support agencies to complete the form. At the same time, the questions are very restrictive and do not fit the description of everyone’s illness. Following that, claimants are invited to a medical assessment by an outsourcing company—Atos Healthcare or Capita Business Services, depending on their location in the United Kingdom. The accessibility of venues is often cited as a problem: claimants are invited to assessments miles away from their homes and in inaccessible rooms. Some say that that is a test from the outset. There have also been reports of assessments taking place in expensive gyms and spas in my area, which makes claimants feel on edge. Some people are sure that they were filmed upon entering the assessment, and I believe them.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have lost several members of my family to motor neurone disease, a progressive disease for which there is no cure—people do not get better. Does she agree that people with terminal illnesses such as MND should not be up for reassessment?

[Laura Pidcock]

There are hundreds of stories of people with conditions that will not change being reassessed. That is terrible.

There are extensive concerns about the suitability of PIP assessors—that was a clear theme throughout the correspondence—who often do not have the medical expertise to assess claimants with particular medical conditions. A midwife, for example, may assess a claimant with mental health problems, but they will not know every sign and symptom of every mental health condition, as they are not qualified. That calls into question the accuracy of the assessment.

Constituents have told me how brutal and gruelling the medical assessments are, as they lay bare the claimant’s disability and how they cope with it, but they are based on a medical model of disability rather than a social one. One person put it brilliantly: they said the assessment was like a functionality test, and that it did not capture or consider how someone can live their life each day. The fact that assessors do not take notice of professional medical assessments from doctors or psychiatrists, and that that information is considered only at tribunal stage, is not even questioned. Assembling that information at assessment stage is such a waste of energy for people, especially since doctors charge for medical assessment letters. In my view, that cost should be met by the state, not by the person making the claim.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Laura Pidcock]

I will take one last intervention, then I must press on.

[Kate Green]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that the costs that pile up at tribunal are in part a function of a mandatory reconsideration system that, again, does not look at additional evidence properly?

[Laura Pidcock]

That is right. I will come on to mandatory reconsiderations in a second.

The outsourcing of the assessment process is very much part of the problem. Some 60% of assessment reports completed by Capita healthcare professionals and sent to the DWP were judged to be of an “unacceptable” standard. Neither Capita nor Atos has ever met the DWP contractual target that no more than 3% of reports should be found unacceptable. I wonder what it would take for those companies to lose a contract with the Government. No action is taken, because the Government are ideologically wedded to the outsourcing model, despite such poor results. Incredibly, I have read that those companies pay people bonuses for completing extra assessment reports, which in my view incentivises rushing and contributes to inaccuracies. Many feel as if they have been lied about in their reports—that is all part of the same inadequacies. I have even had reports of healthcare professionals who conduct the assessments asking claimants if they have thought about killing themselves. While I understand that it is a difficult subject to broach, sensitive language needs to used when dealing with such topics; otherwise, it can be damaging and triggering for that person.

If a claimant is not awarded the points they think they are entitled to, or they are told that they are not entitled to PIP, they must challenge the DWP’s decision through a mandatory reconsideration. Constituents of mine, and many people who have been in touch, have said that the process is completely pointless due to the DWP not reviewing medical evidence or investigating whether the decision maker’s report was accurate. Actually, DWP workers feel unable to challenge the assessor’s report. Advice and support agencies also state that hardly anyone has their decision overturned at that stage. I cannot help but think that is just another stage in the process to grind people into submission.

If the mandatory reconsideration process is unsuccessful, the decision must go to tribunal, putting tribunals as well as claimants under enormous pressure. Advice and support agencies say that they are under a great deal of strain, trying to deal with the demand from people seeking representation. Latest figures show that 68% of PIP decisions are overturned on appeal, so the DWP’s systems are clearly not working. That is completely indefensible: all that trial and trauma for claimants to be proved right, if—it is a big if—they manage to go that distance. People have reported that they have to wait over a year for a tribunal date.

What is very clear is that the assessment process is working against claimants entitled to the benefit. Many campaigners believe that the companies who provide medical assessments are heavily encouraged to hit targets by the Government in order to cut the welfare budget, and I believe them. Perhaps it is because there is an ambivalence to these people, or—more likely—because the Government do not see it as the state’s role to provide that support.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will give way once more to the Conservative side, and that is it.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Lady. I would not necessarily disagree with some of the criticisms she is making of the assessment process. Some of my constituents face those challenges, and we would be happy to work across the House to try to fix them. Does she recognise that under PIP, 66% of claimants with mental issues now get the higher rate of benefit, versus 22% under DLA? Can I ask her for a little balance when she comes to look at the system rather than just criticism?

[Laura Pidcock]

The balance is that thousands of people are locked out of the system and never even get an award because they are so ground down by the process. The Government need to realise what a cruel and callous system they are putting people through and the knock-on effect that has on our constituents. I am a bit shocked by the disbelief on the Conservative side—they look stunned that this is taking place. That is the reality for disabled people in this country. People are falling further into depression and self-harm, having suicidal thoughts and becoming reliant on food banks. All of those things are harmful for our society. Losing Motability cars was a consistent theme, along with falling into debt. The NHS is also being put under much strain.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will make a bit more progress.

In the past seven years of this Government, the Department for Work and Pensions has become a harsher and colder organisation. A culture has grown through successive Secretaries of State that sees claimants as numbers and fraudsters instead of people with needs, and a burden on the state rather than citizens with potential. The Government’s own figures put the rate of fraud for PIP at 1.4%—not even worth talking about—yet the system is built on the presumption that people are lying and need to be found out.

Here is a symbol of that callousness: a few weeks ago in my surgery, one of my constituents showed me a decision letter telling her that she was no longer entitled to PIP—her lifeline. The letter was dated 25 December—merry Christmas from the DWP. That is far from the most shocking story. Over the past week, I have read several hundred testimonies from people who have suffered under the system.

A whole community out there has been frightened, mistreated and intimidated by the Government, the media and the DWP. I will read a few of those testimonies—they put things much better than me—before drawing my speech to a conclusion. One says:

“I hope change can be made as presently the PIP system is too brutal, rigid and unfair to people like me who want to live an able life despite disability”.

Another says:

“Why are they treating disabled citizens as though we are undeserving of welfare support?”

Another says:

“I do not want to be in this situation. I am not choosing this life or lifestyle. I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I need help, support and understanding, not being ridiculed or made to feel like a criminal and waste of space and a burden on society or that I am going to be caught out at any opportunity for my disability.”

This one was the most striking:

“being on benefits is like being in an abusive relationship with the state. We cannot escape our abusers, we need them, we are financially dependent on them”.

This is what I ask of the Government: remove the contracts from Atos and Capita with immediate effect and bring the assessments back in-house; remove the assessors’ bonuses; abolish the mandatory reconsideration step of the process, because it is utterly pointless; make it compulsory to take medical documentation into account at the initial assessment, because it is traumatic for people to have to go through their medical conditions in detail, and the evidence from professionals is already there. There must be consequences for inaccurate assessment reports about people’s health conditions, and we should redesign the assessment process alongside disabled people so that it accepts a social model of disability, not a medical model.

The judgment against the Government towards the end of last year when, as was mentioned, a High Court judge said the changes were “blatantly discriminatory,” should give the Minister pause for thought. It is an opportunity for reflection. What has become of not just this Government but our society when we treat people as criminals and fraudsters for being disabled? Do they really know what fear is experienced across this nation at the clatter of the letterbox? People are scared that there might be a brown envelope from the DWP. It is time for the Government to admit that the system is a disaster and that a review of PIP and the whole benefit system is urgently needed.

09:46

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who clearly has a huge amount of passion about this subject. Although I would not necessarily agree with all of the stats she cited, it is important that we continue to do everything we can for those who are often among the most vulnerable people in society. Collectively, we will raise many examples and suggestions on how we can continue to improve the system.

I do not intend to speak for long—I have spoken in every debate like this for the past two and a half to three years, so I will try to avoid repetition. First, I want to make it clear that there have been mistakes. In any system there are mistakes. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) raised a classic example of a mistake. That should not have been the case; that is not designed to happen. If people need home visits, those should be a given. That was a genuine mistake.

There were claims that PIP was brought in for financial savings. The concept was actually designed under the previous Labour Government; it just happened to come in as we came into office. We are currently spending £3 billion a year extra, and that figure will increase every single year of this Parliament. That is not a cost saving by any definition.

Under DLA, only 16% of claimants got the highest rate of benefit, but under PIP it is 26%. Only 22% of people with mental health conditions got the highest rate, but the figure now is 66%. That is why we are spending £3 billion more a year, and rightly so. If someone with a mental health condition wanted to access the higher mobility rate, they had to be severely mentally impaired unless they had a physical disability, so only 12,660 people with a mental health condition accessed the higher mobility rate. Since the introduction of PIP, over 100,000 more people are benefiting from that rate.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in the impact assessment from May 2012 for the introduction of personal independence payments under the coalition Government, the objectives were to ensure that expenditure was sustainable and to save £2.24 billion a year by reducing claimants by 500,000 a year?

[Justin Tomlinson]

And the reality is that we are spending £3 billion more on supporting the most vulnerable people. That is partly because we have an extremely proactive Minister who, rightly, meets regularly with charities, stakeholders, individual users and MPs from across the House. I did the same when I was a Minister, and the system continues to be improved.

Finally, under DLA the higher rate was given for visual impairment at 36%, but it is now 79%. The system is not perfect and we need to continue moving it, but we can all access the stats from the Library. They are independent of the Government. They are the reality. That does not excuse mistakes or times when the system lets people down, but it is a fallacy to think that the old DLA system was better. It was not better, which is why the charities and stakeholders support the principle of PIP.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, taking the journey time for the end-to-end process, the waiting time has been reduced by 40 weeks to 13 weeks in the past four years? That has to be an improvement. There is a long way to go, but I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is an important point. [Interruption.] There is an Opposition Member who favours randomly plucking stats out of the air. It is the official statistics, independent of the Government, that I am giving; our teams can go and research them in the Library. I shall give an example of a big difference being made. Those who are terminally ill now have their process speed-tracked and the decision is given within seven days.

I shall not speak for too much longer as many Members want to raise suggestions, but I want to address the question raised about lifetime awards. Under DLA 70% of claimants had a lifetime award, and when I became the Minister I thought, “That is sensible; it does away with the need for an assessment.” However, one in three people with a disability or health condition will have such a significant change within 12 months that their condition will have changed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Durham sighs, but for the majority of people—[Interruption.] Terminally ill people will be processed within seven days; I am talking about people applying for the benefit for the first time. Their condition will change within the first year—predominantly getting worse. If they enter the benefit on the lower rate and are put on to a lifetime award they will miss out on money they are entitled to. That is one of the most significant changes.

If someone enters the system on the lower rate, the system will try to estimate when they might be in a position to access a higher one, and automatically trigger that. That is one of the reasons why we are spending an additional £3 billion on making sure people do not miss out—and not just for a few years; there were cases of people missing out on money they were entitled to for 20 or 30 years.

I will conclude with appeal rates. It is always a worry, looking at those. The hon. Member for North West Durham claimed every case was wrong—and some were; we need to continue to improve the system, because there should never be a mistake. However, the evidence from those independent appeals is that those cases are ones where additional written or oral evidence has been presented. Something on which I agree with the hon. Lady is that we should be able automatically to get access to health records. There are data protection issues, and we would need to get the consent of the claimant, but if they were willing to do it we would all support that approach. It would make everyone’s life a lot easier and the system a lot smoother. There is also huge support for allowing the claimant, if they wish to, to have sessions recorded. Again, that can be used on appeal.

I encourage the Minister to continue her great work of engaging not just charities and stakeholders—the users—but Members of both Houses. I urge all colleagues in the Chamber, if they are passionate, have first-hand experience and have taken the time to watch an assessment and talk to the staff, to take up the Minister’s invitation to meet and engage. Let us collectively continue to deliver an improved disability benefit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 35 minutes. Brevity is at a premium.

09:49

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), on the debate.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) is right in what he says about how the system should operate, but that is not how it is operating in practice. In the Mind survey, 55% of those surveyed found that their PIP was either stopped or reduced. I also want to mention that study’s satisfaction rate for people with mental health issues. We are making the same mistake with that as we are with the work capability test. If we are going to have a system that is fair to people with mental illness, we need properly qualified assessors, and that is not happening. It was the same with the work capability test: the assessments were done by people who had no qualifications to give them an understanding of people with mental illness. That is not right.

Yesterday in the Chamber I did not get an answer when I asked the Minister, at column 708, what happens to the 22% of people with mental illnesses who, according to the Mind survey, did not appeal because of their condition. I know those cases will be looked at again, but do I advise constituents who have not appealed to make a new application, or will those concerned somehow get around to seeing them? We need clarity for those people, many of whom have valid claims but felt unable to appeal because of the onerous nature of the system. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham is right; in Durham, welfare rights will tell you the appeal waiting time is now more than a year for such cases.

I want to touch briefly on a couple of constituency cases. What the hon. Member for North Swindon said about lifetime awards and people missing out may be true, but I can give him an example of the opposite. A constituent was given PIP from 2016, and when his condition worsened he put in an application for the higher rate and, after an assessment, had his entire PIP taken away. The mobility issue is also creating complete heartache. A constituent of mine has got five stents and has had two heart attacks. He went for assessment in January and did not qualify for PIP. They said he was not entitled, so he will lose his mobility car. He got a letter the other day saying he had not been entitled to the car since last October. I do not know how that view was reached when the assessment happened in January.

I want to nail the idea that people on PIP somehow are shirkers, and the lazy of society. [Interruption.] I am sorry—that is some people’s narrative. I am not going to listen to anyone who comes in here as an obvious Whips’ plant to bolster the number of Tory MPs. Members who want to make a contribution should put in to speak. I give credit to the hon. Member for North Swindon, who at least made a speech rather than some cheap intervention that the Whips obviously told him to make.

In many cases, the people I am talking about are working. The worst case I know of is of a man in his 40s with a degenerative condition, who was a butcher and could not work. He retrained in IT, got a job, went for his PIP assessment and was not awarded the higher enhanced rate. Therefore he lost his mobility car. That is a guy who got off his backside, as he said to me when he came to my surgery, and went to get a job because he did not want his children to grow up in a household where the father was not going out to work. It cannot be fair that we are dealing with such people in the way we are.

The system as it has been designed is making all the same mistakes as the work capability test did. It is a sausage machine to get claims through. I would argue—to save money for the Government—for taking out the cases that we know will not improve. We are wasting our time on those individuals’ cases. As to making sure that the system works properly for others, especially those with mental health issues, we must have a system where assessments are done by properly qualified people.

The people who claim PIP do not choose to be in that position. Any one of us here today could end up on it if we had a serious illness or accident. Claimants do not want to be on PIP. The way to judge a society’s fairness is by how it treats its most vulnerable. I am sorry, but the system we have is not treating them fairly.

09:59

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing the debate.

One of the first constituency cases that I ever dealt with as a new MP was that of Pauline Kerrigan of Springboig. Pauline has Raynaud’s disease, as well as osteoarthritis. Previously, she was given a lifetime award of disability living allowance and transitioned on to PIP. She was then suddenly found miraculously fit for work. I have met Pauline at my surgery on more than one occasion, and it is clear to me that she is most definitely not fit for work. Indeed, the Government were right to issue a lifetime DLA award to Pauline in the first place, but because of the transition to PIP her life was unnecessarily turned upside down.

Like many colleagues in the Scottish National party, I remain convinced that this Government’s obsession with personal independence payments is little more than an ideological plaything. Week after week, my constituency surgeries are packed with disabled people who continue to feel the sharp end of the Government’s cuts to social security. I remain convinced that the entire system needs a complete overhaul, and today’s litany of horrifying constituency cases from other hon. Members only reaffirms that view. We need action from the Government sooner rather than later.

Last week, I and other colleagues from the SNP group met Scotland’s Minister for Social Security, Jeane Freeman, to discuss progress in implementing our new social security system in Scotland. Establishing a new social security system is the biggest challenge we have faced since the inception of devolution, but I am heartened by the Government’s determination to build a social security system that is underpinned by dignity and respect. When the new social security system is established, my constituent Pauline will finally be treated again with the respect and dignity she deserves. The challenge for the Government today is to ensure that Paulines in Preston, Prestatyn and Penzance are treated with dignity, and the only way that will happen is if the system is fundamentally overhauled.

10:00

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) for securing this important debate and for her passionate speech.

Our welfare state was founded by a Labour Government, based on the principles of protecting the most vulnerable in our society and providing a safety net for everyone, rich or poor, should they ever need it. Yet under this Government we have seen our welfare state eroded into a completely dehumanising and cruel experience. Yesterday, the Minister refuted my claims that the welfare system we see today is cruel; if it is not cruel, then what is it? These people have been put through the wringer and squeezed remorselessly—and all for nothing, as we now know.

I am like other hon. Members: rarely does a day go by when distressed constituents are not reaching out to me about their PIP assessments. The dread and anxiety that comes with an impending PIP assessment are overwhelming. That is not surprising, given the life-or-death situations constituents find themselves in. A survey by the Disability Benefits Consortium found that one third of those who have had their funding cut in the middle of a benefits shake-up said they were struggling to pay for food, rent and bills.

That is what happened to my constituent Deborah. Since failing her PIP assessment six weeks ago, she has been living on biscuits. Despite the cold weather in the north-east—it has been freezing—she has been unable to put her heating on. Sadly, Deborah, who suffers with severe mental and physical health problems, has been through this once before, so she knows the physical and psychological effects it can have on claimants and their families. Deborah does not want to go through that again, nor should she.

Another of my constituents, Kelly, applied for PIP on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter, who has anti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein disease: a rare neurological illness. Kelly’s daughter has limited movement in her spine and 50% lung function, due to a severe spinal scoliosis, and now has titanium rods running the length of her spine. Kelly was told that her daughter did not qualify. Susan, who has severe osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, is in constant pain and can barely walk. She was told she did not qualify. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister exactly how disabled and affected by their disabilities people have to be to qualify for PIP.

The system in place now is not what our predecessors imagined when they founded the welfare state. They expected kindness and compassion for those who need support during difficult times. Yesterday, the Department for Work and Pensions tried to play the compassionate Conservative card and announced that everyone receiving PIP will have their claim reviewed. What does that bittersweet announcement mean for the constituents I have mentioned today and the many others across the country who have already had their payments stopped? Will the Minister provide some clarity on whether and when the Department will consider those claims again?

Given the suffering that my constituents are already going through as a result of PIP, they simply cannot wait any longer. I ask the Minister, please, to confirm today how long this complex exercise is expected to take. I hope, given what we have already heard and will no doubt continue to hear for the rest of the debate, that the Minister will finally put an end to the pain and suffering that so many have had to endure as a result of the Government’s heartless policies—that has to be said—and give people a chance to live with dignity.

10:04

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this important debate. Time is tight, so I will concentrate on one group for whom I have raised issues many times, and for whom the term “PIP” has perhaps most resonance: the terminally ill.

For any person facing a PIP assessment, the idea of an assessment creates a lot of worry and stress. For the terminally ill, the pressure is multiplied many times over—on the individual involved, who has been given that terrible diagnosis, and on the families who have to deal with the fallout of that situation. Even insurance companies—private firms—acknowledge that cancer patients and people diagnosed as having a terminal condition need special treatment and pay out immediately. They do not hang about waiting to assess people; they know that the condition is not going to change.

I am grateful to the MND Association, and I will read their description of that terminal illness:

“Few conditions are as devastating as motor neurone disease (MND). It is a fatal, rapidly progressing disease of the brain and central nervous system, which attacks the nerves that control movement so that muscles no longer work. There is no cure for MND.

While symptoms vary, over the course of their illness most people with MND will be trapped in a failing body, unable to move, talk, swallow, and ultimately breathe. Speech is usually affected, and many people will lose the ability to speak entirely. Some people with MND may also experience changes in thinking and behaviour, and 10-15% will experience a rare form of dementia.”

Yet people with MND have to go for PIP assessments. The cost to terminally ill people and their families is much more than just the pain of that shortened journey to the end of their life. Research done for the MND Association shows that people with terminal illnesses face £12,000 a year more in costs, not including loss of income.

Transferring from DLA to PIP, 15% of people living with MND have had their awards reduced. A progressive condition, a terminal illness and a reduced award: surely that cannot be right? I have raised concerns many times over the challenge for many terminally ill people facing the six month rule—the requirement of a

“reasonable expectation of death within six months”.

That language is surely incompatible with the variable nature of conditions and terminal illness. The DWP should review its guidance on the use of DS1500s to reflect that terminal illness is not an exact science. Will the Minister review the process for the terminally ill? Will she tell us how many people have been turned down? Will she tell us how that injustice will be urgently addressed? Will she tell us, now that there is to be a review, what appeal process will be made available to those not contacted by the DWP, who rightly feel that they are entitled to an enhanced payment?

10:08

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I will focus my contribution on how the PIP system treats those with less visible disabilities by talking about epilepsy. Epilepsy Action has said that nine out of 10 people with epilepsy felt that the Government’s decision maker did not understand their condition—and no wonder! The assessment forms, the descriptors and the face-to-face assessments are not set up in a way that accurately reflects the nature of epilepsy.

It comes as no surprise that three out of five people with epilepsy who were already on benefits had their award decreased when they applied for PIP. In raw numbers, that is 18,000 people, 20% higher than for any other condition. I am concerned that the Department’s previous announcement on supervision and safety—the change that could have the most impact for people with epilepsy—is in danger of being neglected.

People with epilepsy have contacted the Epilepsy Action helpline with their key concerns. First, what is the review’s timeframe? People are waiting to find out whether their award has been changed, but as they will only be notified if there is a change, how will they know when to stop waiting? Secondly, why are claims disallowed before 9 March 2017 not being reviewed, when it is clear that the guidance was wrong before that date? Thirdly, if the DWP has reviewed a case and decided there should be no change, does the claimant have a right to appeal?

There have already been two significant reviews, and many problems with the PIP assessments remain. There are three changes the Government should urgently introduce. First, they should make sure that only those assessors who have received training for a particular condition, such as epilepsy, are allowed to make decisions on that condition. Secondly, they should increase the timeframe for providing evidence from one month to two months, to make it easier for an applicant’s doctor to provide the supporting evidence that they need. Thirdly, they should commit to a full review of the “repeatedly and safely” requirements and issue guidance to ensure that it is being applied correctly for people with less visible conditions.

Taking those measures will not ease the stress of the undoubtedly stressful application process, but it may go some way to helping achieve a fairer system and to granting applicants what was promised in the name of the benefit: independence.

10:10

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I shall keep my remarks short, out of respect to the other Members who want to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing the debate, which is of particular importance to my constituents. I have to say that I am slightly disappointed at the state of the two Scottish Conservative Members who turned up to the debate with a clear intention to disrupt the opening speaker. They have now left the Chamber and not stayed for the debate.

This is a timely debate, given the announcement that the UK Government are to review PIP claims, at a cost of £3.7 billion, by 2023. It is hardly a surprise that the High Court concluded that the Government’s changes to PIP were “blatantly discriminatory” to those with mental health conditions. That has been self-evident for some time. Of course, this disaster is of the Government’s own making: they tried to rip off the most vulnerable people in society and now we are all paying the price. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill for those mistakes. What is the human cost? Claimants pushed to the edge and living their lives on the brink. When will the Government get anything right first time?

This fiasco could have been avoided had the Government approached disability benefits with humanity and compassion, rather than—as usual—as a cost-saving exercise. By the time we get to 2023, the UK Government will have delivered the worst possible outcome: a more expensive system that delivers less for applicants. Other Members will be aware—we did not need a court case or reams of statistics to know—that the changes to PIP are having a negative impact; the many distressed constituents who have visited our constituency offices or surgeries in tears are testament to that. They have spoken of feeling humiliated and degraded. They have been made to justify their disability through an intrusive, pseudo-medical assessment conducted by officials working with ambiguous criteria.

Ultimately, we in Scotland can be relieved that PIP is one of 11 benefits being transferred to the Scottish Government. I have no doubt that that will mean a noticeable improvement in the way people are treated, as the Scottish Government seek to create a Scottish social security system that gives claimants dignity and respect. For example, they have announced that claimants in Scotland are to be given the right to have a supporter with them in meetings and assessments. That small but noteworthy change is proof that Scotland will do things differently. Perhaps this Tory Government could yet again learn from the Scottish Government’s example.

Given that the DWP will continue to manage Scottish PIP cases until 2020, will the Minister outline whether this crisis will affect the smooth transition of PIP to the Scottish Government?

10:13

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I will primarily raise issues around the access to assessments, and I will run through some examples of constituents who have approached me. This is by far the biggest area of casework that I receive in my office.

Mr M’s daughter had a stroke and is partially paralysed. She was expected to get to an appointment 40 minutes’ drive away in Scunthorpe for 9 am. There is no direct bus service so they would have had to have caught the 7.34 am train from Grimsby to get there on time, and they did not know how to get to the assessment centre from the railway station. That all put additional pressure on an older parent who is responsible for somebody who has suffered a stroke.

K has mental health issues and other difficulties, including domestic violence issues that impede her ability to freely leave the house. Despite being advised of those difficulties, requests for a home visit or a local appointment were refused and she was expected to attend in Scunthorpe. C is vulnerable because of her alcohol dependency, alongside her depression and anxiety. She has no means of transport but was expected to attend in Scunthorpe. M has learning difficulties, but no exception for that, or consideration of it, was made. There was no real humanity in dealing with that individual.

Another constituent, J, had a stroke. After parking his mobility vehicle away from the assessment centre, he made the extraordinary effort to walk what is a very short distance but what took him more than 25 minutes, with frequent breaks on the way. Having made that journey and dragged himself to the assessment, he was deemed to be sufficiently mobile not to require his mobility car, which has put enormous pressure on him, his family and his ability to live a normal life. Those are a few examples, but there are more: Hogan, Arnold, Snell, Read, MacDonald, Lamb, Jones, Stewart and Godfrey are just a few of my constituents who have all had barriers placed before them just to get to an assessment.

I have had conversations on this and have had questions responded to, and we managed to get additional assessors in the area. However, issues with appointments, maternity and sickness—the assessors made available were under such pressure with the volume of assessments that they went off sick themselves; I hope they did not have to go through the assessment process, because that would have been a double injustice—mean that we do not have enough assessors in the local area to support the needs of my constituents.

I have been able to assist in some of those cases and resolve some of the issues, but why do these people have to come to their MPs or place enormous stress and strain on other support services, which also have issues with their funding, to receive that advice? Why is the system so complicated? People should not have to come to see me to have these issues resolved.

When the courts ruled that the system was wholly inadequate for those with mental ill health, did that extend to the ability to access the assessment process in the first place? My constituents face not only the physical challenge of their condition but poor public transport links, the removal of Motability vehicles and the cost of alternative transport, such as private taxis. There is also a lack of consideration when those with autism or Asperger’s have to go somewhere different, travel in an unusual vehicle or simply be around other people in crowded environments, or of those who struggle with depression, anxiety or agoraphobia when they are asked to go on unfamiliar routes to unfamiliar places. It is all too much and too overwhelming and it is placing these people under enormous stress. 

I will make one final point, because I know lots of Members want to speak. Surely we deserve a properly resourced assessment centre locally, with more flexibility given for assessors to undertake home visits and support people, rather than to target them.

10:17

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this important debate. I will reinforce the points made by a number of Members this morning. To put it quite bluntly, I believe that the emotional trauma caused by PIP and the Government’s approach to its administration has led to suffering on what can only be described as an enormous scale.

I will give one example of a constituent, as her case illustrates the fundamental problems with PIP, and then make two other brief points. My constituent suffers from chronic long-term and debilitating back pain, which was made worse in the aftermath of an operation, during which she suffered terribly. However, after her disability living allowance was terminated, she was awarded much less support through PIP and her mobility car was taken away from her because she had not scored enough points in the arbitrary assessment. Ironically, it can be said that, in this and many other cases, personal independence payments reduce people’s personal independence and mobility. That is one of the fundamental problems with this system that we need to consider today.

I will briefly address two other points; I realise other colleagues would like to speak. First, the length of time that people suffer because of the trauma caused by the system is a problem. It is important to note that, all too often, the ordeal does not stop with the assessment, which is just the beginning of a very lengthy process. My constituent lives in flat so small that there is not even room for her husband to stay. She has to contend with living alone in cramped conditions and in pain. As if that were not bad enough, she is having to find the strength to challenge her initial assessment report formally, because it does not reflect her condition or what she said to the so-called health professional.

There is a wider issue, which was mentioned earlier, about whether due weight is given to medical evidence. In certain cases, the written evidence of GPs and consultants has been discounted or not given proper consideration because, according to the DWP, they are regarded as the applicant’s advocate and are therefore, in the warped world of PIP assessments, somehow biased. The irony is that the Government give total credence to the advice given by their own so-called health professionals, who, as we have heard, are not necessarily trained in the area of medicine that they are due to assess. Reconsideration of that issue in particular should be a top priority for the Government.

[Anna McMorrin]

I want to set out the case of a constituent who came to me. A medical professional, he was terminally ill and had weeks to live, but he was advised that he would be eligible for PIP only from December of that year. His partner was distraught, as was he. He wanted to use that money for the last few weeks of his life. It turned out that there had been an administrative error, but they had to come to me to sort that out. That is a disgrace.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would like to make a suggestion to the Government. How about going back to the drawing board and designing a system that listens to people and allows them to express their issues in their own words. Above all, how about developing a system that demonstrates real compassion and decency, which we had for many decades in our welfare state? The Government can and must do better. It is so obvious that the current system is designed and contrived to cut public spending. I ask the Government to think again.

10:21

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.

Let us imagine how anxious someone must feel, knowing that they have to sit through an interrogation process that will deem whether they are quite disabled enough to be eligible for a helping hand. Not only does that person have the already huge day-to-day disadvantage of being disabled or suffering from mental illness, but now, thanks to the Government, they are forced to sit through a point-scoring process to judge whether they are fit to work. PIP is not fit for purpose when it comes to many physical conditions, and it certainly has not been fit for purpose for those suffering from invisible illnesses. How disgraceful that in 21st-century Britain a Government are implementing public policies that clearly disadvantage those with mental health problems.

My constituent, George, suffers from a range of debilitating conditions, and he is prescribed a huge amount of medication just to enable him to get through the day. He is also almost completely reliant on the use of a wheelchair. After working for his entire life, George, at 63, thought that when his health deteriorated, there would be support to help him to survive and pay his bills. At first, that support was there, and George received higher rate mobility and the highest rate care components of disability living allowance. However, when he was called for his PIP assessment, things took a dramatic turn for the worse.

George will not mind my saying that he is reaching an age at which he would be likely to retire soon if he was fit and well, but he has been put through a process whereby he was tested to see whether he was disabled enough. One observation that was made during his assessment was that he could walk unaided for 20 metres, but not 50. That is not considered a restriction on his ability to walk. Leonard Cheshire Disability, the charity for disabled people, makes the point that the change to the criteria obviously means that far fewer individuals qualify for the enhanced mobility component of the benefit. That is penny-pinching at the expense of someone’s dignity.

The charity has also gathered the information that 74% of disabled people surveyed did not feel as though the assessor understood their disability. That was and remains one of George’s biggest frustrations: he did not feel that the assessor listened to him, understood his needs or treated him with any compassion. How can someone hold so much weight in determining the future of an individual’s life without being held accountable? Also, why cannot assessors consult experts in any condition or disability to help to fill their knowledge gaps? That would surely ensure that they asked the right questions in the assessment and accurately determined the individual’s ability to carry out an activity reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laura Smith]

I am sorry, but I must get through my speech; I am conscious of the time.

George was assessed by Atos on 1 June 2017. He is now going through the process of appeal, but the timescale is being put further and further back and he still does not have a date for his case to be heard. He is struggling to survive financially, and he has said that he is feeling more depressed every day and having sleepless nights. He has stated—this is the important bit, to me—that if it were not for his wife, he would feel as though he could not go on any more, and he has contemplated not taking the medication that he needs. The way in which he and many, many others in my constituency have been treated is absolutely diabolical. I urge the Government seriously to stop burying their head in the sand and face up to the reality that has been created by their own policies.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I intend the summing-up speeches to start after the next speech, so if anyone wants to make a last intervention, they know what to do.

10:26

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this important debate and on making a powerful opening speech.

At Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister whether she agreed that the PIP assessment process was fundamentally flawed, and what action she intended to take to avoid the undue stress and hardship being caused to my constituents and thousands more across the country. It is very clear to hon. Members here and the people whom we represent that the process is not fit for purpose.

The chaos that is being caused is having a cruel impact on thousands of people across the country. The Prime Minister’s reply was that the assessments are being conducted as well as they can be, and that people are getting the awards that they should be getting and are entitled to. She also stated that since the Government introduced the personal independence payment, 8% of cases have been appealed and 4% of the decisions are changed on appeal. In my easy calculation, about 50% of decisions are overturned on appeal, and things are getting worse.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my view? My constituent, Sarah Hassell, has cystic fibrosis, a degenerative disease. She is 30 and will not see retirement. Not only was she taken to a tribunal, but after that process, she was brought forward again for assessment. Her benefit was taken away, and she tried to kill herself because of this process, which she had already gone through once. The system is simply not working, and the tribunals are not working. When I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask for a response, I was just sent to a civil servant and was not graced with a response. My constituents need much better from this process.

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend outlines a very sad and tragic case. It is one reason among many why the Government have to take note and listen.

The Prime Minister also stated that in the majority of cases, the change at appeal is due to the presentation at appeal of new evidence that was not presented at the original case. However, in the vast majority of cases that are brought to my attention at my constituency office and through Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly citizens advice bureaux, no new evidence is presented at appeal. The appeals are agreed, because the appeal panel recognises that constituents are genuinely in need of PIP and it supports the appeal. Furthermore, a growing number of assessments are consistently refused, and people are forced to go to mandatory reassessment and to appeal. I understand that currently about 65% of claims are overturned on appeal at tribunal. The growing number of appeals means that tribunals are taking longer to get to court—in my area, they are taking anything between four and seven months.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Every one of us has an email inbox full of these claims. Every single week, a new claim comes forward. The Minister has spoken about home assessments, but home assessments are not being done. It can be seen in Westminster Hall today how supportive the Labour party is, and how unsupportive the Tory party is, in relation to the whole PIP process.

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The number of cases being brought to appeal and the length of time taken highlight the unnecessary cost of taking the cases to a tribunal. It stands to reason that if a large percentage of appeals are accepted, the original decisions are fundamentally flawed.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for those with long-term conditions, such as muscular dystrophy, the right level of assessment is important to avoid the need for people to go to appeal, given that an understanding of the condition could avoid that appeal?

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights the current state of affairs and how necessary it is for the Government to take action.

I will conclude by briefly highlighting one of the many cases that has been brought to me. A client in my constituency—a gentleman who lives with his wife and three children in a housing association property—suffers with epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, depression and heart problems. He was already in receipt of PIP and was awarded enhanced daily living and mobility at tribunal in February 2015; that award was backdated. He switched his enhanced mobility for a car through the Motability scheme.

My constituent was contacted about the renewal of his claim in April 2016, and the renewal was sent to him. The local citizens advice bureau assisted him with completing the form, and medical evidence went in. His condition had deteriorated, but he was awarded zero points for daily living and mobility. So he had to return his mobility car, which he relied on, and borrow money from a family member to purchase a car.

The mandatory reassessment was lodged, and my constituent was awarded nine points for daily living and eight points for mobility—on appeal, those were enhanced further. The case went to tribunal and the judge advised him to go back to the Motability scheme as soon as possible and get his car back, but in the meantime he had wasted money on purchasing one. Interestingly, no additional evidence was given at the appeal stage that the DWP had not had prior to the tribunal. That is just one of many cases, and I am sure that Members across the country have similar concerns. The situation is grave, as most Opposition Members and our constituents know.

[Rosie Cooper]

Before my hon. Friend finishes, I want to make the point that there is a fundamental lack of understanding and compassion among assessors. Unbelievably, one assessor telephoned my deaf constituent and left them a message, which they would never, ever be able to access. How many penalties would they have for that? That is so basic that it is a disgrace.

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights an interesting point, and it is something that the Government need to get a grip on.

Unfortunately, the Government seem unwilling or unable to see the mess that is being caused or to do something about it. Will the Minister take stock of what she has heard in the debate this morning, give us some answers and get a grip on the situation?

10:29

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to sum up for the SNP in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this debate and on her recent promotion as shadow Minister. She made a typically impassioned speech outlining the experiences of her constituents and the thousands who have got in touch with her before the debate. Those are experiences that many of my constituents have sadly shared. She was right to point out how scunnered disabled people are with the PIP process. I have had constituents across the surgery table whom I have been trying to convince to go through an appeal process, but they have been so fed up and upset at being turned down for PIP that they have told me in tears that they refuse to go through an appeal process, despite clearly being entitled to, and in desperate need of, the support that should be provided. They and many others are effectively denying themselves support that they should be entitled to.

Members have raised a range of concerns about the PIP process, and I will touch on some of their speeches. The former Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), acknowledged that mistakes have been made and that improvements could be made. He is right. One of the biggest mistakes was the UK Government’s attempt to deny people with mental health conditions access to personal independence payments. They were ruled discriminatory for doing that. Perhaps the UK Government should look at making improvements that improve people’s experience and are not discriminatory.

The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) described issues faced by their constituents in applying for PIP. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) rightly raised the additional difficulties being faced by people with terminal illnesses and touched on the briefing from the MND Association.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) made a very good speech based on his constituents’ experiences. He was right to highlight the total disrespect of a couple of the Scottish Tories who came in with prepared interventions and were clearly trying to upset and disrupt the opening speeches. They showed total disrespect to those Members who have prepared speeches and not been called, and total disrespect to the disabled people watching this debate. They turned up to get their names on TheyWorkForYou and up their speaking record, then cleared off halfway through the debate. That is cynical, disrespectful behaviour and I hope they will reflect on it.

In this otherwise informative and impassioned debate there were good speeches from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). This debate could not be more topical, as we have been hearing about and debating the UK Government’s approach to PIP in the past week. We have had a written statement, two urgent questions and a stream of written questions on the UK Government’s response to the High Court ruling on PIP. The High Court ruled that the UK Government’s PIP regulations were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health impairments. That follows the damning report from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which found “systematic violations” of disability rights.

We welcome the fact that the UK Government are finally going to accept that they got this wrong and will implement the High Court ruling, but this whole shambles prompts a number of questions. It is going to cost £3.7 billion for the Government to review all cases and to rectify the error of excluding people with mental health issues, but how much has it cost the Government to oppose the matter in the courts? How much has it cost people who have applied and been turned down for PIP support, not just financially, but in terms of their health?

Yesterday the Minister was angry that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) suggested that some people’s experiences of PIP and other benefits may have led them to consider suicide. The sad story that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) gave in her intervention, and a case that I have shared with a previous Secretary of State, will hopefully allow the Minister to reflect on her comments yesterday. It is absolutely clear that there is an issue in this regard, and I hope she will reflect on that.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also raised a case yesterday with the Minister of someone who had followed the process correctly, had completed their review forms and had submitted them in the timescales, yet were called to refund all the money they had received thus far. That was the administrative failure of the Minister’s Department. That case is exceptionally bad. We talk about reducing harms for people in society, but it shows that when the DWP fails, the onus is on the individual to suffer the consequences and not on the Department to compensate them and deal with the issue.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that case yesterday, which I saw him do, and I hope the Minister will reflect and respond on it.

Yesterday, the Minister suggested that savings will not be made to cover the £3.7 billion cost, but I would appreciate it if she categorically ruled out any further cuts to any other aspect of social security to fund the review, and if she explained how the DWP intends to cover the cost. Does this shambles not expose the urgent need for the UK Government to review the whole PIP application process? We hear time and again, as we did this morning, about the appeal process success rate and about how Ministers have lost court cases on their policy. We have also heard personal testimony about the way in which the application process impacts those who apply and need support.

This is topical because PIP will be devolved to the new Scottish social security agency, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). The Bill to create the agency is currently being debated in Committee in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government are seeking to make a number of changes to the way in which PIP is assessed to make sure that it treats people with dignity and respect. First, the Scottish Government are seeking to make an automatic provision that would allow the agency to gather all the relevant medical or related information at application stage, which would reduce the number of face-to-face assessments, reduce the burden on the applicant and hopefully ensure that the correct decision is taken at the outset, rather than people having to go through the flawed mandatory reconsideration and appeal process, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

Secondly, the Scottish Government will ensure that private contractors are not involved in the assessment process. There are a range of other measures that the Scottish Government will take to ensure that we get the system right for those seeking support. In conclusion, hopefully the Minister will consider the new system in Scotland once it is up and running, and the UK Government will look north and learn some lessons.

10:39

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) on securing this important and timely debate. She made some valid points and highlighted the sheer volume of responses that she received when she put out a call on social media. That demonstrates the clear problems with the PIP system and with the benefit.

My hon. Friend talked powerfully about the outsourcing of the assessment process, which we all know is simply not working from our experience with the work capability assessment. It is about time that those assessments were brought back in-house because there is poor-quality decision making and no scrutiny. Frankly, it is unacceptable that taxpayers’ money is going out to those providers.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend agree that outsourcing decisions waste money and are against the interest of claimants? Discrepancies between Capita, which sees 59% of claimants at home for a home assessment, and Atos, which does the vast majority of PIP assessments but sees only 16% of claimants at home, expose the divisions in the private sector and show why the assessments should be brought back in-house and monitored properly.

[Marsha De Cordova]

It is important that the Government listen to the valid point made by my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister will address it. We have heard testimony about the Department’s approach to disabled people. People said that it felt cold and that they were not treated as human beings, but they have to engage with it.

I pay tribute to my many hon. Friends who have spoken—it is important that so many of them are here—including my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), and the good interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby highlighted the points about face-to-face assessments well. The assessment process, the centres and the information provided have to be accessible, but that is not happening on all occasions. That needs to change. This debate has been called because of the crisis in the claimant experience of personal independence payments.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Having witnessed the way in which the Tory party did politics in the run-up to the 2010 election and having sat opposite them between 2010 and 2015, this is not an accident. It is a deliberate part of the party’s electoral strategy: to demonise the poor and to say that this country’s problems are caused by the most vulnerable people in our society. The experience that claimants receive is a deliberate part of the Conservatives’ political strategy.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Let us be clear: from the outset in 2010, the Government’s fundamental aim for the new benefit was to make savings and to reduce the case load of disability benefit claimants. That is a fact. The expectation was to make a saving of 20%, which equated to around £1.5 billion. It is untrue to say that that was not the case. PIP was supposed to cover the additional costs of living with a disability, but that has not been the case in practice. The assessment framework is flawed and it causes delays.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Having heard the cases that have been discussed, does my hon. Friend agree that the process is dehumanising? It degrades individuals who are at their most vulnerable. Does she also agree that we need to take a two-pronged approach? The private sector makes millions of pounds and causes misery for others, but we must also bear in mind the fact that the policy itself is seriously flawed.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend, too, makes a valid point. We have to look at the policy intention behind PIP’s introduction—to make savings and to reduce the number of disabled people who were entitled to the benefit.

The assessment framework creates a series of financial problems. Poor-quality decision making has led to disabled people losing vital financial support. The evidence is damning—it is there for all to see. When decisions are challenged, in 68% of cases taken to tribunal the finding is in favour of the claimant. That indicates that there is a problem. The process is lengthy and stressful, and many people do not know how to challenge a decision or what they need to do, so many will go without and lose that financial support.

If a claimant wants to challenge a PIP decision, they must first ask for a mandatory reconsideration, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham discussed in detail. That was supposed to improve the claims process, but in reality, it has had the opposite effect. Many disability organisations have noted the number of decisions on claims that have passed through the supposedly rigorous mandatory reconsideration stage, but have gone on to be overturned at tribunal.

According to the Department’s own figures, about 20% of PIP MR cases lead to the decision being revised. It seems that the appeal tribunal process is being used as a backstop for poor decisions that should have been resolved at the initial stage or at the mandatory reconsideration.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

My constituent, Anthony, who visited my surgery on Friday, has a chronic illness. He has been through the process up to the point that my hon. Friend describes and he is awaiting a date for the appeal court. He will lose his car in April. He has been to advice centres to seek advice, but they are full with a backlog, so he has now come to me. Without a date for the appeal process, what can be done and what should the Government do? He faces months and months of distress.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Perhaps the Minister can clarify what my hon. Friend’s constituent should do. We cannot have individuals losing their vehicles unnecessarily.

Poor decision making is taking place. It has become so bad that the most senior tribunal judge said that the evidence provided by the Department was so poor that it would be “wholly inadmissible” in any other court. There has been a 900% increase in complaints about PIP.

I will talk briefly about the High Court decision. There was an urgent question yesterday, but I am not sure that the Minister answered all the points that were made. The regulations were introduced to reduce the number of claimants who qualify for PIP. The High Court said that they were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health conditions. What is most scary is that but for the High Court decision, the Government could have just carried on as usual.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I cannot take any more interventions—I apologise.

Where do we go from here? Clearly, the Government have no idea when the examination of those 1.6 million claimants will take place. Will it be weeks, months or years? The Minister has not provided a good timeframe and I ask again if she can give us a timeframe as to when the PIP assessment guide will be updated. When will the backdated payments begin to be paid? Will there be compensation for PIP recipients who have incurred debt as a result of those regulations? Will the Department update its administration and staffing costs, which are also expected to be published? Will the Minister guarantee that no claimant will lose out as a result of their case being reconsidered? Given the damage that has already been caused, it is simply not good enough that Parliament and PIP claimants are being left in limbo while Ministers are trying to get their house in order. There have already been two independent reviews by Paul Gray, but the recommendations of the most recent one were accepted only in part by the Government.

The Minister has accused the Labour party of scaremongering. That is wholly untrue. The wealth of evidence presented today has highlighted the human impact of these benefits policies. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has found the Government in breach and is still waiting for them to respond. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has called on the Government to carry out a full cumulative impact assessment of their welfare reforms, but they still have not done so. Only last week, the European Committee of Social Rights found the Government to be in violation of the European social charter. Something is clearly wrong. Labour has made it clear that we would scrap the assessment regime and replace it with a good, open and holistic assessment framework.

10:50

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) for securing this really important debate. I always welcome every opportunity to discuss PIP with parliamentary colleagues from all parties, and I hold regular advice surgeries.

I have so little time and have been asked so many questions that it will clearly not be possible to reply to them all, but I shall try to respond to as many as I can, which means that I will not be able to take any interventions. However, I have already set out a calendar of forthcoming events at which Members can come and speak to me. I understand how busy colleagues are, so if it is more convenient they can ask their caseworkers to come, bringing the cases that have been raised today so that we can go through them in detail.

It is clear from the cases that have been raised passionately and sincerely today that there are problems—I readily acknowledge them, and we are working hard to fix them. However, I have also heard a lot of confusion. Some hon. Members have raised issues that relate to ESA, not to PIP. Clearly some people are not aware of other financial support programmes such as Access to Work, which could help in some of the cases raised. A lot more support is available than hon. Members may realise, which is why I am running detailed teach-ins to ensure that all Members fully understand the wide range of support available.

Before I answer hon. Members’ detailed questions, I really want to set the record straight. Accusations have been made today, about me as a Conservative and about all Conservatives, that frankly I am not going to accept. It is simply not fair to say that Conservatives think disabled people are scroungers or do not deserve the support that we so want them to have. Conservatives want to ensure that everybody in our society can play their full part. We want to support people with disabilities to do so. Judge us on our actions.

Myths have been cited repeatedly that we are cutting spending on supporting people with disabilities or health conditions. Independent data shows that that is simply not true. Every single year since 2010, the coalition Government and now the Conservative Government have spent more and more money, and we are committed to spending more. Expenditure on the main disability benefits has increased by more than £4.1 billion in real terms since 2010 and is set to reach a record high of more than £23 billion this year. It will continue to grow each year to 2022.

People have been scaremongering because they do not remember that people on disability benefits are exempt from the benefits freezes and that their benefits will rise again this year. PIP is not included in the benefits cap. As I said yesterday, it is really important that we get the facts out there. It really concerns me that people who really need support will be put off from going to jobcentres or contacting us to get the benefits that they need and richly deserve.

We have heard a lot about the claimant experience and the customer experience. In my short time at the DWP, I have visited DLA processing centres, assessment centres and Jobcentre Plus offices, where I have seen DWP staff who are highly motivated and well trained to provide a good service to some of the most vulnerable people in society. I really encourage hon. Members who have not done so to visit their local Jobcentre Plus, speak to job coaches and see the excellent work that goes into supporting people with disabilities and ensuring that they get the support available. That includes support into work; a huge number of people with disabilities want to work, and we want to enable them to.

Hundreds of thousands more people are now getting support as a result of PIP than with DLA. In the constituency of the hon. Member for North West Durham, as we migrate people from DLA to PIP, 900 people’s awards have been increased. Some 41% of her constituents who have moved from DLA to PIP are getting more money. When Opposition MPs say, “Let’s scrap PIP and all go back to DLA,” they are saying that they would deny their constituents an opportunity to benefit from PIP. More people, particularly with mental health conditions, are being supported now than were ever supported under DLA.

I want to bust a myth. In this country, we are all rightly proud of our welfare state, but there is a myth that it was a Labour invention. Developing the welfare state took many MPs from all parties over a considerable period. I am just as proud of the modern welfare state as any other Member of this House. The first woman MP in Cornwall, Beatrice Rathbone, was a Conservative. She worked with her auntie Eleanor Rathbone, and together they were pivotal in the legislation that brought in the welfare state—a milestone whose anniversaries we still celebrate. It was people reaching across the political divide, working for the benefit of the most vulnerable in our society, who enabled us to develop the modern welfare state. Conservative Members are just as passionate about ensuring the best possible support for the most vulnerable people in our society.

I assure all hon. Members that, like my predecessors, I am committed to continuous improvement. We have commissioned independent reviews of the PIP process and we are taking their recommendations on board. We are working closely with stakeholders. Only last week, I had a meeting with my PIP stakeholder group, which includes representatives of all the main UK disability rights organisations and charities, including disability rights organisations from local authorities around the country. I will be setting up panels of ESA and PIP claimants to ensure that we listen directly to their experiences as we embark on our continuous improvement process.

It is also important to revisit current experiences. I accept that we always have to make improvements, but 89% of people said that they felt that the assessor treated them with respect and dignity. Undoubtedly we have more to do, but I am committed to making the improvements that we all want to see.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Ms Pidcock, you have only 30 seconds, I am afraid.

10:59

[Laura Pidcock]

I am completely astounded by the Minister’s use of her time. She ignored every single one of our points. I would like her to write to every single Member who took time to set out in detail the inadequacies of the system, because they were all completely ignored while she spoke about Conservative Members, the history of the Conservative party and justice on welfare.

The Minister said that the Government would be judged on their actions. They certainly will. Every single disabled person in this country is waiting to see what the Government will do to remedy the system’s inadequacies. An alternative reality is being presented by Conservative Members—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Laura Pidcock]

Their use of figures diminishes disabled people’s experiences. It is a shambolic system.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

People with Mental Health Problems: Detainment

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered procedures regarding the detention of people with mental health problems.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I am very pleased to have obtained the opportunity to—[Interruption.]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you, Mr Hosie; I am grateful for your chairmanship.

I am delighted to have obtained the opportunity to bring this matter before the House. It strikes me that there may be a large cross-over between many of the people whom we are about to discuss and those with whom the House has just concerned itself.

In recent years, as a community and a society, we have made remarkable progress on our attitudes to mental health. To talk about mental illness is no longer the taboo that it was when I was growing up, and as a consequence we have seen remarkable progress in recent years in relation to the treatment of people, especially in our national health service.

Today, I will focus attention on a slightly different aspect of this issue—one that does not get the same attention as the treatment of people with mental health problems in the NHS. I will talk about the experience of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system—initially, of course, with the police, then with the prosecution services and, possibly, the prison authorities. The purpose of this debate is to make it clear to the Minister that within those agencies of the state, we need a change of attitude and culture similar to those we have seen in other aspects of our daily life.

It is surprising that this issue does not get more attention. Many of the people about whom we are speaking often exhibit in public or private what might euphemistically be called “challenging behaviour”, which is a symptom or consequence of their mental illness. It seems to me that at all levels—in the police, the prosecution services, the courts and the prisons—we need a greater level of understanding of their life experience and, as a consequence, better implementation of procedures. In fact, many procedures are pretty good but, as I will come on to explain, they are not followed in a way that is appropriate or that was intended when they were put in place.

I confess that I had rather thought that, within the criminal justice system, we had got beyond that point. Almost a quarter of a century ago, both as a trainee solicitor in Aberdeen and as a prosecutor, I railed against some police officers who, at that stage, still reported people who had attempted suicide, alleging that they had breached the peace. That attitude belonged in the 19th century, not the 20th, and I hope that such things would not happen today. However, it illustrates the underlying attitude that requires exposure.

My interest in this issue was first engaged as a result of a constituent—a lady resident in Orkney—who came to see me because she was concerned about the treatment of her son. This is not an isolated case. From discussions that I have had with people in the police, the criminal justice system and social work, I believe that it illustrates pretty well many of the ways in which the criminal justice system fails to meet the needs of people in our community, especially those who suffer from mental health problems.

I will not name these people; my constituent and her son want to retain their privacy, which is perfectly legitimate. However, the Minister should be acquainted with this case; last week, I forwarded him my correspondence file, which is fairly substantial, so that he would be aware of the background.

My constituent’s son is resident in Romford. He has a history of mental illness problems, but prior to the episode that I will discuss he had taken himself off some of the medication that he had been prescribed, because it had side effects that disagreed with him. He was reported missing by his partner on 27 April 2014. She contacted the police because she was concerned that he might kill himself. Eventually, he was traced by two police constables to a shopping centre in Romford. Questioned by the constables on the street, he told them that he was in possession of two kitchen knives, and at that stage he said that he did not intend to harm others; later in an interview, he said that he was considering harming some of those he loved.

The detaining officers—the two police constables on the street—proceeded, quite rightly in my view, to detain my constituent’s son under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Given the information that his partner had provided the police and what he himself had said to them in the street, that seems to have been an entirely sensible step to take. Afterwards, as a standard procedure, the constables contacted their station sergeant. The sergeant instructed them to take him—let us just call him “M” for the purposes of today—not to a place of safety, that is the hospital, but back to Romford police station, where he would be interviewed under caution. That was done and the interview was conducted. There was no legal representation for M when he was in the police station and there was no appropriate adult present either.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making. Does he agree that, at that point in the police station, it should be a requirement of the system for investigating officers to inquire as to whether the individual is already under treatment by a mental health team and, if so, for them to seek information from that team about the individual’s psychological condition?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am almost certain that if the medical condition being experienced by the person in custody was physical rather than mental, that course of action would be routine—simply what was expected. That is what I mean when I talk about a culture change being necessary. We need to treat people with mental illness in exactly the same way as we would treat people with a physical illness.

In fact, M disclosed in the course of his interview under caution, which unfortunately was not tape-recorded, that he was hearing voices and that he had been on medication, but had stopped taking it because of its various side effects. At the conclusion of the interview, he was charged with possession of a bladed article under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was seen by medical professionals at some point in the course of his detention. I eventually had to submit on behalf of my constituent a data subject access request to get the custody records to find out the names of those medical practitioners. I still do not know their qualifications or whether they had, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, access to the records that would have disclosed his full treatment history.

My constituent’s son eventually appeared the next day, 28 April 2014, at Barkingside magistrates court. He pleaded guilty and was remanded in custody until 12 May for psychiatric reports. Those were not available on 12 May or 14 May—a familiar story for anyone who deals with the summary courts—and he eventually appeared on 21 May, when those medical reports were available. Unfortunately, at that point it was apparent that the probation service reports were not available. It was 11 June before his case was finally disposed of. He was admitted to bail on 21 May and sentenced on 11 June. He was placed on a community order for six months on the condition that he remained under the supervision of the police service. In the meantime, he spent something in excess of three weeks in Pentonville prison, on remand and in custody, and 24 hours in police custody over a case that ultimately resulted in a community disposal.

I have enormous regard for those who staff and manage our prisons, but I do not know of any body of work that suggests that people suffering from a mental health problem are ever helped by being locked up in prison. That is essentially the point here. If my constituent’s son had been taken not to the police station, but to a hospital where he could have been treated and stabilised at the earliest possible stage, an inappropriate use of resource would have been avoided and he would have got the treatment he required.

Following the community order, I became involved with my constituent and a lengthy correspondence ensued. Fast-forwarding to 12 February 2015, I eventually received a letter from a deputy assistant commissioner at the directorate of professionalism within the Metropolitan police—she is a fairly senior officer—that concluded that my constituent’s son’s

“welfare and mental health was correctly managed during his time in police detention and that he was assessed as being of sufficient mental capacity to understand his actions on the day in question.”

She concurred that the officers had “acted correctly.” Unsurprisingly, my constituent was disinclined to let matters rest at that point. There was further correspondence, including with somebody with the glorious title of “professional standards champion”. That was not particularly fruitful, and it led eventually to a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

On 25 January 2016—this is getting on for two years after the initial incident—the IPCC upheld the complaint. It observed in passing that the constable who had been the original arresting officer had received management action in relation to the Metropolitan police’s mental health policy; I pause here to say in parentheses that the only person in this whole sorry saga who acted correctly was the original arresting officer. At every stage in the process, he seems to be the one who gets the training, the management interventions and the counselling. If this poor constable is sitting somewhere in a police station in London sticking pins into an effigy of me, I would not blame him, but he was never the object of our concern. It was the failure of those above him to implement their own procedures properly that has probably brought us to this point today.

Thereafter, the correspondence between the Metropolitan police and me discloses a culture that requires change. The concept of professionalism, a directorate of professionalism and professionalism champions seem to exist for the purpose of protecting police officers, rather than admitting fault, learning from the experience and moving on. Those things exist for the protection of colleagues, rather than the investigation of complaints. To this day, I still do not know the qualifications of the force medical examiner who saw my constituent’s son in custody. I suspect that having made a data subject access request, I will get that information if I go to the Information Commissioner, but the fact that I have to anticipate that tells us everything we need to know about how such complaints are handled.

In many ways, my constituent’s son is fortunate. The episode was not perhaps as acute as it might have been. He is particularly fortunate to have a mother who is an intelligent, strong-willed, determined and articulate woman. She was never going to be fobbed off with excuses or half-answers. Without the support of his mother in Orkney or the support my office has been able to give him through her being my constituent, I am pretty certain that these questions would have gone unanswered. I am pretty sure that the original arresting officer will be inclined in the future simply to do what he has been told by his superiors. In that way, the culture and the mistakes continue.

The Metropolitan Police Service could probably have dealt with this issue in April, May or June 2014 had they simply accepted that they made a mistake and apologised. They did not do so because of the culture that exists. I suspect and have good reason to believe—I speak often to police officers and others within the criminal justice system in London and other parts of the country—that that culture continues to exist. That requires change if we are to give people who suffer mental health illnesses and who come into contact with the criminal justice system the treatment and respect they deserve.

10:17

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate and the way in which he presented it. Perhaps coincidentally, it follows a debate I was here for yesterday on perceived failings in the way in which the criminal justice system deals with people on the autism spectrum.

The underlying challenge is the same: it is about awareness, understanding and ensuring not just that the right protocols are in place, but that they are implemented by human beings. That is a challenge, and I wholly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the progress we have made as a society and a Parliament in our understanding of mental health and the consequential priority that we need to attach to it. I pay tribute to his work on that in the Cabinet of the coalition Government, and to the work of many of his colleagues, not least the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is tireless on this subject.

We have made progress, but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is entirely right to raise tough questions about implementation and culture inside the criminal justice system and the police system. I do not think anyone would argue that the police are the agency best suited to dealing with people who are solely or primarily unwell by virtue of mental ill health, but the reality is that the police spend a lot of their time dealing with, supporting and safeguarding people on the mental health spectrum.

I have just completed a tour of our police system in which I talked to every single police force in England and Wales. One of the most consistent themes in all those conversations was concern about the increasing amount of time that our police officers spend with people who have a spectrum of mental health concerns. In some of those cases, that is entirely right and appropriate, because those people may be pursuing criminal activity or there may be a public safety issue. Increasingly, however, the police are being called into situations to which those two criteria do not apply. That is increasingly uncomfortable territory for them, because they are not necessarily the most appropriately qualified people to deal with such situations.

Let me address the right hon. Gentleman’s fundamental point about culture. I must put on record some of the improvements and the good things that are happening, but I need to acknowledge that there remains a stubborn cultural issue around how the police, and other bits of the public sector system, respond to complaints. I have been very explicit with the new chief executive of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is the new body that is taking over from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, that the Government, the IOPC and the police need to work together to try to change the culture. That is much easier to say than to do.

Too often when something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there is a tendency to circle the wagons, blow smoke and protect the police family. We need to move away from that, and towards a culture of learning from mistakes. That is how the police improve. I argue strongly that doing so is very much in the interests of the police family, because we police by consent. That is built on a foundation of trust in our police system. Incidents such as that which the right hon. Gentleman recounted chip away at confidence and trust in our police. Therefore, it is in the interests of the police system to embrace the need for a new culture. When I speak to the superintendents conference, they volunteer that that is what we need to do.

It is a cultural change. I do not think the problem is necessarily with the frameworks, the procedures, the standards or the rights of prisoners in custody. We have made considerable progress on that, but I acknowledge that there remains a stubborn problem with its implementation in practice.

[Kate Green]

I accept what the Minister says about culture, but I wonder whether he could look at one systems issue, namely the matter of obtaining medical information from a person’s own mental health practitioner where an individual in detention is already under the care of mental health services. I understand that is not part of routine procedure at the moment. Will the Minister go and look at that, and see whether it should be?

[Mr Hurd]

I certainly give an undertaking to the hon. Lady that I will look into that. Prisoner rights in custody are pretty clear in terms of the duties on a custody officer—a custody officer is required to determine whether a detainee is, or might be, in need of medical treatment or attention, and to make sure that he or she receives appropriate treatment or attention if he or she appears to be suffering from an illness or injury or a mental disorder—but I give the hon. Lady that undertaking and will write to her.

Having acknowledged the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I want to place on record some of the genuine improvements that have been made. He raises a real concern, which has weight in the police system because of the amount of time police officers spend, in the modern age, dealing with people on the mental health spectrum.

A considerable effort has been made in recent years to improve local responses. Crisis care concordat partnerships have been successful in pushing people together at a local level to address long-standing issues such as the overuse of police cells as places of safety. As I have gone around the system, I have been very impressed to hear about the various triage schemes in many areas. Those schemes encourage closer working and exchange of real-time information between the police and health professionals. There are different models. Some have health staff embedded in police control centres. Others have health professionals working alongside police on the ground, and sometimes in the custody suites. The common feature of those models is that they enable the police to deal more confidently with people in crisis, informed by professional advice about the best solution.

Many areas are developing community-based voluntary sector or partnership drop-in centres—sometimes called crisis cafes or places of calm—to which those who feel themselves nearing a crisis may be referred, or may self-refer, for support and advice. Such co-operation mechanisms have resulted in a significant and, I hope, welcome reduction in the use of police stations for those who have committed no offence. In 2016-17, a little more than 1,000 such uses were recorded, compared with just under 8,500 in 2012-13, so there is progress on that front.

We are changing the powers available to the police under the Mental Health Act 1983. In particular, the use of police stations as places of safety has been completely banned for under-18s. For adults, regulations now set out very specific criteria on when a police station can be used. Police officers are required, if practicable, to consult a mental health practitioner before detaining a person under section 136, but I will come back to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) with a more refined position on requirements to consult the individual’s own medical practitioner.

The period for which a person may be detained for the purposes of a mental health assessment under section 135 or section 136 is now reduced to 24 hours to ensure such assessments and arrangements for further care are completed as swiftly as possible and that people are not unnecessarily delayed. Police powers to detain a person under section 136 have been extended to any place other than a private dwelling, enabling the police to act promptly in places such as workplaces.

Better community partnership and changes to the 1983 Act have clearly made a difference.

[Mr Carmichael]

The point on which the IPCC upheld the complaint of my constituent’s son was that he should have been detained under section 136 as well as the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provisions, and that did not happen. That was a fairly narrow point, in many ways, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it is fairly widespread. What is the Home Office doing to establish an objective picture and find out what is happening on the ground? I suspect the procedures are not that bad, but the implementation requires some attention.

[Mr Hurd]

I accept the point that the IPCC found that guidance to detain under both section 136 and for any accepted offence had been breached in that case. I am not quite sure how long it took between 2014 and that judgment—probably too long. I accept that, but I come back to my earlier point. The right hon. Gentleman will know from experience that from the specific, we learn and probe general application. That is why our complaints process must work better than it does at the moment, not just for his constituent’s son and others in that position, but for the police officers concerned.

A lot of police officers are, in their words, being left out to dry for long periods of time, while the processes take too long. We want a swift process of finding the truth; we want accountability—accountability matters—but then we want a culture of learning and thinking, “What have we learned, and what are we doing about it?” We are not there yet, but everyone is talking about it in the right way. Part of my responsibility as Policing Minister is to continue pushing on that.

I am running out of time, but I should mention that if a person who has been detained for an offence is identified as having possible mental health or substance misuse issues, they may be referred to liaison and diversion workers for advice and onward referral to support services. Such schemes now provide support across 80% of police custody suites and courts in England, with the expectation that 100% coverage will be achieved by 2021.

On police use of force, a new memorandum of understanding between police forces and mental health and disability settings was finalised in 2017. At the extreme end of that is the response that we have to make to the report on deaths in custody. Some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has picked away at—the human testimonies, and the attitudes of the police when they feel defensive—come through very clearly in that report, and we have to break those down.

As I hope I have made clear, across a range of the avenues available to the Government, we are making some progress. I repeat my undertaking to come back to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston on her question.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Prisoners: Outdoors Endurance Activities

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

09:14

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered outdoors endurance activities for prisoners.

It is a honour to be here and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth—I do not think that I have been fortunate enough to do so before. I welcome colleagues on both sides of the House to the debate.

I start by praising and thanking all those who serve in the Prison Service. I frequently call them members of the forgotten army. Being an ex-solider myself, I think that is rather appropriate, because all too often our prison officers are forgotten. There is no doubt that much can, and should, be done to improve their working environment, but I will not expand on that today. I am here to promote an exciting initiative that was trialled in Scotland and then taken on by the former MP for West Dorset, Sir Jim Spicer, who sadly is no longer with us.

In the Gallery today there are three distinguished guests, two of whom sit on the Airborne Initiative committee. Buffy Sacher has years of experience in the Prison Service, and General Sir Rupert Smith inspired me personally when he came to address young officer cadets at Sandhurst in—I think we agreed at lunchtime—1978, which was many years ago. As we all know, he has served with huge distinction in our armed forces for many years. With them is Keith Potter, a resettlement officer in the Prison Service at the young offenders institution Her Majesty’s Prison Feltham, where the Airborne Initiative is currently being run. I thank them all for their input. I also thank Russ Trent, who was the governor of the young offenders institution HMP Portland and is now the governor of HMP Berwyn—I hope I got the Welsh right.

I am delighted that the Minister—I have a huge amount of respect for him, as we all do—is here, and I thank him for his time. I am speaking today about a remarkable organisation that helps young offenders and those on the margins of criminality to achieve their potential by building self-worth and giving participants a sense of achievement.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

When I read the motion, I thought that outdoor endurance for prisoners meant being on the run. I suspect and hope that my hon. Friend will disabuse me of that notion and talk about a fantastic improvement in reoffending rates, which we would all welcome. I am sure that he will touch on that, if that is indeed the case.

[Richard Drax]

I always welcome interventions from my hon. Friend, given his sense of humour. The whole point of the initiative, he will be glad to hear, is to stop prisoners running and reoffending. I will say more on that in a moment.

The Airborne Initiative is a five-day residential course on Dartmoor. Candidates are serving young offenders, former young offenders, those in halfway houses and those not in employment, education or training. That includes young men who are allowed out of prison on licence, are serving a community sentence or have been identified in their communities as being at risk of offending. I hasten to say that, so far, no young women have taken the course, in the main because there are 20 times more men in prison than women.

The aim of the project is to keep those people out of jail, and certainly to discourage them from returning, as well as to encourage them to strive for more positive goals in life and, of course, to build self-reliance and self-respect. The Airborne Initiative was born out of a pioneering experiment in 1994 in Lanarkshire, in Scotland. For 10 years, specialist social workers and outdoor recreation experts took in hundreds of male criminals aged between 18 and 25, and combined outdoor physical activities with counselling for youths who had not responded to conventional punishment and rehabilitation.

As the name suggests, the scheme was supported and inspired by the regimental elders of the Parachute Regiment, of which Sir Jim Spicer was a notable member. Admirably, the regiment decided to give something back to the region from which it had drawn so many of its recruits. Despite having measurable effects on the rates of reoffending, the Lanarkshire Airborne Initiative was controversially wound up by the Scottish Executive in 2004. I became involved personally in the project when Sir Jim called me and asked for my help, which I was more than happy to give. Sir Jim had decided to pilot the scheme at the young offenders institution HMP Portland, using all the experience gained in Scotland. He wanted to establish a course that would be an alternative to custody, as opposed to a pre-release course. However, unlike in the Scottish scheme, the Prison Service, along with volunteers, would run the course and provide the instructors, with serving members of the Parachute Regiment in support as often as resources permitted.

The new initiative was greatly helped by the generous donation of the use of the Duchy of Cornwall’s Dartmoor base, through Prince Charles’s capacity as colonel-in-chief of the Parachute Regiment. The Airborne Initiative is also extremely fortunate to have had two serving paratroopers assigned to each of its last seven courses. The carefully selected young paratroopers are generally a few years older than the participants, although closer in age and experience to the participants than most of those in authority with whom they have to deal. The extra guidance and support that the young soldiers provide, together with their obvious professionalism and resourcefulness, act as a powerful example of alternative life choices. I am told that the feedback from candidates is very positive.

I saw a before-and-after video of, if I recall correctly, one of the first courses in HMP Portland. Six or seven young men were interviewed before they went on the course, and again a week later, after they had attended the course. In the first interview, I saw what we would all expect. Regrettably, I saw the stereotypical image that is all too frequently associated with young men in prison: lack of inspiration, complete lack of interest, an “all about them” attitude, and no life aspiration at all. Probably there were lots of very complicated reasons for that—reasons that many of us here could not understand, not least home break-up.

Off they went. Then the governor said, “Now, look at this.” Then I saw the film after they had all come back. After only a week, their body language was completely different. They sat up straight. They talked to their instructors. They spoke to one another. One young man turned to the others and said, “I’m very sorry I got you lost for hours on end.” I said, “Hold the movie just there. That young man has just apologised to his colleagues for getting lost.” After six days, a tiny light had come on in that young man’s mind about responsibility, camaraderie and friendship.

Enduring the outdoors can be tough, not least on Dartmoor. I should know, having walked across it enough times. It is purpose-built to capture young men and women—although, as I say, no women have been on the course yet—who are slightly lost for many complicated reasons. All that comes at very little cost to the Government. Airborne Initiative is a charity, and one that is proving very effective. I was impressed, and the video reaffirmed in my mind that supporting this noble endeavour was the right thing to do. I very much hope that the Minister will respond to my speech positively and reassure me and our guests, who work so hard for this cause, that there is a way forward in the Prison Service to expand it further or, if not, to give the existing set-up the resources to do the job properly.

Today, YOI Portland has evolved into a resettlement prison, with fewer youths available for Airborne Initiative exercises, and the beneficiaries of that are the young men at YOI Feltham and Brinsford. The project is ably managed by the new course instructors: Keith Potter, who is with us today, Gavin Raines at Feltham and Lee Edwards and Rob Cowley at Brinsford. Each course caters for 15 to 22 young people, who are usually aged between 18 and 21, with candidates carefully chosen by governors, prison officers and other youth workers. According to a recent instructor’s report, a typical course includes dawn starts, circuit training, caving, swimming in the River Dart before breakfast—and why not?—and then a good hike, orienteering, hill walking, ice baths to repair aching muscles, cooking and obstacle courses, all complemented by fireside chats in which emotive topics are tackled.

All of us—I am sure that includes the Minister, beside whose endeavours and adventures mine, frankly, pale into insignificance—have sat round a campfire and talked to people from many backgrounds. I assure you, Mr Howarth, there is no better time to have a chat about life than when you are sitting there wrapped up warm, ideally with a whisky in your hand, and pouring out your woes—or not—to those around you. It engenders a very rare sense of camaraderie.

The course activities are all aimed at learning about leadership, responsibility and team-building skills. Obviously, it is challenging in places and tests an individual’s stamina, determination and physical and mental strength. Young men are taken out of their comfort zones and must learn to react positively to the environment they find themselves in.

In another experiment that I witnessed—this time, as a journalist with the BBC—I was asked to go to the New Forest to observe a two-day project run by volunteers from the fire service, the police and the ambulance service. There were 12 young people divided into three teams of four: the baddies, the not so bad and those who were there because they had been quite good and deserved a break. That was quite a range of individuals. I soon spotted the baddies, who were all too easy to spot. They were dressed in their tracksuits, and, again, their body language was: “not interested”. The phones were on, and they were not listening.

The first task, given by an ex-Royal Marine sergeant-major who was built like a tank—not a man to mess with—was to erect a tent to keep them warm at night. It was one of those dreadful tents with lots of bits, not one of the modern ones that go “pfting!” and the whole thing pops up. The instructors said to the 12 people, “You’d better make some cover for the night,” and they started to build their tent. After about an hour, it got to a certain height, but no way was it going to provide the cover necessary.

The staff all went over, gathered the young men and women around and said, “Okay. What lessons have you learned?” There was a pause, and there were grunts and groans, and then one asked, “How do we actually do it?” The sergeant-major said, “Young man, that is the very first question you have got right. How do you do it? We will show you.” The staff got the tent and showed them how to do it. They all joined in and the tent was erected.

The young people were given various tasks to do. The two troublesome young men were intentionally sent on an assault course with two of the girls on the course. It was not very difficult, but the point was to see how the young men would cope with the young girls. The young boys thought they were tough and they were going to win at all costs, but as soon as they got on to the assault course and the girls started lagging behind, they had a choice: plough on or go back. Both went back and, by the end of the assault course, the girls were being encouraged and helped—“come on, come on, let’s do it”—and they got to the end, and they won. The change on those young people’s faces! The sergeant-major turned to me and said, “Richard, tell that to the do-gooders. Show this to the do-gooders.”

The point of my story is that it takes so little to turn these young people around, whether they are young men or women in prison or the younger generation that might, sadly, end up in prison. We can get to them. The answers are not complicated.

The Airborne Initiative boosts self-esteem while teaching self-discipline and the value of the group. It creates a strong work ethic and challenges the young participants to achieve their own personal successes; so often, they have, sadly, achieved none. So far, 331 youngsters have benefited from the beauty of Dartmoor and all it can teach. Each individual has a report sent to their probation officer regarding their individual performance and specific achievements. Measuring outcomes is, of course, a longer process. Successful completion of the course triggers work opportunities, helps to build a CV and enables successful candidates to gain valuable life skills.

For the country at large, the benefits are manifest. The current reoffending rates for prisoners in the first year after leaving prison is 65%, which is a horrendous figure. Over the past four years, more than 200 young offenders have been through the course and reoffending rates have dropped dramatically. A fifth have gone into further education, training or work.

The Airborne Initiative has already held more than 30 courses on Dartmoor. Another seven are planned each year, with up to 22 participants taking part in each course. The initiative is working with the police and probation service, and courses are now included as part of an offender’s community service. In South Dorset, we are justifiably proud of our role in developing the project. Former YOI governor Russ Trent, a big supporter of the initiative when he was at the helm, said:

“I have personally seen young men grow in confidence and build trust with people in authority during the Airborne Initiative. It’s a great programme that brings different parts of the criminal justice system together.”

There appears to be no downside to the initiative. With its success in cutting re-offending and helping young people to evade criminality, it should be cherished and promoted. That is the crux. For an enlightened scheme such as the Airborne Initiative to thrive and survive, it needs the participation of all parts of the criminal justice system, from governors to prison officers, the young offenders themselves, the probation service and all the other organisations associated with prison life. Regrettably, and to everyone’s detriment, the current situation in our prisons is becoming so difficult that even the most enthusiastic governors are unable to release prison officers to accompany their charges on the course.

[Bill Wiggin]

In my constituency, Monty Don, the television celebrity, led a team of young people. They gardened and kept some pigs and there was a huge improvement in their behaviour. A lot of them were drug addicts and drug dealers.

Any sort of interaction of any kind is a good thing, because cutting reoffending rates must be the Government’s No. 1 priority. Will my hon. Friend elaborate? We know that 20% of participants went into higher education, but is there anything further to say about the reoffending rate? Perhaps the Minister will elaborate. It would be the icing on the cake.

[Richard Drax]

I am not at liberty to give the exact figure on the reoffending rate, because the participants are still being monitored. There is a figure, but as the organisation is a charity it needs the support of an organisation such as the justice system to confirm its own figures and say, “Yes, you are absolutely right—it is x%”. All I can tell my hon. Friend, from the evidence I have, is that it is dramatic.

One issue that I want gently to bang home is release on temporary licence. I understand from the experts that the rules were changed in 2015. I have had dealings with governors at both the YOI and The Verne, which was a prison and is going to be one again shortly, and they say that they are unable to release prisoners because the criteria are so strict and inflexible.

The point that General Sir Rupert Smith made to me today was to compare a young man on a moor and a young man in a city centre maintaining someone’s garden or whatever. It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the young man on the moor will wander off and do damage, whereas the young man in an urban environment could slip away, thump somebody or commit another crime. The system does not allow that sort of flexibility. That is the plea of all three people sitting behind me in the Public Gallery. I know from the governors I have spoken to that ROTL needs to be looked at urgently.

I know that the Minister agrees that we need to hand back power to governors—I have heard the Government and the Minister say that. Let us do a little more than suggest it; let us do it. Let us say to governors, “It’s up to you,” rather than mollycoddling or health-and-safetying—whatever the right word is nowadays. I believe that, if someone is in charge of something, they are ultimately responsible—that is their job. If something goes wrong in the police, the chief constable gets it in the neck. If something goes wrong in a prison, the governor gets it in the neck. If a Minister makes a total mess, he or she resigns.

There is no point in having something else to protect the person because that will negate the thing or create inflexibility, and they will be so terrified about letting prisoners out that they will just not do it. Let us be confident. The men and women running our prisons are professionals. Let them say, “Okay, Bob, Jack and Robert, you can go, but you three certainly can’t because you are too much of a risk. That is the assessment I have made. Off you go.” That is my plea, and if the Minister can respond to that point we will all be extremely grateful.

Several times recently, participants’ places on courses have been cancelled at the last minute. The last course in June, which was set up for 22 candidates, eventually ran with only 15 due to staff shortages and crises requiring manpower elsewhere in the Prison Service. For the Airborne Initiative, that is not cost-effective; for the young men who missed out, it is a tragedy.

As I come to the end of my speech, I want to touch on an issue that I feel passionately about. Buffy Sacher and everybody else will agree with me about what is going on in our Prison Service. What I am about to say highlights my concern. The most recent Independent Monitoring Board report on the YOI in South Dorset, dated September 2017, makes pretty grim reading, unfortunately. It describes

“a broad picture of things worsening and intractable problems persisting”,

and lists serious disturbances and cell damage. The number of staff assaults is rising and the number of prisoners with mental health issues is increasing—and they certainly should not be at a resettlement prison and YOI. Medical facilities are being overwhelmed. The lead member of the safer custody unit has resigned, and the flow of legal highs, such as Spice—I know the Minister is aware of this—is increasing. The report says that access to mobile phones creates

“debt, self-isolation, self-harm, gang activity, violence”

and “disruption”.

I inquired a bit further about mobile phones, because I was staggered that prisoners are allowed them. I can see that they are valuable tools for hardened prisoners who operate with their bad colleagues outside. Large debts are incurred for drugs or whatever else the prisoner is given by the gang member in the prison, who is also a prisoner, and then of course demands are made for the debt to be paid. Prisoners end up being bullied and family members outside are threatened; it is very harmful.

I am just a simple ex-soldier—I say take the phones away. Give prisoners access to a phone on the wall once a day, like they used to have. I personally do not understand why they have mobile phones. The IMB also reports

“grave concerns about staffing levels in the prison”,

which, although up to benchmark quotas, are

“unrealistic, given the difficulty of the prison population”.

I invite the Minister to visit the YOI in Portland. We would very much like him to. It is an old building on various landings. It is not a modern prison, which could be managed much more easily. The staff are divided into perhaps two prison officers per landing. If there is a conflict or a disruption on another landing, they are dropped down. They have no choice but to lock the doors—lock the prisoners in. There are not enough officers to manage that old-style prison. I have heard that complaint frequently in my many visits to the prison and the conversations I have had with members of the POA, none of whom are militant—they are all utterly charming and speak to me and the governor in a perfectly reasonable way. Those men and women have an honest gripe, which needs to be looked at.

The IMB report says that prison officers are frequently required to escort prisoners to hospital after drug overdoses, and the remaining prisoners are left in lockdown and are unable to attend educational classes. That means that the sparing of two extra officers to accompany participants to Dartmoor is virtually out of the question.

The Government are well aware of those problems, and I know they are moving swiftly to tackle prisoner officer numbers and pay levels, which is to be welcomed. That cannot come swiftly enough for what I term the forgotten army of prison officers, one of whom described conditions in Portland to the IMB as “Hell”—the

“worst it’s been for 20 years”.

The report is not good reading. There have been other instances. A pretty grim report along the same lines was published the other day about a prison in, I think, Liverpool. Until we sort out Portland prison—the YOI is both adult and young offender, with a majority of adults—we cannot hope to get this initiative off the ground, because the prison officers are tied up looking after the prisoners.

Tough love—that is what I call it—has a proven track record. Where it is succeeding, let us back it. I ask the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, to look seriously at the Airborne Initiative and give it resources and backing at a ministerial and Government level to expand faster and further. There are many organisations providing services to our prisons from the charitable sector, the voluntary sector and the private sector. In my experience some work, and some do not.

My criticism of the whole system is that there is not someone to sieve it all and say, “That’s good; that’s not good. We’ll have that, but we don’t want that. Let’s roll out that; let’s not roll out that.” It is a bit disjointed. This initiative is proving to be good and effective, and is cutting reoffending and giving young men a chance. God forbid, the alternative is years more in jail, which costs us about £40,000 a year for the rest of their lives. That is a fee that none of us wants to pay out of our taxes. This initiative really is worth pursuing, and I am fascinated to hear what the Minister says. I sincerely hope, from my perspective and from that of my three guests, that we have his support.

14:58

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in debates such as this. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on bringing this issue to us today. When I saw this debate announced last week, I said to myself, “Here is a scheme that I am interested in.” This year, in just the past few weeks, we have initiated a similar scheme in Northern Ireland through the Department of Justice, which has responsibility for prisoners. I want to use this opportunity to explain how that scheme works and to support the hon. Gentleman’s proposal.

After hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I will say something quickly that is not directly relevant to this debate, although the analogy could be considered so. In 2016, I read about a survey of 2,000 parents of five to 12-year-olds in a nationally representative sample, which found that 74% of the children spent less than 16 minutes playing outside each day. The UN guidelines on the treatment of prisoners require at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily. The headline read, “Prisoners receive more exercise than children”, which is the media doing what they always do—looking for a headline that skews what the issue is. That is for another day’s debate, but it is worth highlighting in this one to flag up that we need a sea change when it comes to the physical activity of our children. We also need it for prisoners and those in prison.

We all know the saying, “If you do the crime, you do the time”, and we understand that. At the same time, however, we can rehabilitate prisoners to grow away from their past and go to their future, where they will have learned, been trained and be associating themselves with new opportunities, not going back to the past they once had. We are all familiar with TV programmes about prisons—this week, the Piers Morgan one comes to mind—and in the USA prisoners might be indoors for 23 out of 24 hours, in a lockdown. The impact of that is great, as it would be here back at home. Another TV programme—again, not one I often watch, but I see the previews—is that one on Channel 4: “Hunted”. Some people go on the run by choice and other people try to catch them. I am very aware of some of the analogies in the world outside.

I turn directly to the debate. We have recently had a pilot of outdoor activity for prisoners at Magilligan Prison in Northern Ireland—perhaps the Minister and the shadow Minister are aware of it. Those prisoners were the first in Northern Ireland to take part in what was called the “parkrun behind bars”. I saw it on the TV news a few weeks ago, on 6 January or thereabouts, and thought, “What’s this about?” The scheme illustrates well what can be done.

The UK-wide parkrun initiative was piloted at Magilligan on 6 January, with 15 inmates and 12 staff out on a five-kilometre run. That was possible there because of the nature of Magilligan. Perhaps it is not for other prisons—I cannot speak for everyone because I do not have that knowledge—but at Magilligan it is possible to have the parkrun within the walls of the prison. In an intervention on the hon. Member for South Dorset, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who has just left the Chamber, mentioned the notion of people going on a run outside the prison—but in this case they were not: they were on a run physically within the walls of Magilligan.

The pilot was set within the confines of that low-security prison. The scheme, barring any issues, could be a regular way of inmates getting exercise in controlled settings and yet outdoors. I have no doubt that the ability to enjoy the fresh air and perhaps have a bit of freedom readies prisoners’ mindset for what they would rather be doing when they are eventually released and get outside prison. The news reports were that up to 412 prisoners could get involved as two-kilometre walkers, as runners in the five-kilometre race or as volunteer organisers.

People from outside were brought in to participate, which brings a certain level of normality into the project. The parkrun scheme helps with not only the physical needs of inmates but—this is so important—their mental health, which we need to focus on. It is well known that those who exercise regularly are better equipped to deal with high-stress situations; I am sure that every MP is very athletic, because they deal with high-stress situations each and every day.

The organiser of the parkrun, Matt Shields, said:

“We believe prisoners have a lot to gain from parkrun, not only because of the obvious benefits of physical activity and volunteering, but also because of the ties it will foster with their families on the outside.”

A certain mindset is needed, which is the focus of the parkrun strategy and what it is trying to achieve. I do not know this scheme intimately, as others might, but from watching the TV and news excerpts, it seems to me that it is an opportunity to do just what the hon. Member for South Dorset was talking about in Dorset and elsewhere, as well as in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister and the shadow Minister will comment on the scheme. I am sure that the Minister will do so.

Matt Shields went on:

“They can share experiences by taking part in parkruns simultaneously, meaning families can share results weekly and compare improvement and feel part of a common activity.”

So while prisoners are practising and training inside, their families and those outside can be doing similar things, which is almost an interactivity between two different locations, bringing people together. Parkruns have other things apart from physical activity—lessening mental stress and keeping focused mind-wise and body-wise for the outside.

As an activity that prisoners and staff can do together, parkruns also break down barriers and build cohesion among the prison warders and prison officers and the inmates. We are all aware of some places where conflict and aggression happen sometimes because of where people are, but this is a way we can do things better. I again quote parkrun organiser Matt Shields:

“For everyone involved we feel this is a win, win”.

That is surely a win, win, and one that could be replicated across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The parkrun at Magilligan is certainly a start, and other parkruns are being looked at, including in other prison settings.

To conclude, I certainly support a scheme that may—not even may, but does—help to provide benefit to the rehabilitation and mental health of prisoners in a low-risk category, such as category D, which many of those prisoners are, as long as there is no chance of putting the public into danger or harm’s way. Let us remember that we have a responsibility for the general public and to ensure that their safety is in place—that is our paramount opportunity and responsibility. However, we also have a duty of care even to those who have done wrong and are repaying their debt to society—I believe that in my heart—and there is a safer and better way for them to do that than with weights in a gym.

15:07

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing today’s debate. When I saw its title, I immediately wanted to get involved, because it was about activity and prison. I lead an active lifestyle because I am a football referee, and many of the spectators who watch me say that my decisions are so criminal I should be locked up for them, so that is where I thought I would go with the debate. Then I realised we were talking about something totally different.

My remarks are initially from a Scottish perspective, because the scheme originated in Scotland in 1994. I looked at some of the figures from and studies of the Airborne scheme, which, sadly, only lasted a decade. I found out that 58% of the offenders who started the scheme successfully completed it, and only the ones at the high end and those involved with drugs struggled. Crucially, among those who participated in the Airborne scheme in Scotland, reconviction rates were reduced by 21% in comparison with people who had been offered alternative actions during their time in prison. That was a crucial point—it was a successful scheme. Other things have happened in Scotland, but I can see why that one was taken on board south of the border and why we are having this debate to explain its merits.

Given my limited knowledge of the debate from the title, I sought a briefing on it from the House of Commons Library. I was very disappointed that the Library staff said, “We can’t give you a briefing, because we know absolutely nothing about it.” That is why the debate is important and why it is right for my hon. Friend to take the matter forward. We must get the message of that successful scheme out there and encourage its extension, if required, to ensure that its benefits are felt far further afield.

I also want to speak about exercise within the prison population. As I was looking for other things to discuss in this debate, I spoke to one of our researchers, David Robertson, who works for another Scottish Conservative MP. I told him I was going to speak about endurance activity and prison, and he said to mention John McAvoy.

I had not heard of John McAvoy until about an hour ago, but he is a fantastic and inspirational character who spent 10 years behind bars. At the age of 16 he owned a sawn-off shotgun and robbed security vans. At 18, he was sentenced to five years in prison for armed robbery. He got out two years later, and he was immediately re-arrested in a flying squad operation and sentenced to life imprisonment in Belmarsh Prison. On his very first day he wondered why there were so few people in the exercise yard with him. Then he noticed that one of the people with him was Abu Hamza, and it suddenly dawned on him the type of people he had been incarcerated with.

John McAvoy spent some time feeling bitter about being in prison, but decided to get fitter. He had a fitness regime of 1,000 press-ups, 1,000 push-ups and 1,000 sit-ups every day. He then became an amazing rower, broke the British record for rowing a marathon and smashed the world record for distance rowing in 24 hours. He did all that because he decided not to waste his time in prison, but to get involved in endurance sport and to carve out a career in it. He decided that his life was no longer going to be around the crime family that he was brought up in and that had led him to spend a decade behind bars, but that he would use his time in prison to get fitter and become an international athlete.

John McAvoy has written a book called “Redemption”, which is about how he took part in the London to Brighton footrace. I was gripped by the opening pages, which I read before I came here today. He tells us how he and No. 76 ran along and completed the race, and at the end of his opening remarks he describes how he went home, fell asleep on the couch and the next day returned to prison. So he did all that endurance racing while he was still a prisoner.

Now John McAvoy is a motivational speaker who goes out and encourages people who have been in prison, and who are ashamed of what they have done and do not want to be labelled with it in their future. He describes how he got involved in the local rowing clubs in London, and how people there were not ashamed to be associated with him, but wanted to help him. For me, that exemplifies how sport can be a great bridge for some people, and a great leveller. People can use it to overcome their past problems and look to a far better future.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for securing this debate, which has allowed me to look into a small story that tells us about the opportunities that some people have. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned mental health. I was involved in the justice system in Scotland when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. An estimated 80% of the prison population in Scotland have mental health issues, which shows how significant the problem is in our prisons across the country. When four out of five prisoners in a country the size of Scotland are affected by mental health problems, anything we can do to improve their general health, wellbeing and mental health has to be worked on and recognised.

I looked up the World Health Organisation, which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. It set up a European network for promoting health in prisons:

“The aim of the network is to promote health, in its broadest sense, within the prison community. It is built on a recognition that while imprisonment results in a loss of personal freedom, the negative effects of custody on health should be reduced to a minimum. It also endorses the principle that time spent in custody can be used positively to aid the prevention of disease and, as far as possible, to promote health.”

We have heard in this debate that the Airborne scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset has explained, does exactly that. I support any measures that can advance such commendable aims.

15:14

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to air issues about purposeful activity in prison. I welcome what he said about the Airborne Initiative and the fact that he has brought it to a wider audience. I welcome his comments in promoting the scheme. He is absolutely right about purposeful activity and investment, and about giving young people and more established prisoners the opportunity to receive education, feel self-worth, contribute in a positive way to a task, develop new skills, work as a team, show respect for peer groups, and show and learn respect for prison officers. I join him in praising the work of the Prison Service and the very difficult work that prison officers do.

Any investment in building skills, confidence and trust; showing people that there is a life outside prison; and encouraging people to learn new skills is extremely positive. The scheme—a public sector partnership with the voluntary sector—is a very positive model, and the hon. Gentleman has made a very strong case for it to be looked at.

I came to the debate because I wanted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said. Having done so, I think there are two challenges: one for him and perhaps more than one for the Minister. I want to talk about those challenges and how we can build on the laudable objectives that the hon. Gentleman set out. In making the case for the expansion of such initiatives, it would help if he clarified, now or later, some of the key issues that he touched on, which need fleshing out. First, it is important to look at the value and the reoffending rates. He was absolutely right about the figures. Reoffending rates of between 60% and 65%—perhaps averaging 65%—are simply unacceptable.

The purpose of prisons and young offender institutions must be punishment—that means deprivation of liberty, being away from family and not being able to do the things that we wish to do in society—but there also has to be reform. Reform is about employment, housing, training, the removal of drugs and alcohol and the problems associated with them, tackling mental health issues, promoting self-worth and dealing with all the issues the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would help his case if he could establish in detail from the Airborne Initiative what the reoffending rates were. He touched on them, but the details would establish whether we could attribute the reoffending rates to the initiatives that were taken.

Also, we need to know the costs per place in the scheme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two prison officers having to accompany prisoners, which represents a cost. Are there additional costs that the Prison Service has to cover, and does the Airborne Initiative require public sector support in addition to its voluntary activity? Did the hon. Gentleman look at completion rates? I did not get a sense of how many people started and completed the courses. We need to know about not only reoffending rates, but the impact one or two years down the line. I know from my own school life, private life and business life, that I can point to certain things in my life and say, “That two weeks, six weeks or four days made a real difference to my life” when I look back on them two years later. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will undertake such an evaluation.

[Richard Drax]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, and he is raising perfectly fair points. A point I would add—this is for the Minister, too—is that, as I said in my speech, the effect of the scheme began to be monitored carefully only quite recently. The charity now needs the Government’s help to monitor the effect even more carefully, and to do all the things the right hon. Gentleman suggests. There is work afoot to do that, but we need help from the Government if we are finally to get all the statistics, costs and figures that he has mentioned.

[David Hanson]

I think that would be valuable, because we are, like it or not, in a time of tight resources, particularly in the Prison Service. There are many strains on the whole prison system. If it can be proven that the scheme has the value that the hon. Gentleman evidently believes it has, it would be a useful addition, for the reasons I have mentioned.

My argument now moves to the Minister. The hon. Member for South Dorset made some valid points about the challenges of operating a voluntary sector-funded scheme that aims to build self-confidence, education and self-worth at a time of challenge in the Prison Service. Perhaps I might outline the challenge for the Minister, who is new. I welcome him to his position and wish him well in a difficult and challenging job. He will have constructive support from the Opposition and from the Justice Committee, on which I sit. We wish him well, but in the past seven years we have lost 7,500 prison officers. I know that there is a move to bring back 2,000-ish, but we will still be 5,000 short of the number that we had before.

The hon. Member for South Dorset said that one of the challenges was releasing prison officers for the activity. Self-harm incidents, drug abuse, deaths from self-harm, and assaults—both on prison officers, and prisoner on prisoner—are at record levels. The Minister knows from last week’s report from Liverpool about the difficulties and challenges of broken window syndrome in the prison system. To make possible schemes such as the one that the hon. Member for South Dorset wants to make progress with, those issues need to be realistically addressed; I hope that that is constructive. We shall welcome the Minister’s remarks today, but his challenge, as long as he is in his present job, is to make an impact on the situation.

This is not just a matter of prisoner officer numbers; it is about attitude. I met Russ Trent last week at HMP Berwyn—which the hon. Member for South Dorset pronounced perfectly. Russ was at HMP Portland, which I visited perhaps nine years ago when I had the privilege of doing the job that the Minister now does. I know that there is good work to do, and it is partly about leadership, understanding, and giving governors and prison staff the time to invest in education, self-worth, respect, positive attitudes and teamwork. Unless the Minister addresses some of the structural issues, there will be less opportunity to support valuable schemes.

I have two final points, the first of which is about governor autonomy. The plea of the hon. Member for South Dorset was to roll the scheme out more widely and organise it. I am still not clear what that means with respect to the Minister’s central Department and governor autonomy. Perhaps that can be answered today, or perhaps it is for another day. Does the Minister have confidence in governors to make local decisions about deploying prisoners and prison officers to support such schemes? Where does accountability lie? The Minister can help today by taking on that question.

That leads to my other central point, on which I am pleased the hon. Member for South Dorset touched—release on temporary licence. If there is governor accountability and autonomy, if risk is managed locally, if governors have the resources to determine that x, y or z prisoner can benefit from the course and if the governor determines that the risk can be taken to release on temporary licence, I hope that the Minister will give the decision his backing. If governor autonomy means anything, it is allowing those decisions to be made at the local level. If the Minister does not know now, he will learn in the next few weeks about the restricted nature of ROTL, which the hon. Member for South Dorset pointed out. The risk is transferred to the Ministry of Justice, and governors’ ability to make judgments at a local level is restricted, so there is a lack of participation in the type of scheme so ably promoted by the hon. Gentleman.

My challenge to the hon. Member for South Dorset is to get clarity about the worth of the scheme. I wish him well in doing that, because if it works, it will work well. My challenge to the Minister is to tell him that the scheme will not work, and will not be supported, unless he gets the basics right. I know that he is focused on that, but a series of prisons Ministers has presided over a reduction in staff and increases in incidents, self-harm, attacks and prisoner-on-prisoner violence. Those problems have not allowed good work to thrive. It is impossible to undertake such good work while dealing with drugs, attacks, self-harm and the problems that the hon. Member for South Dorset raised. I wish the Minister well, in the context of the need to do better overall.

15:19

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for obtaining the debate. He made a convincing and eloquent case, highlighting the benefits and positives of outdoor endurance activities. I join him in thanking all those who work in the prison system, who are doing a very difficult job.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in the prison system, particularly in the challenges faced by prison officers, but also in programmes designed to help young offenders. One of those is of course the Airborne Initiative, which he has spoken highly of, and he displays great passion in supporting it. It is a breath of fresh air to hear success stories from the criminal justice system, and the Airborne Initiative clearly is one. That is not to say that we must not talk about the challenges faced in prisons. The present situation is an emergency, which bleeds through to outdoor endurance activities, including those that the hon. Gentleman promotes.

I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate on an issue that deserves attention for the clear benefits associated with it. Some Members have mentioned similar schemes with benefits. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talked about someone who went to prison for serious offences and was effectively rehabilitated and experienced positive effects while he was there; when he came out he spoke to warn others of the risks of offending. I have had the benefit of working on a similar scheme in my district, where rehabilitated offenders worked, in partnership with the police, fire service, local authority and others, with young people at risk of falling over the cliff edge into a life of crime. The message was a simple one, from someone who had served time in prison and was telling young people about the risks and dangers, and what prison life is really like. Unfortunately—tragically—a life of crime is sometimes glamorised for young people, and shown in a “blingy” way. That is just one project, and clearly there are massive advantages to be gained.

Being outdoors can have a significant impact on wellbeing. That cannot be overlooked. However, extended and endurance activities can help to improve mental health and reduce reoffending rates. Young offenders have often lacked such opportunities. Many have never have been part of a team on a 50-plus-mile hike over several days, and they feel the benefits even more keenly. Anything that can improve mental health in prisons must be seized with two hands because there is an epidemic of mental health issues within prison walls. Accurate figures do not exist because the Government do not collect them, but even optimistic estimates give the number of prisoners with a mental health issue as one in three—higher than in the general population. Many of them have serious mental illnesses, but many others have milder conditions, where exercise and meaningful activity can have a positive impact. Both the NHS and the Royal College of Psychiatrists endorse that. I do not profess that exercise and outdoor endurance activities are some kind of silver bullet for mental health issues; clearly they are not. They are a useful tool as part of a wider arsenal, as they can help to provide offenders with motivation to get their lives back on track and reduce reoffending.

Poor mental health and low self-esteem among prisoners increase their chances of reoffending, so it is only logical that positive mental health should reduce it. The impact on mental health of outdoor activity reduces reoffending rates, as do the Airborne Initiative and the Duke of Edinburgh Award, which cannot be encouraged enough in young offender institutions. In these programmes, offenders are exposed to a wealth of transferable skills such as manual work, navigation, planning and teamwork, among others that the hon. Member for South Dorset highlighted. All those skills can be used to build a CV and increase employability, or to light and develop a passion for activities that can be pursued through education.

It does not matter whether work or education is chosen; both reduce dire reoffending rates—almost half of adult and more than half of young offenders reoffend within a year. We also have to tackle the issue of reoffending to address the wider challenge of overcrowding, which leads to prisoners doubling up in single-occupancy cells and being locked up for most of the day. Outdoor endurance activities can have a positive impact on the prison estate as a whole among the offenders who are able to participate. As I mentioned, the effect of these activities on young offenders is even stronger, so programmes such as the Airborne Initiative are best targeted on them.

Young people who go to prison are some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country, and also the most neglected. They experience difficult upbringings and challenging circumstances that crush their self-esteem, sometimes leading to their becoming offenders in the first place. No one is born an offender; there is no genetic predisposition to committing a crime. It is purely down to an individual’s environment lacking support mechanisms or role models, both of which are provided by outdoor endurance activities and similar programmes. Instructors and supervisors give young offenders someone positive who they can look up to, and who can help build their self-confidence.

The positive impacts are there for all to see, but why are they not implemented on a wide scale across the country? Surely the Government recognise their impact. We should be doing everything that we can to improve the life chances of offenders, to prevent them from coming back and costing the Government the £13 billion that reoffending costs. Unfortunately, unless the Government address seriously their underfunding of the prison system, wider adoption of any outdoor endurance activities remains a pipe dream. Their potential is constrained by the consequences of policies that prevent offenders from doing any outdoor activity at all, let alone week-long residential trips. Offenders are locked up for most of the day because of the increasing violence that has become all too common in our prison system, which a number of hon. Members have referenced.

That violence is the consequence of the huge reduction in prison officers towards which the Government have actively contributed, with measly pay offers and pressure piled on remaining officers. The dwindling prison officer numbers are the reason why prisoners cannot be let out of their cells, and why any initiatives to get prisoners into the great outdoors for the Airborne Initiative or other schemes cannot be adopted wholesale and rolled out nationwide. There are not enough prison officers to supervise them while they are away from prison, and there are not enough officers to escort them there in the first place.

The Government clearly do not grasp the benefits that outdoor activities can provide for offenders. If they did, they would not force local authorities to cut the youth services that provide the same development of skills and teamwork as outdoor endurance activities, and that provide the same reduction in reoffending rates among young people. Between 2010 and 2016, almost £400 million was cut from youth services, leading to a loss of nearly 140,000 places and the closure of 600 youth centres. The Government are now being asked to put the cart before the horse: to support services that combat reoffending among young offenders, but they should have been providing those same services that deliver the same benefits to young people before they go on to commit a first offence.

It is all very well and good to put these ideas forward; we should be looking at both new and proven ways to reduce reoffending and increase the wellbeing of offenders, but because of the Government’s policies, that sadly cannot happen to the extent that it needs to. Offenders are locked up for too long even to do basic outdoor activities, and prison officers are not present in the numbers needed to escort and supervise offenders safely. Although the Minister is new, I am very keen to hear his views not only on outdoor activities, but on some of the broader issues that have been raised in the debate.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I am sure that the Minister needs no reminding before I call him to speak, but it is customary to leave time at the end of the debate for the Member moving the motion to briefly respond. I call the Minister.

15:36

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for bringing the debate. It was fantastic to see the energy that he put into it. His interests as an ex-soldier and as the Member of Parliament for South Dorset came through. It is great that an initiative partly pioneered in the first place by a Member of Parliament is now being pioneered again and promoted by another Member of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some characteristically powerful comments, reflecting on some of the practicalities of the subject and some of the moral and philosophical background when it comes to balancing the protection of the public with our obligations towards prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) provided a good example in John McAvoy of exactly the kind of transformation that can happen for somebody who would, by definition, have been considered one of the most at-risk prisoners most likely to reoffend. He has come through an extraordinary personal journey and transformation.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) was almost the longest serving prisons Minister in British parliamentary history, I think, so he is quite an intimidating man to have opposite. He made, I think, more than 67 separate visits to prisons; he has a deep understanding of the whole system, and I will not attempt to quibble with him on any of the things that he said. Indeed, he and the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) pointed out very powerfully that there is no point in simply looking at this thing in isolation.

For any of these schemes to work, we need to think much more broadly about who these people are, who they were before they got into prison, as the hon. Member for Bradford East pointed out, what kind of resources exist—how much money there is, how many prison officers there are—and what kind of routines are run in prisons. In addition, there were practical issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, which extend all the way from relief on temporary licence conditions to conditions in relation to drugs.

I do not want to expand on this subject too much or trespass too much on your time, Mr Howarth, but clearly the challenge that we face is very remarkable. We are all aware of fantastic initiatives—the Airborne Initiative is one of the most powerful and admirable—and we have been aware of them as they have been run for some time. The right hon. Member for Delyn will be aware of many such initiatives that he will have seen when he was the prisons Minister.

The tragic truth is that, although there have been incredibly powerful initiatives for many decades around the country, and although each of these programmes points to fantastic improvements, reoffending rates in general have barely moved. That has been true with more resources and fewer resources; the reoffending rates were roughly the same when the right hon. Member for Delyn was the prisons Minister as they are today. That is partly for some of the reasons that were mentioned.

This is a very difficult cohort to deal with. As hon. Members know, nearly half the people entering prison are almost functionally illiterate. Nearly 60% or 70% come in with pre-existing behaviour issues and particularly drug use problems. Nearly 90% are reporting different ranges of mental health issues. There is an incredibly high homelessness rate among people who leave prison, and they have many problems getting employment. Even the Airborne Initiative, a successful scheme, touches only the percentage of people—it is in the mid-20s—who get into education or employment. These are terrifyingly difficult issues to deal with and to turn around.

That is why the hon. Member for Bradford East and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset were absolutely correct to pay tribute to the Prison Service. At the centre of a lot of this is the dedicated, tailored work of prison officers. We have tried, by having a keyworker programme where one prison officer is assigned to six prisoners and through some of our work with physical education instructors, to ensure that we build up tailored relationships. Having 2,500 more prison officers is important, because it will begin to make that possible, but each prisoner is different—that leads to the question of empowerment—and each prison is different. One of the reasons why we need governor empowerment is that the kinds of education and activities provided for young, short-term prisoners will be quite different from those provided in a category C prison, let alone in the high-security estate. Governors need to be able to adjust.

Balancing the power of the centre with empowered governors is more of an art than a science. Obviously, in any organisation, we need to trust people and empower them. They need to feel that they are in charge, that they have the necessary levers and, in the end, that the buck stops with them. To take an extreme military analogy, the captain of a ship needs to feel to some extent that, if the ship crashes, it is his fault. Equally, of course, he operates in the huge system of a navy, where there are many other reasons why a ship might crash that might not be entirely down to the captain. Getting that balance right, setting decent national standards and holding people like me to account will be critical.

I expect to be held to account on some of the basic standards issues that were raised. Frankly, I should be able to come back here in 11 months’ time and show that we have significantly reduced the number of people testing positive for drugs in our 30 worst prisons. I would like to come back and present cleaner prisons and prisons with fewer broken windows, and I would like to be judged on some of the basic issues around education provision. If I am not judged on those things, I am not doing my job.

[Richard Drax]

As always, the Minister is making an eloquent and powerful speech. On his point about reoffending rates staying the same, the Airborne Initiative is aimed at the young. If we stop those people—all right, 20% is not 50%, but it is better than nil—moving on to category C, B and A prisons, we surely will be achieving. If the scheme works and we stop young people from going up the chain to more serious crime and longer prison terms, that surely will be another reason why it is particularly brilliant and different.

[Rory Stewart]

One hundred per cent! Any scheme that dramatically reduces reoffending does an incredible amount for the individual young person, because it gives them a chance to have a life that is not in prison, and for the public, who would be the victims of the crime that that person would go on to commit. It also, of course, makes a huge difference to the Prison Service and the prison population, because it means there are fewer people in prison and there is less pressure on the whole system. For all those reasons, reducing reoffending has to be at the centre of this issue.

Reducing reoffending is partly about the Airborne Initiative, but it is about many other things, too: ensuring that people have accommodation to go to when they leave prison and trying to ensure that they have jobs to go to as well. A lot of that is not in the gift of my Department. We need to get together a taskforce with all the other bits of the Government and ensure that local authorities have houses to provide, that employers are really reaching out and so on.

There are brilliant ways of doing this. To take one example, there is a fantastic scheme being led by Liverpool Altcourse prison, where prisoners are being trained on metal welding and metal painting, and are connected directly with a company that employs metal welders at the other end. The same is happening with recycling machinery: prisoners make huge recycling trucks inside the prison and are connected with the recycling company for a job as soon as they leave the prison gate. They get some income—that can go into an escrow account, which provides them with some money when they leave—and a vocational qualification, and they get a job at the end.

The Football Association is leading a fantastic programme to pair every premier league club with a local prison. Two people from the club are paired with 16 prisoners, who train for level 1 coaching qualifications with the aim of filling a gap—we need 4,400 coaches in the British system. Leeds Rhinos rugby league team makes fantastic use of its facilities to develop a connection whereby prisoners can use all the community facilities and all the club’s contacts once they leave prison. That is what I want to try to get to.

The Airborne Initiative has three brilliant elements. The first is the military element. We have seen everything that that means. It is shared by initiatives such as the 3 Pillars initiative in London, which emphasises exercise, employment and, above all, a military ethos—the sense of courage, pride, honour and self-confidence that is hugely important for pushing people forward into the world.

The second element is the benefits of the outdoors—we heard about those from the hon. Member for Strangford—and all they mean for everything from someone’s endorphins to their health, their love of nature and, after coming through ice baths and freezing rivers, their sense of resilience. Crossing the River Dart and orienteering alone through the night must be challenging experiences. The third critical element is everything that people get in the evenings. These are residential courses that give people the ability to reflect on their character, their future and their life.

However, we could be doing more to take these schemes to the next stage. First, we should work with the incredibly dedicated and impressive PE professionals in prisons to ensure that they feel absolutely central to these programmes. They should not feel replaced—the voluntary sector is not a replacement for them—but they should feel that they bolt in as role models and mentors. That applies both to these programmes and to other things: PE staff can be central to helping people wean themselves off drugs and to guiding people through nutrition. We now provide much more nutritious food in prisons. Proper nutritious meals have an extraordinary impact—a nearly 30% reduction—on violence and behavioural issues.

We should think not just about young people but about older people. There is no reason why older people cannot go on these courses. We should think about what outdoor activities and sport we can use to reach out to older people. We should embrace sport as a way of doing education—mathematics, for example—as a leveller and as a way of including people who may have struggled at school. We should think about diversity. The Airborne Initiative may be ideal for one cohort but, in another context, something like the Clink restaurant in Brixton may be ideal for someone who wants to go into catering.

Above all, we should stick with courses. We do not want short, shiny, high-quality courses that are delivered for very short periods. That is deeply depressing for prisoners. They turn up, get a terrific package that runs for about three or four weeks, have their fantastic role model and feel their life is turning around, but then that person vanishes and we never hear from them again. Prisoners really want through-mentoring. They want people meeting them at the gate. Clink restaurant is a good example. It meets prisoners at the gate, takes them out, connects them with a catering company and stays with them. Fulham football club is another great example. It meets prisoners at the gate, takes them out and tries to involve them in activities outside the prison. None of this stuff is a silver bullet, but it is all stuff that we need to lean into, facilitate and make easier.

Let me set out the action points that I want to take away from the debate. We clearly need to work out exactly what the problems are with getting prisoners into the Airborne Initiative and to solve them. I will contact governors so that, next time the course is run, we do everything we can to ensure that prisoners are available to go on it. We will have to deal with the deeper structural issues in the next debate, but the basic philosophy is absolutely central: if PE instructors in prisons, prison officers and the voluntary sector work on outdoor education and sport and think about how to connect those things together, that can transform prisoners’ lives, transform reoffending and protect the public.

Along with everything I am talking about in terms of back to basics—the stuff with drugs, cleaning up prisons, fixing broken windows, having basic standards and getting 2,500 prison officers back in—Britain, with its astonishing love of sport and the outdoors and the commitment of soldiers from the Parachute Regiment, MPs and everyone in the Chamber—can make a huge difference to vulnerable lives, and ultimately to public safety.

15:50

[Richard Drax]

I will not keep everyone waiting for long. I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply. The only point he did not mention, I think, was about meeting the three guests afterwards to discuss ROTL and the problems governors have. If he could, they would much appreciate that. I thank all who participated in and supported the debate from all parts of the House. We had an eloquent speech from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), whose experience came through in buckets.

I entirely agree that through-mentoring is essential, and yes, as we discussed before we came into the debate, it could be extended to adults. The only comment to make about that is, “Let’s get it right for the young first and really get it going.” I thank the Minister for getting hold of the governor and saying, “When this comes up, we want the 22 places filled.” Let us get that working and, as has been suggested, get the facts, statistics and costs in black and white. Then, if it really is working, there will be even more evidence to push it out.

Finally, as the Minister said, the key is those who run the organisations, systems and initiatives. These young people get five days or six days of brilliance with an ex-regimental sergeant-major, a footballer or whoever it may be, who inspires them to say, “Oh, my goodness gracious—I have never met this before,” but then, oomph, back into prison they go. Through-mentoring will be key to ensure that, when they go back into prison, someone is there with the next initiative, or whatever it may be. I absolutely concur.

Thank you for listening to me for so long, Mr Howarth, and I thank all those who contributed. I also thank the Minister very much for his helpful reply.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Perhaps I will abuse the privilege of the Chair—unusually for me—and say that it was a privilege to chair a debate in which everyone who took part made thoughtful contributions. Taken as a whole, it was a constructive debate—even down to the Minister’s response, in which he set himself some rather big targets.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered outdoors endurance activities for prisoners.

15:52

Sitting suspended.

A75 Euro Route: Upgrade

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

14:15

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the upgrade of the A75 Euro route in Scotland.

It is a pleasure to lead my first Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I was elected to this place last June. In my manifesto, I pledged to campaign for more investment in Dumfries and Galloway’s infrastructure, with a particular focus on our roads. No road is more in need of urgent attention than the A75 Euro route, a 95-mile-long stretch of road from Stranraer to Gretna that links the south-west of Scotland to the M74 and M6 and thereby the rest of the United Kingdom. This trunk road is a key artery of Dumfries and Galloway’s local economy, and I fear that if we do not see a sustained programme of upgrades to the A75 in the near future it will have a detrimental social and economic effect, something my constituency can ill afford.

In addition to its critical importance to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway, the A75 is of serious concern to businesses in Northern Ireland, given that 45% of Northern Ireland’s trade with the rest of the United Kingdom transits through Loch Ryan in the west of my constituency. Halfway up Loch Ryan is the port of Cairnryan, home to two international ferry companies that operate ferries to and from Belfast and Larne. It is a route of strategic economic importance and a major hub for freight and tourism, with over 9,000 sailings per annum carrying 1.7 million passengers, 415,000 cars and 410,000 freight units.

Depending on their destination, vehicles will use either the A77 or the A75 when ferries dock, and because of the road conditions that can often cause frustration for convoys and drivers—something I can attest to.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the ports in Loch Ryan, of which there are two. They are extremely busy and getting busier year on year, but does he agree that there has been little or no investment in the road infrastructure leaving those ports? The road infrastructure in general is badly neglected, but the A75, an extremely busy route for the ferry ports, needs investment and has been neglected over the past 10 or 20 years.

[Mr Jack]

The A77 Euro route to the north of Cairnryan runs through my hon. Friend’s constituency. I both agree and disagree with him: I completely agree that those roads need a lot more money spent on them, but I disagree that they are getting busier. Part of the problem is that they are not getting busier because, as I will come on to in my speech, we are losing hauliers’ business down to Dublin and across to Holyhead and other ports.

Going back to my point about frustration for convoys and drivers, being stuck behind a fleet of lorries on the A75 is not a pleasant experience. The A75 is predominantly a single carriageway road with very limited overtaking opportunities. Poor roads to and from the ports are putting them at an extreme disadvantage and in turn threatening jobs and livelihoods that depend on those ports. Last November, I met representatives from Stena Line, which has invested over £100 million to provide Scotland with a first-class new port facility at Cairnryan. P&O has also invested a lot in its terminal and in its vessels. The investment those companies have made has not been matched with vital road and rail development to help the ports remain attractive and competitive. Frankly, if such private investment is not supported, that is a disincentive for future investment.

The message could not be clearer. If we continue on the current trajectory of neglecting the A75, the consequences could be grave. The warning signs are already in place. Unfortunately for us, while we continue to talk among ourselves about the need to act, Northern Ireland has stepped up a gear and ensured that its road connections are keeping pace with economic development. That has resulted in a growing number of Northern Irish hauliers diverting their traffic flows to sail from Dublin; in all honesty, who can blame them?

Other UK ports, such as Heysham, Holyhead and Liverpool, are gearing up for the future and the increasing traffic flows of freight and tourism resulting from investment in the surrounding roads, whereas Cairnryan is in clear danger of being left behind. An easy, quick win would be for the Scottish Government to increase the speed for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on the A75. At the moment they are restricted to 40 mph, but that could be lifted to 50 mph, which in turn would shorten the travel times that hauliers have to face.

However, it is not only ferry companies, visitors and hauliers on whom the condition of the A75 is having an effect. Local people in my constituency who travel the road on a regular basis are just as, if not more, frustrated. I commend the efforts of those involved with campaigning to improve the roads. Both Dual the A75 and the A77 Action Group, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), have been active campaigners on the issue and have argued their case strongly at every opportunity.

It would be remiss of me not to recognise that there have been some improvements to the A75 in recent years, and they are welcome, but they have not gone far enough and they are just a sticking-plaster solution to a much wider problem. Since 2007, more money has been spent on maintenance issues than on capital investment.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government have commissioned a study to look at the rationale for improving road, rail, public transport and active travel on key strategic corridors in Scotland, including the A75. I look forward to the initial findings of that study being published later this year, and I understand that the outcomes will be fed into a second strategic transport projects review. The Scottish Government have said they recognise the importance of the A75 to the strategic transport network, to the economy of south-west Scotland and to the rest of the country, and I hope they come up with the money to demonstrate it, starting with bypasses for Springholm and Crocketford. Those two villages have been making the case to be bypassed for years, and they are in desperate need of it.

As seems de rigueur in this place at the moment, Mr Betts, I am going to bring the debate on to the subject of Brexit—but, you will be relieved to hear, only briefly. As preparations continue for Britain to leave the European Union, it is important that our economy is firing on all cylinders and ready to embrace the opportunities and rise to the challenges that we will face. It is more important than ever that our road network is able to cope with the demands of a post-Brexit economy, and that means investing in every region of our country. In Dumfries and Galloway, I want an A75 that is not only fit for the future, but one that makes the port of Cairnryan the most attractive port for the transport of goods to and from Northern Ireland, a vital partner in trade and tourism.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I apologise for my late arrival due to the fact that I was at another meeting. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his efforts to highlight this important issue. He knows that, for our part in Northern Ireland, we regard it as an extremely important issue for the Northern Irish economy. We have had a number of meetings recently and our party leader is meeting representatives from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and other constituencies in Scotland to discuss the matter further. He has our full support, both in his own constituency in Scotland and from a Northern Ireland perspective.

[Mr Jack]

The right hon. Gentleman’s support is very much appreciated.

To conclude, it could be argued that this is a matter for the Scottish Government, since transport is devolved, but at a UK level it is an important arterial Euro route that connects my constituency to the rest of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, as we continue discussions on the exciting borderlands growth deal initiative, I hope that investment in the A75 forms part of the final terms of that agreement. That is something I will continue to call for.

I am delighted that the Transport Secretary has accepted my invitation to visit Dumfries and Galloway to travel the A75 himself later this year. That is also an invitation I extend to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The road in questions runs through part of his constituency, and I know that he, like me, is all too familiar with the issues that I have raised.

I should also put on the record the fact that I appreciate the support of our neighbours across the water. As one Northern Irish politician put it, “Scotland’s loss is our loss too”. If we were to lose those ports at Cairnryan because they cannot compete with those to the south, that would be a great loss for all of us.

I want all businesses to have the greatest opportunity to make a positive contribution to UK plc as we leave the EU, but I fear that the deficit of investment in the A75 Euroroute, and the port of Cairnryan’s difficulties with that, will mean that it becomes more and more marginalised as an even greater volume of freight is lost to the central corridor ports. We cannot and must not let that happen. There is an urgent need for upgrades to the A75, and I look forward to hearing what the UK Government can offer.

15:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I have had a double whammy of introductions today, answering my first session of oral questions in the Chamber and replying to my first debate as Minister in Westminster Hall. It has been a busy old day.

I begin by thanking and praising my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) for securing the debate to fight for this road in his constituency. He has clearly been a great advocate for his constituency in his short time in the House, and I know that this debate is important to him and his constituents. He is clearly at the beginning of a campaign that he put in his manifesto for election to the House, so I have no doubt that we are going to hear a lot more about this in future.

I recognise that the A75 is a vital economic artery that runs the length of my hon. Friend’s constituency of Dumfries and Galloway, from the historic town of Dumfries in the east to the town of Stranraer in the west. Transport links are important in all our constituencies, but they are absolutely key in rural areas, underpinning local economies and communities. Those links support important sectors, such as agriculture and fisheries, which are the foundation of Scotland’s thriving food and drinks industry. I am sure we have all enjoyed the tastes and drinks of that great nation. They are also the lifeblood of the vibrant tourism industry in south-west Scotland. Many of my constituents enjoy great holidays in that area, although they often complain about the time it takes to get there.

Those links also make it possible for hard-working people to access job opportunities across a wide region, which is crucial if we are to be successful in rebalancing the economy, as the Government are keen to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) is therefore quite right to talk about the amount of investment that may or may not have happened over the past 10 or 20 years. Those links also link vital transport infrastructure, such as our coastal ports, to Scotland’s main road network.

With all that in mind, I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate regarding the upgrading of the A75 in Scotland. I know that that is a priority issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, and he has previously raised it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He is of course right to recognise the importance of trunk roads like the A75 and, indeed, the A77, which runs down from Glasgow, through his constituency and by the ferry terminals of Cairnryan.

I am aware of recent calls from the Freight Transport Association for the Government to prioritise infrastructure investment in that area, which it reports handles about 45% of Northern Ireland’s trade with the rest of the UK. The contribution from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) brought that to our attention.

Research carried out in 2016 estimated that the Scottish trunk road network as a whole contributes around £1.38 billion in gross value added to the Scottish economy. The same research estimated that the network also generates employment for 31,000 people, which is no mean feat. That is certainly recognised by stakeholders in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the borderlands region.

As a result of the work of the Scotland Office on the borderlands growth deal, proposals for upgrade work for strategic road connections, such as the A75, are among the key asks. I am aware of safety concerns raised by many local groups, such as Dual the A75, which has petitioned the Scottish Parliament on the issue. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has tasked the local government partners to that growth deal to consult and engage further with all local stakeholders across the region to develop the projects. We are expecting significant progress on that by April.

The UK Government fully recognise the social and economic importance of improving connectivity and enabling investment across all parts of the country. Our investment and support for schemes such as UK city deals in Scotland, as well as the UK Government’s industrial strategy, demonstrate our commitment to help to support the Scottish economy and deliver for people in all parts of Scotland.

Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway has mentioned, road investment in Scotland is a devolved matter, and the need to regenerate the A75 is something the Scottish Government will need to deliver on. The A75 is the responsibility of Scottish Government Ministers and is managed by Transport Scotland, and its maintenance is carried out by Scotland Transerv. I am sure Scottish Government Ministers will note the points made today.

I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s invitation for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to visit his constituency was accepted; there is nothing more effective in getting investment for a piece of road than getting the Secretary of State to travel along it. I wish him well with that. I will most certainly pass on his invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to visit and see the issues for himself.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He is clearly fighting passionately for his constituency. He made a strong case on the importance of this road and the investment that it needs. If we are to secure those decent links, particularly between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, especially as we start to leave the European Union, this is something that really needs to be addressed. I sincerely hope that Scottish Government Ministers listen to the points that my hon. Friend made. I know he will be vociferous in making sure that they continue to be made in future.

Question put and agreed to.

16:17

Sitting suspended.

People with Autism: Public Building Access

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the accessibility of public buildings for people with autism.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

Imagine what Parliament would be like if there was less information—less information at once, anyway. Imagine if we all agreed that there could only ever be one voice speaking in our debating Chambers and Committee Rooms. I will admit that I am not completely perfect in that regard, but just imagine what that would be like. Imagine if we redesigned the atrium of Portcullis House so that it was less of a goldfish bowl of sights and cacophony of sounds. Imagine if there were quiet areas where Members, staff and members of the public could retreat if there was simply too much going on and they needed to calm their minds.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I ask the hon. Lady to give way on a point of whimsy, really. If she wants to know what it would be like to have just one voice at a time in the Chamber, she should come to the Council of Europe, where we are obliged to speak for three minutes without interruption.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention makes me hopeful that we might one day achieve what I desire, even though it would require a lot of self-restraint on my part.

Imagine if we had routes through the parliamentary estate that steered people logically from one place to the next with predictable and straightforward signs, few distractions and gentle lighting.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. I noticed with interest at the launch of the autism and education report this afternoon that there was a designated quiet space. While I would not necessarily suggest that we always need that as MPs, what a great idea for any future public events that there is somewhere for people to go if they feel slightly overwhelmed by the number of people, the noises or the visual effects in the room. Does she agree?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Yes, I do agree; but I also slightly disagree, in that it might not hurt some of us as MPs to seek a place of quiet every now and then and still our minds, because there is so much going on for us.

If we did all that I just said, we would remove many barriers to people with autism using our public spaces. Would it not make a better place for all of us to run the country from? I argue that it would. Are these changes too much for us to contemplate? As hon. Members debate the restoration and renewal—hereafter referred to as R and R—of the parliamentary estate right now in the Chamber, would it be so difficult for us to consider taking the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that R and R presents to make Parliament a place of greater sensory clarity, reducing the sensory overload not just for people with autism but for everyone?

Are these changes too much for custodians of other public buildings to contemplate? I argue that they are not too much, and would benefit us all. They would benefit people with autism as users of public buildings and as employees and potential employees; but they would benefit everyone else, and there are so many other organisations doing so that we no longer have any justification for not doing so in our public buildings.

Fifteen years ago, several children with autism came into my life. Friends and family had young children on the autistic spectrum and my now husband, then partner, Kevin, started working with children with autism, as he still does, in a school that he runs. I am grateful to my friends, family, husband, his colleagues, particularly Paulla Keen, and my own staff member who takes a lead on autism in my team, Councillor Mike Davies, for what they have taught me about autism and about how bringing down barriers for people with autism can help us all. Like 99.5% of the public as surveyed by YouGov in 2016, I had heard of autism before; but in those 15 years my life has been immeasurably enriched by people with autism.

[Paula Sherriff]

Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking organisations such as Sainsbury’s, which is now operating an autism-friendly hour? That takes place about once a month, and is designed to educate staff and shoppers so that if a child is having a difficult moment it is not necessarily a naughty child having a tantrum, but it may have become overwhelmed by noises and things going on in the store. I have done a pro forma letter that can be sent out to attractions in my constituency, so perhaps we can encourage other organisations to do the same.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I happily agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, other supermarkets are available, but I encourage those supermarkets to do likewise and believe that some of them are. Indeed, I will go on to talk a bit more about how we can encourage other organisations to do that.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), is it not important to note that this is not just about children? It is also about adults with autism and providing the kind of atmosphere and location that they can benefit from.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just about children; it is about adults. I want to reiterate what I was saying: my life has been immeasurably enriched by children and adults on the autistic spectrum who have insights and illuminating ways of looking at the world that I have personally benefited from and would hate to feel were being denied to our public life.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. I, too, have seen local businesses, such as intu Trafford Centre in my constituency, make tremendous efforts to train their staff and alter some of their business practices to welcome people with autism and to make the centre a safe space for shopping and leisure. They have found that it is not just people with autism, but people with dementia, learning difficulties or other sensory impairments, who have benefited as a result. Does she agree that what is good for autistic people may in fact be good for all of us?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I absolutely agree. Indeed, that is the top and bottom of my speech: what is good for people on the spectrum is good for us all. Private businesses and shopping centres have sometimes led the way, and public buildings need to follow suit because doing so would benefit us all.

I am sad to learn from the National Autistic Society report “Too Much Information”, which was also published in 2016, that only 16% of people with autism and their families think that the public understands autism in any meaningful way. The consequence of people’s lack of meaningful understanding is that autistic people and their families are often effectively excluded from many public spaces. Half of autistic people and their families told the NAS in that survey that they sometimes do not go out because they are worried about the public’s reaction to their autism. Some 28% have been asked to leave a public space because of behaviour associated with their autism, and 79% of autistic people reported feeling isolated. It does not have to be this way. I reiterate, along with my hon. Friends, that it is not good for anybody—people on the spectrum or the rest of us—for autistic people to feel excluded.

Although I am far from being an expert, I am going to share some of what I have learned about autism and making institutions accessible. First, I have a very technical definition, so bear with me. The “International Classification of Diseases”, 10th edition—ICD-10—is the most commonly used diagnostic manual in the UK. It defines autism profiles as:

“A group of disorders characterized by qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interactions and in patterns of communication, and by a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. These qualitative abnormalities are a pervasive feature of the individual's functioning in all situations.”

I apologise to colleagues for using a technical definition, but over the past few months and years I have felt that sometimes people think they know what autism is but may confuse it with a mental health problem or a learning difficulty. Although some people with autism do have one or other or both, those are not defining characteristics. A revised edition of the ICD is expected this year and is likely to align closely with the latest edition of the American diagnostic and statistical manual. I refer colleagues to that definition for further information, but it includes sensory difficulties and has clearer criteria.

When my cousin Sunitha, who lives in Chennai, India, found out that her young son Ricky was on the autistic spectrum, it was not a surprise. She had known that something was not right. Ricky was not speaking at age three, and there were other things that meant she knew that he understood social interaction in a different way from other people. It was a difficult adjustment at first, but I am proud of how my cousin Suni and her family—her beautiful daughter Rachael and everyone else in it—have changed how they interact with one another and with Ricky, and how they support Ricky’s interaction with the world. Their experiences in India illustrate much of what needs to and can change in public buildings in the UK and beyond.

As with many, but not all, people on the autistic spectrum, Ricky does not speak much, although he is no longer non-verbal. He has outstanding skills in listening, reading and writing in several Indian languages, but his lack of fluent speech—and that of many autistic people—could come across as stand-offish. It might make it harder for him to get information about how to use a public building. Although some of his skills are far beyond most of us, they are not typical. Making a public building accessible needs to include giving clear information visually and logically as well as a non-verbal means of gaining that information.

Again, as with many but not all people on the spectrum, Ricky likes routines and sometimes has trouble adjusting to change. Some people may ask, “Does that make me a little bit autistic? I like routines and I don’t like change.” The National Autistic Society mentions the myth that “we’re all a bit autistic” on its website, but that is a myth about autism that I am keen to scotch—no, we are not. My routines help me to organise my day. Ricky’s help to prevent him from experiencing sensory overload and to soothe him when he does.

Ricky wants to take the same route to school each day, which is fairly straightforward, but when he goes on holiday—as he does when my mum, my husband and I visit India—some experiences can be tricky for him, such as a very noisy and chaotic queue for a zoo, which we quickly left. That is an example of something we did to accommodate Ricky but which benefited us too—I did not like the queue either.

We have been able to enjoy holidays mostly because his amazing mum and the rest of the family are brilliant at facilitating what Ricky needs to be comfortable, including certain books, access to certain things on his mum’s phone and certain foods. We are all pretty much in agreement about avoiding noisy, chaotic experiences that would cause him sensory overload. We have all realised that we like spending gentle time together doing familiar things. It works for me, and it means that Suni and the family can have a holiday.

We have built up to several days’ holiday each year because we have found certain places, such as the Green Hotel in Mysore, where Ricky knows what to expect and where the staff show great understanding, without any special training, by being thoughtful and by responding to specific requests from one of us, which can help.

Although visiting a public building for the first time could be a new and upsetting experience, an organisation can help. It can provide information in advance on a website, or on arrival in a leaflet, with matching, visually clear and logical information in the building. Even without training or an explanation of autism—I do not think the staff at the Green Hotel know what Ricky’s condition is—staff can be encouraged to accept different ways of communicating, and see them as a bonus to us all rather than a limitation.

When Ricky is experiencing sensory overload, he will sometimes use repetitive movements, sounds or actions to try to bring some order and method to a stressful situation. That could be profoundly misunderstood and seen as weird, disruptive or even aggressive. The response of staff to that behaviour in autistic people may make being in a public building unwelcoming. Indeed, in the 2016 National Autistic Society survey, 28% of autistic people and their families said that they have been asked to leave a public space, which upsets me terribly.

Some people with autism have different ways of understanding non-verbal social communication from neurotypical people. They may be very literal in their interpretation of what someone says and jokes and sarcasm may not work, or may work in a different way. Again, that may be seen as weird, irritating or difficult and our responses might make a public building unwelcoming.

If people in public buildings are given clear information about autism—how it might present and what might contribute to that sensory overload—they can learn to adjust their responses to people who behave in ways they do not expect, without necessarily knowing that that person is on the autistic spectrum. Some people’s autism will not be noticeable, and other people may have no idea what is going on, but that does not mean that they are coping with an over-stimulating environment, sensory overload, disruption or noise.

Autism is a difference, not a disease. Understanding that difference helps people who work in public buildings to make adjustments or to change how they present the building so that even if they do not know that someone is autistic, the building and organisation are more accessible.

I have chosen to focus on public buildings because we should all have access to them as users and as potential employees. The ability of people with autism to do great work and to flourish could be even better if buildings were more accessible to them. My relationships with people with autism are a privilege. Their different interpretations of the world around us are insightful and illuminating. Making public buildings more accessible would bring those insights into public life to the benefit of us all.

Since launching the autism-friendly award in 2016, the National Autistic Society has supported over 40 public and private venues to become autism-friendly. Each organisation took steps to improve staff understanding, introduced pre-visit information, adapted its premises, consulted with autistic people and their families, and encouraged wider public awareness of autism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned.

With help from the NAS, over 1,000 sites will be autism-friendly in 2019. That is fantastic and it would be great for us to be one of them. The parliamentary estate already has part of the autism award, but I would like us to go further. The NAS works with a large banking group that has more than 800 sites, so clearly there are businesses that understand the benefits of making their buildings autism-friendly to their excellent employees, potential employees, and customers who are on the spectrum. It benefits business and it benefits public space.

Public buildings and the organisations in them have no reason not to do the same. Local authorities should take a lead—hence bringing the debate to the Department’s attention—but schools, health services, the police and other public bodies should make the most of what the NAS and other autism organisations can provide.

In my own constituency, the NAS and the Bristol Autism Spectrum Service helped me to provide a more autism-accessible service and worked with me to hold what we believe was the country’s first autism-specific constituency surgery. I strongly encourage other hon. Members to do the same. We can and should lead by example in this place. In summer 2017, the Houses of Parliament received the National Autistic Society’s autism-friendly award, joining the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and Stormont, but as I walk around I can see plenty more to do.

Restoration and renewal is an opportunity. Under the Equality Act 2010, businesses and public spaces are not allowed to discriminate against an autistic person because of their disability. I am sure that staff here and in restaurants and council buildings alike would not dream of telling someone, “You’re autistic. You must leave”, but a lack of understanding could mean that they react unhelpfully to what seems like odd behaviour. That could lead to a situation that causes them to ask the autistic person to leave, in effect, because of their autism. My experience with Ricky at the Green Hotel in Mysore shows that staff in public spaces do not need to discriminate in that way, however unintentionally.

Businesses and public bodies have an anticipatory duty under the Act to make reasonable adjustments, which means thinking in advance. In October 2017, over 5,000 restaurants, shopping centres and other venues across the UK took part in autism hour, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) has mentioned. For 60 minutes, they took simple steps to make their premises autism-friendly by dimming lights, reducing noise and carrying out autism-awareness activities.

[John Howell]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I like the stress that she puts on the information available for people with autism. Does she have any thoughts about whether building regulations for new buildings need to be changed to make them more autism-friendly? How might we physically adapt older buildings to accommodate people with autism?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I would love building regulations to be altered to take into account what needs to happen to make buildings not only autism-friendly, but friendly to people with dementia and learning disabilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston has said. I hope the Minister will address that important point in her remarks.

In my constituency, local voluntary parents’ group SEND a Welcome, which provides mutual support and public-awareness raising for families with children with special needs, including but not confined to autism, has encouraged many local businesses, such as the Boston Tea Party on Gloucester Road, to do similar things. That means that their families can use local shops and businesses, and it is also good for us all.

That work is so promising and so welcome, but all public buildings should have more than an autism hour. We should have autism days, months and years. In fact, we should simply be accessible to the one in 100 people on the autistic spectrum. Everyone present seems to agree that that is in everyone’s interest. What is good for people with autism is good for us all. The findings of the NAS’s “Too Much Information” research suggest that adjustments are not happening as consistently as they should be. The NAS can help, but it needs to be supported by the Government. I hope the Minister will address that.

Before I draw to a close, I have some questions for the Minister. I am grateful for the commitment that I believe she has to doing better to ensure that autistic people have the right to public spaces. My constituent, “H”, is a young woman at a local mainstream state school. She is on the autistic spectrum and has been in touch with me this week and on several previous occasions about the need for greater understanding of autism. When I contacted her about this debate, she said:

“I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be a campaign to raise autism awareness in schools. I ask this because I recently went on a trip, and became distressed with the noise levels from my fellow students on the coach.”

I know how she feels—I sometimes find that myself—but this is a real problem for students with autism. She adds:

“To prevent this happening again, I would suggest a short course for students in which to learn about the signs and symptoms of autism, and how to help someone in distress due to them.”

I add to H’s question a few others. First, what support will the Minister give to local authorities to ensure that their staff can benefit from training to help them to make the physical space, atmosphere, staffing and—as the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned—structure of public buildings such that people with autism and their families can use them comfortably?

Secondly, given the high level of social isolation experienced by autistic people, will the Government ensure that their new strategy to tackle loneliness includes a specific focus on making public spaces accessible to people with autism and their families? Thirdly, how else will the Minister encourage more businesses and all public spaces to become autism-friendly? I recognise that business is outside her Department, but good examples can have a knock-on effect.

Fourthly, what steps will she take to ensure that the renovated Parliament meets the access needs of autistic people and their families? I strongly encourage her to consider that issue and discuss it with her colleagues in other Departments. Finally, what steps will she take to ensure that managers of public buildings and organisations are aware of their Equality Act duties in relation to autistic people? I refer to schools, health centres and police stations as well as council buildings. It would be fantastic if she talked to her colleagues about that.

I began my speech by suggesting changes and asking whether they were too much for the custodians of public buildings to contemplate. They are not—and the time to contemplate them is now. Yesterday, we had a very constructive debate in this Chamber on the treatment of adults with autism by the criminal justice system, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). Today, the all-party group on autism launched its report on autism and education, based on an inquiry chaired by the hon. Members for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I am grateful to them for their work and to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) for her leadership of the all- party group. I also praise Mr Speaker for his personal commitment to the issue, which shows great leadership in the place. Many right hon. and hon. Members have demonstrated great commitment to autism awareness.

One in 100 people and their families deserve these changes as a matter of right, so that they can have their equal right to use public space respected. My cousin Sunitha and her family, my husband and his colleagues, the NAS, Bristol Autism Support, the SEND a Welcome parents group in Bishopston, the shopping centres mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston and for Dewsbury, my assistant Mike—there are so many examples. They and so many others have shown me what can be done in publicly owned buildings, and not out of pity or because being autistic is inherently a struggle.

I really urge colleagues not to refer to autism as a struggle, because being autistic means seeing the world and relationships in it in a different way. It is not a disease. Many people on the autistic spectrum value their identity as neurodiverse. We neurotypical people too often unnecessarily make things a struggle for autistic people; we create barriers where none are needed.

Autistic people are not making special pleading or asking us to feel sorry for them. They are asking for equal rights. They have a right to use public space, and it is time we made that right a reality.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I understand that two Back Benchers wish to speak. To allow time for the winding-up speeches, I ask them to speak for no more than seven minutes each.

16:53

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this important debate.

Everyone should have the right to easy access to public buildings, and the roughly one in 100 people in the United Kingdom who are on the autistic spectrum are no exception. Although, of course, there is more that can be done, we have made great strides in making public buildings more accessible to people with visible disabilities—take the advances that have been made on wheelchair access. However, it is important that we also make public buildings more accessible to people with invisible disabilities, such as autism. Easier access to public buildings makes it easier to go about one’s daily life and access public services.

People with autism should not have their access compromised because basic, common-sense adjustments have not been made to certain buildings. Accessibility is as much an issue for them as it is for people with more visible disabilities. According to the National Autistic Society, 79% of autistic people and 70% of their families feel socially isolated. It is crucial that public buildings are organised in a way that makes autistic people and their families feel comfortable going to them.

There are a number of simple adjustments that can be made to buildings to make them more accessible to people with autism, such as removing overly bright colours, loud noises and clutter; ensuring that signage is clear and explicit; and making the layout of the building more predictable. It does not take much to make some relatively small adjustments that can really help people with autism and their families.

Likewise, it is important to promote autism awareness among staff. Half of autistic people and their families sometimes do not go out because of concern about people’s reactions to autism. The more we educate staff in public buildings—and the public in general—about autism, the more accessible public spaces will be for people with autism and their families. Encouraging understanding is just as important as making physical adjustments.

It is important that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local authorities all work together to make public buildings more autism-friendly and more accessible to people with both visible and invisible disabilities. The UK Government have a good record of encouraging the public sector to be more autism-friendly, and I very much hope that they continue and redouble their efforts in the near future.

We should aim to be an accessible and inclusive society in which access to public spaces is as easy as possible for people with autism and their families, and for people with various disabilities. That will involve building on the progress we have made, which will require impetus from all levels of government. It will require physical adjustments and awareness raising. It is an area in which, for relatively little, we can make a big, tangible, positive difference to the lives of an awful lot of people.

16:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on bringing the issue of autism to Westminster Hall so honestly, compassionately and clearly. No one who listened to her speech could fail to be encouraged and energised by it.

If I may, I would like to offer a Northern Ireland perspective. The hon. Lady referred to what is happening in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I would like to give some introductory information about autism in Northern Ireland, as well as about some other matters. Statistical analysis has been carried out on the rate of autism in children in Northern Ireland, and its findings are concerning, to say the least. They suggest that the estimated prevalence of autism in the school-age population in Northern Ireland has increased from 1.2% to 2.5% in less than a decade. There is a significant difference in the estimated prevalence rates of autism between the genders: males are four times more likely to be identified with autism than females, in line with UK-wide and international figures.

The Northern Ireland urban population has a statistically significant higher prevalence rate than the rural population, and we need to try to understand why that is so. Worryingly, using the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation measure ranking, the rate of autism from 2008-09 to 2013-14 was higher in the least deprived decile than in the most deprived. However, by 2016-17, the rate of autism in the most deprived area was 47% higher than in the least deprived area and 42% higher than the Northern Ireland average. Those figures illustrate the problems with autism.

In Northern Ireland, we have had a report by Autism NI and we have done some other work; I say “we”, but the work was done by the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which I served before coming here. Autism NI is a very active group in the Northern Ireland Assembly and it has come forward with some great strategies, visions and ideas for the future. Some of the things that it has put forward—back in my time at the Northern Ireland Assembly and since then—have been very significant.

My introduction to autism has been through interaction with people as a constituency MP, as a Northern Ireland Assembly Member and as a local councillor. I have filled in forms for parents to claim disability living allowance for their children, and I have dealt with other benefit issues, as well as referrals for educational assessment so that schools can get the classroom assistants that they need. Those are the real things that affect people, and engaging with them is how we learn about autism.

An interesting point was made in a separate debate this morning. We come to these debates to add our bit of knowledge, but also to gain knowledge from others. It is good that we will be able to leave this debate with knowledge from Scotland, from the hon. Member for Bristol West, from the shadow Minister, from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and, indeed, from the Minister.

The estimated prevalence of autism has increased across all school years. In 2009-10, 74% of children identified as having autism were classified at stage 5 of the special educational needs assessment. I have been directly involved with that assessment, so I understand the issues clearly. However, in 2016-17 the percentage of children identified as having autism and classified at stage 5 of the assessment had fallen to 63%. There was a slight improvement in that time, which is probably down to the autism NI strategy. That strategy has addressed some autism issues, although it will take a while to work out all the figures.

Autism is a massive factor for children and young people in Northern Ireland, but it is not a death sentence by any stretch of the imagination. What is required is to teach communities about tools for people with autism. I loved it when the hon. Member for Bristol West made a comment about a wee boy or girl having autism. As she said, people with autism are the same as the rest of us; they just have a different way of doing things, and it is important that we understand that. As I say, I loved that little comment, because my mind was working in a very similar way. I think that those who deal regularly with people with autism would know what I mean.

One tool that I have come across is the Autism Friendly award, which is provided by the National Autistic Society and helps to teach communities about autism. The award helps businesses to become educated and aware of what they can do to help themselves and the families who use their services. It might be a simple thing, but it can really make a difference, and that is what we want.

According to the National Autistic Society, 79% of autistic people and 70% of families with autistic children feel socially isolated. I have often been involved in cases with a single parent—often a lady—with an autistic child and a couple of other children. The children are all pressing upon her. I see such women in my office and I understand how they can feel socially isolated, because their whole life is focused on looking after their children and doing their best for them.

Half of autistic people and their families sometimes do not go out because of concern about people’s reaction to autism, which goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Bristol West made earlier. We have to be more understanding and not stare, as children sometimes do; sometimes adults stare, too. We need to be aware of these things.

The NAS website states that:

“Even though more than 1 in 100 people in the UK are autistic, many of them and their families still struggle to access essential community spaces, businesses and shops”,

so the Autism Friendly award for business is good. The NAS website continues:

“The National Autistic Society’s Autism Friendly Award champions premises who commit to making sure that autistic visitors receive the same warm welcome as everybody else.

This doesn’t mean investing in expensive alterations or training your staff to be autism experts. Small changes can make a massive difference to autistic visitors and just a little understanding can go a long way.

We have worked with everyone from airports, heritage sites to sports arenas, local hairdressers and high street stores. Every customer-facing organisation, whatever their size or business, can benefit from becoming autism-friendly.”

That is what the NAS wants to achieve, and we in this House should want to achieve it, too.

I am conscious of your instruction about time, Mr Betts, so I will come to a close. Each venue that achieves the Autism Friendly award will help to make the UK a more autism-friendly place by opening its doors to autistic people and their families, whose lives are affected daily by businesses that do not understand their needs. I fully support initiatives such as the Autism Friendly award. They help to raise awareness and make a positive difference to families with autism, who simply need a little compassion, a little more understanding and—I say this gently—a little more support from the Government. I believe that, as a matter of principle, every single Government-funded building must be autism-aware and autism-friendly.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate, and I wish her well in her new position. I should have done that at the very beginning of my speech, and I apologise for not doing so. She and I came into the House at the same time. I know that she is a lady of compassion, so we look forward to a compassionate response.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The two Opposition spokespersons are next. Five minutes each, please.

17:05

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Betts, to serve under your chairship.

I am grateful to have been able to contribute this week to not one, but two debates on autism. It is great that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was able to secure a debate on this important subject, and it is right that this House considers it.

Our understanding of autism has obviously changed greatly over the years and everyone can be grateful that there is now more information and awareness about autism than ever before. So far, there have been contributions from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), who mentioned the example of Sainsbury’s, which, in encouraging other businesses to contribute, is very much valued; from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), on how raising awareness can benefit everyone, which should be heard in this House; and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as always, provided a valuable contribution and insight from Northern Ireland.

In the limited time that I have, I will take the opportunity to highlight two factors that are, of course, relevant to my constituency. First, there is the Autism Resource Coordination Hub—ARCH—in Hamilton, which supports individuals suffering from autism and their carers. Often, ARCH identifies local campaigns where it can provide advice and guidance on how to improve buildings and their surrounding areas, in order to improve the experience of those with autism as they live their daily lives, and also to encourage public buildings and spaces to improve their environment so that people can use them freely and accessibly.

Secondly, I will raise the concerns of one of my constituents, Julia Fordyce. Her son, Macoist, has worked with various services over the years. He has finished school and is now a young adult attempting to enter the workplace. However, his experience of entering a Department for Work and Pensions building on various occasions has been less successful than would be expected. I will use not my own words, but those of his mother and main carer, Julia, to tell the Minister about how they were made to feel in a DWP building. I hope that doing so will help to improve the services of all Departments in working with those who have autism.

Julia has said:

“We were greeted by 2 advisers who were sat behind a glass panel, Macoist found the glass panel very unnerving.”

She said that it was clear that the advisers had not read about Macoist’s disabilities and had no understanding of his claim. She continues:

“Our second appointment with his work coach was even more challenging.”

She says that the work coach insisted on moving rooms to recommence part of his assessment, which made Macoist extremely agitated and made the experience far more difficult than it needed to be.

Julia goes on to say that on another occasion her son

“had an on-going sick certificate which made no difference at all”.

She says the work coach insisted on taking Macoist through the entire process once more, as if he had never read the documents. The work coach then summarised matters and Macoist agreed to a work commitment of two hours a week. However, she says:

“For Macoist any kind of change has a dramatic affect on him mentally”—

that is, on his mental health. She goes on to say that for Macoist, travelling to new places and having new experiences can be stressful enough, but the experience in the DWP building could have been improved. It would have been improved simply if, for example, DWP staff had come to their home beforehand, explained what he might encounter at the Jobcentre and talked him through it.

I understand that it is not always possible for a DWP officer to do that, but I wonder whether that could be considered as part of guidance, or as an example of best practice, to take back to the DWP. Such experiences are very different for every individual, but for those who suffer from autism, they are not great. Macoist was ill-prepared for the changes to the environment that he experienced. That made the experience of working with the DWP less than successful and less enjoyable than it could perhaps have been.

Macoist is ready to engage. He wants to work and is keen to be part of the active workforce. If the Department for Work and Pensions can simply alter its policies and procedures, that would be beneficial. His mum, Julia, said:

“I know as his parent and carer I have found the whole experience extremely stressful and dread the next step of having Macoist assessed because I have very little faith that his disabilities or needs will be recognised and fully expect I will have another challenge on my hands.”

I wanted to take this opportunity to give a voice to my constituent. The accessibility of public buildings should not be exclusive to the likes of large chain supermarkets or cinemas; it should also be part of our Government Departments. They should ensure that they provide the best possible service, and that they factor awareness and experience into their own environments. Those who have autism and their carers face the essential challenges of everyday life. We can improve our own service delivery and our Departments’ awareness and guidance. I strongly encourage the UK Government to follow the example of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and develop an autism strategy to improve individuals’ life experiences.

17:11

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this debate and on her passionate and inspiring contribution. I agree that quiet spaces and logical ways through the parliamentary estate would benefit us all.

We all aim for an inclusive society, and public places should be for all the public. It is great that 1,000 spaces are now autism-friendly, but that raises the question of how many are not. We have heard some worrying statistics. Some 79% of people with autism and their families feel socially isolated. Last week, I went to a Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness reception at No. 10, where there were many comments about social isolation and loneliness. People mentioned old people and young mums, but there was no mention of autism. I encourage the Government to add people with autism and their families to the strategy and to build them into it.

As we have heard from many Members, these changes can help other people, too. I often think about my mum who, as she got older, did not like going into crowded places with music because she could not hear the conversation over it. Simple adjustments will help many people.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned many things from Northern Ireland. We can learn from across the UK, because there are people with autism in every part of the United Kingdom. The Labour party recognised that isolation and the need to include everyone in society. Our last manifesto had the specific objective of making the whole country autism-friendly. As we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), many of the physical adjustments will not be major ones—a lot of it is to do with awareness.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about children staring and telling them not to. Children will stare, but would it not be great if their parents could explain, “Yes, these people are different, but differences are what makes the world go round”? Being different is not bad, and that is the key point. It is about getting the awareness so that while people may stare, they will react differently and say, “That person is just different.”

Some councils and areas are working towards making autism-friendly cities a reality. Liverpool has the ambition of becoming the UK’s first autism-friendly city. It is working with businesses and cultural spaces, raising awareness of the condition and celebrating the achievements of those living with autism. There was an exhibition at the Tate of artwork by people with autism recently, and I think that is a brilliant idea. We should celebrate people’s differences and not define them specifically by the characteristic.

In the same way that someone in a wheelchair is not defined by their wheelchair, someone with autism is not defined by their autism. They have different needs—the same as the rest of us. However, their condition means that reasonable adjustments should be made, and the Equality Act 2010 applies. Will the Minister commit to raising awareness among businesses and those who own and operate public spaces of their duties to all under that Act? Too often, we hear, “We are wheelchair-accessible”, and that is simply not good enough any more. An autism-friendly city should enable those with autism confidently to access community infrastructure such as shopping centres, tourist attractions and public transport. There is a wealth of information on the noise and the sensory overload of public transport systems, so perhaps we should consider how we can change that.

I want to mention my local authority, Wigan. It has autism champions at the business expo event to talk to businesses and raise awareness of people with autism as customers and employees. Those champions show that only very minor adjustments are needed and that people with autism can be excellent employees. If businesses rule out those people without thinking about it, they are missing out.

This week, we have had a number of events raising awareness of autism, and that is to be celebrated, but words are not enough, just as it is not enough to have an autism hour and then forget about it the rest of the time. We need action to ensure a fully inclusive society and environment. The wonderful example of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West and her autism-friendly surgery will make many of us think about what we are doing to ensure a truly inclusive Parliament and a democracy in which all can take part.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could allow a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the debate to come back, that would be helpful.

17:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this debate on the accessibility of public buildings for autistic people. I know she cares deeply about the issue. I also applaud the work of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and thank other Members who have spoken this afternoon. I will run through the names so that Hansard has them. We have had interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and the hon. Members for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for their contributions.

I am coming to this debate with more of a technical view because I thought it would be helpful if I laid out what has happened so far, what the Government intend to do and how we will take that forward. It might be a bit dry—I apologise—but I wanted to get the technical bits on the record.

Autistic people prosper with the correct diagnosis and the correct support to meet their needs. Degrees of autism mean that some people require lots of support while others need less. I understand autistic people can face challenges in public buildings, particularly with orientation, noise, way-finding and signage, but also with many other things. People perceive an environment in different ways, and we are all on a spectrum of need, whether we are from a neurominority or whether we are neurotypical. My husband will work out which one I am; it is a challenge, but there we go.

We know that care is needed to shape our built environment to work for all. There are more than 600 different recognised neurodiverse conditions. Making buildings suit all is a complex issue. There are no recognised or accepted industry standards for designing buildings to meet the needs of people with neurodiverse conditions, although work is under way that I will describe.

It might help if I explain the current requirements for access to buildings, including public buildings. New buildings have to meet the access requirements, as set out in part M of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010. The requirements are supported by detailed practical guidance in what are called approved documents. Volume 2 of “Approved Document M” covers non-domestic buildings and includes guidance relating specifically to public buildings. The guidance helps public building owners to comply with the regulations. It aims to encourage an inclusive design approach that includes everyone. To put the mind of the hon. Member for Bristol West at rest, we have been undertaking research into the effectiveness of the guidance, and I hope we will be able to publish that shortly.

Building owners are also covered by the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. In particular, that requires providers of services and facilities to members of the public to make reasonable adjustments so that people with disabilities are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with people without a disability. The duty can relate to physical features and how services and public functions are accessed and delivered. I will come back to the issue of the Department for Work and Pensions raised by the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East.

Statutory guidance does not stand alone; other sources of independent guidance can help. Many people turn to the British standard BS 8300, which describes accessibility and inclusive design for buildings. Inclusive design should address all forms of neurodiversity, including special considerations specific to autistic people. The British standard in that area, known as BS 8300-2, was published very recently, on 11 January 2018. Part 2 of the standard gives recommendations for the design of buildings in order to accommodate users with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities. It is applicable to the entrances of buildings, including outward-opening doors and windows, and to the interiors of buildings, such as entrances and reception facilities, and it covers much more besides.

Nevertheless, it is recognised that more needs to be done in the design of buildings to address the needs of neurodiverse people. Last year, to address a known gap in guidance on how to cater for neurodiversity, the British Standards Institution sponsored the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design to carry out a survey called “Design for the Mind”. Officials from the Department took part, and spread the word to generate participation among networks of design professionals. Perhaps later on the House authorities might like to look into that matter very deeply.

Researchers spoke with many designers, architects, access consultants, autistic people, carers and specialists with experience in the field to draw up some basic design principles for making better buildings. The survey sought to understand how to cater for the needs of neurodivergent people. The report published in February 2017 identified 11 common themes, important for the design of environments. The themes address issues such as clarity, which means making things easier to understand; sensory loads, that is to say, making the most of the senses while avoiding sensory overload; layout, including having familiar layouts and providing a preview of what is ahead or beyond before someone enters a space; flooring; decoration; signage; acoustics; and lighting.

Some people felt that the most important consideration for design of an environment for autistic people was taking advice from autistic people. The survey identifies a gap so that others can take up the baton. The republished British standard BS8200-2 stops short on neurodiversity because it lacks evidence to back up more focused advice. The Government are considering a request from the British Standards Institution to match-fund a new, publicly available specification, known as a PAS, in the broader field of neurodiversity, which would include autism. I expect that we will reach a decision on that shortly, so I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bristol West has introduced such a timely debate.

As well as legislation and standards, we want to encourage the industry to strengthen inclusive design, including consideration of neurodiversity, through better education and training. In recent years, the Department has provided significant support for a number of initiatives to promote inclusive design, including work with the Design Council/Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to develop high-quality, cross-disciplinary, continuous professional development modules on delivering inclusive design, and the development of a web-based hub for sharing knowledge, research and best practice in inclusive design. We are also supporting the Built Environment Professional Education project, which aims to ensure that newly qualified built environment professionals have the knowledge, skills and attitude to deliver accessible and inclusive buildings—not just buildings fit for the future but designers fit for the future.

Last autumn, the then Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), launched a design quality symposium at the Royal Institute of British Architects, where 45 industry and local government representatives met to discuss how to improve design quality, which includes how effective quality and inclusion are integrated into the places and buildings that we plan and build. There will also be a national design conference this spring to raise the bar even higher.

Today’s debate has been an important one, and we welcome interest in autism and the built environment, and how that environment is perceived and used by autistic people. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West on raising the issue, and celebrate the valuable progress that the “Design for the Mind” project and the British Standards Institution have done to date to develop design and guidance.

I will try to answer some of the questions that hon. Members raised, particularly the question that H asked. The answer that my boffins have come up with is that helping children and young people to understand autism can be the key to peer acceptance. Raising awareness among teachers and other school staff will, in turn, help to increase their awareness and understanding. Since 2012, more than 150,000 people have been trained to deliver autism awareness training in education. That includes not just teachers and teaching assistants, but support staff, receptionists, dining hall staff and caretakers—everybody who is involved with pupils, including people who go on coach trips. We are currently in discussions about, with a bit of luck, extending the contract with the Department to do more on that. I hope that H will be happy with that answer.

The autism strategy commits to increasing the understanding of autism and building communities that are more accessible to autistic people by approving autism awareness training for frontline public staff, in line with the needs of their job. To answer the question from the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, I would add that the information will now be sent to the DWP to make sure that it can also take part in the process. I hope that the hon. Lady is happy with that answer.

Work has begun on developing a cross-Government strategy on loneliness in England—sorry, but Lanarkshire are doing their own thing up there, and in Northern Ireland. The strategy will bring together Government, local government, public services, voluntary and community organisations and build more integrated and resilient communities. We have also announced that the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government now has a designated Minister for Loneliness—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak).

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South wanted to know what we were going to do. Building regulations and British Standards are for all people, whether they are wheelchair users or someone with an invisible disability. Work to improve standards requires research, which is why we have commissioned the research about part M to fill in those aims and include everybody. As I said, the research will be published very shortly.

To conclude, this is about raising standards and improving the built environment for autistic and neurodiverse people. I look forward to working with everybody on the issue, particularly my friend the hon. Member for Bristol West and everybody who has spoken today. We want to continue the important work.

14:39

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for their interventions, and, of course, to the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for their speeches.

I am pleased that the Minister was able to give us such detailed information about the built environment, and the concept of inclusive built design. Although I talked a great deal about different aspects of making buildings welcoming that were non-physical, it is the physical that can set the tone for so many of these things. I am really grateful that she has taken the time to give so much information. I will follow up with her on some of the specifics. I am grateful to her for answering all of my questions, particularly on behalf of H—I thank her very much for that. I will write to her about some of the progress that might need to be made, and how I can measure and follow it.

I am grateful to all hon. Members for taking part in today’s debate. It matters to me a great deal that we think about access in a way that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, does not just mean that we are wheelchair accessible, and that allows us, as other hon. Members also said, to see making buildings and organisations autism-friendly as something that benefits us all.

I long for the day we have more quiet spaces on the estate for everybody’s benefit, but I think that that is part of thinking about how building regulations might be amended in some quite simple but straightforward ways—such as the ways in which we have thought about bicycle racks and wheelchair accessibility. We can make some determinations about simple, specific things. Not every building can have those quiet spaces, but many could. For public space to be truly accessible would be a remarkable achievement, and everybody here could feel that they have played a part in that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the accessibility of public buildings for people with autism.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

Wednesday 31 January 2018

Serious Fraud Office: Contingencies Fund Advance

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

In line with the current arrangement for SFO funding agreed with HM Treasury, the SFO will be submitting a reserve claim as part of the supplementary estimate process for 2017-18.

The advance is required to meet a current cash requirement on existing services pending Parliamentary approval of the 2017-18 supplementary estimate. The supplementary estimate will seek an increase in both the resource departmental expenditure limit and the net cash requirement in order to cover the cost of significant investigations.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £9,500,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Serious Fraud Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £9,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

[HCWS437]

Double Taxation Convention Protocol: Uzbekistan

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

A protocol to the double taxation convention with Uzbekistan was signed on 24 January 2018. The text of the protocol is available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

[HCWS438]

Defence Equipment Plan

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)]

I am pleased to place in the Library of the House this year’s financial summary of the defence equipment plan. This is the sixth consecutive annual publication of the equipment plan summary, and demonstrates the Ministry of Defence’s investment and the need to continue progress in driving improvements, reform and efficiency, with a plan to spend £180 billion on equipment and support over the decade out to 2026-27 which will provide our armed forces with the capability they need.

The Government remain committed to the defence budget increasing by 0.5% above inflation each year and the Department is focusing on where best to invest across the entire defence programme in order to remain on top of an ever-changing and increasing threat environment. However, it was evident following the 2016 annual planning cycle that both uncertainty and risk had increased in the equipment plan. It did not, unfortunately, prove possible to address these issues satisfactorily in the 2017 annual budget cycle (ABC17) as a result of which, the equipment plan emerging from ABC17 contains a high level of financial risk and an imbalance between cost and budget.

These risks have informed the Department’s work on the national security capability review and associated work in the 2018 annual budget cycle. The Department recently launched the modernising defence programme. We aim to use this work to deliver better military capability and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way, and to ensure that defence capabilities complement other national security capabilities in the most effective way.

[HCWS436]

FCO Global Estate Update

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

I announce today the planned move of the Bangkok Embassy in Thailand. The new embassy building will be based in the AIA Sathorn Tower and will provide a modern, dedicated base from which diplomats can work to promote UK interests in Thailand.

We anticipate moving into the new offices in 2019, until which point we will lease back our existing embassy site to keep disruption to a minimum. Our embassy will continue to provide essential consular services to British holidaymakers and business people, and to work with the Thai authorities on preventing child exploitation, organised crime, money laundering and human trafficking.

Our new and improved embassy will allow us to take this activity to the next level, including by strengthening our trade links, enhancing our strong collaboration on science and innovation, and maintaining our focus on supporting human rights defenders and promoting freedom of expression. The new embassy will demonstrate our long-term commitment to our relationship with Thailand —a key partner for the UK’s security and prosperity interests and leading member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The completion of the sale of the current Bangkok Embassy compound in Thailand is the biggest land deal in Thai history and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO’s) biggest ever sale, raising at least £420 million.

This deal is the result of considerable work by the FCO. The funds released will allow us to begin work on 30 to 40 major long-planned estates projects, and enable us to continue to update and modernise our global estate so that it meets our aspiration to provide a world-class platform for diplomacy.

[HCWS435]

Police Funding

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House “The Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2018/19” (HC 745) for the approval of the House. The report sets out the Home Secretary’s determination for 2018-19 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996.

Before announcing the Government’s proposals, I visited or spoke with every police force in England and Wales to better understand the demands they face and how these can best be managed. I saw for myself the exceptional attitude and hard work of police officers and staff around the country. I have also carefully considered the responses to the consultation on the provisional police grant report.

The Government are committed to protecting the public and providing the resources necessary for the police to do their critical work. We have listened to the police and recognised the demands they face. That is why I can confirm that the allocations that have been laid before the House today are the same as those proposed in my statement of 19 December 2017, Official Report, column 934-936. These proposals increase total investment in the police system by up to £450 million year on year in 2018-19.

In 2018-19, we will provide each police and crime commissioner (PCC) with the same amount of core Government grant funding as in 2017-18. Protecting the police grant means PCCs retain the full benefit from any additional local council tax income.

Alongside this, we are providing flexibility to PCCs in England to increase their band D precept by up to £12 in 2018-19 without the need to call a local referendum, equivalent to up to £1 per month for a typical band D household. These changes give PCCs the flexibility to increase their funding by up to around £270 million next year. Each PCC who uses this flexibility will be able to increase their direct resource funding by at least an estimated 1.6%, maintaining their funding in real terms. Most PCCs are intending to use the new precept flexibility.

We will also increase investment in national policing priorities such as police technology and special grant by around £130 million compared to 2017-18. This reflects our commitment to support the police to deliver a modern digitally enabled workforce, and to manage major events such as the Commonwealth summit and terrorist attacks. We will maintain the size of the police transformation fund at £175 million in order to help drive police reform.

Counter-terrorism police will receive a £50 million (7%) increase in like-for-like funding when compared to 2017-18. This will enable the counter-terrorism budget to increase to at least £757 million, including £29 million for an uplift in armed policing from the police transformation fund. This is a significant additional investment in the vital work of counter-terrorism police officers across the country. PCCs will be notified of force allocations separately. These will not be made public for security reasons.

In addition to the police funding settlement, the Government are taking decisive action to tackle the increasingly sophisticated cyber threat we face through the national cyber-security strategy, which is supported by a £1.9 billion programme of transformational investment from 2016 to 2021. The law enforcement response to tackling cyber-crime is an essential element of our national strategy, with the Home Office investing £30 million of national cyber-security programme funding in 2017-18 to support and develop the law enforcement response at the national, regional and local level. We will continue to invest in law enforcement capability throughout the lifetime of the programme.

As I set out in my statement of 19 December, the increase in funding to PCCs in 2018-19 must be matched by a serious commitment from PCCs and chief constables to reform by improving productivity and efficiency to deliver a better, more transparent service to the public. Since that statement, I have written to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council seeking their proposals to deliver further efficiencies. Following these proposals, we will agree appropriate milestones for delivery in 2018. If the police deliver clear and substantial progress against the agreed milestones on productivity and efficiency in 2018, then the Government intend to maintain the protection of a broadly flat police grant in 2019-20 and repeat the same flexibility of the precept, i.e. allowing PCCs to increase their band D precept by a further up to £12 in 2019-20. This approach gives policing the opportunity to make major improvements in efficiency, and use those gains to improve services to the public.

Since December, the Home Office has continued to work with the police to identify potential procurement savings. We have identified a further £20 million of potential procurement savings starting in 2018-19, taking the total to over £120 million.

In December I highlighted the opportunity for policing to save up to 1 hour per officer shift through mobile digital working, potentially releasing the equivalent of 11,000 police officers who can be deployed to meet changing demands. Since December I have established a small team who will work with the police through 2018 to audit the level of opportunity from mobile working, identify which approaches work best, highlight best practice, and help forces and the Home Office take the right decisions to maximise the gains from the use of mobile digital working.

We are also today publishing comparable national information on the financial reserves held by PCCs to assist the public in holding PCCs to account. As at March 2017, PCCs held usable resource reserves of over £1.6 billion. This compares to £1.4 billion in 2011. Current reserves held represent 15% of annual police funding to PCCs. There are wide variations between forces with Gwent for example holding 42% and Northumbria holding close to 7%. This is public money and the public are entitled to more information around police plans for reserves and how those plans will support more effective policing. So I am also today writing to PCCs setting out new guidance requiring them to publish their reserves strategies in plain English, with a clear justification for each reserve held.

I have set out in a separate document, available as an online attachment, the tables illustrating how we propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams and between police and crime commissioners for 2018-19. These documents are intended to be read together.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-01-31/HCWS439/

[HCWS439]

House of Lords

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 31 January 2018

10:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (2nd Day)

10:07

Moved on Tuesday 30 January by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Amendment moved on Tuesday 30 January by

[Lord Adonis]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the bill makes no provision for the opinion of the people to be secured on the terms on which Her Majesty’s Government propose that the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union”.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Constitution Committee

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I begin today’s debate following on from my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton. I agree with her that we must push ahead with this Bill and give it a Second Reading. Preserving existing EU law as it currently applies to the UK is essential in providing continuity and legal certainty on the day of, and in the days after, exit. This does not mean that I am totally without concerns about the Bill as it currently stands, but it will be up to noble Lords to engage in discussions in Committee and during the following stages of the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for restating the Government’s proposal to create a sifting committee or committees. Perhaps in winding up the debate the Minister will be able to update us on this matter. Could he also give us more details as to the timetable envisaged? I believe that we have a very tight timetable, not only for primary legislation but for the handling of negative instruments and for the necessary robust scrutiny by the various committees. Is the Minister able to tell us exactly what proportion of the 800-plus—some say 1,000-plus—statutory instruments that it will be necessary to lay will follow the negative procedure and how many might follow the affirmative procedure? I am not clear on that point. Can he also comment on the safeguards that will ensure that these are made by the dates laid down in law?

My concerns with this Bill fall mainly in three parts: first, the role of Parliament and the Henry VIII powers in the Bill as it currently stands; secondly, devolution; and, thirdly, the timetable for and the importance of proper scrutiny. My noble friend Lord Hill described the Bill as boring, but I do not agree. For me, this is probably one of the most important Bills we shall be dealing with for a long time. It is an opportunity to ensure that we have the right—I was going to say “appropriate”, but after yesterday’s discussion on that word, I will say “right”—clauses and detail when the Bill leaves this House. My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith said that he supported the principle of the Bill and the need for it, but recognised that,

“in Committee there will be need to review how some of those checks and balances are introduced, and I hope that is done properly and powerfully”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/17; col. 378.]

I can think of no better Chamber to do that, and I look forward to noble Lords taking part in it.

Many noble Lords know my interest in agriculture, the countryside and the environment. A high proportion of the necessary legislative changes fall within the agriculture and environment arena, for which Defra has responsibility. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of maintaining standards of animal welfare and for bringing forward the draft animal welfare and recognition of sentience Bill. I know too that there is to be a consultation on fishing and fish stocks. Crucially, this must directly consult with the devolved Administrations.

An agriculture Bill is proposed, as is the creation of a stand-alone, non-government statutory body to oversee, scrutinise and hold the Government to account. I do not share the gloom of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, but I know that this new body needs to be robust if it is to succeed in protecting the environment for future generations. Yesterday, in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke about the need to preserve the things that affect us all: air quality, fresh water, habitats and tackling pollution. All of these are currently EU based, so it is crucial that this new body is in place in time before we exit the EU.

Many noble Lords have made excellent contributions to this debate, expressing many different views, but I hope all of us believe that we must move this Bill forward whatever our views are, whether we were for leaving or remaining within the EU. There is a great urgency in getting this Bill on the legislative path. Whatever our views, we must join together and make sure that this important Bill is on the statute book sooner rather than later.

10:12

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said yesterday: this Bill is a dagger to my heart. I am overcome by three emotions. The first is a sense of shame, which I feel many Members in this House must share, that over decades our political leadership failed to make the case for Europe. The referendum should never have been called, and the leave vote should never have won.

The second is a personal sadness. I am proud to represent on Cumbria County Council a town called Wigton. Its most famous son is my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has just been awarded the companion of honour. Wigton voted strongly to leave. I love my leave constituents—I really do. Yes, they voted to take back control. They are no fans of EU remoteness or bureaucracy, and nor am I. But their revolt was against an economy that is grossly out of balance, a world of work that no longer offers self-respect and a lack of opportunity that means that more than half their children leave their home area after school and never come back. Their grievances have, for too long, been allowed to fester. The seeds of anti-immigration populism were sown for the unscrupulous to exploit. Where now is the modern regional policy, the New Deal for the north and Midlands, the Marshall plan for the left behind that England needs? It is nowhere under this Government. They are suffocated by a pursuit of Brexit that can only make Wigton’s problems worse.

My third emotion is a determination that the bunch of scoundrels who propagated their Brexit lies are not going to get away with it. As a citizen and Labour activist, I will fight Brexit to the last. Yet as a Member of this House I understand our role. Yes, I will work for amendments to this Bill that soften the impact of Brexit, safeguard essential rights, weaken the extraordinary powers the Bill grants to the Executive to override the legislature, protect our devolution settlement and give Parliament a meaningful vote on no deal as well as any deal.

But does this response to a highly technical Bill measure up to the scale of events and our constitutional responsibilities? This clueless Government are pursuing a “I haven’t got a clue” Brexit. The only basis on which the Prime Minister can unite her party is pursuing a Brexit that knows not where it leads. In December, to keep the Irish quiet, the Prime Minister signed up to full alignment. Last week, to hang on to her job, she attacked her Chancellor for having the temerity to suggest that Brexit would lead only to very modest changes. In Brussels, the Prime Minister pleads with our EU partners for a deep and special partnership. Back home, she assures the Brexiteers it will be deep only for as long as they want it to be, and Britain will have the freedom to diverge whenever it wants—in Michael Gove’s case, probably before the ink is dry on the treaty. Is it deep and special? I call it shallow and perfidious, and as a negotiating strategy it is a totally unrealistic fantasy.

What has been striking about this debate so far is the lack of any positive vision for Brexit. How can Britain proceed with the most momentous decision on its future since the Second World War when no one is seemingly capable of explaining what our Brexit future will be? “Ah,” people say, “the people have decided, and the will of the people must be obeyed”. This is, frankly, thin gruel. In a democracy, the public are entitled to change their mind, and the rest of Europe keeps telling us that Article 50 can be reversed at any time. The leave option that seemed so simple when people voted in June 2016 is now so complex, and the only question before us is how big the Brexit damage will be.

The job of Parliament is to challenge the vacuum into which at present the Government are leading us. How can we make a real difference? The first way is to press the Commons relentlessly to vote to stay in the single market and customs union—better to be a rule-taker of European laws that have a progressive European vocation at their heart than a theoretically sovereign rule-maker that in practice will be driven to use its new freedoms only to break free of decent European standards in pursuit of some deregulated mid-Atlantic tax haven. I say to Jacob Rees-Mogg that what he derides as a vassal state would be a failed state.

Secondly, if we cannot win the single market, let us help bring on the storm—which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about in his brilliant speech—that could reverse Brexit by forcing a general election or another referendum. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his magnificent defence of representative democracy, but if it comes to it and a referendum is the only way of reversing this historic mistake, we must accept it and, indeed, advocate it.

In conclusion, this brings me to Labour. Europe is in a category of its own in terms of its impact on future generations. It transcends any party manifesto or Whip, I say to my noble friend. I do not want to be a rebel; I want our party to lead, to seize this opportunity to demonstrate that, in contrast to this wretched Government, we can live up to our national responsibilities and our internationalist heritage. I say to my colleagues on these Benches: let us do our bit to make it happen.

10:20

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, every word of which I agree with. I fear that my contribution will be more like “Just a Minute”—there is no hesitation but definitely quite a lot of repetition and a certain amount of deviation.

I would like to believe the Government when they say that everything will be all right, everything will be transferred into UK law, the Government will maintain our environmental standards, I need not worry about the precautionary principle and it is not a problem if retained law is not quite the same. Of course, with the best of intentions all the EU directives that have kept us on the straight and narrow will still be underpinned. Of course, Ministers will not under any circumstances misuse statutory instruments. I would love to believe the Government. I almost believe that they have good intentions, but you know what they say: “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Good intentions are not adequate. The Government could give no assurances of good intentions that would satisfy me. The law, the face of the Bill, is the only place where doubts, concerns and worries can be laid to rest.

There is a governance gap in environmental standards. While the Government can say that standards will be maintained, where is the equivalent legal last resort to replace the force of the ECJ? Judicial review is not an answer. Fear of infraction concentrated ministerial minds on meeting legal obligations, but there is no enforcement in the Bill or even reporting obligations. We cannot and must not have a diminution of environmental rights. Without the protection of primary legislation, we cannot accept words alone. It is no wonder that so many Members of the other House expressed so much concern over the Bill giving Ministers the power to change primary legislation with a test that is as flimsy as whether Ministers think it appropriate. There has to be a legal test as to whether it is necessary, at the very least.

One of the key principles under EU law has been the precautionary principle, which forces those whose actions might harm the environment to prove in law to the contrary. The Bill rules this out. It also rules out the polluter pays principle. These are protections that have stood us in good stead. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have kept us on the straight and narrow. They have forced us in the right direction, but they are explicitly ruled out in Schedule 1, so where are those protections to come from in future? The Government continually reiterate that there will be legal continuity, but that is not in fact the case. The Government must enshrine EU environmental principles in domestic law.

Alongside the principles, there is also a need to carry across provisions from EU directives that are not transposed into UK law. Some parts of EU law did not need transposition while we were a member state, but they need it now. We have to have the ability—nay, we have the obligation—to put right any deficiency in terms of failure to transpose EU law: it must be a duty and not simply a power. If Brexit comes to pass—and I still hang on to my “if”—we must be sure that laws that are currently EU regulations and laws that implement EU directives are transposed into UK law with the same force and intent as when we were a member state. On Report in the other place, there was cross-party support for new Clause 13 on the certainty of retained EU law.

The Government are trying to assuage the many concerns that we have in this regard by proposing that each measure will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That gives no comfort to those of us who suspect that the Government wish to find a way of moving away from these strictures. As energy and climate change spokesperson, I have huge concerns about a whole range of threats in that regard related to our departure from the EU.

I want to touch on our membership of the internal energy market. If we continue to participate—and of course we must—we will be obliged to comply with the relevant EU legislation. We need to continue to be as influential over EU energy post Brexit if we are to ensure that energy trading works to the benefit of UK consumers. The Government claim that they want to hold consumer energy bills down, so this is vital. Unless we adopt the energy acquis, we will not be able to maintain membership of the relevant bodies. Without proper management, this could lead to higher energy prices and energy supply shortages.

There is still no certainty about our continued membership of the internal energy market. If we leave it, what will happen if we have a gas security incident? Currently, there is an obligation on all members to meet the essential energy needs of any member state before the non-essential needs of their own. That is there to prevent a country from having a total power failure. If we leave the energy market and we have an issue with our gas supply, member states will no longer have an obligation to help us. We will be at the back of the queue and I do not think that Europe will be very kind to us.

Equally, with interconnectors, we could, if things get bad, be unable to export gas to the continent. Northern Ireland and Ireland have a single energy market and have interconnectors between them and the UK mainland. As Ireland will remain a member of the energy market and will obviously want to go on trading energy with mainland Europe, it will have to pass through the UK, a non-member.

There is no economic upside to Brexit in the case of energy—or actually anything—only possible downsides, and the positive pan-European climate efforts about which we have all been so enthusiastic and which are so necessary to our commitments to the Paris Agreement and our own Climate Change Act may be undermined.

10:26

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, I admit at the outset that the referendum result was a very bad, sad day for me, but that is democracy for you and I am not reneging on it. I wrote an article during the campaign for a national newspaper urging my side of the argument to campaign with greater passion and vigour, but it had little effect and we lost. It is not the first time that I have been on the losing side.

So I am all the more bemused now to find that it is the winning side that is blowing a fuse because of the confusion that its victory has created—confusion inside government, in industry and commerce, in the City of London, in the European Union and across the wider world. I do not recall a comparable crisis of such prolonged intensity and danger to the national interest and the country’s future as a United Kingdom.

Regardless of how we voted in the referendum or what we think of the Government’s squabbling factions now, the duty of your Lordships’ House is very clear. That, I submit, is to assert our rights to scrutinise, amend and, if needs be, to reject unacceptable parts of this Bill and to use the entire arsenal of our powers and prerogatives to limit the damage that threatens the sovereignty of Parliament and the national interest. Let us put aside partisan allegiances on this issue. Nothing less than the nation’s future is now at stake and that is surely more important than veiled threats to the leadership of a divided party and a possible change of government that would start the process all over again. This is no time for self-indulgence.

If this House can help the Government to contribute some sense to this important Bill, it should do so. The report from the Constitution Committee shows what needs to be done. Similarly, if some of the arguments tabled by opposition parties or independent groups improve the legislation, we should give them a proper, fair hearing.

In my book, parliamentary democracy has always meant that parties that win elections or referendums do not take all the spoils of victory. They may call the tune, but they are not in the divine position of writing every note of the score. In a democracy, winners do not take all. In my experience, reflection and well-considered second thoughts oil the wheels of a liberal state and a free society.

Accusations by ill-informed pundits—mainly in the media—against this House and our alleged irrelevance belie the facts. If Parliament does its job in making this Bill and the legislation that follows in the coming months fit for purpose, I see no reason for a second referendum, but we must end the pretence that the referendum was the last word on Britain’s future in Europe. We are no longer debating a slogan on the side of a bus; that is long gone. Legally and constitutionally, this Bill must be made copper-bottomed, iron-clad and storm-proof before our statutes can revert to their made-in-UK format and we can examine the decades of made-in-Brussels directives. I believe that the Constitution Committee of this House has shown the way. Its findings should not be ignored.

Unless the Bill is made fit for purpose, the Prime Minister’s call for frictionless access to the European market, on which our economy depends and which future generations seek to enjoy, will remain a pipe dream and we, as parliamentarians, will have failed in our duty.

10:32

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. In preparing for this debate, I looked up the Hansard debates on joining the European Union in 1972. Two things stood out. First, how few Members of this House spoke then—19, as opposed to 190 today. Secondly, how the warnings from Lord George-Brown, then dismissed as scaremongering, seem to have come true. I am not entirely sure what lessons we must learn from those debates except, perhaps, one. Whatever one says in this House will probably turn out to be true at some point, even if it takes 45 years.

I spoke in this House and campaigned in the referendum in favour of staying in the European Union. We lost the argument. The British people wanted their sovereignty back. We addressed lots of economic arguments and offered a good deal, with substantial reforms, to stay in. It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to explain. We did not deal with the basic concerns about sovereignty—the control which the British people wanted returned from the unelected in Brussels to their elected representatives here in Westminster.

I want to take issue with those who say that the British people did not understand what they were voting for. I think they did; they had a greater understanding than some of their elected representatives. Some were surprised by the result but, after all, the referendum result just reflected the view of a majority of the British people which has been growing for the last decade.

I have never been elected, but I have campaigned in every general election since 1974. I cannot think of a general election result when we won but did not deserve to win, or when we lost but did not deserve to lose. When it comes to politics, the British people usually get it right. As we know from Ken Clarke, you do not have to have read every detail of the EU treaty to be either for or against.

We have 10 days in Committee, as well as Report and Third Reading, where there will be plenty of opportunity for this House to act as it should. If necessary it can revise, or ask the Commons to think again, but not wreck nor block this Bill. There are those who want to destroy the Bill and force a constitutional impasse that might result in the Bill being lost. That would be a disaster for this House. Their outcome, of course, is Brexit denied, but the result would be a constitutional uproar, which would lead either to the reform of this House or, probably, to the abolition of a second Chamber.

I want this Government to get the best deal they can for our future relationship with the EU. Our future is not bleak; it may be different, but we will continue to trade with Europe and with the rest of the world. My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford was absolutely right when he said yesterday that,

“we must surely place a greater priority on being able to shape our own future than on preserving the status quo”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1389.]

Staying in the single market and the customs union for ever would be the worst of both worlds: we would be unable to influence the rules of the single market and unable to negotiate our own free trade agreements. Of course, there are still difficult issues to be dealt with, including Northern Ireland and our relationships with the other devolved Administrations, and, not least, the Henry VIII powers in the Bill.

The process of leaving the European Union is one of unprecedented scale and complexity. As well as giving effect to the will of the people to take back control of our laws, the Government must be able to deliver Brexit while ensuring certainty for people and for businesses. As many noble Lords have said during the debate, we need more clarity from the Government on how they see our future outside the European Union. A chaotic Brexit, without a solid legal foundation, would not be in the national interest. The Government need to be able to adapt the laws we are repatriating to the new situation of being outside the European Union.

While I understand the concerns raised about the scope of the Henry VIII powers, I am concerned that Parliament will not have the time it would need to make all those changes before we leave. I agree, however, that Henry VIII powers should, if possible, be brought in by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Perhaps we should not be afraid in this House of rejecting affirmative instruments if we feel they are wrong and that we should ask the other place to think again.

The Government have chosen an extraordinary approach, but these are extraordinary times. We all have the right to hold different views, to argue our case and to persuade others to change their mind, but we should not thwart the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and in the recent general election. It is worth reminding those who complain about the referendum that it was a manifesto commitment by the party that won the subsequent general election, and it was then passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 554 for and only 53 against—a majority by all the main parties except the Scots nats.

This Bill is not about the terms of our exit but about the mechanism of how it will happen. We should not be distracted by debates on the merits or detriments of leaving the European Union. The Government themselves have made a commitment to ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the deal and approve what they have negotiated. We do not need another referendum, and this Bill is not the place for a referendum clause. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom pointed out, if there were to be a referendum, no one could agree when it would happen or what the question would be. But we do need parliamentary scrutiny, and that started yesterday in this House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the subsequent stages of Committee, Report and Third Reading.

10:38

[Lord Radice (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on his speech. I particularly noted his warning about the dangers of a chaotic Brexit, to which I will return in a few moments. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on their magnificent speeches.

I have not spoken on Europe since the immediate post-referendum debate. Some noble Lords may think that a very good thing, but, to other colleagues, I would like to explain the reason. It certainly has not been a question of my changing my mind on Europe.

My personal Damascus came when I was 18. It was 10 years after the end of the war, in the summer of 1955. I was between leaving school and my national service, and I set out to bicycle from Rotterdam to Rome—I admit that I took one or two trains. As the Foreign Ministers of the six prepared for the momentous Messina Conference, which launched the common market, I mostly pedalled along the roads and lanes of northern Europe. At night I stayed at youth hostels, where I discussed with my continental contemporaries hopes of building a new and better Europe in which war would be ended for ever and prosperity for all would be assured. It became clear to me that not only was it right that Europeans, or continentals, should unite together, but Britain should not stand aside from such a constructive and imaginative project. I still strongly believe that a medium-sized European power such as Britain should join with its neighbours for the good of its own citizens and of our continental friends.

Turning to the present and the referendum, even though it was a narrow victory for the leavers and it has divided the country almost in half, all the same I accept the result, if with a very heavy heart. I also thought that the Cabinet and the Prime Minister ought to be given a chance to negotiate our departure, which I suspected would be extremely complex. But even I, a dyed-in-the-wool pro-European, did not think the Government would make such an awful mess of things. The first phase has taken far too long—so much so that we now face the pressure of what Mr Barnier calls the ticking clock; you can almost hear it now.

One might have hoped that things would get better from now on, but I am afraid that has not been the case. One problem is that the Prime Minister has made a whole lot of unfortunate soundbites designed not to help the negotiations, but to appease the Eurosceptics. “Brexit means Brexit”—she clearly thought that that was a clever remark to make. On the contrary, it is deeply confusing and ambivalent. What kind Brexit does she mean: a hard or a soft one? Then there was, “No deal is better than a bad deal”. The Select Committee has dealt with that, pointing out that a bad deal would be a disaster for the whole country. Then there is, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. That is a fine sort of thing to encourage one’s negotiating partner.

The worst mistake of all is that the Government have announced their red lines without deciding on their objectives. The truth, as we all know, is that the Cabinet is deeply divided between the “Get out whatever the cost” group and those who think that the UK’s economic future should be taken into account. Sadly, the Prime Minister has so far proved undecided, if that is the right word, between those two factions.

There are many speakers who are far more expert than me on the legal and other parts of the Bill and the need to improve it, including the very excellent chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution. During the passage of the Bill I will concentrate on Clauses 9 and 14, because these need strengthening to give the essential strength to Parliament to make its role meaningful in deciding whether the Government have achieved a successful outcome to the negotiations—in my view, that is key to the Bill—one that takes into account the economic and strategic interests of this great nation of ours.

My final point is a more comforting one in what I believe is a sad situation. Both the referendum and the more recent general election have made me draw the conclusion that if our generation lets the country down, the next generation—that of our children and our grandchildren—will not stand for a botched result that divides this country artificially from its natural partners. I hope it does not happen.

10:44

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Radice, as it is to act as warm-up man for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

I refer the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in which he explained very clearly why many of us cannot follow her advice simply to get the Bill through as a technical Bill. The problem we have had right from the start—from the consultative referendum, to the Article 50 vote to this vote—is that as soon as the vote is over the Government put on the ratchet and say, “Well, you can’t go back now; we had a 500 majority for this”. Parliament must continue to keep its eye on what is happening and make decisions that are relevant.

Just over a week ago, Juliet Samuel wrote in the Daily Telegraph:

“This year, the Government has to conduct one of the most difficult negotiations in our history. It is not up to the job”.


Nothing that has happened in the last 10 days has weakened the strength of that criticism, and many of the speeches from the Conservative Benches yesterday reflected that unease. We have a deeply flawed Bill presented by a dysfunctional and leaderless Government. Any attempt at leadership by the Prime Minister, and there is a tug on the choke chain by the hard-line Brexiteers in her Cabinet and her party to drag her back from anything that does not fit with their ideological obsessions. Then, we have the absurd spectacle of those twin titans, Sir Bill Cash and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, delivering their warnings from the Back Benches and the TV studios, while that amiable chancer, David Davis, busks his way through meeting after meeting with the laconic assurance that it will be all right on the night. Meanwhile the Cabinet plots, jostles and manoeuvres for position like players in a TV soap opera. It would be farcical if it were not the future of our country at stake while the Conservative Party plays out its own tragicomic version of “Game of Thrones”.

Such a situation puts a heavy responsibility on this House to amend the Bill before us. We must address its flaws and propose remedies, as the mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” becomes ever more trite and meaningless. The first responsibility of this House is to defend our constitutional settlement against what the late Viscount Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, reminded us yesterday, it is one of the deepest ironies that a Brexit campaign that promised a return of sovereignty to this Parliament ends in the biggest switch of power from the Legislature to the Executive that we have seen in modern times. I am in no doubt that the House of Lords has not only the right but the duty to resist such a power grab. To do otherwise would have long-term consequences for the powers and authority of this Parliament that go far beyond the immediate issue of Brexit. I ask noble Lords to read the magnificent speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. In passing, I note that when she describes our objective as to make the Bill “copper-bottomed, iron-clad and storm-proof”, that description also applies to the noble Baroness. I will get my ears boxed for that when we are outside.

On the economic consequences, I have never seen Brexit in Captain Oates terms: Britain leaving the European tent to inevitably perish as we try to go it alone. We will be poorer than we would otherwise be—even the Government’s own assessments tell us that—but we will get by. We will be able to earn a crust. However, I see no evidence at all that “global Britain” will find better deals free from the supposed encumbrances of our membership of a 500 million-plus single market. I wish the Prime Minister every success on her visit to China and in her desire to drive up our trade with that country. I shall give her a benchmark to aim for: let us try to reach the level of German trade with China, which is four times our own—and all from the security of that single market.

As we have heard time and again during this debate, the clock is ticking while every sector of the economy cries out for clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and her Cabinet have to make clear the terms of our departure that they are seeking. When we know where we are going and how we intend to get there, it defies logic that a decision taken nearly two years ago without the facts should be the last word on a decision that will set the course for our country for decades to come. Both Parliament and the people must be consulted on this endgame. Without a vote on the reality of Brexit, we will be left with a raw and open wound, not least among the millions of young people who did not vote for Brexit yet will have to live with the consequences. To tell them that their ship has sailed is a cynical betrayal of the hopes and aspirations of a generation.

There is always an element of doubt about speaking in a debate with so many speakers. I do so for two reasons. The first is my three children, all in their 20s and all proud citizens of Europe. I want to be able to look them in the eye and say, “I did everything that I could to avoid this disaster”. The second is that I want to put on record my pride in a European project that has set an example to the world of how old enmities can be buried and a new era of peace and prosperity can be delivered and underpinned by civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law.

Yesterday I was much moved by the reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of the realities for his family at the end of the Second World War. I always recall the famous Zec cartoon of the battle-weary Tommy holding a victory wreath on Victory in Europe Day with the caption, “Here you are! Don’t lose it again!”. I believe profoundly that we are in the process of losing influence in creating a better Britain, a better Europe and a better world that was passed on to us by the generation who came back from the Second World War—the Heaths, the Whitelaws, the Healeys, the Callaghans. They came back saying, “Never again”. I think we are throwing away a great deal. Until that deal is finalised, I will fight it.

10:52

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, that was not a warm-up act; it was a very moving and powerful speech, and I echo much of what the noble Lord said. I too felt obliged to speak today for similar reasons. I have two sons who are much older than his children—they are in their late 40s—but they were passionately in favour of staying in, while my two elder grandchildren, undergraduates now, were totally bereft.

I do not like this Bill and I did not want it, but it is before us. I hope there will not be a Division on it this evening. I also hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who moved his amendment yesterday with great passion and force, will not test the opinion of the House tonight. His own Front Bench have made it plain that they could not support him, and the result could be misinterpreted because he would not get the votes that he might otherwise obtain. That is not to say that I would vote for a second referendum—I find it very difficult to think of that—but I just make the point.

The Bill must pass, but the Act that it becomes and that emerges from your Lordships’ House must be an assertion of parliamentary democracy and not an abdication of it. The Bill needs significant amendment, as our own Constitution Committee so graphically and splendidly demonstrated.

I am one of those who believes that referendums are inimical to parliamentary democracy, but they are part of our system now and we have had a number of them. But we must also recognise that we are where we are, and I was on the losing side. As a loser, I must try to be gracious. But those who won should try to be magnanimous. They should recognise that their margin of victory is no cause for triumphalism. They should consider our union—the United Kingdom. They should consider that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London significant majorities voted to remain. I hope that during the passage of this Bill we will hear from Ministers on our Front Bench a clearly articulated sense of direction and destination.

Before I was turfed off the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for having the temerity to vote against the Government on amendments almost a year ago, I heard witness after witness come to our committee to indicate that the success of negotiations would be judged by how close the agreement in question came to replicating what was being replaced. That is a bit odd, is it not? That is why I am one of those who feel that it was not a good negotiating ploy, before the negotiations even started, to draw red lines that outlawed certain important things, such as contemplating membership of the customs union. As a true Conservative, I was brought up to believe that one should advocate change only if one is convinced that the latter state would be better than the first.

Yesterday, I sat in this Chamber for almost the whole debate and I listened to 67 very interesting speeches. Much was made by the Leavers about the predictions of what might happen straight after a vote to leave. But as I tried to indicate to my eloquent and alliterative noble friend Lord Ridley, we are still in the European Union. Predictions that we read about today are the ones we should perhaps view a little more carefully.

It was a bad campaign. There was hyperbole on one side and mendacity on the other. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds indicated in a fine speech yesterday, there was too much emphasis on economics. There was no vision. I hope that he does not have the modern prelates’ aversion to the King James Bible, but I thought that he might have said:

“Without vision, the people perish”.


The visionary element was lacking. Of course, vision and nostalgia are very different things. Brexit is not about recreating a country that exists only in the imagination. We are at a crossroads without a compass and with squabbling back-seat drivers. It is important that the Government indicate what they see as the preferred outcome. The Prime Minister must not be cowed and prevented from making speeches by some of her squabbling Cabinet colleagues.

We can all recognise what we are, whether we come from England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. I always say that my identity is English, my nationality is British but my civilisation is European, and I am immensely proud of that. I hope that when we come to the end of negotiations, after this Bill is long on the statute book, there will be a coming together, because I fear an implosion within my own party. I am sorry he is not here at the moment, but my oldest, longest friend in politics—and a very dear friend he is too—is my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. He has a reputation for singing in the bath. I cannot challenge him on that, but I hope that when the dust has settled, he and I can sing in unison—it will not be a pretty sound but it might be an agreeable conclusion—the song he made so famous, “Je ne regrette rien”.

11:01

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. When I saw where I was placed in the order, I was confident that I would be following a speech that contained a robust defence of parliamentary democracy. My noble friend Lord Foulkes reminded me that he once described the noble Lord as being a man who was made for this place. Having watched the noble Lord here and in the other place and having been privileged to hear him speak, my observation is that he thinks that this place was made for him.

Only yesterday, we witnessed another indefensible and probably ultimately futile attempt by the Government to deny Parliament access to the information that it needs to hold them properly to account and simply to do its job. We all already know what the economic analyses of the consequences of the only feasible Brexit deals say and few of us are at all surprised. The Government will not be able to defend their position against the will of the majority in the other place for long. Eventually these documents will be published—although they already are.

For months now, every time that they have been faced with a reasonable request for explanation or clarification of the Government’s Brexit objectives, Ministers or government spokespeople have refused to give an answer, because apparently that would somehow undermine the Government’s negotiating position. I have been bemused and questioning of my own substantial negotiating experience and instinctive belief that there is no such negotiating advantage to be had. I feared that I might be alone in thinking this, because it never seemed to be challenged. That was until yesterday, when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in a few sentences exposed that the emperor has no clothes—the fallacy of that argument—to the amusement of many Members.

Throughout the negotiations, the EU 27 have clearly shown their collective hand—we are told that a decision was made in two minutes the other day—and because of that have maintained a position of dominance over the UK in the negotiations. As has become obvious, the truth is—there are many ways of explaining this—that a deeply divided party in government simply cannot answer these important questions because they have been unable to formulate a clear, common position. If you want specific evidence of that, Mrs Merkel revealed in a recent informal press conference, to the amusement of everyone, that every time she meets the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister asks her to formulate that position for us, saying, “Make me an offer”. No wonder we are in such a desperate state.

I am content to adopt the opening words of many noble Lords that this Bill is necessary. While it is complex, difficult to interpret and lacking in clarity, it is necessary that we have a Bill of this nature for exactly the reasons set out in the opening speech from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The Bill should never have come to this House in this state, but it is clear from the debate so far that the problems with it cannot be addressed other than by the most detailed and robust scrutiny and significant amendment and, to get to that point, the Bill requires a Second Reading.

I also agree that, when we see the terms of the final agreement, a concluding democratic process is required. My noble friend Lord Adonis argues that that should be a further referendum. I, too, should like to see a further referendum but, for reasons others have expanded on, I am able, and I thank the noble Lord for this, to adopt the position of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who, in agreeing with my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Mandelson, accepted that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to require a further referendum—by the way, I fear the interpretation of any failed vote that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described—while undertaking to support any amendments that propose a further referendum among the options if Parliament is given a meaningful vote after the conclusion of the negotiations.

As a relevant aside, what is “a meaningful vote”? The proposed withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill may provide a vote on the agreement but, given Article 50, can it be meaningful? If Parliament likes the deal and votes for it, the deal is implemented and the UK leaves. If Parliament does not like the deal and votes against it, Article 50 operates and on 29 March, two years after the notification of our intention to leave, unless there is an agreed extension, the treaties cease to apply and the UK leaves. Does a meaningful vote depend on the flexibility or the reversibility of Article 50? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in winding up. If that is the Government’s position, we should know.

I am sure that by now the Minister is clear about the issues that will be demanding his attention in the later stages of our deliberations. Paramount among them is the imperative that there must never, ever be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. To achieve that, Northern Ireland and the Republic must be in the same customs union. The stakes could not be higher. I trust that the Minister will address this issue and make clear that that will never happen.

In the limited time available, I want to engage just one aspect of an issue that has already been discussed at some length: the devolution provisions. The political deficiencies of these provisions were accurately highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who said that they would be a recruiting sergeant for those in Scotland who seek to advance their independence agenda by blaming London for everything. At a time when the Scottish electorate are minded to make the nationalists accountable for their failures, this is an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound. The constitutional and legal deficiencies were exposed forensically in an important contribution by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. In her opening speech, the Leader of the House promised that the Government would publish an analysis shortly to show the specific policy areas where EU law intersects with devolved competence and where the Government will require a UK-wide legislative framework. In addition, she reiterated the Government’s commitment to bring forward amendments to Clause 11.

In an earlier debate in this House on these issues, my noble friend Lord McConnell proposed a practical solution to this problem based on good faith negotiations. Negotiations are apparently ongoing, but the poker game continues. Yesterday, in a meeting with Michael Clancy, the Law Society of Scotland’s law reform director, he told me that he had analysed, over three months, the 111 powers in the list prepared by the Government to inform discussion between the Scottish and UK Governments about where it may be necessary to agree common frameworks. This list must exist. If it does, will the Minister undertake to let us see it before we debate these issues? It is the secret to a practical solution to this problem.

11:08

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, it is intimidating, frankly, to hear the breadth of experience that has been brought to this debate, but I will do my best to speak from my much narrower experience. I spent the last couple of weeks heavily engaged in the anti-money laundering part of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. That has very much shaped my whole approach to this Bill, because the premise of that anti-money laundering part was the powers that currently go through a democratic process at European level: the fourth anti-money laundering directive was subject to consultation, scrutiny, debates within the European Parliament and votes in Council. The whole thrust of that Bill was that those powers should be repatriated to the UK, transferred not to this Parliament to treat in a similar democratic manner with primary legislation but directly to Ministers to make their decisions and enact them simply through regulation. That was an extraordinary shift.

This House negotiated with the Government. There were people anxious about the issue, led by the Law Lords—or rather our specialists in constitutional law, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—but it was much broader than that. The Government made significant amendments, but it took two votes in this House to take out of that Bill the clauses that gave Ministers the power to create criminal offences and sentences—in one part of the Bill with imprisonment for up to 10 years, in the other with imprisonment for up to two years—by regulation alone.

I do not know how the Government will deal with those issues when that Bill goes to the other place, but when we read the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and we hear the Government say that they will use their Henry VIII powers in very narrow ways, largely for technicalities, we recognise exactly the language that we heard during the debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which in practice, in the eyes of almost everyone in this House, had a dramatically wide scope. In the case of that Bill, and I think this is illustrative, it was not just to achieve some immediate transposition of powers from Europe to the UK; the new system for exercising powers over anti-money laundering policy and frameworks was to be in perpetuity.

You can imagine that I take very seriously that part of Clause 9 in which the Government seek powers to change any piece of primary legislation, including the EU withdrawal Bill itself, and any of the limitations and constraints within it. It is with that hat on and with that concern that I will come to the Committee stage. I will be fighting particularly the Henry VIII powers to levy taxes, fees and charges, but I am sure that this House will tackle the issue far more broadly and recognise the significance of doing so.

In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about the importance of giving certainty. Who could disagree with that? It is critical. To me, though, certainty would mean that we knew what the Government’s plans were for the outcome of Brexit. The financial services sector, with which I am extensively engaged, has been denied even a position paper to outline what the Government’s preferred end position would be and to provide some sort of structure. That industry is part of the backbone of our economy.

We understand that there will be a transition period, largely a standstill, and that is welcome, but it is vital that individuals and businesses know now what it is meant to be a transition to. I talked last week to an inshore fisherman in Northern Ireland. He has to decide now whether to sell his boat because, following Brexit, all the good inshore fishing territories will be in southern Ireland and, if he does not sell his boat now, in a year or two it may be worth nothing. I talked to an architect, who told me that a Dutch client would like to engage him in a long-term development in the Netherlands. Will his qualifications be recognised? Will he be able to deliver his services from a UK base? He does not know, but he must decide now. A US company is seeking to do a five-year interest rate swap that it would normally clear through the London Clearing House, but will that be a valid swap in five years’ time or will the CCP with LCH be an unauthorised body, and will the company be in significant trouble with the regulatory authorities in the US? These are real decisions. Little companies, individuals and big companies alike have to be able to make decisions and act on contingency plans. For that, they must have clarity from the Government.

I realise that in a politically riven Government fudge is seen to have a great advantage, but we are at the point where that can be sustained no longer. I hope that the Government will see that certainty should apply not just to the measures in the Bill but to those broader issues as well. We must take the opportunity to use the Bill to make sure that people will be able to look at that final deal. The possible impacts on individuals, companies and people’s daily lives are across such a broad spectrum that surely, in a democracy, the people should have the final say.

11:15

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, en principe I am against repealing the 1972 Act. I have a personal reason for this. My father was the 1960s equivalent of a UKIP leader. He campaigned against Europe and it irritates me that he has somehow posthumously won by means of an advisory referendum—referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that not did not even express the will of the majority of registered voters.

Apart from that—I will get over it—I am unashamedly European. I have lived and worked in Europe and my degree was in European languages. I have Italian in-laws. I want to preserve peace in Europe. I support enlargement of Europe. I refuse to go into choppy, uncharted waters with a salt-caked smoke stack. I do not think that the Government have got it right.

However, I am also an independent. I sympathise with the Lib Dems, but I also understand some of the fears of Brexiteers about regulation, the eurozone, closer union and immigration. Those are genuine fears. But I would prefer that these vast issues were tackled inside Europe in some form or other. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and others made clear, this major decision is all about one party and not about the whole country. I see Brexit as a costly and desperate scramble to retain all of the undoubted advantages of the EU without having to sit around the table talking about them. Monsieur Macron was right: we are having our cake and eating it, but we are also getting bad indigestion.

The country now divides into three: the Remainers, the Brexiteers and those, like me, who are still asking, “How do we get out of this mess?”. The human cost of Brexit is undeniable: just look at the loss of NHS staff besides all the forecast effects on education, culture and the economy. But there may yet be a way out, short of complete withdrawal and without a second referendum.

Few of us want to sabotage the Bill. It is a necessary Bill and the debate is not about the Government’s plans—since on many things they have no plans. We must, and I am sure that we will, vote to retain all of our current EU-derived legislation. But along the way a few things stand out so starkly that they have to be mentioned, and they have been. We still do not know where we are going. Worse than that, on some issues we are going into a chasm or void—words used by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, last week. But he also quoted Burns:

“Oh let us not, like snarling curs,

In wrangling be divided”.

The darkest hole is in the sea between Ireland and the United Kingdom, something equivalent to the Corryvrechan. The Government’s position on the border issue is muddy because they are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable between the Irish and Northern Irish positions. I urge the Government to show their hand soon and to be guided, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, by the Belfast principles, since as my noble friend Lord Eames and others said last week, they cannot leave the people in such uncertainty.

The people of Gibraltar share some of the uncertainty felt in Northern Ireland. How could the Government get so close to the cliff edge as to cause anxiety and even worse, if the people of Gibraltar are not given proper guarantees? Then, there is devolution. Last week’s debate showed clearly that the devolved Administrations were not properly consulted and that amendments in the Commons were never discussed. There are still many UK issues to resolve in the UK before we go back to the EU negotiating table.

Constitutional experts are still worried about the exceptional use of delegated powers and whether the Government should assign a single status to retained EU direct legislation. My noble friend Lord Kakkar showed how much damage there will be to science from any uncertainties that continue through the transition. Children’s charities and lawyers are concerned about the exclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Other people are in considerable doubt about future references to rulings of the ECJ. The Greens and many others say that environmental law is not being fully translated into UK law. We heard about that from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. I shall be supporting amendments on all these issues unless the Government put down their own to meet these concerns.

I feel confident that this Parliament will now have a say on the final deal although, if it rejects the deal, there will have to be further renegotiation. The EU knows this and would like us to remain in Europe. I believe it is not impossible that, in the event of rejection, we shall have the opportunity to remain as a member under Article 50, but on new terms. If not, then the Government will have to look for some intermediate status, alongside the single market. No one seems able to forecast what that might be or even whether such a status exists.

In short, we have got ourselves into a mess. I doubt if any party, or any organisation outside Brussels, can pull us out of it but I hope and am confident that this debate will have made a contribution.

11:21

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in what has been described as a historic debate on a technical Bill. In the time I have, I will constrain myself to addressing just a few points.

The first concerns the referendum vote. I noted with interest the passage of the Bill in the other place and the remarks by the shadow Brexit Secretary, repeating demands for a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal. I simply draw attention to the meaningful vote we had already in June 2016. It is now the job of Parliament to scrutinise, not to oppose this necessary legislation. Whether one voted to leave or remain, reconciling the result with a position that leaves the UK not in control of its borders, courts and fiscal contributions to the EU would feel very jarring. This applies as much to Parliament seeking to thwart Brexit by voting down the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it does to those siren voices now calling for a second referendum. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, the people have spoken and it is the job of this House and the other place to make it work as smoothly as possible. If the shadow Brexit Secretary wishes to continue his search for meaning, then he should look no further than improving this Bill.



I commend some of what the chairman of the Brexit committee has to say, particularly as he reminds us that this legislation is necessary. We must pay heed to the Constitution Committee, which describes the Bill as deeply flawed. We must seek to improve it to the committee’s satisfaction where we can.



As this is a technical Bill, I offer some technical observations. In the other place, MPs raised the uncomfortable question of pre-exit disputes, many of which arose several years ago and which may now not go to the ECJ. In my opinion, they clearly ought to, as they arose under the old regime. The Francovich principle, which has been raised in this House before, has been removed from the Bill. I hope my noble friend the Minister will reconsider this. I am aware of instances where it would lead to a very unfair result and deprive genuine claimants of going to the EU court. I am happy to brief the Minister on this if required.

I turn to a particular area of interest of mine—financial services. In the other place much of the debate was about the use, or overuse, of delegated powers—the so-called Henry VIII clause. I must take issue with much of what was said. Lamenting the use of delegated powers is a common tool in all opposition toolboxes. When they have run out of points of principle, they resort to points of process. Leaving that aside, much of the criticism was largely fallacious. As the EU committee set out, in financial services in particular, EU laws follow the Lamfalussy framework. Reading the debate in the other place, it is almost as if many want even the lowest level of content included in UK primary legislation. Yet, as the Investment Association has pointed out, in financial services, at least, much of EU law is better handled here by the regulator, not to circumvent democracy but for reasons of efficacy and practicality. It is simply about appropriate levels of detail. As the renowned EU legal expert Simon Gleeson pointed out to the EU Committee,

“the Bill will perpetuate one of the main defects of the current EU position, namely that too much detail is in legislation and is difficult to update”.

There may well be much to be improved in this Bill, but cramming it full of regulatory issues better handled in secondary legislation and regulatory guidance and enforcement should not be part of that process.

I add my voice to those who have warned against a second referendum. I appreciate that its advocates are saying “not now” but they are pushing us down a very dangerous road. If the EU detected that there would be a second referendum, can your Lordships imagine its negotiating position? It would make an agreement that much harder. Is that the agenda of those calling for a second referendum? I hope not, and that those who might be talking down our negotiating position recognise that. There is no real prospect of holding a referendum without causing huge anguish and pain all over again between friends, parties and even families up and down the country in what would inevitably be a difficult campaign full of bias and hate. As Brenda of Bristol famously said: “What? Not another one!”.

11:26

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much in the Bill that merits deep and extensive scrutiny, but at this stage I simply want to signal alarm at the treatment of human rights. “Human rights” is a legal term for what we might otherwise think of as respect for individuals and recognition of their human dignity. We have acknowledged its importance in devising the powers of the state since our earliest times, and we have pursued it more or less consistently in our long participation in international and European law-making.

So it is disturbing to see that, despite valiant efforts in the other place on all sides to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Government have insisted that it be discarded from our law. It is true that when the Labour Government, in the person of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, negotiated this important instrument, it did not at that time confer any new rights. What it did was codify existing fights and provide for actual remedies against breaches. Our Human Rights Act provides only for a declaration of incompatibility if our law breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the charter, damages may be awarded. How much more useful is this to the wronged citizen than a declaration, even if eventually, that results in a change in the law? What are the Government going to do to put this right?

At least as important is the development of the usefulness of the charter since we helped to bring it into being. There are too many areas where the charter now goes beyond the convention, and thus our own Human Rights Act, to enumerate in the time available. The free-standing right to equality, a right to vocational education and some of the protections for children are among the most telling. Case law has brought new safeguards in respect of data protection, for instance, including the basis for the right to be forgotten. These too would be lost under the Bill. There are also general principles under the charter which we would lose as a basis for challenging injustice under retained EU law, such as proportionality—unless, the Government now say, the challenge was brought within three months of exit, which is surely a paltry concession.

We should also be very concerned about the vulnerability of our rights to the regulation-making power in the Bill. Is it not manifestly unjust and unparliamentary to subject fundamental rights to secondary legislation? How can we accept the prospect of a Government easily dismantling the enhanced protection given to the environment, consumers, health and safety and the rights of workers not to be exploited? We need a strengthened scrutiny procedure beyond the Government’s new add-on of an EU SI Committee, and stronger than the concession of declarations concerning equality.

It is notable that the Government’s impact statement omits any consideration of the impact of the diminution of rights and redress for their breach that follows from discarding the charter and from the use of secondary legislation. Will the Minister commission a fresh study to remedy this deficiency? Of course, if we had a written constitution many of these fears could be allayed. The Supreme Court would then have a basis to put a stop to any future legislation curtailing the freedoms we have achieved, for instance in equality and working conditions. This is quite apart from the other advantage that it would be taught in schools so that all citizens and, for that matter, would-be citizens could know exactly what our values concerning justice, rights and responsibilities meant for them.

The Government have recognised the anxiety expressed on all sides about their treatment of human rights in this Bill in their Right by Right Analysis. I welcome the undertaking to,

“look again at some of the technical detail about how the Bill deals with the general principles of EU law … and how some challenges based on the general principles might continue after exit”.

This confirms, however, that all the charter rights will not be carried over after Brexit. That is what we need to fight for.

Finally, there are many amendments we ought to discuss in Committee. I hope that among them will be a provision that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will still apply to EU-derived law and that the right to damages which result from the Government breaching EU law will be protected. If the Government set their face against entrenched law, this could be done through adding provisions to the Human Rights Act 1998.

11:31

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords I am disappointed that the EU withdrawal Bill has come to this House almost unamended by the House of Commons and that the legislative attempts to retain and even increase the power of the Executive, which will affect Wales so significantly, have shamefully failed to be successfully challenged by Members in the other place.

The inclusion of Clause 11 in this Bill by the Government was surely a case of imperial arrogance—or incompetence. Having listened to the Minister say at the end of last Thursday’s devolution debate that the Government were working on, but struggling to find, the correct wording for their amendments, I suspect the latter is nearer the mark. I look forward to seeing these amendments in Committee and taking part in the debates that will follow.

The Prime Minister’s decision to announce, so soon after the referendum and so early in the withdrawal process, that we would also be leaving the single market and customs union was, in my view, a mistake—a red line that will have a real impact on Wales. The rejection in the other place of the amendments to include them in the Bill is disappointing. If a similar amendment is proposed in Committee, I will support it.

Noble Lords already understand the advantages of the single market and customs union to Wales. We trade with our nearest neighbours. We have access to a market of 500 million people. That trade is tariff free and the market accepts over two-thirds of our exports. Its importance to the Welsh economy has been recognised by the Welsh Labour Government, who have called for “free and unfettered access” to both the single market and customs union, a call that unfortunately seems to be unheeded by the Labour leadership in Westminster. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, every bit of luck in trying to persuade his colleagues.

The much maligned—by those who support Brexit—free movement of people and goods has been a boon to companies such as Airbus, which employs 7,000 people in Broughton in north-east Wales. A new customs bureaucracy and reduced employee mobility could damage long-term investment there and accelerate a shift to Asia where China, according to representatives of the company, is already,

“knocking at the door as a result of the situation that we’re in in this country”.

Our situation is characterised by a deep uncertainty about the future direction of the UK which is fuelled almost daily by the contradictory and confusing messages coming from around the Cabinet table. Farmers seek certainty that they will not be priced out of their European markets and that the funding that they need to plan for their farms’ future will be available. Manufacturers need confidence to invest to grow their businesses, and communities are beginning to understand and lament the end of structural funding.

Workers in Holyhead on Anglesey would be grateful for certainty on the question of the Irish border. The fact that talks with Michel Barnier have moved onto the second phase has fooled none of us; the fudge over the border seems to have been a charitable device by Mr Barnier’s team to give the Prime Minister some credibility. This most difficult question seems to have been placed in the “too mind-blowing for now” box and shelved.

Our place in Europe and our place within the single market and customs union have led to Holyhead developing into the large port that it is today. However, the recent announcement that from April, Brittany Ferries will be running a ferry service for cars and freight from Cork directly to the north of Spain, so “avoiding the land bridge” between Ireland and Europe, rings alarms in North Wales. Potential job losses in one of the poorest areas of the UK will be devastating.

Finally, on a personal note, I want to say a few words about the referendum result and introduce some facts and figures about the influence of identity on people’s voting choices in that referendum. It has been claimed, in one national newspaper in particular, that the vote to leave the EU was an English national revolt achieved with the acquiescence of the Welsh. Research carried out by the British electoral survey points to another possible scenario.

To begin with, an important factor to note is that about one-third of the population of Wales were born in England. The survey data shows that 60% of those living in Wales who identified as both strongly English and strongly British voted to leave. On the other hand, of those who felt strongly Welsh but not strongly British 71% voted to remain. Of those fluent Welsh speakers who strongly identified as Welsh, not British, a massive 84% voted to remain. So as a Welsh-speaking, strongly Welsh-identifying Member of your Lordships’ House, I make the gentle request that in future these factors are taken into consideration when apportioning blame or even credit for Brexit. The Leave vote may have been won with the help of the majority of those who live in Wales, but certainly not with the aid or acquiescence of the majority of the Welsh.

11:38

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, it is humbling to speak in this debate after so many excellent speeches. I want to focus on a somewhat different issue from those raised by most people here, the issue of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum campaign, and to reinforce the argument for a meaningful vote or votes in Parliament. The Dominic Grieve amendment is indeed a valuable start and it must not be lost, but it is essential that there are additional amendments to ensure that parliamentary sovereignty really rules in this process. Clearly, Parliament cannot seek to interfere with the referendum result unless the British people can put the misinformation behind them and come to understand, as they are beginning to, the reality of the risks to their jobs and standard of living presented by Brexit.

I will talk about Russian involvement in the Brexit referendum campaign as someone who lived in Moscow and worked within a Russian ministry—funded, I should say, by the British Government; I do not want people to get the idea that I am some sort of Russian spy. During my three-year period in Moscow I developed a deep affection and respect for the Russian people with whom I lived and worked. I am not anti-Russian. At the same time, we should not be naive about interference by other countries in our precious democratic processes. Governments need to take steps to protect the British people from those influences in the future. Whatever Government we have in place, it is vital that work is done to interfere with this process. What is the point of another referendum, or an election, if Russia may determine the outcome?

We know that Russia has put massive resources into developing social media infiltration tools. As your Lordships know, my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox is on the Twitter board and knows a thing or two about these matters. She is aware of such Russian investments. Russia would make these investments only in order to use the tools against the West. Of course, Brexit will damage Britain and the rest of Europe: it is a pretty brilliant stroke by Mr Putin. We know for a fact that in the Trump presidential campaign, 126 million Americans received personally tailored Facebook fake news. Someone closely involved in the digital economy—not my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox—takes the view that it is almost certain that Russia used similar social media methods to influence the result of the Brexit campaign. This is, however, very difficult to prove. When I contacted the Electoral Commission last summer, it was investigating Russian involvement in the Brexit referendum. At that time I was told by an investigator working closely with the FBI that Russian money funded the Brexit campaign—not totally, but substantially—and that it was the link between the Brexit and Trump campaigns. In fact, I have been told rather more than I feel able to say today.

Suffice it to say that already, more people are against Brexit than support it, as other noble Lords have said. If sufficient information comes to light about Russian distribution through Facebook of misinformation tailored to local communities during our referendum, we can expect that a growing number of the British people will want Parliament to intervene. There is a risk that this information may not come to light in time for 2018. For a start, Facebook is a closed dataset. As your Lordships will know, the information on a Facebook page is available only to “friends” of the user. Also, Facebook has 2 billion monthly users; imagine the task of going through that material, albeit electronically, to find the information. It may, therefore, not be possible for Facebook to get hold of the information in time. It has, however, employed thousands of staff to do just this job. The question is whether they can find out what happened and, if so, when.

I have two questions for the Minister; one that I hope he or she can answer, but the other may be more difficult. First, is the Minister aware whether or not MI6 is investigating Russian involvement in the Brexit campaign using social media infiltration tools and funding? Secondly, has MI6 commissioned work to develop tools to combat the Russian equipment to prevent interference in our referenda and elections in future? The British people and Parliament need this information.

As well as amendments on a meaningful vote for Parliament, I will want to support amendments that relate to the charter of human rights. However, I cannot overemphasise the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and meaningful votes for Parliament.

11:43

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I remember well partnering her late husband in tennis in West Virginia when we played against the American Senate. He was, certainly in private, a very charming man. I also agree with her about the dangers of Russia, but I am not going to talk about that now.

It is clear from this debate that your Lordships’ House is not exactly rabidly Eurosceptic. I am, though, and perhaps I owe the House some explanation of that. I start with what has become the customary homage to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. He is of course right that economics is not the only matter affecting this debate, although they are not completely unimportant or irrelevant. When you are dealing with a protectionist trade bloc, which the European Union is, it is bound to have ultimately a negative effect on your trade and economy. There is certainly a read-across there.

Much more important, and the reason why I think we should get out of the European Union, is democracy. The European Union is undemocratic for two reasons. It does not have a mechanism for true democracy, which requires a direct relationship between the electorate and the Government. The electorate chooses a party, preferably in private, and votes it in. There is such a connection between the electorate and the Government that the electors, having elected their Government, are willing to pay allegiance to them. There is a synergy about the whole thing. In Europe, the matter is aggravated by the fact that the laws are made on the whole by the European court, which is undemocratic and relies on the acquis communautaire for its inspiration. The acquis is quite clear that it requires the court to make judgments in one direction, towards a federal state of Europe, that is irreversible.

Some people say that this process can be reformed. In the foreseeable future at least, that is highly unlikely. Take, for example, Britain. If we were to go back into the European Union, it is absolutely unimaginable that the court would not insist that sterling would be joined to the single currency, and quite rightly so. You cannot have a single market for ever without a single currency. That would be the loss of Britain’s freedom, which is involved in the sovereignty of Parliament and in no one Parliament binding another. That would just go. The trend in that case would be anti-democratic so far as this country is concerned.

I would like to refer to a speech made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It is something that has troubled me quite a lot about the attack that is made on people who think, like I do, that the nation state is the best unit of democracy. I will read one paragraph from it. He said that,

“Andrea Sella talks about a maternal ancestor. He is not Jewish but his ancestor was. Apparently she called him early in the morning when the result of the referendum became clear. She said, her voice choking with emotion:

‘How can these people forget so soon where nationalism leads you?’”—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1521.]

The innuendo is clear. I could turn the whole thing on its head and say that World War II, for instance, was brought to a halt and peace was established by the nation state against the pan-European movement led by Germany. That absolutely turns on its head an argument that is constantly used against people such as myself and Eurosceptics, and quite wrongly so.

11:49

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, in common with just under 70% of those who voted in the area from which I come, in the referendum I voted to leave the EU. It appeared to me, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, has just given, that political power had moved into the hands of an unelected, over-regulatory bureaucracy, which was out of political control and had no willingness or ability to reform. Further, it was heading in the direction of a single state for which it has no mandate and, in this country at least, very little support. I therefore support the Bill. But I am acutely aware that the referendum divided members of the same political parties, close friends and, as I know personally, family members, some of whom cannot or will not accept the result, like some Members of this House.

I have either listened to or read every speech that has been made in this debate so far, and I have heard powerful speeches from noble Lords with far greater knowledge and experience of the EU and its workings of government, law, finance and industry than I have. I have heard powerful speeches from powerful people. But, for me, louder than all of their arguments is the voice of Colonel Rainsborough, one of the Levellers, speaking for one man, one vote, in 1647. He said:

“the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he”.

How often have I listened in this House to noble Lords speaking of the need to encourage people to register and vote. The usual response from those who do not is, “My vote doesn’t count”, and they are usually right, especially in constituencies with large majorities. In the referendum, every vote did count. People voted in all-time record numbers. They were told, among others by the Prime Minister of the day, that that vote was a binding one and that it would be acted on. So, for me, the Bill is about giving effect to democracy. Being in Berlin recently made me reflect, as other noble Lords have during the course of this debate, on the political history of the last world war. When the governing elite stop listening to the people, the people are drawn to and eventually turn to extremism. That is a lesson that we must not forget.

The Bill, passed by the elected House is, as most noble Lords have said, far from perfect. The law-making powers of Ministers need to be defined and restricted on the face of the Bill. There needs to be clarification of the status of EU legislation to create legal certainty, and there needs to be much clearer devolution of powers to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I will support the amendments that seek to improve the Bill, but not those designed to put a spanner in the works. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will not press his amendment. We always knew that the negotiations for our exit would be difficult. Without our contribution to the budget, the EU is insolvent and there are other member states with at least very strong reservations about membership. The Commission was always going to make life difficult, even at its own expense, and I am afraid it is further encouraged by those who tell them, hopefully, that Brexit may not happen.

I think that we can all agree that the biggest threat to our economy is uncertainty and to be plunged once again into another divisive contest of a second referendum, with all the acrimonious campaigning again, would be bad for our economy, our national unity, and democracy. As I recall, we had a general election only a short time ago. The party that campaigned to stay in was as good as annihilated, except of course in this House. My party, which did a great deal better than expected, campaigned on a manifesto to leave both the single market and the customs union and, I am glad to say, no repeat referendum. I am particularly grateful for the restrained and reasonable way in which my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon opened on behalf of these Benches. The prevailing message that I get from people who voted on both sides of the referendum from outside this House is, “Just get on with it”. Let us do just that.

11:54

[Lord Stevens of Ludgate (UKIP)]

My Lords, I am grateful that I have not yet been annihilated. It is disappointing that those who lost in the referendum are still demanding another one. It does not help for a government Minister to describe certain Eurosceptics as “swivel-eyed”. I had hoped that we had got past that level of debate.

In a high turnout, the people voted to leave by a majority of 1.5 million—huge in electoral terms. In the last election, if 40,000 voters in the most marginal Labour seats had, instead of voting Labour, voted for the runner-up, Labour would have lost 40 seats. It was that close. Let us suppose that the leavers were to lose another referendum—unlikely, in my view—then we would have every right to demand a further, deciding referendum. Let us respect the people’s wishes. We are not the EU, which asks members to vote again when it does not like the result.

We cannot argue that the remainers did not fire every barrel, from Mr Cameron’s “World War Three” to Mr Obama’s “back of the queue”. He was sadly so ill informed that he did not know that there was a queue of one—the EU. President Hollande, Madame Lagarde and every other leader you can think of all warned of economic disaster. Even the poor old CBI, which opposed the ERM, was in favour of joining the euro and is partly financed by the EU, is still at it. The Bank of England has got it wrong yet again. The governor is still muttering that the GNP would be 1% higher if there had been no vote to leave. How on earth he works that out is quite beyond me. As for the latest leaked economic forecast, it must have been leaked by remainers. In 2005, UK trade with the EU was 55% of the total. It is now 45%. If present trends continue, it will be 35% in 10 years’ time, or 10% of GDP. Are these forecasters seriously suggesting that EU trade would halve if their 5% reduction in GDP occurs if we choose the EFTA route? It is simply not realistic.

The case for remaining was set out. The Government even spent £9 million of our money doing just that. Everything we have seen since the referendum has justified our decision. There is general dissatisfaction throughout the EU with the present arrangements. Incentives are given to big businesses to locate in Luxembourg, contrary to the rules. Then there is the situation in Poland; no stable government in Germany; upcoming elections in Italy; the state of the European banking system; and even President Macron says that the French—how wise—might vote to leave if given a referendum.

Quite why the EU is so desperate for our cash, I do not know. With a budget of some €150 billion, surely it can be cut by 10% or 15%? One has to ask how the proposed sum we are thinking of paying the EU is arrived at. Yes, we should pay for commitments entered into when we are a member, but why should we pay for access? Surely it should be paying us. It has the trade surplus, not the UK.

I am somewhat nervous about how the Government will use the so-called Henry VIII powers. For many years, we have had to accept all regulations and laws from Brussels with no possibility of rejection. I hope we can trust our Government more than the unelected bureaucrats in the EU. As was mentioned yesterday, let us be careful of having a Corbyn Government.

I wish our negotiators well, but the signs are not auspicious. We are allowing the EU to dictate the agenda. Normally, an agenda is agreed between the parties. One gets the impression that we are going into these meetings with no clear objective other than to listen to the other side and to try to compromise. Negotiations are better if both sides feel that they have won the argument. So far, we have been the givers. We need to get back our territorial waters and our ability to do trade deals, spend our own money and make our own laws, and we need to keep Gibraltar and keep an open border in Ireland. However, how one can get 27 countries, all with their own agendas, to agree to this I do not know, unless we give a lot away. We must adopt a harder line in the negotiations. The EU has much more to lose than we do. We have the world to expand into.

Any implementation period must be as short as possible. Two years is more than enough; otherwise, it will be dragged out for ever. We must not be subject to any more EU laws or regulations during this period. Financial services should be included in any deal if possible, but let us not panic if they are not. We are the world’s financial centre, and the EU business through us is a small percentage and not that critical. Already many of those threatening to move staff away are scaling down their estimates—Deutsche Bank, for example—and the governor of the Bank of France has stated that the numbers leaving are exaggerated. Even the chief executive of Barclays is telling us to be prepared to sacrifice access to the single European market after Brexit if it means gaining control of our own financial rules.

The more that we argue here, the weaker we make the Government’s negotiating position. Should we not be implementing the people’s vote, unelected as we are, pulling together and presenting a united front? By all means improve the Bill before us, but let us not frustrate it.

12:01

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I think plenty of your Lordships will share the view that the one country we would not wish to be disadvantaged as a result of Brexit is Ireland. However, Ireland is already suffering: beef exports have fallen as a result of the collapse of sterling. Sadly, it is Ireland that is most likely to suffer in the coming negotiations.

Had there been no progress with Ireland and Northern Ireland, we could well not be having this debate at all, or at least in this context. Noble Lords will appreciate that in the early stages of the negotiations last year the EU adopted an inflexible approach: no deal between individual members and the UK. It was described dismissively by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph as Euro-theology. Talks were indeed in danger of stalling and stage two was in danger. With the determination on all sides to have a soft border, how could regulatory bodies be shared with the EU on the one hand while Northern Ireland was placed apart from the rest of the UK on the other? This has been stated by many speakers but I refer particularly to the speech yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes.

Thanks to the constructive efforts by UK, Ireland and Northern Ireland officials and the Barnier team, a form of words was agreed that I suggest is a drafting masterpiece. I am going to take the opportunity of reading it:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market”.


If it is not entirely clear, perhaps that is intended. Naturally, the type of confectionery beginning with “f” shall not pass my lips; I would call it constructive vagueness.

The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both made statesmanlike speeches, the Taoiseach in particular emphasising the bonds between the two countries. It has become known as the 8 December agreement and my right honourable friend Karen Bradley, the new Secretary of State, called it pragmatic, which is a very good description. I take this opportunity to wish James Brokenshire a speedy return to health; he has contributed so much to this early debate. So the logjam has been broken and we can move to stage two.

I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, formed as a meeting group for Back-Benchers of both jurisdictions, and we have come a long way since the troubled times of the 1990s. Now it is a constructive and friendly group where we can agree to differ on Brexit, with frankness, without rancour or confrontation. It is particularly important at this time, when there is no devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. But I must emphasise that, with all the friendliness and mutual understanding in this group, Ireland is totally committed to the European Union. In the United Kingdom’s future dealings with Ireland over Brexit, friendly and constructive though we hope they will be, it is vital that this is borne in mind.

12:05

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I greatly regret the fact that we are debating this Bill, as I believe that we should remain as a member of the European Union. I did not think it was right to have a referendum about an issue of such complexity. Indeed, in a parliamentary democracy most referenda are inappropriate.

For many years we sought to be a member of the EEC, as it then was. Having joined, it brought us many benefits, the greatest of which has been our membership of the single market. Our economy has flourished so that we have enjoyed higher growth than before and a strong position relative to other OECD countries. The decision to leave the EU is already jeopardising this, as the Governor of the Bank of England and many others have made clear. Yet a former senior Minister who supports Brexit was heard on the “Today” programme yesterday in denial about Government projections of an economic downturn under each of the three models of possible outcomes. What he said was shockingly misleading. I hope that when the Minister replies he will confirm that impact assessments will be made available to Parliament. I hope too that there will be no more disgraceful attacks on civil servants like the one we heard in another place from the Minister in the Brexit department. If these go on we will have to start a defence league for officials.

It is not only because of the economic consequences of leaving the EU that the UK would be better off inside than outside. There are many advantages in being part of a political bloc whose members share our commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, freedom of speech and human rights. In a troubled world where there are powerful countries that respect none of these, there is great benefit in working together in Europe to secure peace and justice in the world. We should not forget the views of young people: they voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU. They are now puzzled about what constitutes government policy. This is hardly surprising since the Government themselves have no vision or clarity about where they are going. Above all, young people fear a hard Brexit and that we are abandoning the values of tolerance and openness that they hold dear. Old people, who voted in large numbers to leave, have most of their lives behind them. Young people have most of their lives before them: we must not let them down. To pass the Bill unamended would let them down.

We must ensure the sovereignty of Parliament and prevent a constitutional outrage. The House can play a crucial role in protecting our constitution by seeking to prevent an over-powerful Executive bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. Legal expertise in amending the Bill’s Henry VIII clauses will be invaluable. The Government’s decision not to convert the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law means the protection of human rights will be weakened. More than 20 human rights organisations, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, recently published a letter stating that losing the charter creates a human rights hole. The protection of the charter should be retained. Without it, there are risks to employment rights, consumer protection, the protection of the environment and the rights of children.

I also want to comment on the absurd decision, forced by the hard Brexit faction in the Government and the Conservative Party, to have a precise date for leaving the EU next March. This comes before many of the vital decisions that need to be made about the consequences of Brexit have been properly discussed and negotiated. I hope the Government will think again and consider leaving only after the transitional period, rather than before it.

The calamitous decision to leave the EU has distorted the work of Whitehall and Westminster, leaving insufficient time to address many urgent issues where change and reform are needed, whether in health and social care, education, housing and the environment, or the reduction of poverty. Moreover, this displacement of effort is magnified by the loss of many benefits brought to us in all these policy areas by our membership of the European Union. Leaving will make it exceedingly difficult to retain many—if not any—of these benefits. However, I end by saying that our greatest priority must be to fight against a hard Brexit and the horrors of renegotiating all our trade agreements. We must stay in the single market and the customs union for the sake of the Good Friday agreement, and above all for the sake of the prosperity of our nation.

12:10

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, even if I was not a culturally pro-European Londoner who considers that Brexit will damage the future of my children and grandchildren, I would regard the Bill as seriously flawed. I accept totally that EU withdrawal requires legislation that ensures legal certainty and continuity the day after we exit. My problem with the Bill is not its purpose but its cack-handed approach to executing that purpose, as the Constitution Committee has forensically exposed.

The Bill neither achieves legal certainty nor upholds the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. Indeed, in its present form it diminishes that sovereignty. The Government have chosen to ignore the warning they were given last September by the Constitution Committee about the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill’s approach, when in an interim report it said:

“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government”.


The Government simply did not deal with these matters during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, despite the valiant efforts of a former Conservative Attorney-General and others. The Bill remains a constitutional mess despite all the discussions in the Commons recorded in the pages of Hansard, which are now said to exceed the length of War and Peace. Yet a dozen or so crisp paragraphs in the Constitution Committee’s Report—paragraphs 40 to 52—explain the fundamental flaw at the heart of this Bill: the failure to attribute a single legal status to all retained EU law. It is that failure that produces many of the ambiguities and confusions and the convoluted legal drafting running through the Bill.

But that flaw is not the only problem. If we leave this confused and confusing Bill in anything like its present state it represents a clear and present danger to parliamentary sovereignty, to the entrenched rights and protections that UK citizens have under the existing blend of EU and UK law, and to the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as so many speakers have identified. Clause 6 creates obscurity and uncertainty around how the courts are to use EU case law after Brexit. The Bill casually dumps the European Charter of Fundamental Rights with no clear justification, as the Constitution Committee points out. The scrutiny arrangements for delegated powers remain inadequate, without a proper role for this House. As others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have made clear, the Good Friday agreement remains in jeopardy from the Government’s fantasy that you can have a frictionless border in Ireland without a common customs union.

Fortunately, the Constitution Committee’s report provides analysis and solutions. Paragraph 52 proposes a straightforward solution to the fundamental flaw, namely that the legal status that should be applied to all retained direct EU law for all purposes should be the status of domestic primary legislation. This approach would secure legal certainty and continuity post Brexit, remove swathes of Henry VIII provisions and simplify the Bill significantly. The report’s summary of conclusions and recommendations are, I suggest, 65 paragraphs of good sense that the Government would be wise to embrace. But will they?

During the passage in this House of what became the ill-conceived Health and Social Care Act 2012, David Cameron paused the Bill to try to sort out the mess that the Government had got themselves into. This Government would do well to consider doing something similar with this Bill, drawing on the Constitution Committee’s report and using all-party talks. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government have any appetite for such an approach. If, however, they choose to dig in for minimal change, it will fall to this House to tackle robustly the many constitutional problems posed by this Bill. We should not be deterred from doing so by any internal or external threats and rants about thwarting Brexit or the will of the Commons. After all, many Members of the House of Commons expect and want this House, with its knowledge and expertise, to sort out the Bill’s defects. It is in the national interest that we do so.

12:16

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, sport and sport-related activity contribute some £20 billion of GVA and 400,000 full-time equivalent jobs. It therefore makes a greater contribution than such sectors as the sale and repair of motor vehicles and accounting. Yet a great deal of the sports policy framework under which the EU operates is based on a global lex sportiva, to which sport has to have due regard. This requires agreement with international and national federations that govern the rules of sport and approve government-to-sport relationships. The proposal to move existing legislation from the European Union into the framework of this Bill will be fraught with difficulty because it does not take into account lex sportiva or the international and national federations.

Let me give noble Lords some examples. Take the Kolpak rule, the loss of which would mean that players from countries which have an associate trade agreement with the EU would no longer have the same rights as UK players. Currently, the Kolpak rule applies to those players who hold an EU passport, who are married to an EU or EEA national, or who come under the Kolpak ruling. These players are not currently classified as foreign, and that is recognised in the quota system used by professional sports in the United Kingdom. Governing bodies such as the RFU, which has the responsibility for issuing endorsements to rugby union players outside the EU and EEA, have stated that they cannot even look at their regulations regarding overseas players until the terms of Brexit have been confirmed. This causes uncertainty for clubs signing multiyear contracts, and currently affects 72 eligible players. Another example is the Cotonou agreement, a treaty between the EU and a group of states including South Africa, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, whose rugby players could, at present, play for a British-based team and not count towards the foreign player quota.

Without membership of the EU, the Kolpak rule goes. Saracens, which has 14 such players, could be particularly hard hit. Cricket, through the ECB, has also said that it is waiting to hear from the Home Office. Have the Government reached agreement with the relevant governing bodies of sport as well as with the EU? Uncertainty destabilises the market. Cricketers are working under the assumption that any deal signed before the end of 2017 will not be affected by Brexit, but will they?

Article 19 of the FIFA regulations on the status and transfer of players internationally is currently limited by FIFA to those over the age of 18. However, there is an exception within the territory of the European Union for players aged between 16 and 18. Post Brexit, this exemption would no longer be available for British clubs. We have 70 players in this category and who would be ineligible, thus denying us an important pipeline of young talent and putting us at a disadvantage to European clubs. Yet as part of lex sportiva, it is FIFA and the EU that must decide. What discussions have the Government had with FIFA to secure the continuation of the exemption, the loss of which would hit the lower-league clubs particularly hard?

Will the Government clarify the impact of EU state aid legislation, which prohibits member states from favouring one market participant over another? Do the Government intend to transfer these restrictions into UK law or, as I hope, allow for new rules to open up the potential for public bodies to subsidise stadium developments and other major sporting infrastructure projects? That would be far reaching.

Finally, given that the free movement directive would no longer apply and migration of EU nationals would become subject to UK law, do the Government intend to subject the same rules that currently apply to individuals outside the EU and the EEA to football clubs throughout the United Kingdom? If so, 332 players would not meet the current requirements that non-EU and non-EEA players must meet. Will every athlete with current citizenship in one of the EU or EEA membership states require a work permit? The Chancellor, Philip Hammond—whose view on Brexit, incidentally, I totally endorse—stated that there was no likelihood that new immigration controls would apply to highly skilled and highly paid workers. Will the Minister confirm that all professional footballers, including in the lower leagues, would fit into that category? Will the Government confirm that post Brexit the Bosman ruling will no longer apply in the United Kingdom?

The consequences for professional sport flow through to the amateur ranks. The House has an excellent record of influencing sports policy. Only yesterday—and I thank them—the Government had clearly listened to the close vote on the future role of the UK anti-doping agency during the GDPR votes shortly before Christmas, giving UKAD a welcome extra £6 million over two years and promising to revise its powers by September. Delegated powers to modify retained EU law—not just to correct it, but to make substantial new provisions and remedy changes to our international obligations—will be urgently required if we are to protect the competitive position and the future success of the sports sector in this country, which I believe is critical.

12:21

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, since the referendum this nation has been on a rather incredible journey. Our learning curve has been huge; at least for most of us in Parliament, certainly for me. There are ideologues who do not want to listen to the fine detail about anything, but there cannot be many of us who have not discovered through debate, conversation or the media that the strata of connections and collaborations between the nations of Europe run very deep and to the benefit of us all.

I find myself repeating, “if only”. If only the national debate before the referendum had been as rich in information. If only people had known just how much poorer this rupture will make them and their children. If only they had seen how it would diminish us as a nation and reduce our power in the world. If only people had known about the damage to our constitution that the referendum would unleash, with all the talk of “the will of the people”, forgetting that we live in a representative democracy and that that will is expressed through having representatives in Parliament, precisely because they immerse themselves in the complexity of issues.

If only there had been a proper debate about cross-border trading always requiring an overarching international court of some kind. All the bluster about wanting our own courts to decide everything that affects us did not deal with the fact that if you trade with Poland the Poles are not going to settle for a UK court deciding the outcome of a dispute. The World Trade Organization, out there in the great blue yonder to which Brexiteers aspire, also has its own court to deal with disputes. Norway and its little grouping in their semi-detached relationship with Europe had to invent the EFTA Court for precisely that reason.

If only people had been truly informed about the high level of medical and scientific advances—the creation of medicines and cancer remedies—that are made because of experts working closely together. There are the benefits to our universities in advancing knowledge and understanding. Defence and security collaborations prevent conflict and crime. There is consumer protection. There is the risk now to peace in Ireland. Was it ever fully explained that the customs union was key to a borderless Ireland?

If only we had not had a slanging match but instead had grown to understand the extent and benefits of the financial and trading relationships that flowed from our membership. If only we had spoken softly about how important it is to work with our closest neighbours because it stops wars and that together we can keep a check on the rise of extremism. With neighbours, there are inevitably aspects of the connection that grate on us and which we would like to change, but that should never be the reason for pulling up the drawbridge.

I am a lawyer, and because of the nature of my practice I am all too aware of the incredible advantages of Europe, Eurojust and a European arrest warrant. The underbelly of markets is black markets, and today they cross borders. We have trafficking in drugs, arms, fissile material, body parts, human eggs, babies, and women and children for sex and domestic servitude. You cannot deal with that kind of crime without close collaboration and developed mechanisms, and these require reciprocity and a level of legal harmony.

A few weeks ago, the House of Lords European Union sub-committee on justice issues, which I chair, heard from a very distinguished judge on the EFTA Court. He had been its president for 12 years and had sat on it for years beforehand. I asked him whether we could be part of the Euro-warrant system—EFTA is not part of that system—without the European Court of Justice. His answer was no.

So how are we going to collaborate on all these issues of crime? Legal processes affecting families, individuals and businesses are reliant on essential regulations that have been very successful and to whose creation we have been party: Brussels 1, Brussels 2 and the maintenance regulation. A woman married to an Italian can go to her local court and get an order if he shoves off back to Italy and is not paying maintenance for his children. A company that suddenly has a default from its trading partner in Poland can go to a court in Middlesbrough and get an order that will be effective over there. That is done because of mutuality, and it is reciprocal. I fear that bringing law in here, nailing it down and saying, “We are introducing it”, does not deal with that reciprocity. We are going to have to have 27 separate relationships in order to make it happen.

The Henry VIII powers still have not been adequately constrained in the amendments that passed in the Commons, and I am very concerned about what the implications will be for the rights of individuals in this country. We have been given an account that employment rights will not be eroded. I am afraid I do not have much confidence in those promises because we know that a section of the Conservative Party is very keen to deregulate and remove employment protections around the working time directive, the agency work directive, pregnancy protections and so on. Across the whole of Europe there is a European protection order to deal with violence against women and girls. Did your Lordships know that? Of course not; most people do not.

What about the promise of meaningful debate at the end of all this? There has to be a clarification about the options that will be available, because one of the options has to be to remain. I hope the amendments will nail down some of these problems. I am most concerned about the excision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill. That should set alarm bells ringing because it is telling us that rights are not a high priority for this Government.

It is hard for people to change their minds, but with more complete information people do so. We do it in our daily lives. I will deeply regret it if we do not put information clearly in front of people. I am not going to settle for a bad deal, and if that means a second referendum then noble Lords can count on me being behind it.

12:28

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I heartily endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said about the reciprocity of the law across Europe, particularly in the field of crime and the pursuit of criminals, but I wish to focus on the devolution provisions in the Bill.

Clause 11 is agreed on all sides to be defective and in need of amendment. The Government promised to bring forward an amendment on Report in the Commons but failed. I think we all assumed that negotiations were going on backstage with the devolved Administrations, but that was not the case. We were told in a meeting on Monday with Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Government and Michael Russell of the Scottish Government, in the presence of the relevant government Ministers, that they had not been consulted on the proposed amendment to Clause 11 at all. We do not want to be presented at some stage in Committee with a government amendment that has been drafted without even consultation with, let alone the agreement of, Cardiff and Edinburgh. What would we do with it? The whole point of the exception taken to Clause 11 is the lack of consultation and the evident incomprehension of the principles of devolution by Ministers. Both Cardiff and Edinburgh, with the full support of every elected member of every political party, rightly conclude that, as currently drafted, Clause 11 and Schedules 2 and 3 put all the cards in the hands of Westminster.

The proposal in the Bill is that the UK Government will dictate, with no requirement for consultation or agreement, how the powers repatriated under retained EU law should or should not be parcelled out to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, even in areas of policy where the devolved Administrations have full and exclusive competence. Not only that, but UK Ministers are given power to alter not merely the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act but the existing legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—and by ministerial decree, through statutory instruments and Orders in Council. Welsh and Scottish Ministers have no such powers.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, described the architecture of the Bill as misguided and ill-informed, and my noble friend Lord Newby described the Government’s approach as a combination of arrogance and incompetence. Nowhere are these descriptions truer than in this mishmash of the devolution settlements.

The powers repatriated from Brussels will include funding and policy-making in many fields. For example, take the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. Brussels has parcelled these out across 28 member states on the basis of need. In the 2014-20 European budget, Wales benefits by over £2 billion. With matched funding, a total investment of £3 billion is available to the Welsh Government to support people into work and training, on youth employment, research and innovation, business competitiveness, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and connectivity and urban development. All these are fully devolved competences for the Welsh Government.

But the much-criticised and hoary old Barnett formula, which is the current Westminster vehicle for funding Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast from UK government sources, is divided not on the basis of need but on a simple population headcount. Under the provisions of the Bill, there would be nothing to prevent Ministers, by statutory instrument and without the consent of the devolved Administrations, departing from the Brussels basis of need to the Barnett model of population count. English politics and English interests are bound to be engaged in funding decisions. After all, in the policy areas devolved to the devolved Administrations, Westminster and its Ministers act as an English Parliament. English interests are going to intrude.

All are agreed that there will be a need for new UK frameworks, but the Bill hands all the power to UK government Ministers. They will be able to dictate to the suppliant and powerless devolved Administrations whatever frameworks they think “appropriate” in whatever fields they choose.

The Bill cannot be chuckled through this House as David Davis is trying to chuckle his way through European negotiations. Someone in this Government has to take a grip, to make decisions and determine both a destination and a course to get there.

Step 1: the devolution proposals in the Bill have already failed the test and there is no time while the Bill is in this House to go through with it. They should be extracted from the Bill forthwith. Clause 11, Schedules 2 and 3 and any other related provisions should be taken out of the Bill.

Step 2: the Government should demand from their DUP supporters that in return for the £1 billion bung they have been given, they should make the compromises necessary to revive the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. If Paisley could sit down with McGuinness, the current DUP leadership owes it to their countrymen to do the same.

Step 3: the Government should negotiate with the devolved Administrations on the basis of parity of esteem and respect for the devolution principles. They should agree the areas for the new frameworks that will be required.

Step 4: they should bring forward a new Bill on an agreed basis, with legislative consent orders ready to go. These current provisions are not fit for purpose.

12:35

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, many Peers here and many Members in the other place have referred to this as a technical Bill. In its current state, it is anything but a technical Bill, because it has serious implications for our constitution and for our system of democracy. We should recognise this.

Since the referendum, we have heard a great deal of the need to respect the democratic mandate which the result provided. The people voted, albeit by a narrow majority, to leave the EU, and it must therefore be right that their decision is implemented. This is a moment for us to reflect on and respect the foundations on which our democratic system has been built, not to ignore them. For example, our system has within it a series of checks and balances which ensure that political leaders, once elected, cannot do as they wish without challenge, or without the need to transparently justify their actions and to be accountable in the long term. These checks and balances are never more important than when a policy is controversial or is the subject of the kind of passionate feelings that many politicians demonstrate for Brexit.

Theses checks mean that departmental accounting officers have the right to seek directions; that this House has the right to scrutinise and challenge; that the National Audit Office, which I chair, has the right not just to audit public bodies but to investigate and report on value for money and propriety; and, of course, that the judiciary has the responsibility to judge whether or not the law is being respected. These checks are not, as some seem to believe, irritating evidence of a determination to undermine democracy, but central tenets of our democratic model. We should treat them as such, cherishing and embracing them, because true democracy recognises that the best decisions derive from an exchange of opinion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said yesterday, some decisions are too important to be left to those who have no doubt.

As many Peers have said, our particular democracy has also placed limitations on the power of the Executive to make substantive changes to law by way of secondary legislation. However, the Bill before us specifically gives Ministers the right, via the correcting powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9, to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument. For example, Clause 7 sets out the powers for Ministers using secondary legislation to amend or undo any EU laws they claim are not operating effectively or are suffering from any other deficiency arising from the withdrawal. The vagueness of these definitions gives Ministers unprecedented discretion, which strikes at the heart of our democracy.

Many people who voted for Brexit did so because they felt ignored and that they had lost control of their destinies. They did not vote for Brexit in order to give Ministers unbridled powers to take away their fundamental rights. The Government belatedly seem prepared to make concessions on this issue, but I am by no means yet convinced that these go far enough. The way in which these concessions have been offered—with apparent reluctance and so late in the day—does little to reassure me that the importance of this issue for the sovereignty of Parliament has been understood. This view was reinforced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Our particular democracy is also defined by the way in which we provide access to fundamental human rights—the right to education; the right of older people to lead lives of dignity and independence; the right to protect personal data; and the right to conscientiously object. But by excluding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law, the Government have called into question our commitment to those rights. They have created confusion at the very time when clarity is needed and they have diluted the domestic protection available to those who feel that they have been denied access. Our determination to create a society that recognises and values these fundamental rights, and that genuinely strives to turn the aspirations into reality, is what has given our democracy its meaning and purpose. We should never dilute our commitment to those rights or even give the impression that we are doing so.

Our future is not just about whether we remain part of the EU, as some seem to believe. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said yesterday in what I thought was a wonderful speech, we need to ask ourselves what sort of Britain we want to inhabit. Who do we think we are? What do we live for and what are we prepared to die for? For me, and I suspect for many others in this House, the answer lies in the democratic system we have built down the years and in the fundamental human rights that many of us have sought to enhance and protect during our lives. The withdrawal process must never be achieved at the expense of those core values. There is not now, and I hope that there never will be, a mandate for that. We in this House need to have the courage to amend and improve this flawed Bill, not to frustrate democracy, but to protect it.

12:41

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a difficult speech to follow. It was powerful. I am very glad that the noble Lord concentrated on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said yesterday, because that was a very challenging intervention as well. He talked about the issue of who we are, what kind of Britain we want to be and what kind of world we want to try to play our part in creating. I will add only one other issue alongside those. For me, it is an absolutely inescapable truth that from the moment we are born we are locked into an interdependent global community. The way we shall be judged by history is by the success we make of finding ways to meet that reality and to build institutions and methods of intergovernmental co-operation that enable us to face it. Climate change is a great example; security is another.

We have heard a great deal about the importance of the constitution. It is quite clear from this debate, if in no other way, that referenda and representative parliamentary democracy are not easy companions. I have always held that we in Parliament are the practitioners as well as the representatives, but that the constitution belongs to the people. From my experience of what we have been through in recent years I have come to the conclusion that the rare case for constitutional change to be proposed is in the context of a general election. That is a way to bring the whole system together, but we seem to have been busy building dual systems and then telling Parliament that its function is to deliver what comes through a referendum. That makes a nonsense of the concept of dynamic representative democracy. That is why the debate, discussion and search that goes on in processing the Bill—not the Bill itself; we have heard too much about how the Bill is important—is vital to our parliamentary heritage. It really will not do for Ministers to keep lecturing us on how our job is simply to get it through. It is not. It is to make sure that what it is doing is compatible with everything that this country has stood for.

Human rights are, of course, central to that. I have the joy—I think that is the right word to use—of serving on the EU Justice Sub-Committee, which my noble friend Lady Kennedy chairs. She spoke very powerfully about those issues today.

There are two issues that I would take above all others. The first is that the concept of citizenship matters deeply. By our referendum, we have removed European citizenship from countless numbers of people who thought they were enjoying what citizenship meant. That is a very grave thing to have happened. Therefore, one of the things that we must do in our deliberations in this House is make absolutely certain, if it can be done, that we have arrangements in place that will meet the challenge of restoring the rights that people thought they had.

The other issue is the European court. I have been horrified and dismayed in the work of the justice committee to hear and see more and more evidence of the gap between myths, rhetoric and populism on one side and reality on the other. Almost without exception, witness after witness to whom we have listened has said how indispensable the European court is. Over and again we have been given examples of the key part played by British lawyers in developing and strengthening European law—it is a tragedy that the British people do not understand this and have not been led to understand it. We are living in an interdependent world and we wanted to be part of an interdependent Europe. That required strong law in Europe and the British have been playing a huge part in that, so what are we doing walking away from it?

Whatever happens on the Bill, and I hope we will have some very demanding and searching debates, I hope we remember—to come back to the intervention yesterday by the right reverend Prelate—that we cannot escape from being members of an interdependent world. Our children and grandchildren will ask what we did towards devising the policies and arrangements to meet the challenges of an interdependent world or whether we walked away in the opposite direction with a preoccupation with what was immediately popular.

12:48

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to comment and demand that citizenship is vital. I say that with some feeling because my grandparents came from Germany in 1913. They were about to get British citizenship but they did not achieve it. They were sent back to Germany but, thankfully, reappeared after the First World War, so I guess a quarter of my blood is German.

I have been pro-European all my political life. I joined the Young European Managers’ Association, along with my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Vinson. We campaigned as young professionals to encourage the country to join Europe, and of course success was achieved. Just after that success, we had the 1974 election.

I campaigned in that election in Northampton, a marginal seat that had been Labour all its life, where I won by the princely majority of 179, thanks, I think, to the Europeans in that constituency who supported me. When I got to Parliament it was in the period when we had dual-mandate Members of the European Parliament; in other words, they were elected to our Parliament and also sat in the European Parliament. Then we had elected MEPs. Somehow, somewhere in that period, from 1974 through the years, there was the beginning of disillusionment. Then we had the 1997 election. I had been in the seat 23 years, in a marginal seat, and I had a Referendum Party candidate purposely put up against me. At that point I was Chairman of Ways and Means and not able to campaign very much and I lost by a few hundred. So Europe has been very important to me.

If you sit in a marginal seat you have to learn to listen. In this case I suggest to your Lordships that we now have to listen and accept the practicality of what has happened in the referendum. I voted to remain—that does not surprise anybody—but I do now listen deeply to industry, commerce, trade and, above all, the City, to ensure that we look after their interests. We have to accommodate both what the majority of people wanted and these key dimensions of our society. I do not need to explain the Bill to anybody here, but as I understand it we are transferring European law into UK law. I am not a lawyer, but it needs to be done in a stable and orderly way.

I had the privilege of handling the Maastricht Bill in the other place. I had a good team that worked with me and the first decision we took was to call in all the sides that had strong views about Maastricht, listen to them and decide what could be agreed before it got on to the Floor of the House and what could not be agreed. One of the problems, I suggest to your Lordships, is that we do not have a similar procedure here. We have a very good Constitution Committee, no doubt, but I believe, having read its report, that it leaves an area of confusion. Certainly, not all of its proposals are terribly practical. That is where we come to the problem of Henry VIII clauses. I do not think it is practical to have all these challenges in primary legislation: it is just not practical and if it is not practical, we need to ensure that there are safeguards. That, I believe, is vital.

There are three large areas of discussion. Should the Executive have power to accept the final deal without Parliament having a vote or, indeed, the people having another vote, or should there be further votes for Parliament en route? We must recognise that any Government has to govern and give the leadership that we, the people, want. I share the view that it is a great pity that the Cabinet today seems to be riven by various factions: that is not what I want to see in my Government. Secondly, everybody that has contributed has made it clear that this is all about the future of our nation. I, for one, am not in favour of a second referendum.

The challenge, though, is not just a constitutional one. We have to accommodate trade, industry, commerce and the City because they are so vital to our economy, to employment and to standards of living. There are trade deals out there. I know quite a lot about Asia. I have visited many parts of Asia, both as an executive and as a politician. Frankly, it is not good enough at the moment to be appointing MPs as trade envoys. That is second-hand. We need experienced negotiators out there with specific experience of those markets to produce future trade deals that will enable us, a single country, to trade extensively and successfully.

I finish with two quick points. I want to say on the record thank you to those who are doing the negotiating for us. To all those civil servants and politicians, I say a big thank you. At this point, frankly, our nation wants inspirational leadership and a goal that we can all sign up to. This is a time for a united Cabinet to decide what we really want, what we think we can get from Europe and what we can offer in return—not just in EU terms, but to defence, culture and so on. Do this, and the country will respond.

12:55

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill before us is a dog’s breakfast. In my view, it is inevitably so, for the reasons touched on only a few minutes ago, first by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and then by my noble friend Lord Judd; namely, it was obliged to spatchcock parliamentary sovereignty and procedure with plebiscitary democracy. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, the two do not fit. That is why there are several examples of where we are struggling, such as the Henry VIII powers and the interface with the devolved Administrations.

There is, however, one novel feature in the Bill, which came in a late amendment in the House of Commons that was, I think, carried by four votes: Clause 9 provides that Parliament shall consider the outcome of the negotiations. I wish to develop a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, concerning whether there needs to be a mandate at the start or at the finish. As a TUC official for many years—the TUC is accountable in innumerable ways—it strikes me that one does not go into a negotiation without first determining some basics about what one wishes to achieve; in other words, the remit or the mandate. If you do not have a mandate, the union executive will, when you get back, say that you did not achieve what you were asked to do. So, first of all, you have to define something about your priorities and, secondly, you have to make them less than extravagant or else you will come back looking foolish. HMG have done none of that.

We saw an example of that at Lancaster House. Not only was that speech not a parliamentary presentation, it was simply a glorified press conference, where the fourth estate replaced Parliament. It is not just that it was not adopted and ratified by Parliament; it was not even put to Parliament—I do not think any parliamentarians were invited. What was said at Lancaster House was certainly not a road map that Monsieur Barnier or anyone else across the channel finds helpful at all to the negotiations.

Taking my trade union analogy one stage further, I want to talk about a parliamentary mandate, which we need to include. That will be the essence of an amendment on the remit—namely, having a mandate at the outset of the negotiation and not just a vote at the end—which will complement the Commons amendment. Some of us hope to table that amendment with the Public Bill Office tomorrow, and later we will put some flesh on its bones. Whether this is helpful to the Government depends on whether Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond can be joined at the waist like Siamese twins—we will have to wait for the results of that little exercise.

When it comes to the negotiations, something is very clear. If you look around at all the think tanks within two or three miles of here, you will find they all acknowledge that there are five options. The first is full divorce; the second is free trade with no express alignment and some trade-offs; the third is pick-and-mix on free trade with greater alignment in particular areas; the fourth is associate membership, which roughly means the EEA—I will come back to that; and the fifth is adjusted membership, with EU law directly applicable. I think we will probably come down on number four, but I thought I would simply set out the menu.

The last three of those options involve free movement, give or take specific tests of different types that can be defined. Number four would tie in with a deal done on the island of Ireland. I noticed the other day that the EU Council is now insisting in public that the 8 December agreement is signed and sealed before the totality of negotiation is set in motion. Perhaps the Minister could confirm in his reply that that is the position.

There is no point in disguising the fact that I am for the European Economic Area, which is the only option outside the EU that enables us to retain participation in the single market, the four freedoms and so forth. However, that means something like a beefed-up co-ordinating committee within the EEA twin-pillar structure between the two sets of Councils of Ministers.

In my concluding sentence, I want to say a word about workers’ rights and the TUC. Frances O’Grady made the point the other day that, if we are not careful, the Bill could open Pandora’s box and that workers’ rights are at risk. If we are talking about workers’ disillusionment with the whole of this exercise, then it is very important that we get a guarantee that that cannot happen.

13:02

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose briefing has been very helpful in considering the Bill, as has the excellent report from the Constitution Committee. I very much look forward to seeing the imminent report of the DPRR Committee later this week. The Bill represents a massive transfer of authority away from Parliament to the Executive, and such a transfer requires proper constraint via proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is how Parliament might best secure reasonable oversight and scrutiny of this flood of delegated legislation without frustrating the purpose of the Bill.

Previously, Parliament has insisted that a strengthened scrutiny procedure be inserted into Bills that grant Ministers wide delegated powers: the super-affirmative procedure in the case of LROs; the enhanced affirmative procedure in the case of the Public Bodies Act. There is no such procedure in the Bill, and that is a very serious defect. The Bill adds a novel procedural element to the SI process. It sets up in the Commons a sifting committee to examine all negative SIs, and it will have the power to recommend an upgrade to the affirmative procedure. It can only recommend, though, and that is not sufficient; the committee should be able to require an upgrade. We will want to address this as the Bill proceeds. The Bill contains nothing about how the sifting committee is to arrive at its decisions, and we will want to make good that lack. The Bill proposes a sifting committee only in the Commons. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House promise to correct that and deliver an equivalent for this House. If a sifting committee in either House decided to upgrade an SI, that should be binding upon the Minister.

I think it is generally acknowledged that Commons scrutiny of SIs leaves much to be desired, but that scrutiny process is left unchanged by the Bill. Sifting is not scrutiny. As usual, detailed and thorough scrutiny will take place in our House, where existing procedures require us to say yes or no—we cannot amend. We will of course be reluctant to invite more visits from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by exercising frequently, or at all, what may be called the nuclear option. But we should not allow unsatisfactory SIs to grant unsatisfactory powers to the Executive. It would be better to introduce a new power to return an SI to the Commons for reconsideration—a proposal recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his report.

It is not just the scrutiny procedures in the Bill that are inadequate, but their scope as well. For example, SIs generated by Clause 17 are not subject to the sifting mechanism, and they should be. There is also the Solicitor-General’s declared intention to use SIs deriving from existing non-Brexit-related Acts to make changes to retained EU law. These SIs need to be brought within the strengthened SI procedures in this Bill. There will be SIs generated by other Brexit Bills. We want all of them to be scrutinised as though they were generated by this Bill. For example, Clause 2 of the Trade Bill contains a negative procedure power to amend retained EU law where that law has the status of primary legislation. The safeguards in the EU withdrawal Bill are absent from the Trade Bill. We will want to change that.

We will also want to look at the urgency provisions in this Bill. As things stand, there are no constraints on the exercise of the “urgent case” power in Schedule 7. Under this power, Ministers can lay a made affirmative instrument which will remain in force unless annulled within a month. We understand why the urgent case power may be needed, but we will also want to understand why in each case. We will require the Minister to explain and justify the use of the urgency power. We will also need to provide safeguards on the use of this power, including defining limits on its use and perhaps involving the sifting committees.

The Bill at least contains sunset provisions. These are for the SIs themselves, not for whatever is enacted via them. It would be impractical to impose a sunset provision on these enactments, but that does not mean that they should not be reviewed. For primary legislation, the Government have to produce a report for Parliament within three to five years of royal assent. We see the case for a similar provision for legislation enacted by withdrawal-related SIs.

This Bill grants Ministers exceptional powers but does not provide for effective scrutiny. That is very dangerous for the quality of the legislation and for the authority of Parliament. I hope we will be able to reduce these dangers as the Bill progresses.

13:07

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and so many other colleagues across the House in this monumentally important debate. I have always been proud to be British and believe the UK’s amazing achievements have been magnified by being a gateway to the rest of Europe. Free markets across the Channel and our integrated industrial operations have enhanced our performance on the global stage. One-fifth of the UK supply chain is located inside the EU. I firmly believe our multicultural diversity has made Britain a vibrant beacon of tolerance, decency and mutual respect, harnessing home-grown and overseas expertise to the benefit of ourselves and the wider world. We must not throw this away.

Churchill spoke in his 1951 speech of the disadvantages and even dangers to us in standing aloof. He understood the perils of obsession with national sovereignty. It is a troubling sign of our times that anyone suggesting amending this Bill may be accused of wanting to frustrate the will of the people. That is nonsense. Parliament has respected the result of the referendum. It has triggered Article 50—albeit perhaps before we were ready—and is now trying to negotiate a good outcome for the whole United Kingdom from a new UK-EU relationship.

This Bill is supposed to be about providing certainty for the future and, most particularly, about our constitutional arrangements and legal framework after we transfer all EU-derived law into UK law as a result of Parliament’s respect for the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.

Some key issues of concern with the Bill have already been brilliantly exposed by previous speakers. It is our duty to scrutinise the legislation before us, which raises fundamental issues that go to the heart of our constitutional framework and parliamentary sovereignty. I do hope that my noble friend will listen carefully and relay these concerns back to his department, so that they can be addressed in government amendments.

First, on the Henry VIII powers, this House cannot rubber stamp giving authority to the Executive that would normally be the role of Parliament as a whole. The amendments to Clause 7 introduced in the other place are insufficient to prevent parliamentary democracy being subverted by Ministers. As my noble friend Lord Balfe rightly said, how would we on these Benches—or indeed many on the Benches opposite—feel about handing such sweeping powers to Jeremy Corbyn? We must not allow the Bill to water down hard-won rights, for women, workers, the disabled and minorities that people in this country have relied on.

I share the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords about Northern Ireland. The Government have promised a frictionless border, but have not actually come up with concrete proposals on how this will work. Paragraph 49 of the 8 December agreement promises regulatory alignment if no other way of protecting existing border freedoms can be found. That must mean staying in the customs union, single market and the EEA, with EFTA-style arrangements. There is no other way. Yet the Government, apart perhaps from my right honourable friend the Chancellor, have tried to skirt over such fundamental issues with soundbites.

Ideological fixations or fantasies must not undermine the Good Friday agreement that has brought peace to Northern Ireland. The British people did not vote to break up the United Kingdom. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”.


That brings me to one of the Bill’s most serious flaws. Parliament, not Ministers, must have a meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal. The Government have offered a vote on a potentially very damaging deal, and the potentially even more damaging no deal. That is a meaningless, not meaningful vote. Why is it so important? Because we need to respect the will of the people. This is not about undermining our democracy; it is about upholding it.

Many noble Lords have insisted that democracy requires that the 2016 vote is sacrosanct. They say that this is the will of the British people. They insist that those who voted to leave knew what they were voting for. Indeed they did. They voted to be better off; to have the exact same benefits as we have in the EU single market and customs union; for an extra £350 million a week that could go to the NHS; for easily agreed new free trade deals; for no change to the Northern Ireland border—and for having our cake and eating it. I could go on, but which of these elements promoted to the British people by the Leave campaign is being achieved? So far, it seems, not one.

If these promises cannot be delivered, what should a democracy do? Triggering Article 50 has respected the democratic vote of 2016. But we are now in 2018 and things may have changed. Democracy does not happen at only one moment in time. This is about the ordinary people of this country who are trusting us to look after their future. The Bill needs to allow flexibility to cater for alternative scenarios that reflect new realities.

That brings me, finally, to the Bill’s provisions for a so-called transition or implementation period. How has Parliament allowed itself to be enticed into this trap? We keep hearing about wanting to “take back control”. I say to noble Lords on all sides of the House who are sanguine about the direction of travel so far: please, open your eyes. Transition is the opposite of taking back control. It is about losing control. Once we are in a transition, we are trapped, with no way back. Our only ammunition may be a suicide bomb. We have surrendered our future and entered the unknown.

If what the British people were promised turns out to be fantasy—nearly one year on from triggering Article 50, we are still unsure what lies ahead—we cannot rely on meaningless slogans such as “Brexit means Brexit”, and referring to “deep and special” partnerships. We cannot hand the Executive a form with plenty of headings and no detail, and just leave them to fill in the blanks. We must have a better idea of where we are heading. Without a realistic vision of the future we want—one that is achievable—we must not continue on the current path without any alternatives. Perhaps an extension, as suggested by my honourable friend Mr Rees-Mogg, would be more honest, rather than a transition with no say over the rules. There are signs that the EU might agree to this. My honourable friend has also pointed out that entering such a transition would be the first time since 1066 that our laws could be made without our having a say. Does that not mean that Europe has not been a dictatorship? We have had, and still have, the freedom to make our own rules and laws inside the EU.

The necessary changes to the Bill need to be passed. That is not about undermining the will of the people; it is about upholding democracy.

13:15

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has always been a steadfast pro-European. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests as a former MEP.

So, Brexit—how do we think it is going? No unparliamentary language, please, from my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock in answering that question. According to the Government’s own economic impact report this week, we have to hold up our hands as the political establishment in this country and admit that we have probably scuppered people’s economic prospects for the next 15 to 20 years. This Bill, which our own Constitution Committee described as “constitutionally unacceptable”, comes to us at a time of unique instability in modern British politics. Half of Ministers and Conservative MPs want what my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, called a “buccaneering Brexit” that hauls us out into the mid-Atlantic, as far away from Europe as possible, and they want it to happen now, today, and with no transition. The other half, the Hammond half, want to shadow the economic and trade benefits of the European Union as closely as possible. My own party is not exactly free from criticism either. How can we answer Mr Barnier’s question—what does Britain want?—when we do not know ourselves?

The Trade Secretary, meanwhile, fresh from the Derek Trotter school of international trade negotiations —its strapline being, “This time next year we’ll all be millionaires”—is touring the globe to drum up trade with deals that “could”, “might”, “possibly”, “maybe”, “sometime in the future”, come to fruition. On top of that we hear the business chorus, the cacophony coming from Davos, demanding certainty—a certainty, of course, that an embattled Prime Minister just cannot give.

Meanwhile, the money men and women in the City of London are packing their bags and will probably head for Frankfurt, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested yesterday in his quite powerful speech. They have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleepwalk out of the European Union—with apologies to Robert Frost. British businesses and their workforces cannot wait for the Government to decide what they want: equivalence or passporting; customs union-lite or not at all; regulatory alignment or compatibility; transition or implementation or maybe both. Then, of course, we have what 19th-century Peers in your Lordships’ House used to call “the Irish question”. Here I declare my Irish nationality. The new Irish question is of course: “How can you have virtually no border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, and not be in the customs union and the single market?”. Paragraph 49 of the 8 December agreement, which supposedly answers this question, is written so ambiguously that Malcolm Tucker from “The Thick of It” would have been proud.

The purpose of the Bill before us is, as we know, to provide a functioning statute book on the day after we leave the European Union. But this Bill is not just a procedural device: it is not a cut-and-paste, drag-and-drop, pull-across-and-slap-it-down technical exercise to convert EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into domestic law. It is, in the words of our own House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a Bill that,

“contains unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers”,

or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in his excellent speech yesterday, “Oliver Cromwell” powers.

Chris Bryant MP suggested at Second Reading in another place that in the history of the 20th century, and I understand that he looked into this, no Bill ever attempted to do this, even in times of war or civil emergency. The Fawcett Society said in its briefing to us that, notwithstanding the gains from the equality Bill in the other place, it fears Ministers’ excessive powers to be able to amend and repeal all manner of employment and equalities legislation through this Bill. It should never be forgotten that our EU membership has brought enormous protection to the women of this country—their working rights, family rights and equal rights—much of it to do with the legal underpinning from the European Union.

Our EU membership has brought great protections that now seem to be at risk, because those rights do not continue under the Bill with the enhanced status that the legal underpinning from the European Union has given them for the last 40-odd years. They survive in the Bill only in delegated form, as do the equally important environmental and consumer rights that the British people take for granted as part of a safe, civilised life. The Government can expect no let-up in our efforts to make this Bill somehow, against all odds, work in the interests of the British people as we leave Europe, but leaving Europe is an act of extraordinary political self-harm for which our grandchildren and their children will not forgive us.

13:23

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and indeed a panoply of excellent speakers over the past two days. It is a well-worn opening sentence of after-dinner speakers to say: “As Henry VIII said to his wives, I shall not be keeping you long”. I hope indeed that I will not be keeping your Lordships for long but, more to the point, as the 129th speaker in this debate, I will only focus on the Henry VIII powers in the Bill.

Like many others, I have serious concerns about the powers being taken by Ministers. I have seen forecasts that more than 1,100 SIs could be used in this process. In my field, which is the environment and our countryside, some 80% of our laws are shaped by, and in some instances controlled by, Brussels, so our countryside and environment, more than any other aspect of our lives, could be gravely affected by Clauses 7 and 9. It is to be hoped that some of the necessary changes to that body of EU controls, judgments and laws concerning the environment can be dealt with in the four Defra Bills that should come before us before Brexit on animal welfare, fisheries, agriculture and, most importantly, environmental protection.

In this way, we can deal properly with many of the issues involved on the Floor of the House, but we must get it right. Post Brexit, we must create a new “brand UK” that exudes quality in every aspect of our lives—our beaches, habitats, rivers, air, soil and, indeed, the rights of our workers and of our children. There must be no opportunity for the Executive to water down this quality agenda. We must think long term and not rely only on the promises of the current Executive. As sure as eggs is eggs, they will change, and who knows what we will get in their place—of whatever party.

I believe that a democracy is only as safe as its institutions are strong. Having Ministers able to bypass our institutions and processes is not a good sign. The unprecedented powers granted to Ministers could be dangerous.

I am extremely dubious about the current sifting arrangements proposed by the Leader of the House yesterday. One committee for the Commons; another for the Lords—what a waste of everyone’s time. What happens if they disagree? How can any such committee, of whichever House, contain all the necessary expertise in the various fields involved—fields as diverse as the licensing of drugs; changes to scientific research, employment law or the Equality Act; alterations to the birds and habitats directives vis-à-vis raptors, squirrels or seabirds, or changes to our nuclear industry? Et cetera, et cetera. How will one group of Peers know whether every SI involved is a mere technical adjustment or is instead—surreptitiously or inadvertently—a complete game-changer?

Then there is the likely number of SIs—supposedly more than 1,100. How can one group of Peers or MPs deal with them all? SIs will be flying at them like snowflakes on to a car at night. You focus on one which immediately melts on the windscreen. Meanwhile, another 50 have flown in unnoticed. You are driving your institutional car into the black of night and probably into a snowdrift. This is not good enough. In my humble view, what is needed in the Bill, as well as changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, is a scrutiny committee with the power to appoint expert sub-committees—like our EU Sub-Committees, but made up of Members of both Houses. The committee should have the power to propose that some negative instruments become positive and even recommend, in a few rare cases, that primary legislation is required. Because time is likely to be of the essence in this process—hence the need to use secondary legislation—I suggest that they should be able to recommend that such and such an SI should have a sunset clause. I have checked with the clerks, who tell me that this is entirely possible. This way, before the sun sets, as it were, there can be time—in certain crucial areas—for primary legislation to be properly debated in both Houses.

We need to aim for the very best of Britain in our new independence. We all know that Governments cut corners and we must ensure that, for our environment at least, in the Bill this is made too difficult to contemplate.

13:28

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in a debate full of marvellous speeches, I apologise in advance that mine is going to be boring. It is possible to be boring and very important at the same time—I know: I used to work in the Treasury. I am going to look at a specific area but, by the end, this may be a lens through which we can look at the Bill as a whole.

I want to look at family law and the law affecting families with kids. In doing so, I have been grateful for some wise and thoughtful briefing from various quarters, including the Children’s Society and the Brexit family law group. Family law has a major international dimension. There are about 140,000 international divorces and 1,800 cases of child abduction within the EU every year. The matters at stake cover divorce and maintenance, child contact and child protection, child abduction and the protection of victims of domestic violence and harassment.

Brexit and the way this Bill is crafted pose some real problems for this area. By importing EU family provisions into our law, this Bill does not change substantive law, but it maintains our obligations without any guarantee of the reciprocity necessary to make them work. The result is that the Bill shunts us into a one-way street where the UK is obliged to apply the current provisions, but the EU 27 will not have to do the same for us because we will have left.

Although there is no effect on our substantive law, EU family provisions affect our lives in various ways. Imagine a German man, Andreas, married to an English woman, Jane, living in Germany with their son, Thomas. They are affected in various ways. First, there is jurisdiction. Imagine that Andreas and Jane separate and Jane comes back to England and petitions for divorce in Birmingham, while Andreas petitions in Berlin. Thankfully, there is a mechanism to decide which court takes precedence, avoiding expensive parallel proceedings.

Secondly, there is enforcement. If Jane gets an order from an English court for maintenance and Andreas will not pay up, Jane can enforce the English order by applying directly to the court in Germany using her English court paperwork, or via the central authorities. If Jane also has a contact order from an English court when Andreas fails to return Thomas after a summer visit, the EU family law provisions provide enhanced and quicker mechanisms to get him back. England also gets the final say if, for any reason, Germany will not return Thomas. If Andreas then gets cross and starts harassing Jane, she can get an injunction against him in England which is automatically enforceable in Germany.

Thirdly, there is co-operation. The stress means Jane starts neglecting Thomas and a neighbour gets worried and alerts social services, at which point Jane disappears to Ireland. Fortunately, the rules on co-operation mean the two countries can readily share information.

What will happen to this admittedly rather unhappy family post Brexit? We will lose the rules that stop parallel divorce proceedings, so with Andreas and Jane both petitioning for divorce, if Andreas files first in Germany, under this Bill we have to stop proceedings here. But if Jane files first, Germany does not have to stop its proceedings. We could end up with simultaneous cases running in Birmingham and Berlin at vast expense, reaching contradictory decisions on maintenance and contact with no certainty about enforcement. Jane loses the enhanced provisions that would ensure the speedy return of Thomas if his dad keeps him in Germany, and our courts lose their final say but would have to respect it the other way round. Jane would have no ability to enforce any domestic violence injunction in Germany. She would have to raise separate litigation there, by herself if she cannot afford lawyers.

On the rare occasions this has even been touched on, Ministers like to say that there are alternatives. They cannot point to common law as here we are talking procedural not substantive law. They might cite existing conventions but there is no guarantee that they will apply. There is nothing in place of the domestic violence protection measures. There are no practical alternatives on divorce. With regard to maintenance and children cases, the relevant Hague conventions offer much weaker protection and narrower provision than we have now.

In short, our citizens would be disadvantaged by lesser provisions. We would have to apply the EU provisions in our law while the EU 27 would have to give our citizens only the secondary protection under the Hague conventions, if they are applicable at all. The Bill will create confusion as to which laws apply and when. Families will not know whether or when their orders can be enforced and disputes will be slower and more expensive.

What are the alternatives to the options in this Bill? There are not many. The first is to retain full reciprocity. That would almost certainly mean being bound by the CJEU and its decisions, which Ministers currently reject. It is worth noting that unlike in other areas of law, here the CJEU is dealing only with procedural questions, not with substantive law. Every EU state keeps its own family law. The court can rule on questions of interpretation of laws, such as which country decides a case or the wording of enforcement orders. It does not change the law by which a country decides who gets divorced, what maintenance will be granted or how much contact there will be.

Secondly, we could seek a bespoke arrangement. We could try to make a deal with the EU for a new framework for family law co-operation. That would be slow and difficult and certainly not possible by 2019. Even if we end up with no deal and even if we can get rid of the asymmetry, there is still no guarantee that the Hague conventions would apply, leaving us with an unacceptable void.

I am very worried that Ministers appear to have given no attention to what they will do about this area. I have heard not a single thing telling us what they will do. By the time we get to Committee—where I intend to return to this—I very much hope that the Government are in a better position.

I have a final word on children. Children’s charities are deeply concerned about whether our law will be sufficiently robust and comprehensive to protect vulnerable children post Brexit. For example, not all the provisions of the EU anti-trafficking directive 2011 were brought into domestic law, which will leave real gaps in safeguards, for example for unaccompanied minors.

It is not just trafficking. Noble Lords may remember the awful case of Northern Irish teenager Ronan Hughes—just one example of the international nature of many crimes against children. He killed himself when images he was lured into sharing online were sent to his friends when he would not pay a ransom. Last year his blackmailer was finally put away thanks to Europol.

These issues do not make headlines, but perhaps they should. Whatever the high politics of Brexit, children in the UK deserve protection and our citizens should be able to enforce our family law in Berlin as well as in Birmingham. That is what is at stake. I very much hope that the Minister will attend to it.

13:34

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, that was a speech of concentrated expertise, which I certainly will not try to follow. For those of us who seek to be in the reasonable middle of this very polarised debate, and who anyway believe we should have fought for serious and fundamental EU reform before rushing into bilateral negotiations of any kind, space is rather tight, narrow and limited. It is difficult to decide which side is the more unappetising: the extreme Europhiles who believe, in rather a quaint, old-fashioned way, that it is the UK’s destiny to remain totally tied into the obviously outdated EU integrationist model, fed by daily doses of gloom from the Financial Times, or the extreme Brexiteers in their nirvana of taking control and sovereign independence, regardless of the world’s colossal and growing interdependence and connectivity and their “dancing on a head of a pin” arguments about hard and soft Brexit.

What seems not to be very well understood is that the Bill is part of a vast and elaborate process, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said yesterday. It is one course in the long menu of taking powers back from the EU Commission after all these years, handing them first to the Government and then back to Parliament and the people. We are trying to transfer four decades of law, influenced by its Roman and Napoleonic code antecedents, into common law, the law of Britain and the Commonwealth. We are taking it, so to speak, from Napoleon via Henry VIII—neither of them exactly models of democracy—as much as we can to Parliament and the people.

I do not fully understand how the legal experts, whose voices we have heard, imagine that this colossal enterprise can all be done in one Bill plus a sheaf of amendments. I do not understand their ambition. This is going to be a task and a continuing struggle for years to come; in fact, in the age of popular empowerment it may well intensify. We will certainly need the sort of new instruments that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was talking about a few minutes ago. Yet we seem to hear impatient voices, and even some constitutional experts, calling for every course in the menu to be served and devoured at once—for every stage to be done and sorted.

We always want to see, and will have to fight for, a better balance of powers between the Executive and Parliament. However, as some in this House will remember, it took 20 years to get into the old EU—the European Community, as it was—and, frankly, it is bound to take quite a few years to disengage and correct the balance again. Meanwhile, we have a great army of lawyers, judges, academics and, I am afraid, some of your Lordships all calling for more legal certainty and more clarity for judges. Of course they would say that. We all want certainty, but a bit of patience would be welcome all round, as well as a little more reading of the works of Karl Popper. I would like to hear the word “gradual” coming from the legal authorities a bit more often. What is the phrase? “A broadening down from precedent to precedent”—is that not the tradition on which we have been educated over hundreds of years? Businessmen are always calling for more certainty but I have to say that there has always been uncertainty and always will be. The judges will just have to do their best, as I am sure they always do.

As for the idea that we transfer back into British law the whole EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, memories seem to be pitifully short here. Do your Lordships not recall how, in our long debates on the Lisbon treaty, we showed up clearly all of the charter’s inadequacies? I can remember a decade ago standing at the Dispatch Box night after night trying—and obviously failing—to explain some of the sillinesses in this overloaded document, which is far inferior to our own protection of rights and our own commitments to the human rights of the citizens of this nation. Excitable legal experts seem to have forgotten all of that.

The case for the old 20th century EU integrated bloc idea grows weaker every day and the case for a new, more flexible and intelligent kind of European co-operation and co-ordination, in the completely transformed digital and big data age we are now in, grows stronger. Nothing is static. Patterns and networks of trade are being revolutionised even while we speak. The Bill is just one stage in preparing us for these totally transformed conditions and the sooner that we allow it through, modestly improved, the better for all.

13:41

Sitting suspended.

Income Inequality

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have a policy goal to reduce income inequality; and if so, what is their strategy for achieving that goal.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, income inequality is lower than it was in 2010. The best way to reduce inequality is by getting people into work, and since 2010 we have seen 3 million more people find work as a result. The national living wage has helped to reduce the proportion of full-time jobs that are low paid to the lowest level in at least 20 years. In the long term, this is the best way to improve living standards and reduce inequality, as well as to boost our productivity as a nation.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Minister had used the measure of income inequality recommended by the ONS rather than the ONS’s own less accurate measure, he would not have been able to paint nearly such a rosy picture, especially if housing costs were taken into account. As it is, inequality is starting to rise again and is predicted to increase massively by 2020 as a result of government policy. Could the Minister explain how a policy of freezing benefits for the worst-off in work, as well as out of work, to their disadvantage, while cutting taxes to the advantage of the better-off, will help to reduce inequality?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, to improve the living standards of squeezed households in the short term, the Government will boost incomes for the low-paid, increasing the national living wage and the personal allowance. To help to reduce the cost of living, we are freezing fuel duty and childcare and tackling housing costs. The core of the problem lies in our low productivity as a country, and we have to try to tackle this problem in both ways.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his new role. Given that food-bank use is set to hit a record high this year, and that a quarter of parents with children under 18 see someone in their household skip a meal, does the Minister agree that we need a national measure of household food insecurity to address the hunger crisis? Will the Government this week support the Food Insecurity Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading this Friday in another place?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I welcome the development of food banks; I believe that they have provided a very useful service to the community. They are widely supported on all sides of the House, I would have thought. I do not know what our attitude will be to the legislation that has been suggested but, none the less, the truth of the matter is that good eating is often in the control of the people who buy the food; too many people eat convenience food. Indeed, there was an article only the other day about the number of people who have obesity problems because they are not eating the right sort of food.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, there are 6 million adults in the lowest socioeconomic groups without access to the internet or the skills to use it. Yet we know that, on average, the lowest-income households can save over £170 a year by being connected. I am so happy to hear the Minister mention jobs because we also know that 90% of new jobs are now advertised only online. What specific actions are the Government taking to help the most vulnerable communities get access to the internet?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness to know that we had record tech investment in the UK last year.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, on another aspect of income inequality, can my noble friend confirm that, in an effort to reduce that inequality, he will have discussions with the BBC?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is as a result of our publishing the salaries of above £150,000 in the public domain that this whole business has come out. The Government deserve some credit for having done that.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level that equal societies, in terms of income, are much happier societies and that income inequality leads people not to be happy? Does he further agree that being in work does not mean that you have income equality? We have a lot of hard-pressed families on poverty wages, hence the food banks. What are the Government going to do to create this income equality, where we can all become happier people?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am a bit of an old-fashioned person. I believe that the path to happiness is being able to create some security for yourself and your family, having a job and being in work. We have record employment in this country at the moment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister invites us to look into his crystal ball, but we can look at the book. How does he explain the fact that, over the last 10 years, wages have not risen for the average worker—something which has not happened since Napoleonic times? How does he explain that the Social Mobility Commission, with the valuable work that it was doing, has resigned en bloc because of government failure to implement its proposals? The Minister has a case to respond to.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we are advertising for replacements for the Social Mobility Commission, but I come back to what I said earlier: wages for the lowest-paid have risen by 7% in real terms since 2015. That is the way to deal with poverty and, indeed, with social mobility.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we, along with Lithuania, are the most unequal country in Europe? Is he also aware that, as a result, only Serbia, Romania and Hungary have a higher proportion of children in raw poverty than this country? Both of these are driven by the Government’s reluctance to tackle inequality.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, that is not the case. I am afraid I must argue with the figures the noble Baroness has presented to the House. This country is the fifth-worst.

NHS: Clinical Negligence

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reducing (1) the amount set aside in NHS budgets for clinical negligence claims, and (2) the annual level of payment for such claims.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling clinical negligence costs. To do so, we have proposed to fix the amount that legal firms can recover from clinical negligence claims, proposed a scheme so that families whose babies experience severe, avoidable birth injuries have an alternative to lengthy court proceedings, and brought forward our ambition to halve maternal and neonatal deaths, brain injuries and stillbirths from 2030 to 2025.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Last year, the NHS paid out £1.7 billion in settlements for negligence claims—a 15% increase on the year before. A substantial part of that enormous amount was intended for the provision of private sector care. That is because Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 requires claims to be calculated on the basis of private healthcare, not the NHS. Allowing claims to be made on the basis of costs to the NHS would dramatically reduce costs. Does the Minister agree that repealing Section 2(4) would save the NHS an enormous amount of money?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I recognise the issue the noble Lord has raised; it has been raised by a number of people who are concerned about and interested in this issue, as we all are. The problems are significant. The annual costs of dealing with these injuries and other issues has quadrupled over the last 10 years. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. We have to act—indeed, the National Audit Office has implored us to act. It is one of the issues we are considering as part of a cross-government strategy that will report in September. I am not in a position to give more detail at this stage, but it is an area we are looking at.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I have acted for the NHS and the MDU on a number of occasions. However, perhaps the Minister will help me. One of the reasons why these claims have increased in value is because of the rather mysterious decision by the Government to alter the discount rate, which has often resulted in the doubling of the size of claims. Can he tell the House whether the Government are seriously considering placing a cap or tariff on damages, as is often done in other jurisdictions? That would not only clarify the amount of damages obtained, but significantly reduce the legal costs involved in such disputes.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Lord knows more about this issue than anyone in the House, I think. The issue of reform to tort law is difficult. We have to be very careful when stepping across the idea of full compensation. It is one of the issues we are looking at. Other countries, such as Australia, have looked at this and we are considering it as part of the cross-government strategy. As I said, we will report by September this year on our plans in this area.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is estimated that a relatively small number of clinical negligence cases end up as claims filed with the NHS. Has the NHS undertaken additional efforts to understand what factors cause certain cases to be escalated, in particular the attitude of lawyers in the NHS and trusts? How can escalation be prevented and, if so, when might the results be published?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I point the noble Baroness in the direction of a five-year strategy that was published by NHS Resolution, the body that acts on behalf of what used to be the NHS Litigation Authority. The strategy looked at many issues, not only how we can prevent escalation. One of the drivers of cost is unsuccessful claims; more of those are going on. It also looked at how we can reduce incidents in the first place and learn from deaths and injury throughout the system, so that we can start to reduce the burden overall.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is telling that if you google “clinical negligence”, the first four or five pages that come up are companies offering their services to support people making claims. According to the Medical Protection Society report last year, the annual costs to the NHS in England of settling clinical negligence claims was equivalent to training 6,500 doctors. That is expected to double by 2023, so the noble Lord is quite right that this is a terrible drain. I am very pleased to hear that the Government have plans to reduce the number of claims. Have they included taking into account the recommendations in the PAC report published at the end of last year?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

We absolutely have. Indeed, the PAC investigation and the National Audit Office report on this issue are very thorough and looked at the causes and drivers behind it. One is increased NHS activity—not worse safety but the fact that the NHS is doing more. The investigation also looked at the legal environment and some of the changes that have occurred. The noble Baroness is right: a number of firms offer these services. That is important for access to justice but we also need to fix the costs that they can claim so that we get this budget under control.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the statistics show that 46% of the litigation cases involve misdiagnosis and 34% involve surgical errors. However, the largest settlements are for obstetric cases, particularly those related to babies who have suffered brain damage at birth. The important thing is to prevent these accidents occurring. The key issue here is better and continuous training in interpreting foetal heartrate patterns during labour. That is what we should focus on—preventing these cases happening.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I completely agree with the noble Lord and make two points in response. He will know of the Secretary of State’s great passion for this area and of the maternity safety training funding and other training funding. From April, we will introduce the healthcare safety investigation branch, which will investigate each of the 1,000 incidents noted by the Each Baby Counts project which occur at birth, whether brain damage or neonatal death, precisely so that we can learn from that experience and make sure that those who provide these services are properly trained to avoid these incidents wherever humanly possible.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, we need to do something to tackle this issue much more urgently as the total cost of the litigation in the pipeline is some £65 billion—half the NHS budget. Until and unless we do something about changing Section 2(4) of the relevant Act we will have a continuing problem with patients claiming for private care when they should have their care provided by the NHS.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I agree with my noble friend; this is an issue, not least because, when that Act was brought in, the NHS was a very different creature and did not offer the extensive range of care that it does now. We need to make sure that we are not effectively paying twice. However, this is a difficult and complex legal issue. It is important that we take our time to investigate how we tackle it properly so that those who are unfortunately affected by poor care are not put at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives.

Brexit: Transition Period

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked by

[Lord Lennie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their objectives for the Brexit transition period.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, both the UK and the EU are in agreement that a strictly time-limited period would be mutually beneficial. An implementation period forms a key part of a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. It would provide time for government, people and businesses to adjust to the new arrangements and prevent businesses in both the UK and Europe having to make decisions before they know the shape of our future partnerships.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

This not a bridge to a clear destination but a gangplank to thin air—I think that was the quote. Secretary of State David Davis said in evidence to the Lords European Union Committee this week that during transition things would not be exactly the same but very, very similar to what they are now. Will the Minister explain to the House what the very, very similar differences are that we can expect during the transition period?

[Lord Callanan]

The two main differences, and the reason that we need to construct an implementation period are, first, the ability for us to sign and agree trade deals with third countries, and, secondly, to agree and sign a trade deal with the EU, which is legally impossible as long as we are a member.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I hate to say it but my noble friend continues to refer to this period as an “implementation period”. For there to be an implementation period there needs to be a treaty to implement. Under my reading of Article 50, it is impossible for us to negotiate a treaty during the process of Article 50. We can conclude that only after March 2019. Does my noble friend agree that that is the case and that we should stop using the phrase “implementation period”? It is a transition during which we will negotiate the final treaty.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank my noble friend for his helpful question. As he well knows, Article 50 makes it clear that the withdrawal agreement needs to take account of the future relationship so that we will know the terms of our new partnership with the EU by the time of our exit. This is the basis on which we have to work.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Government do not have a clue where they are going, would it not be a lot less dangerous to seek to extend Article 50 and stay longer in the EU instead of sticking to a dogmatic target exit date? That would allow both Parliament and the people to take control and shape all stages of Brexit negotiations, including withdrawal, transition, implementation and any future relationships—giving them, of course, the choice of remain, which is the best.

[Lord Callanan]

The Liberals have obviously forgotten all about the referendum, but we will put that to one side. As an ex-member of the European Parliament, the noble Baroness will know that it is obviously illegal for the EU to sign trade deals with a country that is still a member. We need to be a third-party country, and we need also during the period to have the ability to agree and sign trade deals with other countries. That is why we need an implementation period. Article 50 says that we will leave the EU on 29 March next year. That is what will happen.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister say what will happen if the period chosen by the EU and ourselves for the standstill period turns out to be insufficient for the negotiation of all the details and the implementation of the new partnership? Will that not simply postpone the cliff edge by 19 months or two years, and will it not then subject business to two wrenching changes, where one is the maximum that should be even thought about?

[Lord Callanan]

The reason that we are doing this is to have one set of changes. I totally agree with the noble Lord. It is very important that this period is strictly time limited, and both we and the EU agree that roughly two years is the appropriate period.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, what part of the Question, “What are their objectives?”, does the Minister not understand? He has signally failed to answer the Question about the objectives of the Government. Would he agree with me that deliberately to continue not to give an account to Parliament of the objectives that we are supposed to be supporting the Government in is in fact a breach of the House’s right and amounts to a gross contempt of Parliament?

[Lord Callanan]

The Question was about the objectives of the implementation period, which I think I answered fully. If the noble Lord is referring to the objectives of the renegotiation, the Prime Minister set those out very clearly in her Florence speech and in her Lancaster House speech.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do have to press the Minister on this point. He referred again to the implementation period. The Question is more accurately about the transition period. I think that is understood by noble Lords. What are the Government’s objectives? The Prime Minister was quite clear previously when she said that access to one another’s markets will continue on the current terms, maintaining on current terms the customs union and single market, and that we will also continue to take part in existing security measures. Can he confirm that those are still the Government’s intentions and objectives for the transition period?

[Lord Callanan]

Yes. The Question was, “What are their objectives for the Brexit transition period?”. I answered what our objectives for the Brexit transition period were. The noble Lord then asked me about the wider renegotiation objectives, and I answered that—but of course the policy remains as set out by the Prime Minister.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

If we are leaving the single market and the customs union, as we have been consistently told by the Prime Minister that we are, at 11 pm on 29 March, how can we carry on trading on the same conditions as we currently do?

[Lord Callanan]

We are leaving the single market and the customs union on 29 March last year—I mean next year; I will have to do better in my speech later. That remains the position, but we have said that if we can negotiate an implementation period, then in the withdrawal agreement which will be put before your Lordships later this year, we will replicate the provisions of our current membership. So we will be out of it but we will replicate the provisions in an identical way for a strictly time-limited implementation period.

Prisons: Careers Guidance

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:24

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have cancelled the contract of the National Careers Service to provide careers guidance in prisons.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the custodial element of the National Careers Service contract has not been cancelled; it will reach its expiry date on 31 March 2018. We are reviewing options for alternative provision as part of wider employment services. We are committed to providing training and advice to deliver effective rehabilitation for the needs of offenders.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, job coaches, who are likely to replace the present people who deal with prisoners, are not people who visit just before release. Others coming into this position will not provide as good a service as the career advisers, who work with prisoners over a considerable time. Can the Minister say what consultations have taken place on this decision and whether the results will be published in due course? Why have the Government refused to provide information as to the likely number of advisers who will no longer be employed?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the contract for the in-custody National Careers Service element could have been extended by a further period of six months maximum from 31 March 2018. A decision was made not to extend it because an internal review of the service being provided indicated that custody contract performance showed significant inconsistencies of service between institutions. As regards its replacement going forward, I note, for example, that community rehabilitation companies already work with every prisoner 12 weeks prior to release to ensure a personalised plan with respect to employment, and Department for Work and Pensions prison work coaches also work in this field. Indeed, it has been noted, particularly in 2016 by Dame Sally Coates in her review of prison education, that there is overlap and duplication within the current arrangements for supporting prisoners.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as in the register. A number of organisations provide services which assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. Does the Minister agree that to remove the National Careers Service will add to the overcrowding problem, thus increasing reoffending rates, which are now at as much as 70% in young offender institutions?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we do not consider that this will contribute to reoffending rates. One of the issues we wish to address with regard to future education contracts is the development of greater autonomy and governor empowerment, which will lead to local commissioning of these services and which we believe will lead to an improvement in them.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, will the internal review that the Minister has just mentioned include looking at organisations which offer the ability to search for jobs online? There is an organisation called Prosper 4, which at the moment has 3,000 jobs on offer to ex-prisoners but only 200 prisoner takers, because the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS seem to refuse to use online job-seeking.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, perhaps I should clarify. I referred to an internal review that had been carried out to determine the standard of service being provided under the National Careers Service in-custody contract, and it was that which led to the decision to let the contract terminate at its natural point in March 2018. On the provision of alternative services, and indeed online services, we are of course open to submissions about such a matter, and it will be an aspect of the governor empowerment proposals that we are taking forward.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Government indicate how many people they believe who were released from prison will be in full-time employment 12 months after release?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not have those figures immediately to hand, but I am content to write to the noble Lord, outlining such figures as we have in that regard, and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

Would the Minister agree with me that one of the encouraging features about jobs and careers for prisoners is the number of times employers from the private sector engage prisoners, while they are still in prison, who turn out to be satisfactory employees who then continue that employment when they leave?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, in response to the question from my noble friend, I agree that there have been notable successes in this area, and we should appreciate the work done by some particular employers in this regard. There is one in particular where present indications are that something like 10% of their workforce are former inmates. If we can encourage other employers to take this step forward, we can help to reduce recidivism in the prison population.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest barriers to employment is poor literacy skills? Can he say how many people going into prison are functionally illiterate, and how many fewer are not when they come out?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is unfortunate but true that a very large proportion of those going into prison suffer mental health problems or literacy issues. We attempt to address those during their period in prison. Some improvement is achieved; it is not as great, perhaps, as we would hope, but within our prisons there is a difficult cohort as far as education and literacy are concerned.

Personal Statement

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

15:31

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I offer my sincere apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for my discourtesy in not being in my place to answer her Question on a very important matter at the beginning of Questions.

During the five years in which it has been my privilege to answer Questions from this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government, I have always believed that we should rise to the highest possible standards of courtesy and respect in responding to the legitimate questions of the legislature. I am thoroughly ashamed at not having been in my place, and therefore I shall be offering my resignation to the Prime Minister with immediate effect.

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Chief Whip will have heard the House. An apology from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, is perfectly sufficient.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It was a minor discourtesy, of which any of us can be guilty on occasion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (2nd Day) (Continued)

15:32

[Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to say it was a pleasure to open this debate again, but I hope my noble friend Lord Bates, who has given 20 years of strong public service, will resume his place on the Front Bench.

I am the 132nd speaker in this debate. I declare my relevant interests as the chair of a think tank that receives EU grants, and as an adviser to businesses on international affairs. It is my ambition in the next six minutes to make two fresh arguments about the Bill. I am not sure if it is possible to do so at this stage, but each arises from the two areas of broad consensus—reluctant consensus—that exist in this debate. The first is that so many agree, however reluctantly, that it is necessary to pass a Bill that provides for withdrawing from the EU and the continuity and amendment of law, and that such a Bill should have its Second Reading. The other is that the Bill has not arrived in this House in a perfect, finished form, as Ministers themselves are ready to admit, and are quite right to do so.

On the first point, it has always been my position, as someone who voted to remain, that the best posture after the disappointment of the referendum, is for the Government, Parliament and country to make a success of it, or limit the damage, depending on your point of view. That therefore brings me into immediate conflict with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his place and for whom I have enormous respect. He made a speech that could have been—and maybe was—delivered in the referendum campaign, putting the democratic argument for another referendum. Of course, there is always a democratic argument for another say about a controversial matter, but that has to be weighed against the democratic force of the argument that people were told in June 2016 by all sides that their vote would be decisive. They turned out in numbers unusual even for a general election. More people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any Government in the history of the United Kingdom.

Therefore, we have to subject the case for another referendum at the conclusion of negotiations to a critical test and think of the consequences. What would happen if the people of the country, having voted with that democratic force to leave the EU, then voted not to approve an agreement on how to leave the European Union? Would it mean that we would leave anyway with no deal under Article 50 or would it mean that the Government would have to go back and negotiate another deal? Would there not then be a very valid case to put that to, yes, another referendum—a third referendum—or would such a referendum cancel the result of the earlier referendum? Would there then not be an overwhelming case for people to campaign to reinstate the result of the June 2016 referendum? They would have a lot of justification in fighting such a campaign.

I cannot believe that it is in the national interest to get on to such a referendum merry-go-round, whatever point of view we fought for in the referendum campaign. We could have made a success of the United Kingdom in the European Union and we can make a success, with some cost and upheaval, of being outside the European Union, but we cannot possibly make a success of being in a national state of bewilderment about when we are going to have another referendum and which direction we are going in.

Therefore, I believe that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, put—very well, of course—must be weighed against consideration of the risks involved in putting forward such a proposition and of the extra difficulty that would be placed on negotiating an agreement to leave if another referendum were to be held. Article 50 is not designed for a change of the decision towards the end of the process, and it would plunge the country into a long and bitter dispute and division greater than anything we have seen so far.

My second point relates to the unfinished nature of the Bill. Here, I have my only note of criticism of my colleagues in Her Majesty’s Government, who I think are doing a good job in trying to implement the referendum outcome. In December, they achieved an entirely reasonable agreement at the interim stage in very difficult circumstances. However, straight after the referendum some of us argued for—shall I say?—a warmer embrace of parliamentary scrutiny than the Government have sometimes shown, including a vote on Article 50 at an early stage. Had they done so, they would not have ended up being overruled in the Supreme Court. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to maintain a new enthusiasm for that scrutiny, as shown in amendments made in the other place.

In my determination to come up with a fresh point, I wish to add to the list of reasonable points that have been made about the legislation. Clause 9 now states, against the Government’s objections, that regulations made for implementing the withdrawal agreement must be,

“subject to the prior enactment of a statute … approving the final terms of withdrawal”.

However, 10 lines later it says:

“No regulations may be made … after exit day”.


Given the tendency of EU regulations to go over the time allotted and for parliamentary proceedings to fill the time allotted, the gap between those two events might be measured in days. Therefore that is another piece of legislation, along with others that have been mentioned in this debate, to which further thought should be given. So I hope Ministers will continue the robust implementation of the outcome of the referendum, will set forth the arguments against a referendum merry-go-round that might never end and is not in the national interest, and will embrace the parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty that was surely meant to be one of the upsides of leaving the European Union in the first place.

15:39

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, we need a Bill to maintain within law the protections and the continuity that we have. The decision to leave the European Union having been made—whatever one thinks of it—the consequence will be that many laws on which we presently depend will fall away unless steps are taken to keep them in place. But that does not mean just any Bill. This legislation is so serious and so important—for ourselves, for our citizens, for our children—that we have to get it right, and getting a complicated and important piece of legislation right is one of the things that this House does particularly well. We need to make it fit for purpose, as my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said, or—in the rather more graphic terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—copper-bottomed, ironclad and storm-proof. She is absolutely right, because when the Bill becomes an Act it will have to withstand many storms from citizens hoping that it still delivers protections for their rights, and we must not disappoint them; and from lawyers, and I speak as one, hoping to thwart them or to provide even more.

I have never before heard a debate in which so many Lords from all parties and from none have criticised a Bill for its technical deficiencies, its assault on our constitution, its assault on parliamentary sovereignty, its extraordinary switch of power to Ministers, the jeopardy it creates to our devolution settlement and the legal uncertainty it creates, not to mention the risk it poses to the peace in Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. Whatever the differences on other matters—leave or remain, a second referendum or not—there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that the Bill, as it stands, does not do what is required to make it fit for purpose. Wanting to make it fit for purpose is not putting a spanner in the works. It is not frustrating the Bill or the people’s will. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, was right to make that point. So there will be many amendments that we will have to consider, such as dropping the word “appropriate” in many places for something much tighter. I hope the Government heard the powerful challenge to it from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton—who as a former Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, Permanent Secretary of the most legislating department of all, the Home Office, knows a thing or two about legislation—and his comments on what Ministers might do and delegated powers. Indeed, I hope they heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, with his experience in local and central government.

It has been a privilege to hear so many excellent speeches and outstanding contributions, such as those from the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Patten of Barnes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, not to mention those from this side, such as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Judd—as well as some unforgettable images, such as the gangplank into thin air of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges; the nervous maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, settling down to a Quentin Tarantino movie; or the rather worrying image conjured up by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of somebody—and I am not quite sure how many people—getting into a bath to sing. But to make this Bill fit for purpose requires in my mind at least three objectives: to make sure there is legal certainty after the Bill is passed; to ensure that protections for the people, workers and women of this country, and everyone else, are not diminished—I pay tribute here to my noble friend Lady Crawley for rightly pointing out how European law has protected women; and, thirdly, to do so in a way which maintains the critical elements of our constitution, including devolution and, above all, the sovereignty of Parliament.

The damage this Bill will do to our constitution, if not significantly amended, has been powerfully described by a number of noble Lords and in the brilliant report of our Constitution Committee. They are right to say that this Bill, as it stands, is constitutionally unacceptable, including the largest transfer of power, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said. They are right to say that it risks undermining legal certainty in a number of ways.

I want to say, in the short time I have, a word or two about the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I declare an interest in that I was, as many Members of the House will know, the representative of the Prime Minister—in fact, the United Kingdom Government representative—in the negotiation of the charter, so I had a very close involvement in its drafting. A number of other Members of your Lordships’ House were also involved. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was a representative of the House with my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids as his alternate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, was a Member of the European Parliament delegation, while the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, was at the time an alternate Member representing the House of Commons. I mention those noble Lords not to share with them any of the criticisms that have been made of the charter, but to illustrate something that is not often recalled about it. It was drawn up by a wide body representing Parliaments, the European Union institutions and Governments.

I need also to declare that I have spoken and written many times on the charter because of my close involvement with its drafting. I have no doubt that during the coming debates, some of what I said or have written will be pushed back to me, because it is the case that we in the United Kingdom were anxious to avoid confusion with other rights, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, and so emphasised the limited role of the charter. But that was then and a lot has happened since. The charter has been relied on in national and supranational courts, it has been talked about a great deal, and in Committee we will have to look at some of this. We need to remember that the rights in the charter do not derive only from the ECHR, as is sometimes thought, but from a number of sources, including EU law as well as general principles of law which have no other individual legislative base. It also adds important remedies which do not otherwise exist.

That brings me to a point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lady Blackstone, and by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Why are the Government so determined that the one element of protection that will not be kept in place after the Bill has been passed is the Charter of Fundamental Rights? They say that there is no need because all the rights are protected in any event. If that is so, what is the harm in keeping it in place? If it is not the case and removing the charter will come, as many people believe, to diminish the protections they currently have, that would be a bad turn. In fact there are a number of good reasons why we need to keep the charter—reasons enumerated by, for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the commentary in its report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. I respectfully commend that to noble Lords. Six powerful reasons are given why we need to keep the charter.

According to the Guardian, one of the new Brexit Ministers, Suella Fernandes, has said that exiting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights would “avoid” extra protections. If that is what is happening, that is not maintaining the protections which currently exist in this country. Even if it were right that the protections add nothing, why remove them? It will mean that the rights in the charter from which we and our fellow citizens should benefit will be less accessible and less visible. That is because making rights visible and accessible was one of the key purposes of the charter. It would be mean-spirited to remove it. To make a change in this Bill to reduce the visibility and accessibility of rights, even if eventually they can all be found somewhere else is—I say it again—mean-spirited. Having and celebrating rights, not hiding them but being proud of them, is the mark of a good, decent culture. That is the sort of culture and country in which I want my children and grandchildren to grow up.

15:48

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. Although I do not agree with the picture he painted of the multiple referendum scenario, I am inclined to think that we would all be better off if the Prime Minister had persuaded him to return to the Foreign Office.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Beith]

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legal mechanism to ensure that if we leave the European Union, we do so without leaving a huge hole in our law. However, we are having to consider it when we have no idea of what our future relationship with the rest of Europe will be and we have a Cabinet that cannot agree on what that relationship should be. Moreover, the Bill as drafted is incapable of carrying out its purpose without leaving a mess of legal uncertainty for the courts to sort out, without giving sweeping powers to Ministers, without undermining the sovereignty of Parliament and without undermining the devolution settlement, the Good Friday agreement and the future integrity of the United Kingdom. All that is in addition to the damage that Brexit will do to the UK economy and to European common endeavour on issues such as security, judicial co-operation and the environment. That is also in addition to the damage that leaving the customs union and the single market will do to my own region, the north-east of England, with its strengths in the motor industry, train building, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and its universities.

As this process staggers on, the demand for the eventual terms to be put to the British people will grow. In the meantime, however, let us get the Bill right; let us try to make sure that it does not further embed undemocratic practices, ambiguous laws and overcentralised government.

My priorities for the task are those of the Constitution Committee, on which I have the honour to serve in the company of some of the most expert and diligent Members of this House. There is a very convenient set of potted biographies of us all in Monday’s Daily Mail, in which we are named not as “enemies of the people” but as “The peers trying to slam the brakes on Brexit”. In this task, however, that is not what we are doing: we are trying to fix the steering and get the Bill through its MOT test.

We should first be getting the task of the courts manageable and the sovereignty of Parliament clearer by treating retained European law as primary legislation. Why a Brexit Government want to confuse the issue by retaining the concept of the supremacy of EU law in the Bill puzzles me.

Secondly, we must secure effective parliamentary control over the mass of delegated legislation which will flow from this Bill, by more narrowly defining its scope and by giving the House the power to determine, not merely to advise on, what level of scrutiny it requires. This is not just about Henry VIII powers. It extends to other statutory instruments, which can, for instance, set up new public bodies. Such an instrument would not be open to amendment, so the House could be presented with a new health or environment regulator and be unable to insist that it was more independent or had a better defined remit.

My third objective is to see that Clause 11 is amended so that it conforms to the devolution settlement. As drafted, the Bill allows the UK Government to hold on to powers which should be passing directly to the devolved Governments. There may indeed be a need for common frameworks in some fields, but as it stands these would not be discussed on an equal basis. UK Ministers could say, “We will devolve the powers, but only if you accept our view on what the common framework should include”. The power of UK Ministers to change the content of legislation previously enacted by devolved Parliaments is an offence against the principles of devolution. I have no idea why Ministers have not so far delivered on their promise to amend this clause, but we need to see whether what they propose is adequate and whether they have got the message that this House has delivered loud and clear.

Finally, I remain puzzled—or should I say mistrustful —about the position of Brexit hardliners. They say that they want to bring power back to this Parliament—this sovereign Parliament. This sovereign Parliament, however, is entitled to insist that Brexit, if it happens, does not become an accretion of power by Ministers without adequate parliamentary control. Furthermore, this sovereign Parliament is entitled, if it chooses, to insist that if we do leave the European Union we nevertheless seek to remain in the customs union and the single market, for the sake of British business and British jobs. Moreover, this sovereign Parliament, once the terms of any British exit are known and the reality of it becomes clear, is entitled—if it wants to—to seek the opinion of the British people as to whether this is what they want.

15:53

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to go before the end of the debate, which allows me to participate in this really important discussion. This is a vast area, so I have chosen to confine my comments to the implications of this Bill for Britain’s 12 million disabled people.

Disabled people in Britain have benefited from some of the best equality and human rights legislation in the world. Indeed, Britain is a world leader. A significant part of that is grounded in EU law, and the EU has been at the forefront of measures to enhance accessibility for disabled people, such as special assistance at airports, web accessibility, accessible goods and services and manufactured goods.

Disabled people are right to be concerned that those benefits should not be lost or watered down when the UK leaves the EU, as countless organisations, such as Scope, Disability Rights UK, Mencap and others have impressed on me. They have fought very hard to gain some measure of equality, and there are still too many instances of human rights violations against disabled people in Britain in the 21st century.

As so many noble Lords do, I too have deep concerns about the sweeping powers the Bill gives Ministers to amend or repeal legislation, with inadequate safeguards and scrutiny by Parliament. The Government have said that delegated powers will not be used to make significant policy changes and that equality rights protections will be maintained. But this is not reflected in the Bill so far and it needs an explicit commitment to non-regression. I strongly caution against measures which allow delegated powers to change any equality or human rights laws. Having been personally involved in developing advice, information and detail on disability equality laws in this country for decades, I would be extremely alarmed if they could be changed other than by primary legislation. When delegated powers are used in other cases, the Minister should specifically confirm that they will not affect equality or human rights.

My second concern is, I am afraid, one which many others have: with the exclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government claim it adds nothing that is not covered elsewhere but an independent QC, instructed by the EHRC, has said that its exclusion would lead to a “significant weakening” of human rights protection in the UK. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its report, as others have also said, commenting on the Government’s analysis of the charter’s provisions. It shows all too clearly that exclusion of the charter will result in legal uncertainty, which is likely to undermine human rights protection.

The charter contains some rights that are not replicated elsewhere, such as Article 26, which helps give effect to disabled people’s independence and participation in community life. It helps me to speak in this debate. Many charter rights, which are based on general principles of EU law, will no longer be enforceable: for instance, Article 1 on “Human dignity”. I find this deeply worrying. The charter has helped to interpret how the principles of EU law operate. It provides a really important framework for protecting equality, fairness and human dignity, which I believe will be weakened if it is excluded. Given that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is still not incorporated into UK law, this is no time to risk erosion of our rights. Excluding the charter is not only about the loss of rights. Victims of abuses have stronger remedies under the charter than under the Human Rights Act. At best the demise of the charter will create uncertainty and confusion, contrary to the Bill’s intention. It must be retained.

Equality and rights for everyone are of paramount importance to building a fair and just society—a society that works for all. I intend to do my utmost to help the Government ensure that these essential rights are not lost under the Bill, and I will support amendments to achieve that aim.

15:59

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long by my remarks. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I voted to remain. One of my key reasons for doing so was my fear that any leave vote would undermine the integrity of our United Kingdom. I should have had more faith in my fellow Scots because, more than a year on, it is now clear that the union has not been undermined in Scotland by the vote of the United Kingdom to leave the EU but that, in fact, the entire United Kingdom will leave the EU next year.

My issue is how this Bill can be improved in respect of Clause 11 and the devolution settlement in our United Kingdom. I can fully understand why, in Clause 11, there was an intention when the Bill was drafted to ensure the integrity of the single UK market, which is so important for our whole United Kingdom and especially for Scotland. For Scotland, it is four times larger than the EU market, something that is often underestimated. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, maintaining that UK market is absolutely essential to the future of the United Kingdom.

However, it is clear that perception is reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said in last week’s debate on Brexit and devolution, there is a clear perception that the devolution settlement is being undermined by the current Clause 11, which the Government have thankfully committed to seeing righted through amendment. It is very important, as we move through the stages of the Bill, that we ensure that any such amendment is one agreed by all three Governments: Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government as well. It is clearly disappointing that there is not currently a Northern Ireland Executive to support and work on that amendment because, at the moment, Clause 11 undermines our constitutional settlement. As the Constitution Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made clear, this is a very important and fundamental weakness in the Bill that we must address.

As I said last week in the Brexit and devolution debate, we have an opportunity through Brexit to strengthen our United Kingdom by demonstrating that Her Majesty’s Government recognise and fully support the devolution settlement and that the devolved Administrations are fully involved in the Brexit negotiations and process as we go on. It is important that we give a clear signal that that is going to happen by seeking and securing agreement between all parties involved on this fundamental amendment. We have an opportunity to do so: I know that Her Majesty’s Government are working very hard to do this. I was also very encouraged by the briefing for Peers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which showed that they were fully engaged and optimistic about the outcome’s framework agreements between themselves and the UK Government. This withdrawal Bill—with the necessary amendment—offers us an opportunity as a House and as a Government to ensure that people understand that the devolution settlement is safe in a Brexit UK, and that the devolved Governments will be fully involved in the process of leaving the EU.

16:03

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing on which we are all agreed is that this is a hugely important and necessary Bill if we are to avoid any kind of legal cliff edge. For me, it possesses a very important characteristic that is sadly all too rare in most of the legislation that comes before this House. The test that it passes is that, for all its complexity and weaknesses, it is crystal clear in its central purpose and objective. It is designed to ensure that this Parliament, of which we are privileged to be Members, will restore to itself the full authority to make the laws which the British public are obliged to observe. If the people do not like the laws passed by MPs, then they can remove them in a general election. That is at the heart of our parliamentary system: a Government accountable to the people through a directly elected House of Commons. For me, the sovereignty of Parliament is a golden principle which was severely compromised by the European Communities Act and about which we have been careless for far too long.

Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing very much with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in his view that parliamentary sovereignty in the passage of this legislation towards our exiting is very important indeed. I welcome the many people who are expressing the need to see that that is involved in all stages of the process. I have to say that it is some contrast to the fact that many of these people are strong supporters of the European Communities Act, which was about removing or diminishing parliamentary sovereignty in this country. I welcome this Bill, which removes legislative powers from the EU institutions, where Bills are passed by people over whom we have little control and who we cannot remove, and brings them back to the British Parliament which is democratically accountable to the British people. As they say these days, “What’s not to like about that?”

There are many who say, and I have heard it many times, that the Bill is restoring powers not to Parliament but to Ministers, and I agree with much of that. There will be important discussions on Henry VIII powers and various forms of delegated legislation and the like, but what I find weak about the power grab argument is that it implies that Parliament—the House of Commons—is powerless in respect of Ministers. Ministers are answerable day in, day out to MPs. Ministers’ reputations, often their careers, are made and broken in Parliament. Most important of all, if the House of Commons does not like the way that Ministers are running the country, it can defeat them all in a vote of no confidence in the Government and let the people decide, as happened in 1979. I know because, like many other noble Lords, I was there.

The Bill arrives in our House as part of a process which began with the referendum result and the 17.4 million people, a record poll, who voted to leave the EU. That falls off the tongue as a glib phrase, but we should reflect for a moment on the significance of that vote. Leave votes were cast despite advice coming from virtually everyone in authority—let us call them “the great and the good”—telling people to vote remain: the Tory Government, the Labour Opposition, virtually all the other political parties—the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Green Party and the Welsh nationalists—the captains of industry, trade union leaders, the universities, the IMF, the Bank of England and leaders of sundry countries throughout the world. Yet despite all this warning of the perils of voting leave, amazingly, astonishingly, the people said, “Thanks very much for your advice, which we usually dutifully follow, but this time no thanks”.

There is no polite or popular way for me to say this, but there is an elephant in this room. It is the colossal mismatch between the balance of opinion here, judging by the contributions in debates over the months, and the balance of opinion in the country at large. When I go home at weekends, people do not say, “I made a dreadful mistake, I voted leave”; they say, “Why aren’t you getting on with it?” Given that the most often quoted reason for leave voters voting the way they did was that they were not being listened to in Parliament, let us not confirm that impression, particularly not in an unelected House, by appearing to delay or, at worst, block Brexit. Above all, let us avoid saying to 17.4 million voters, as some speeches have seemed to, that we know what is good for them better than they know themselves.

Since the referendum we have had a general election in which nearly 85% of the electorate voted for parties committed to leaving the European Union. My party manifesto stated clearly:

“Labour accepts the referendum result”,


and:

“We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners”.


The Conservative manifesto stated:

“Following the historic referendum on 23rd June 2016, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union”.


Parties which were most hostile to us leaving the EU, notably the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the Greens, all lost vote share. The Liberal Democrats, who have been quite clear that they want the referendum result reversed, who voted against the implementation of Article 50 and who called for a second referendum to cancel out the first, saw their vote share drop from 7.9% to 7.4% or, to put it another way, the party which inaugurated its general election campaign by aiming and claiming to be the party of the 48% concluded its campaign as the party of the 7.4%.

In conclusion, our responsibility in respect of the Bill is clear. It is to examine the Bill in detail, as we always do; to ensure that it is fit for purpose; and in so doing, to respect the referendum, which we established in this House, and its result, which it is now our duty to implement.

16:10

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He is an accomplished parliamentarian who has the benefit of consistency. The line that he has just been peddling, with which I profoundly disagree politically, has been held by him consistently since 1972, which is quite a claim to fame.

However, there was a glimmer of hope in the remarks he made, as he said that he agreed with some of the things that my noble friend Lord Beith said. I think that the House will look to him and all his political stagecraft and experience to make sure that scrutiny procedures are maintained, because we will need all the help we can get to make sure that the Government do not just give Ministers blank cheques.

The standout moment for me yesterday was when the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, tellingly, that keeping every option open was no option at all. That is the message that I hope this debate will carry to the Government, because it crystallises the problem politically as I see it. The standout moment for today, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to, is the graphic image from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of two noble Lords in a bath singing “Je ne regrette rien”. I apologise to the noble Lord, but I have to say this, because it is true. A mental image appeared in my brain of the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Cormack, in a hot tub singing it. That is an Instagram image to kill for. This is meant with due respect to both noble Lords.

This has been a very constructive debate—and worth listening to, because the points have all been apposite. It is not yet boring, although that might be different by 9.30 pm. I hope the Government have clearly understood that there is no attempt on anybody’s part to wreck the Bill. There was never any attempt to do that, and no appetite for it on any side. If there was, I would know about it—and there is not. I can tell the Minister with some authority that he need have no fears about the Bill not getting a Second Reading. However, in a political context, the Government are clearly the author of their own misfortune. As the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and some other colleagues have said, self-imposed red lines and deadlines with no end game in sight are a recipe for incoherence and incompetence—which is the position that we are in at the moment.

We are all anxious to burnish our credentials. I arrived in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster in 1971, and one of the first acts I witnessed was the Liberal parliamentary party of its day assisting the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, as he took the country into the EEC. Among other things, that means that I am actually older than I look, which is a cross I have to bear. I have been here for 47 years one way or another, in different roles. I was my party’s Chief Whip in the Maastricht debate. Then there was a defined treaty, in plain sight and in hard copy. People knew what they were arguing about, and it was still difficult. There were no deadlines—but, again, the Liberal Democrats came to the rescue. I learned more new bad language in the Conservative Whips’ Office during the Maastricht debate than I ever had in any earlier parts of my life. It was all quite tense, but John Major won because we helped him.

Recently during the coalition we helped David Cameron by co-authoring a Bill which put a lock on the ceding of any further powers to Brussels, subject to a referendum. I do not usually say this, but the Liberal Democrat parliamentary group in the House of Lords deserves some credit for 47 years of solid, unwavering support—some might even say strong and stable support—for the position that the United Kingdom should stay at the heart of Europe.

I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, for me, the battle lines will be drawn on the content of Clause 7, Schedule 7 and, to a lesser extent, Clause 11. I pay tribute to yesterday’s magnificent short speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead on Clause 11, and I, too, will be speaking about it, for obvious reasons.

Cross-Bench votes—not just voices—are very important. I know that there are sometimes challenges among our Cross-Bench colleagues, but they are non-aligned and have a special value in this debate. They are excellent contributors to the scrutiny process and if they do not hold their end up and give their support we may lose votes—so I hope they will think about that really carefully.

The Leader of the House made some helpful comments at the beginning of the debate about how she was going to bring forward some new proposals in March. The new system has to be operational by April or May and that is too tight a timetable for this to be done sensibly. The Constitution Committee’s ninth report has done the House a signal service, and the battleground it maps out is the one on which I will seek to attack Clause 7 and Schedule 7. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee needs further and better particulars and basic things like early access to drafts—if that is possible, it would help. We also need to smooth out the peaks and the troughs in the flow of the delegated legislation we consider, and resources to staff up the committees. I hope that these will be put in place meaningfully, otherwise the quality of the scrutiny—because of the volume of legislation—is bound to suffer, and that is not in our interests.

I also hope that the usual channels will start to look again at the Cunningham doctrine, which colleagues may remember suggests that in very limited circumstances the possibility exists for this House to reject statutory instruments. If the Government do not get this Bill right, Members such as I will be driven to thinking in these terms. We do not want that, so I hope that the Government will get on with this and make sure that the Bill is amended—particularly Clause 7 and Schedule 7 —in a way that guarantees a scrutiny role for this House, because that is what we are here to do.

16:17

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to which I hope we are going to give an unopposed Second Reading tonight, is a pretty different animal to the one tabled some six or more months ago. It has been amended, against the will of the Government, to provide for a meaningful statutory process before any deal is approved by Parliament—a provision originally put forward by your Lordships’ House last March in the context of the Article 50 Bill. That is very welcome. The Government have also brought forward amendments on the handling of Henry VIII powers, which, while they certainly need further improvement and strengthening, at least show that the Government are aware that the original approach was excessively tilted towards the Executive. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a good move when she said that she was listening and would probably bring forward further amendments soon.

But this Bill remains, I fear, a serious case of putting the cart before the horse. We are, in fact, being asked to legislate before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels with respect to the divorce settlement, the transition or standstill phase and the framework for a new partnership, all of which will alter—and probably in many cases override—much of what is in this Bill. Moreover, the Bill stands in the heavy shadow of a further piece of primary legislation, the implementation Bill, which will need to complete its course through Parliament before we leave, because it will need to give effect in our domestic law to any provisions to which we have agreed in the negotiations in Brussels. That implementation Bill had not even been thought of at the time when this withdrawal Bill was originally tabled, when it was then called the great repeal Bill. That is a bit of a sign of the Government’s remarkably haphazard and rather chaotic approach to Brexit.

Nevertheless, for all its defects, this Bill is clearly a necessity. The gaps in our statute book need to be plugged if, and when, we actually leave. That is why it is right to give the Bill a Second Reading. However deeply those like myself believe that leaving the European Union is a fundamental error of judgment, which will be damaging to our economy and to our influence in the world, we are absolutely required to put this Bill on the statute book without undue delay.

The Minister who will reply to this debate is particularly fond of dwelling on the democratic legitimacy of the June 2016 referendum vote and of the whole Brexit process. I have no intention of beginning a debate here today about the relative merits of plebiscitary and representative parliamentary democracy, but I would just say that people who live in glass houses should be a bit careful about throwing stones. The Minister’s presence at the Dispatch Box is largely due to the support in the other place for the Government’s Brexit policies by the 10 Members of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, but that party has no democratic legitimacy as far as Brexit is concerned at all, because the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain.

I shall mention just one or two of the matters that will certainly need more careful scrutiny. The first of these is the provision that would have the effect of extinguishing the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country on the day we leave. Whatever one’s views of the Government’s rather mindless demonisation of the European Court of Justice—and, in my view, it is both mystifying and self-defeating—the Government have already conceded the point in Brussels, since individuals will be able to take their cases on status issues and have them referred to the European Court of Justice for the next eight years after we leave. The standstill, transitional arrangements, which are currently under negotiation, are inevitably going to drive an even larger coach and horses across that red line. So why on earth should we be marched up to the top of the hill to eliminate the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the day we leave, only to be marched back down again in the implementation Bill?

Then there is the whole business of the exclusion from the scope of this Bill of just one piece of many thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. How on earth can that be justified? The fundamental rights enshrined in the EU charter and the Council of Europe convention are values that we need to uphold, whether we are inside or outside the European Union. They surely need to be part of the new partnership, for example, which the Prime Minister, rightly in my view, is trying to negotiate as her ultimate objective.

Committee stage debates are all too often in this House treated as Second Reading debates, but I shall try to avoid falling into the opposite trap—so I shall stop talking about specifics. The complexity of the overall package of legislative instruments, not just in this Bill but in the others that will follow it, is pretty daunting. It is a reminder of the extent to which our economy has become integrated with that of our European neighbours over the past 40 years. It is shameful that those who campaigned to take us out of the European Union were so unaware of that or, if they were aware of it, were so unwilling to share that with the voters. I think that the voters are now becoming aware of what is in store for them; the chickens are coming home to roost, and it is going to be a pretty painful experience.

16:24

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He and I co-operated as closely as we could on the original attempt to keep us in the European Union. Today, however, we are faced with leaving the European Union and I make no comment on that except to accept it as a fact and to refrain from any prophecy as to what will happen next.

The Constitution Committee of this House has done a very good job, and most of the amendments it proposed would improve the Bill. I just want to mention one or two general points raised by these amendments. The Bill is to bring into the United Kingdom’s statute book legislation passed by Europe but not presently on the statute book. It also provides that this legislation would have priority or supremacy over UK legislation in the same area. This problem is one that the Constitution Committee has solved with great elegance. First, it has said that the direct EU legislation should be treated as primary legislation; that is, as legislation passed by Parliament not under the authority of Parliament. Secondly, it should be deemed to have a date of our leaving date. Because of our system, that will automatically give it priority over any Act with which it conflicts and which preceded it. I regard this as an extremely clever—indeed, wise—suggestion for dealing with this matter. The Government had thought to have a case-by-case decision about this, but I think this is much better and I commend it to the Government strongly.

The second point relates to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and to references by our courts to that court. The idea of the statutory reference is being swept away, but that still leaves the question of whether our courts should have regard to decisions of the European court. My experience, such as it is, of this is that our courts are free to look at any court decision they want—from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, or even Scotland. They are absolutely free to do that. Originally, I was therefore rather minded that this should continue as far as the European Court of Justice is concerned. If something helpful was said in that court, there is no reason why our courts should not take that into account. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, as President of the Supreme Court, pointed out that such was the political heat of that sort of suggestion, it would be very unwise to subject judges to that kind of conflict. Therefore, it would be right for Parliament to take responsibility for saying when they could refer to the European Court of Justice. The Constitution Committee has recommended a very sensible way of dealing with that: where a court here, considering a piece of pre-Brexit legislation from Europe, finds that the European Court of Justice has later made a decision relevant to that sort of case, it is entitled to turn to it.

My final point relates to the devolution settlement. I regard this as absolutely fundamental but also as extremely difficult, because there are various levels of power in Europe that may be in, for example, the area of fisheries. First of all, there are international powers in relation to that. Our current international relationships in relation to fisheries are with the European Union. If that power is returned here, it should belong to the state of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, detailed provisions about what happens to fisheries are made at a more local level, under the present devolution settlement. Therefore, there is a problem with how this should be done, which I regard as very much a matter for negotiation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governments—where they exist—of the devolved Administrations. I very strongly support the view that it would be most unfortunate if Northern Ireland continued without an Administration. I hope that will not continue and that the new Secretary of State—I am saddened by the health difficulties of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—will, perhaps with the Prime Minister’s help, be able to restore the Administration. Anyhow, it is a matter for negotiation between the devolved legislatures—the Ministers of the devolved Governments —and the Government of the United Kingdom. I certainly hope and believe that the best solution to the Clause 11 amendment is for the Government to come forward with an amendment agreed by those parties. I have great confidence that they all seek a solution to what I regard as a very difficult problem. I hope they will succeed. If they do, I am sure it will be with the greatest pleasure that we will give effect to that agreement.

The last point I want to make—just after the last one, as it were—is that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a big subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said a good deal about that. I will not take time on it now, since my time is up anyway.

16:32

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I could not agree with him more on what he said about the Constitution Committee. It has done a lot of the Government’s thinking for them. I hope that the Minister may be inclined to bring forward his own amendments on that basis.

Like so many noble Lords, I deeply regret the necessity of this Bill, but I feel we have no choice but to do what only we in this House can do. I believe we are engaged in an historic act of self-harm, but by amending the Bill we may be able to mitigate some damage and make the future a little more predictable. We are awash in a sea of legal and political uncertainties, about which many noble Lords have already spoken brilliantly. They make a nonsense of the constant mantra we hear from the Government about the need for certainty and control. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who is not in his place, made a most powerful speech yesterday when he spoke about the “normalisation of lies”, to which I would add the normalisation of delusion. The greatest delusion of all is that, after a year characterised by denial and bluster, the Government can magically achieve a deal that has never been on offer that will enable us to retain all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the obligations. We need to get rid of the culture of infantilisation—the fear of reality—that has so reduced the debate we should have had on Brexit.

We have an opportunity to reassert the constitutional balances of power that are so dislodged by Clauses 7 to 9 and 17. They give unprecedented delegated powers to Ministers and Whitehall—justified, as they always would have been, by the need for speed and flexibility. The transposition of EU law into UK law presents unique challenges but does not require draconian powers never before seen in peacetime. These clauses are, frankly, opportunistic. The first task is obviously to take control back from Ministers and put it back into the hands of Parliament, where it belongs.

The second task, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and many others in this House have alluded, is to prevent the constitutional car crash that is heading towards the United Kingdom in the potential failure of the devolution settlement and the deferred model. The challenge is technically complicated but politically extremely simple. If Clause 11 is not amended, the constitutional equalities will disappear as the devolved Governments are locked down, subject to a new set of restrictions and required to wait for their partial release while Westminster and Whitehall fix up the post-Brexit world.

After seven months in which little urgency has been shown, little regard for consultation with the devolved Administrations and no sniff of amendments, can the Minister give a guarantee that the amendments to Clause 11, which are badly needed, will be presented before we debate it in Committee and after consultation with the devolved Administrations? That is the least that they could expect.

The third task is, of course, to ensure that Parliament has the decisive vote, not just simply on the terms of exit but including on the real possibility of no deal, on the nature of the transition and on the framework of our future relationships.

The parties in the other place have shown us how to proceed by example. They made common cause to win a number of very welcome concessions around scrutiny and the notion of deficiency in retained law. I know that we can work together across this House to build on that to ensure not least that Ministers do not have the carte blanche to decide on the use of regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate the failure of, or deficiency in, the retained law as they see appropriate—for which read “desirable”. Those powers are as wide as the definitions are boundless. Rather, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said so powerfully, Ministers should be required to justify this as of necessity to achieve the limited object in question. This is not just a constitutional point; it goes to the heart of what our country will look and feel like after Brexit. The way those powers are used brings the possibility of greater risk, lower standards and the loss of opportunities. Anyone who is concerned about the fate of public and health services, the science base, the safety of the environment, the prospects of our children, and whether our inequalities continue to grow or shrink has a huge amount to lose by the winning or losing of that debate.

The Government constantly ask us to trust them not only to know what they are doing—I will be glad to park that—but to use their powers to change laws that they do not like. No Government could be trusted with these powers; they are irresistible. Time and again this Government have tried to take more power and diminish scrutiny. Remember our battles over the then Public Bodies Bill and the then Deregulation Bill; and the creeping use of secondary legislation to make policy and not merely correct technical errors? We should add that to a whole year spent trying to exclude Parliament, even in the courts, from having a say in the decision to leave, and a toxic obsession with secrecy that has kept under wraps any evidence of impacts which might inform, let alone change, public opinion. We end up with a Government who do not trust the people with evidence, let alone truth, and who have, I believe, forfeited the right to be trusted themselves.

We are already being bullied and we will go on being bullied, but the enemies of the people are those for whom all evidence is rubbish and all argument treason. I am sure that, just as has been done in the other place, we can work together in this House not just to make this Bill constitutionally acceptable but to restore trust in the democratic and parliamentary process itself. I believe that will be possible because, no matter where we stand on Europe, we all stand together in defence of parliamentary sovereignty.

16:39

[Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my erstwhile political friend but I hope still personal friend the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Of the cornucopia of questions that have come up so far in this debate I will to address only one: namely, does the result of the referendum in June 2016 effectively compel Parliament to agree to Brexit, of which this Bill is part?

I express no view as to whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing, for the simple reason that, perhaps uniquely in this House, I hold no strong view. Of those eligible to vote in 2016, 37% said yes. That is 51.9% yes on a 72.2% turnout. Given the flaws in the electoral register and the exclusion of 16 to 18 year-olds from the poll, it must be doubtful if even a third of those who should have had a say voted to exit. But never mind—one is enough in an election, and it seems moany to question whether, in light of the result, the Government have a right to pursue Brexit. They do.

But we have a sovereign Parliament. Indeed, the sovereignty of Parliament was the absolute core of their argument for getting out of the European Union. It trumped by far silly scrawlings on buses about national health spending. To restore sovereignty from Brussels’s depredations is why we are leaving. To argue, on the one hand, that the sovereignty of Parliament is the supreme virtue and then, on the other, that sovereignty should not apply in this one case is surely a paradox too far.

Let us be clear. Parliament under our constitution is entitled to overrule the referendum result if that, in the considered opinion of its Members, is the right thing to do. No Parliament can bind its successor, and no election result remains the result for ever. In this case there is a clear and important difference, I think, between the remain side and the leave side in the referendum. The remain side was for remaining on the terms renegotiated by David Cameron. The leave side was for—what? Soft or hard? Single market or not? Customs union or not? Irish border or not? What movement of labour? There are as many answers as there are Brexiteers, as the current debate in the Cabinet illustrates.

Following the negotiation, there will be a single alternative to membership. Some who were remainers might then say, “Well, that is a good result. I think I should have voted leave after all”. Some who were Brexiteers might say, “That’s not what I really voted for. I want another go. I don’t like this”. It is between remain and that single alternative that the choice will then lie, and the sovereign Parliament, as I think the Government have now conceded, must ultimately make that choice.

I am very sympathetic to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it would be best if we made the choice ourselves, with a strong eye, of course, to public opinion but also bringing to the question the epistocratic virtues of our parliamentary democracy. That is not practicable. Having asked the people once, and having said wrongly that we would abide by their verdict, we cannot, without damaging national unity in the long term, simply overrule them.

The only answer, therefore, is a second referendum, where the terms are known. Judging by the poll in the Guardian this week, it is a choice which the people of this country would by a substantial majority welcome. Let us hope it would be the referendum to end all referendums.

16:43

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make clear my overall support for this Bill and its purpose. Technically, it seeks to sever our links with the European Union by removing the supremacy of European law and the competence of the European Court and its interpretation of that law. I support that aim. I do support Brexit.

I do not support a second referendum. It seems odd to me that those who objected to the first referendum on the grounds that it offended the principle of parliamentary democracy—in fact, I think yesterday it was called a sin against parliamentary democracy—now argue that it is an appropriate way to allow the electorate to express a view.

For a while, I—like, I suspect, others in this House—was conflicted on how to vote in the European referendum. For me it was a heart and mind decision, and of course they were not entirely in agreement. I could see that there were risks involved in exiting the EU. It was the status quo, and therefore there would be costs associated with the change and disruption to our governance—as we will probably see here over the next few weeks. There was the potential effect on economic trade. The European Union, including its currency, has not been an economic miracle. In fact, it has enhanced bureaucracy and reduced free enterprise. The European procurement process alone is a disincentive to innovation. In the Metropolitan Police, where I served, the dreaded words “EU procurement in public service” usually means 18 months of little progress. The contradiction is that it takes longer to make a worse decision than in commerce.

The Union is said to have better protected human rights against the infringements of the state. However, the more intrusive the European Union became, the more that protection was needed from a Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers that lacked democratic accountability.

Concerns have been expressed about our future security, but our security is built on a strong military, intelligence and policing infrastructure. However, I argue that maintaining all these does not require the UK to be a member of the EU. In defence, our military strength depends on our own investments and innovation, together with those of our allies. Our major military bulwark is NATO. It does not rely on Europe but it does rely on America.

In the sphere of intelligence, our intelligence effectiveness is built on our partnership with the “Five Eyes” intelligence community of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK—yet they are not in Europe. No country in the world shares all its intelligence and sources with any other country. Europe does not have an intelligence hub where the French tell the UK and Germany tells Holland everything they know about each other—it is not in their national interest to do so. The reports that the US had listened to the German Chancellor’s telephone can have surprised no one. However, we have been very effective at bilateral sharing of information on terrorism. Does anyone seriously suggest that on leaving Europe we would not share information about attacks on Paris or Brussels, should we have it?

On policing, we have been effective at sharing criminal intelligence, wanted lists and extradition warrants through Europol, which is not an enforcement agency. We have also co-ordinated enforcement through Eurojust and MLATs, which have enabled efficient investigations. However, our European experience has not been perfect. When we voted to leave Europe we were still not a member of Prüm, the European database of DNA, fingerprints and facial images that is shared across Europe. The European extradition warrant was efficient and consistent across Europe, but it required a sufficiency of evidence to charge in the requesting country before such a warrant could be issued. This meant that, on return to this country, the suspect could not be interviewed and had to be charged immediately. This is a high bar which interrupted some very good investigations.

The benefits of Europol are enjoyed by Norway, which is not a member of the European Union—so why not the UK? There is great mutual benefit to Europe and the UK in not providing a safe haven to criminals from each set of countries. No one wishes to see French rapists roaming free in the UK, and I am sure that this will be one of the issues to be resolved in the present negotiations, with new extradition agreements based on the existing model.

I resolved my heart and mind dilemma by realising that what mattered most of all was sovereignty. In fact, the Bill might better have been called the “Sovereignty Bill”. The ability to influence the Parliament of which we are Members is a democratic principle that our people have fought and died for in the past. I could have disavowed that principle if I had been convinced unequivocally that we would suffer disastrous economic damage, but for me that was not proved.

I understand why people feel so passionately about being part of Europe. However, it appears to be changing from a common market to a federation. It has declared in its treaties an intention to become closer, and its leaders have declared in speeches and policies an intention to become a federation. Ironically, I believe that federations have been shown around the world to be a force for good, and rarely fail. It may even save the UK constitution one day. But they must be argued for openly and transparently to allow for the separation of powers, the rule of law, and checks and balances to be agreed.

The majority of speeches in this House supporting remain have highlighted the risks of change as we implement the new order. However, there is no no-risk option on the table. An unreformed EU from which we were diverging would be a significant threat to our future. Even under the threat of Brexit, EU leaders resisted the narrow proposals for change put forward by our then Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Finally, in terms of our own role, I really believe that we need to be careful in how we exercise our significant power in coming days. Political elites believing that they can discreetly manage constitutional change among themselves will rarely succeed. People are not fools and their representatives are not kings. We would do well to listen to their voice in the referendum and implement its result as best we can. The alternative for our constitutional democracy is, I believe, too unfortunate to consider.

16:50

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, with so much already having been said, I shall limit myself to addressing the concern expressed by some of your Lordships about Henry VIII powers and statutory instruments.

There have been squeals of dismay from remainers, who claim that the use of these powers is an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. I am bewildered by this sudden concern for parliamentary sovereignty. Being part of the European Union means that very sovereignty has already been surrendered, with our Parliament being subservient to an outside body. Regaining parliamentary sovereignty and independence is one of the main arguments for leaving the European Union.

It is not correct to say that Parliament will be bypassed by the use of secondary legislation. Change by statutory instrument is a parliamentary process. As such, Parliament, if it so wishes, can reject a statutory instrument. There is the further safeguard of a two-year sunset clause. There will also be a sifting committee in the Commons, with the ability to change a negative statutory instrument into an affirmative one. This underlines the ability of Parliament to call Ministers to account.

During the last 40 years, 8,000 pieces of law were passed using secondary legislation. Did any of today’s complainers about the use of secondary legislation complain then? What is even more astounding and shocking is that 12,000 pieces of European Union legislation were introduced into this country without parliamentary involvement, including such items as forbidding drinks manufacturers saying that drinking water cures dehydration. That might have raised the odd eyebrow had it been put before parliamentarians.

How can it be argued that the Bill erodes parliamentary supremacy when we lost it over 40 years ago? Leaving the European Union means regaining parliamentary independence. Only in the world of Alice in Wonderland could there be comprehension of the upside-down thinking where those complaining about an erosion of the power of Parliament are the very people trying hard to prevent sovereignty returning to Westminster.

It cannot be preferable to have laws made by an unelected European Union bureaucracy rather than our own Parliament. I join the many other noble Lords who have expressed this in hoping that we, in this House, are not so blinkered as to ignore the principle that this unelected Chamber should not oppose the express wishes of the electorate. These were clearly demonstrated in the referendum and in the last election, when both main parties included leaving the European Union in their manifestos.

16:54

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, having stood on Hove beach with a cross-party group of MPs and campaigners in May 2016 to highlight the dangers to the environment of a leave vote in the referendum, sadly I find it necessary this afternoon to continue the argument I made then. Despite the Government’s rhetoric on the environment, there is a great deal more that this Bill will need to do to make those promises a reality. It is pertinent that that very beach was one that helped to earn the UK the nickname “the dirty man of Europe” when it joined the EU in 1970. Fast forward to 2018 and the beach is now one of 97% of UK bathing waters which have passed the EU quality test, thanks in no small part to the strict standards put in place at EU level.

We have to ask ourselves why, over the years, we have had to rely on EU directives to clean up our water, our waste, our air and our soil, and why we have had to rely on the 527 EU regulations that set standards for the environment and health protection, not to mention the 922 affecting agriculture and the 1,122 shaping a sustainable fishing policy. These have all played their part in transforming our environment, with the result that something like 80% of UK environmental legislation is derived from the EU. Therefore, it is no wonder that environmental and animal charities are concerned about what the future holds, and why we are keen to pin down the detail of the legislative transfer to UK law.

So we have to be concerned when, in the Commons, the Government voted against amendments that would have entrenched all the EU regulations in UK law, free from ministerial interference via their Henry VIII powers. Equally, their rejection of the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle in managing our natural assets showed a disregard for the fundamental protections that have made the EU a global environmental leader. As we know, they rejected the animal sentience amendments, which have now been superseded by a separate draft Bill. Many would argue that that would have been completely unnecessary if only the Government had heeded our advice in the first place.

The Government would have us believe that they are now converted to the cause and that the environment is safe in their hands. Forgive us for being rather sceptical, because evidence is in rather short supply. Although of course we are pleased to have seen Michael Gove carrying his reusable coffee cup, I would rather have seen him wielding a comprehensive list of amendments guaranteeing that the environmental protections will be at least as good as those delivered by the EU in the past. So we will be supporting amendments that address that deficit.

In the debate yesterday it was argued that we now have three categories of legislation: primary, secondary and EU retained. I would add a fourth: the environmental principles currently set out in the introduction to EU law but not due to be transposed. For example, I have already referred to the precautionary principle, which is crucial in its application to pesticides. As we know, bee species and other pollinators are in decline, and evidence mounts that neonicotinoids are to blame. We need to heed the scientific advice and take urgent steps to protect our ecosystems before the damage becomes irreversible. Similarly, the “polluter pays” principle has been crucial in cleaning up our water supply, with water companies given large fines for polluting rivers and killing fish. This principle is an important deterrent for those who would otherwise be cavalier about their impact on the environment and put profit before people.

We will also be seeking guarantees regarding our continued involvement in the European institutions which have provided effective monitoring and enforcement of environmental standards. Organisations such as the European Food Safety Authority have been crucial in clamping down on misleading labelling and tackling salmonella and the horsemeat scandal. Another example is the REACH chemical regulation, which sets safety standards for trading and usage across the EU and stops toxic dumping.

Finally, and crucially, we will want to ensure that any new UK green watchdog is up and running by exit day, is placed on a statutory footing, is truly independent, and has the powers to fine Ministers when environmental rules are broken.

Organisations such as ClientEarth, which act on behalf of citizens, have been able to tackle illegal air pollution because they can take government to court. We have to ensure that access to justice, without prohibitive cost, remains in the new legislative framework. The Government have said that they are consulting on the composition of this new body but, like many other outstanding issues, it is vital that this is resolved and brought into legislation before exit day.

Many other environmental challenges arising from Brexit are not covered by this withdrawal Bill. We await details of the agriculture Bill, the fisheries Bill and even a separate environment Bill. It will be a real challenge to meet the timescales to deliver these before exit day and we need to be clear on what will happen if that deadline is not met. Therefore, we will seek guarantees that, on exit day, the whole package of environmental reforms is underpinned by the same protective principles that have provided such effective protection throughout our membership of the EU.

17:00

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and to hear about the environmental protections she is concerned to protect. There have been very many eloquent speeches, and insightful remarks over the last couple of days. Many see the Bill as a technical process: a legal pathway, albeit complex and fraught with constitutional threats and dilemmas. But, to many, it is as much about the country we want to be, the values we hold, the beliefs we fight for and, not least, the people we serve. Omitting the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is seen by many as not preserving the rights of the people we serve and rejecting the values of fairness, justice and freedom. The provisions of the charter are wide-reaching: dignity, the right to life, right to care and rights of the elderly; freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion; equality, non-discrimination on race, religion and sexual orientation; rights of minorities; solidarity, employment rights, rights of association; and citizens’ rights and justice rights—rights to representation and advice.

The charter, as other noble Lords have said, also offers remedies when human rights are violated which are not available if the charter is to be excluded from the Bill. The Government’s explanation is that the substantive rights included in the charter are protected in different places in EU and UK law. However, legal opinion published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is that failure to preserve relevant parts of the charter after Brexit will lead to the weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK.

In its recently published report that many Members have referred to, the Constitution Committee said:

“If, as the Government suggest, the Charter of Fundamental Rights adds nothing to the content of EU law … we do not understand why an exception needs to be made for it”.


The Joint Committee on Human Rights says that,

“the exclusion of the charter from domestic law results in a complex human rights landscape which is uncertain. Legal uncertainty is likely to undermine … rights”.

All of this should set alarm bells ringing for the future of human rights. For example, the National Union of Students is greatly concerned with any negative implications that removing the charter could have on students and on citizens across the country. Article 14 of the charter gives the right to an education for every individual, including “vocational and continued training”. With the removal of the charter there is a worry that new wording may mean that this no longer applies in the UK. Furthermore, the charter includes a number of vital protections for the most marginalised students, particularly LGBT, women, disabled and black students, who typically face barriers to engaging and succeeding in education.

Following the referendum, we saw a huge increase in hate crimes, with some parts of the country suffering more than a 50% increase in racial and religious persecution. There were also large increases in the persecution of people with disabilities and those in the LGBT community. We really need to ask how any diminution of human rights can be acceptable in the light of this. Yesterday evening I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. He asked who will suffer if all of this goes wrong. Who will be blamed? Who will be scapegoated? That is what we need to ask ourselves. The exclusion of the charter sends a powerful message that the poorest and most vulnerable citizens can expect things to change for the worse, certainly as far as the protection of their rights is concerned.

If ever there was a time that human rights needed full protection under the law, it is now, particularly in light of the cuts in local services. Minimal support is now being provided for the most vulnerable. Refuges for victims of violence are in crisis, advice on debt has been drastically cut, and the number of homeless and rough sleepers is soaring. All in all, the services that support basic rights are struggling for existence. The Government have pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a less robust British Bill of Rights and have been consistently sceptical about and resistant to attempts to extend human rights, so any weakening in this Bill of the legal framework to enforce human rights must be opposed and the charter needs to be incorporated with the rest of European law. We must not permit the weakening of human rights through the back door, rather we must retain the charter and its protections against violations of human rights. This is all the more important as the country faces a time of massive and unpredictable change.

I hope that this is not a matter of too much difference between Members of parties or of no party and I hope, given that many noble Lords have spoken about this issue, that we can work across the House to make sure that these values are upheld and the charter is retained in the treaty.

17:07

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, my views on Brexit have not changed since our debate on 5 July 2016, after the referendum. I cannot rid myself of the feeling that we are making a great mistake for which our children and our children’s children will pay the price. In preparation for this debate I have been rereading what I said in July 2016 and I wondered whether simply to repeat it today. It would have been interesting to see whether anybody noticed.

In short, I remain of the view that while we have been members of the European Union we have fared better and the country has been more prosperous at home, although there is room for improvement in the distribution of the benefits of that prosperity. Our country has been stronger in its standing and influence in international affairs. That would continue to be the case if we remained in the European Union, but it will not if we do not. I cannot simply dismiss and ignore all the analyses and forecasts which support this view. I do not have much confidence in sunny uplands. We live in a global and competitive world, and we should be favouring multilateral institutions and solutions, not pursuing unilateral, nationalist courses where we isolate ourselves. I fear too that leaving the European Union will prove to be a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom as well as to the peace process in Northern Ireland and our relations with the Republic of Ireland.

When we come to consider the final proposals on Brexit, we shall need to consider how far the mandate of the referendum in 2016 still has authority. The campaign that led up to it was full of half-truths and fake information, and we now have much clearer knowledge and better information about the probable costs and consequences of leaving the EU than we had in June 2016. That, however, is not the issue for debate today. This Bill is about process, not policy: it is about how, not whether, we set about leaving the European Union. We shall have to come back to the existential decision of policy when we come to approve the deal that the Government will have negotiated with the European Union.

As this debate is showing, there will be plenty of important and difficult issues to be considered in Committee and on Report. I will concentrate on the proliferation of secondary legislation. For years, we have become accustomed to being asked to consider very large Bills, some with 200 or more clauses. It is impossible for Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, to give these mammoth Bills the scrutiny they deserve and that it is our constitutional duty to provide. Many of them contain many proposals for authorising the preparation by government of statutory instruments that convey delegated legislative powers to Ministers, with no opportunities for Parliament to amend them. Some of these instruments contain powers—the so-called Henry VIII powers—to vary or amend primary legislation. I suspect that we should call them the Cromwell powers, really, because Thomas Cromwell started it and it was gleefully taken up by Oliver Cromwell.

The steadily increasing resort to these statutory instruments has led to the steady creep of legislative powers being transferred from Parliament to the Executive. There are now several thousand new statutory instruments every year. Some of them do not require parliamentary approval at all. Many pass without being scrutinised by Parliament. Only some require parliamentary approval before they come into force, and then Parliament can only approve or reject them: it cannot amend them.

Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 provided for the incorporation of EU legislation into British law, much of it by statutory instrument. The Bill goes further than that, in that it would allow the Executive not only to confirm the incorporation of European law into British law by statutory instrument, but to vary it in doing so. This implies a large extension of the Executive’s power to make law without adequate parliamentary authority.

As a former civil servant I can understand the Executive thinking that Parliament has neither the capacity nor the resources to scrutinise all these statutory instruments meaningfully. As a parliamentarian now, I think that we have to consider very carefully whether, and if so, how, these instruments can be made subject to more effective parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

If we are to leave the European Union, this Bill is necessary to provide for the process of doing so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, I hope that it will be passed. It is an important Bill, to which we should give a Second Reading today. It will require—as we have seen in this debate—long and detailed examination in Committee and on Report. It also demonstrates some of the consequences which will follow the decision to leave the European Union, a decision which we shall have to review when we have agreement on the terms of our leaving and the conditions, costs and consequences of leaving are clearly established.

17:14

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches from both sides of the House and on both sides of the issue. To be fair, as the 148th speaker I think that there is probably little I can add to today’s debate and that the best I can do as a contribution is to give your Lordships a gift. Do not worry—you will not have to put it on a form, as the gift will purely be of time. Please enjoy the six minutes that I am going to give back to your lives.

17:14

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow the previous speaker. Perhaps that six minutes should be in my entry in the register of interests.

It has, for many reasons, been with mixed emotions that I have sat through this debate. One reason is that I wish the debate was not taking place. I wish that we were not preparing to leave the European Union, and not leaving on the whims, prejudices, and architecture of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party, aided and abetted by the right-wing press. But politics is not about wishing; it is about having the courage to take difficult decisions—not necessarily to follow public opinion, but to lead and fashion it, to challenge it and to offer other options. I believe that politics is about having the courage to be unpopular and to do what is in the long-term interests of your country. It is to put country before party or personal advancement.

Yet, sadly, the debate has barely moved on. The lack of knowledge about how the EU functions, and the role of member state Governments within it, is as shocking as it is depressing. Some would have us believe that Governments are dragged against their will into the European Union and the Council of Ministers, where they make their democratic decisions. Neither is there understanding of the role and duties of the European Commission, given to it by the treaties, or the directly elected European Parliament, in which I proudly served for 15 years. This is either ignorance or, perhaps, wilful misrepresentation.

The EU was born out of the ashes of the Second World War: the ashes of people’s hopes and dreams, and yes, the ashes from crematoria that were dotted across Europe. A group of countries came together to ensure that history would not repeat itself—that we would never turn away again. It is a European Union that has at its root and core fundamental human rights and freedoms that are non-negotiable, even on accession into it. It is a union of countries and peoples joined by common principles and a united purpose: never to look away again and allow countries or peoples to be scapegoated or sacrificed. It is this European Union that we now turn away from, as we seek isolation while fooling ourselves and our citizens that it makes us stronger.

I say to my own Front Bench in another place that out of the European Union was constructed the single market, which has equality and fairness at its root and core, and that we should maintain our membership of that single market. But we are where we are. The country is divided and people feel left out, isolated and unwanted. EU citizens living here feel under threat, their futures and their children’s futures insecure in a country that they thought they could call home and where they could play by the same rules, abide by the same laws, and remain safe and welcome. How shamefully we have treated them and our citizens who live in other parts of the European Union.

Where once we served as a beacon of hope, fairness and decency, we are now viewed in a very different light. The glow has gone and this sceptred isle fumes with a narrow nationalism, promoted and stoked by the right-wing press—particularly the Daily Mail, with its threats and attacks upon any who dare in a democracy to think or vote other than the way that the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph believe that we should. Is it traitorous to pursue what you believe to be in the best interests of your country? Or is it traitorous to abandon your principles and your country, and surrender to threats from those who wield power without responsibility or accountability? Where is parliamentary sovereignty, when attacks are heaped on parliamentarians for exercising their democratic rights in Parliament? We live in strange times.

Many noble and learned Lords have spoken of the deficiencies in the Bill. Organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty, the Fawcett Society and so many more have given their recommendations and shared their concerns, especially around the issues of equalities, human rights and the dilution of democracy. I share their views. In the debate in my name in your Lordships’ House on 12 December, I posed questions to the Minister on human rights post Brexit. I was not reassured by the replies, either during the debate or in subsequent correspondence.

I want now to refer particularly to the recommendations that came from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On the withdrawal Bill, it advises that we retain the UK’s equality and human rights legal framework as we leave the EU by including within the Bill the following. First, we should rule out the use of delegated powers to reduce equality and human rights protections. Secondly, we should include a principle of non-regression of equality and human rights law. Thirdly, we should retain the protections of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Fourthly, we should introduce a domestic right to equality. Fifthly, we should ensure that the United Kingdom keeps pace with developments in equality and human rights law by ensuring that our courts have regard to relevant EU case law after exit day.

In light of the Bill's twin aims of ensuring legal certainty and continuity, removing the charter and the right of action based on the general principles is wholly inappropriate. The charter secures important rights, as others have said: education, protection of the elderly, and equality rights—including, I say as a gay man, LGBT rights—which could be seriously undermined, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. The Bill must be improved, especially with regard to the charter and the equalities that currently exist. If the Government’s intentions are honourable then they should put the protections I have outlined on the face of the Bill, and not in worthless reassurances or in a committee which, to quote a Minister in correspondence, is merely advisory. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke earlier about ambitions. My ambition is simple: the protection of rights that have been fought for across generations—and fought against—and which define a civilised country.

17:22

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in having spent the last year being asked what I was going to do about Brexit. People who would be described as leavers have been asking why we are not getting on with it; remainers like me have been asking what I am going to do to stop it. With more than 180 speakers—as the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, has indicated—it is probably the case that everything has already been said. Unfortunately for noble Lords, however, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Porter, I still want to say it.

Of course, this is not an Act of Parliament to determine whether we leave the EU. Article 50 notice has already been given. However, this is probably the first opportunity that this House has had to try to influence negotiations: in my case, I hope, away from a disastrous hard Brexit. From the remain side, we clearly know what business wants. Banks and financial services companies want their ability to sell their services across Europe to remain unchanged.

I speak for the Liberal Democrats on manufacturing. It is also clear what the overwhelming majority of manufacturing companies want. First, they want a continuation of tariff-free access to Europe. It has been suggested that this is less necessary in the light of the drop in sterling against the euro. While it is true that the drop in the exchange rate, together with the uplift in world trade, has given a boost to our export sales in Europe, it is not the whole story. As noble Lords will be aware, many manufacturing companies import their components from the European Union, so the drop in currency has increased their costs. As yesterday’s figures from the car manufacturers demonstrate, there has been a significant drop in investment in the motor car industry since the referendum. What is clear to those of us on this side of the argument is that the so-called hard Brexit, with us moving to WTO rules, would be a disaster for our manufacturing industry.

Secondly, manufacturers want frictionless borders. Clearly, this is an essential requirement in Ireland, but it is also critical for the many manufacturing companies that employ just-in-time systems for the use of imported components, where pieces of equipment often pass several times across the border with Europe. Any system that involves hold-ups at the border would be disastrous, and industry has no real confidence that any proposed electronic border provisions would work. As we know, the introduction of IT systems by all Governments is not good.

Thirdly, manufacturers want continued immigration from Europe. Other speakers have mentioned the need for nurses, carers and workers in the leisure industry, but industry requires a continuous input of skilled workers. As my noble friend Lord Stunell would say, the construction industry will collapse without skilled workers continuing to come from Europe and there will be no chance of the Government meeting their housing targets. The so-called tech cities springing up throughout Britain require the continued import of skilled workers from Europe. The Government will say that we will soon develop our own skills base, but there is no chance that it will happen on any reasonable timescale. In any event, some skills are no longer taught in the United Kingdom. For example, many engineering SMEs need analogue engineers, but we now teach only digital engineering in our universities.

Fourthly, there must be certainty about how regulatory agencies will continue or be replaced. There are myriad European agencies whose regulations exporters will still have to comply with. Will we be setting up our own agencies at huge cost or will we retain general compliance with European regulations? The standard answer from the Government is of course that we anticipate agreeing continued arrangements, but will Europe agree?

Clearly amendments will be tabled in Committee from across the House to reflect the wishes of business that I have just expressed. Manufacturing industry would certainly support an amendment that said we should stay in the single market and the customs union. I will support an amendment to provide for a further referendum on the terms of any deal, for which a number of noble Lords have indicated their support. As noble Lords have indicated, the ICM poll for the Guardian last week showed that well over 60% of the public now want a further referendum on the terms of leaving. It was noticeable that the only age group against the idea of this referendum is the retired—that is, people who no longer play a role in the business life of the country and have the smallest stake in our future. I hope the Government will now agree to give the electorate what they clearly want.

17:27

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I voted remain in the referendum not for any great love of the European Union and its institutions but for the reason described by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: our future is about being connected with others in this very connected world and we will be stronger for it. Indeed, I recall the Select Committee on soft power’s report, which described the positive future for the UK as the best networked country in the world. In many ways, we could be the best connected country in the world and that would be a strong place for us to be, so it is sad to see that we are stepping back from the European Union and Europe at the same time as we seem to be stepping back from other areas of our international role, including international development. We are doing it just at the point when, it seems to me, the people we have been aiding and working with in low and middle-income countries are beginning to gain some political power that may help us in future.

Like other people who voted remain, I wish to move on, and the aim is to get the best deal we can in every sector in the negotiations that are under way to ensure that we can have as positive a result from Brexit as possible. Like other noble Lords, I have interests in some specific areas that need to be given detailed scrutiny. In my area of health, I have a number of concerns, some of which have already been mentioned. I shall list a few. There is the big question of securing continuity of staffing for health and social care, research and the scientific community. This is the greatest vulnerability facing the health system in this country and one that we need to make sure is protected. In addition, there is access to research funds and to research collaborations with our partners in Europe, which are so important. There is reciprocal healthcare between ourselves and our fellow citizens of Europe, as we now are. We need to understand how all these issues are affected by the provisions of the Bill in detail and in practical terms. I am sure we will come to that.

One specific area is the importance of public health safeguards and provisions. Before going further, I note that I am indebted for advice on this matter to the Faculty of Public Health—I declare an interest as an honorary fellow. Public health in the broadest sense encompasses everything from pollution to health services: everything that affects the health of the population. It is vital to our health and well-being, critical for the sustainability of the NHS and social care, and will of course contribute to the long-term productivity and prosperity of our nation, not least by ensuring that we have a healthy workforce but also by ensuring that we are able to compete on a global stage by providing the support for the country’s vital biomedical and life sciences sector, which will be so important in the future. It is good to see that the Government are supporting this sector in a positive way.

As we all know, diseases know no boundaries, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Health has outlined his commitment that the Government will aim to maintain UK participation in European co-operation on areas such as disease prevention and public health. Although this assurance is welcome, we will need more specific commitments. I hope the Minister will offer reassurance to the public and professionals that the Bill will “do no harm” to the public’s health and that no provision introduced as a result of it will widen inequalities or increase pressure on the NHS and social care. This is important, and I believe other noble Lords will table an amendment to the Bill seeking a commitment to maintain a high level of protection for public health through all their legislation. Providing this reassurance in the Bill would be consistent with the Government’s intention to provide certainty and with their commitment to improve the population’s health.

17:31

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chair of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association.

As we all know, the purpose of a debate at Second Reading is to discuss the principles underlying a piece of proposed legislation. Rarely in my experience as a parliamentarian has it been more important for us to be clear in our minds about what a Bill is and what a Bill is not. This Bill is not designed to initiate Brexit, as my noble friend Lord Ridley so forcefully pointed out yesterday. It is a vehicle for dealing with the consequences of Brexit, and for maximising the opportunities we derive, while minimising the risks and potential collateral damage. As my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford said:

“In some ways, it is quite a boring Bill”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1388.]


But as my noble friend the Leader of the House stressed at the start of this debate:

“It is vital to a smooth and orderly exit from the EU… to honour the referendum result”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1373.]


In the absence of the Bill, legal rights would inevitably be affected overnight, in a disorderly fashion, which would critically undermine the rule of law and almost certainly overwhelm our courts. Of course, much so-called EU law does not need the assistance of the Bill to remain in force. It has been passed in primary or secondary domestic legislation and does not, or does not exclusively, derive force from the EU treaties or the European Communities Act 1972.

I commend to the House last week’s report by the Constitution Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member, and welcome the comments that have been made at various stages of this lengthy debate about our recommendations. In contrast to the hyperbole attendant on the release of our report, the possibly less exciting reality is that it provides helpful and positive suggestions to ensure the Bill does the job for which it is intended: helping to ensure Brexit can be made as smooth and painless as possible. It also potentially creates the basis for a consensus on how to make the best of Brexit. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was right to advise:

“If the Bill is to be amended, then let it be done with co-operation and consultation between Back-Benchers and Ministers”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1408.]


Such a consensus would greatly enhance our negotiating position.

In dealing with retained EU law, this Bill is necessarily origin-focused and content blind, which could have arbitrary, unforeseeable and, sometimes, undesirable effects. There must be a significant body of EU-derived law which the UK would have adopted in any event, in the same or very similar form. Obvious examples that have been mentioned are to be found in the equalities field and financial services regulation. The practical need for at least some so-called retained EU law post-Brexit does not, of itself, justify creating an executive correction power, still less prescribe the precise scope or form of any such power. We must ensure that any correction power is compatible with the vital principle that the Executive must be genuinely accountable to the legislature.

Many fear that one unintended consequence of Brexit could be the emasculation of the UK financial services sector. It is vital that the UK, in negotiating a new free trade agreement with the EU, ensures the unbroken maintenance of mutual market access for financial services, ensuring continuity of cover and protection. A suitable transition period will be vital, and so too will mutual recognition of prudential regulatory regimes. Both motor and travel insurance require special attention too. I hope we shall maintain a free circulation zone without reintroducing an onerous green card requirement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, I also very much hope this Bill will help enable the UK to maintain a reciprocal emergency health agreement with our friends in the European Union.

This Bill is but one part of a testing and complex process—a vital part, but one of many. The road ahead is uncertain and it will be challenging to us all. I believe, however, that our debates here in the next few weeks will show this House at its serious, erudite and constructive best.

17:37

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, who brought two new items to the debate, I do not anticipate that I will add anything new. There have been some outstanding contributions and I particularly commend the outstanding speech from my noble friend that we have just heard.

Yesterday I was particularly moved by two speeches. The first was the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. We have heard much in these debates about the will of the people, and it behoves us to listen to what he said about trying to know and follow the will of God, rather than focusing so much on humanity. He suggested that we should know what Brexit is about, where it is taking us, what kind of society we are seeking and how to get out of this confused and divided country in which we now find ourselves. He gave us much food for thought and I am most grateful for what he had to say. I, too, originate from the north—I come from Wakefield, which is part of the right reverend Prelate’s diocese. I was born working class in a council house, and now, a bit like the noble Lord who will be replying, I am living down in London after quite a journey.

The Brexit vote laid bare divisions in society which many of us had not fully appreciated. In Wakefield, 66.3% of the people who voted opted to leave the European Union—similar demographics to the people who voted elsewhere for Brexit. Some of the strongest support for Brexit was in struggling areas, where average incomes, and average education and skills levels, are low and there are few opportunities to get ahead. Working class communities in Britain have been left behind by rapid economic change, and feel cut adrift from the mainstream and marginalised in many places. Their types of opportunities and life experiences contrast sharply with those in areas that are filled with more affluent, highly educated and diverse populations, as we find here in London, which gave some of the strongest support to remaining in the EU.

People move to cities such as London, as I did, to get jobs and leave communities behind; they are involved in a brain drain, which increasingly creates further inequalities in those communities. Those communities also have health inequalities. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the necessity of maintaining equality of standards of health, and further improving it. My fear is that Brexit, if anything, will undermine the standards that we presently have and make matters worse. I hear, too, that we have a deal with the Americans, and that the one thing they are particularly waiting to do is to move into the NHS and get their hands on many of the operations there—which in turn is not likely to improve the lives of the disadvantaged of whom I speak.

The reality is that these communities will probably be the worst hit by the economic consequences of Brexit if we end up with a bad deal or, even worse, no deal at all. I would like the Minister to say what he thinks the future looks like in the area from whence he comes—whether it is going to look better than it has been in the past, and when it is likely to look better as a consequence of Brexit, which he so strongly supports.

The other speech that hit me very strongly indeed, and I believe is in the newspapers, too, was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley. He had previously been involved in government negotiations and yesterday he strikingly described the dangers to the country of drift, indecision and weak leadership. He reminded the House that there are choices and that early decisions need to be made on them, that time is running out and that, without clarity on direction in the negotiations and within government, there is a risk that the UK might crash out of the EU with a very poor deal or no deal. When we listened to the debate a couple of weeks ago, so many contributors from the opposite Benches actually favoured that prospect. I believe that that is of great concern to those who are worried about inequalities and divisions in the country. It would be a disastrous outcome for us. We need to be as close as we can to being in Europe—or, as some might prefer, in Europe.

A bad deal would bear down very heavily indeed on the disadvantaged areas around the country, and it is time that the Government prepared themselves for giving an explanation to those parts of the country which voted leave of just what the consequences might be if we found ourselves in such a position. That is a question that I put to the Minister a couple of weeks ago during Oral Questions. A bad deal or no deal cannot simply be accepted by us. We have to have a look at how we would handle it, and I believe that we are moving bit by bit towards trying to find a mechanism whereby the people will have another say. It may be in another referendum—and that leads me to the third speaker who greatly influenced me yesterday, my noble friend Lord Adonis. If he pushes his amendment to a vote, I shall support it, even though it is in conflict with what my noble friends on the Front Bench want.

Another alternative course is that we may find ourselves, with all the divisions in the Government, moving towards a general election. If that is the case, this will again provide the opportunity for the people to have a second view on whether the terms for coming out of Europe are acceptable—or, in turn, whether they wish to remain in Europe.

So there is nothing new from me today, just an expression of worries—increasing worries since I last spoke on the European issue because matters have got worse, not better. The country has become diminished and looks worse in the eyes of others. For those who are thinking and worried about it, it looks worse from inside, too. I hope that we can get back on track and find a way through, and we must ensure that the people are involved in whatever the final outturn is.

17:45

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I deem it appropriate that I am speaking in the presence of my noble friend Lord Pannick and noble and learned friends Lord Judge and Lord Hope, because I am going to confine myself to Clause 5(4) and (5), which state that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not a part of domestic law on or after exit day.

The charter is a novelty, which has only been seen to apply directly in this country since 2013, as the UK, under Prime Minister Blair, signed up to Protocol 30 —an opt out. This opt out was ignored by the European Court of Justice, a warning of things to come. It started as a political declaration designed to give common values to the states of the EU and build a platform for more integration. It morphed into a document with legal status, as explained by the House of Commons European Security Committee report in 2014, The application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the UK: a State of Confusion. It recommended primary legislation to disapply the charter from the UK by way of an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. When one reads the Commons report, explaining how the charter would broaden the ambit of EU law, its uncertain distinction between rights and principles, the hazy scope of its application and the effect of having parallel rights in the charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, it becomes clear in the end that the inclusion of the charter after Brexit would cause more confusion and less certainty for business, impinge on the sovereignty of Parliament in an unprecedented way, and could open the door to eternal subjection to the ECJ and EU legal supremacy. Maybe that is what the movers of amendments to keep the charter in place intend.

The charter was also intended to protect the citizen against overmighty EU institutions, not necessarily against his or her own state, for states have their own democratically enacted rights laws. This was explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in his evidence to the aforementioned committee. The then Lord Chancellor, Mr Kenneth Clarke, was equally dismissive in his evidence to European Sub-Committee B in 2011, when he said,

“the charter … is of more political and public presentation … than it is of deep significance, because it does not actually change anything”.

It is odd that those who are now so determined to preserve it were once so clear-sighted about its insignificance. Yes, it has changed, but it has changed for the worse.

The charter is insignificant in another way, too. What a failure it has been in upholding—let alone extending—democracy and freedom in great swathes of Europe. Poland is undermining human rights and the rule of law. The latest Freedom House report slates many EU states for turning back from civil liberties and political rights. In Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Romania and other European states, judicial corruption, intolerance, xenophobia, racism, domestic violence and crime are on the rise. Extreme right-wing parties are on the march in Germany and Greece, and France has extended its state of emergency for the fifth time. So much for the efficacy of the charter. And it has happened on our watch.

This debate should be about our values. The EU puts a price on everything, but I do not discern its values. We have heard in this House that the Government do not know their destination. But what is the EU destination, save “more Europe” on the sat-nav and taking every road to the extreme right? No positive case could have been made for it during the referendum, because its failures in, inter alia, the euro and management of migrants demonstrate its lack of political virtue.

The most radical and dangerous element of retaining the charter is that it would uniquely give judges the power to disapply Acts of Parliament, not just declare them incompatible with human rights law, as is their remit under our Human Rights Act. If the charter is not removed from our law, our courts will be invited to limit or ignore existing law or EU incorporated law by reference to the list of rights—many of them vague, many of them simply aspirational, such as the independence of the elderly. I am pleased to note that my noble and learned friend Lord Brown supported this view.

We ought to be proud of our commitment to and long history of human rights and the rule of law in this country. Lord Reed explained in his famous judgment in the UNISON case in 2017 that the rule of law means that this Parliament makes our laws, its members are chosen and accountable to the people, and the courts enforce those laws. Brexit means that we return to that position and to our leadership in human rights.

We should ask ourselves whether each one of us feels that his or her rights are better protected by European law or by the Supreme Court. The core of the argument against inclusion of the charter is that it would bring into our law a set of rights and principles not enacted by Parliament—not subject to the usual debate and testing of public opinion—and its scope and meaning would change as it was interpreted by the European courts after Brexit, so we would be bound for all time by a set of norms over which we had no control and no part in shaping—a charter designed for an institution we had left. Those who are so determined to uphold parliamentary scrutiny by limiting Henry VIII powers ought also to appreciate that the inclusion of the charter keeps that king’s approach for ever.

17:51

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I am delighted to follow, I will be general with my comments, although I hope that my arguments will be focused.

Now that Article 50 has been served in response to the outcome of the referendum, we are thereby tearing up our agreement with the other EU member states. As a result, both sides are looking beyond Brexit—through exit, to the world beyond. Naturally, everyone is trying to secure advantage for themselves. No matter what we do next, be it wise or foolish, it is always better to try to do things sensibly. I entirely agree with those who argue that the right starting point is to aim to parachute the acquis into the post-Brexit UK legal system—into which it will morph—and that that has to be done seamlessly but at the same time entirely in line with our constitutional settlement and traditions. It sounds easy, but it is not, as the Select Committee on the Constitution so helpfully pointed out in its serious strictures about the Bill. Parliament must handle these matters in accordance with the customary democratic practices of this country. There is simply no scope for exceptions. I do not want to comment further in any detail at this stage; much has already been said, and a great deal more will be, in Committee and on Report and I will be inclined to support a number of amendments.

We all know this is happening in the midst of political turmoil. In a more aggressive age or country, I dare say there might be civil war or violence on the streets. Society is split down the middle. When all this is over, the nation will need to coalesce again. In the meantime, there are real worries among all categories of opinion. It seems to me that the manner of the future of the conduct of public business may be of equal importance as its substance, because the eventual outcome must be seen as legitimate, not least by those who disagree with its merits. Rules of procedure, which sometimes seem—and in reality often are—pedantic and dull, are put in place not least to protect the weak and minorities. If they are ignored or rolled over roughshod, longer term discontent is embedded, to the disadvantage of these groups.

Ironically, it only occurred to me during this debate, because it was a point made by others, that if the European Communities Act is a kind of Henry VIII clause writ large, then so, perhaps, is the referendum Act. In both cases, Parliament remains the guardian of the constitution, the process and its outcomes.

One of the characteristics of the referendum on whether we should leave the European Union was that it was a binary choice. Leaving the EU may be a binary choice, but the consequential negotiation of a deep and special relationship is not. The two are intimately and irrevocably connected despite being clearly distinct. At the time of the referendum, advocates of leaving were—and still are—irreconcilably divided about what comes next. It seems to me that what happens next is, by any constitutional analysis, a matter for a sovereign Parliament, which must not loosen its control over how things may develop. I have no idea at all what will happen, but I suspect that anybody who says they do is deluding themselves or trying to delude others.

As I said, Parliament is sovereign in this country. It must impose its control over the politics of what happens next; it must be unshackled in doing so and be allowed and enabled to decide how matters move forward in whatever way it deems best at the time those decisions must be taken. That seems to be the only acceptable and meaningful effect of the words “meaningful vote”. That, however you look at it, is called taking back control.

17:56

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we are in the final straight and much has been said already. Inevitably, our debate today and yesterday has not been strictly limited to the terms of the Bill, which has been described—correctly—as a technical process Bill, necessary to ensure a smooth and orderly transition out of the EU. I entirely accept the need for such a Bill, but it was not supposed to cause a rerun of the referendum debates, nor the Article 50 process. However, that debate has proved irresistible to some, including me.

Like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I voted remain in the referendum. I did this for a variety of reasons: most authoritative economic forecasts predicted higher growth if we stayed—a matter seemingly confirmed currently if press reports are to be believed—but principally because I am comfortable with the deep and special relationship that exists at the moment between the UK and other member states. It is a relationship where we work together to improve the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of some 740 million people—a relationship that, by and large, has fostered peace and prosperity.

I have not changed my mind since June 2016 and I have looked on with sadness and increasing anger as we stumble through the consequences of the decision to withdraw, undermining our standing in Europe and the world, with Ministers squabbling—making a nonsense of strong and stable government—and the internal wrangling of the Conservative Party failing to offer a vision for what they see as a post-Brexit world. With the benefit of hindsight, I consider that the referendum was an inappropriate mechanism to determine such a complex issue as our future relationship with the EU—certainly without thresholds and detailed impact assessments. Neither remainers nor Brexiteers could seriously have predicted the full range of consequences from and the complexity of leaving. I certainly did not.

Although we can lay this fateful approach at the feet of David Cameron, do we not bear some collective responsibility for not bringing greater challenge to this process? But we are where we are. A referendum was the decision mechanism offered to the voters and they are entitled to see it respected. However, this should not preclude them from having a chance for second thoughts when they have the detail of the negotiation outcome. How and when that second chance should be available, for how long we can assume Article 50 can be reversed, and whether the second chance should be by way of a further referendum or a general election will not be settled by this Bill. But either deserves at least consideration.

I support the approach to this Bill, which my party has argued should be an enabling measure and which should reinforce the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a vote in Parliament before the European Parliament considers the agreement. I also support it seeking a temporary extension to participation in the single market and customs union on current terms—indeed, the longer, the better. Further, for myself, I hope that somewhere along the line we may find a way to offer the British public an opportunity to determine whether they wish to change their mind and remain in the EU, or at least the single market and the customs union.

So far as the Bill is concerned, as others have said, it is complex and dense and unconstitutional in parts. We should be grateful to the Select Committee on the Constitution for its formidable analysis which will better enable us to carry out our role to scrutinise and revise.

On points of detail, other noble Lords have already expressed concerns over what the future may hold for workers’ rights. In Committee, I propose in particular to pursue related matters of health and safety and enhanced protection for EU-derived rights. It is true that most EU-derived health and safety laws are already transposed and will therefore be retained, although the REACH provisions will need an equivalent UK version. But the change in the status of the health and safety provisions is that under these proposed arrangements they can in future be changed just by secondary legislation. Currently, they are underpinned by the European Communities Act 1972.

We can be proud of our health and safety record. As our briefing from the TUC records, EU standards have led to the introduction of broad duties on employers to evaluate, avoid and reduce workplace risk. EU directives have also led to safeguards in high-risk sectors such as construction. The health and safety system in the UK has been separately reviewed and broadly supported by a number of reports: the review of the noble Lord, Lord Young, Professor Löfstedt’s review and the HSE’s triennial review. We should acknowledge that the Government are on record as committing the UK to continue to guarantee health and safety regulations but, of course, we do not know who will be pulling the strings in the future. We do know from prior experience that some in the Conservative hierarchy have a deep antipathy to aspects of health and safety. We must keep a watchful eye on this and seek enhanced protections.

I conclude with a final observation. The project to withdraw from the EU and untangling more than 40 years of shared history is engaging a substantial national effort. Apparently, the brightest and best of the Civil Service are engaged on it, cross-government activity is enhanced, new legislation is kept to a minimum, the routine business of government is pushed to one side, parliamentary time is almost unlimited and, as we have seen over the last couple of days, record numbers of Peers are participating in our debates. This is as it should be in my view, but why on earth can we never seem to manage the same national effort and focus when we are dealing with the desperate needs of the homeless and the poor in our country?

18:02

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, in opening what many of us believe to be the most important debate in any of our lifetimes, the Lord Privy Seal the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, spoke of this Bill as ensuring that,

“we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. It is about providing certainty and continuity for people and businesses. It is about ensuring that people’s rights are upheld and legal protections are maintained”.

She went on to say that,

“as far as practical, the same laws will apply the day after exit as the day before”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1373.]

I want to talk about a group of people living in our country—namely, children—and about people not yet born. If the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, are to mean anything, we must ensure that laws are also in place to protect the rights of the child the day after exit—children’s rights. Much of the hype about what withdrawing from the European Union will mean for the United Kingdom is about taking back control of our future. A critical part of our future depends on our children, who will have to live with the consequences of our actions.

While a large number of us in this place are not supporters of withdrawing from the European Union—if, indeed, we do take that final step—we must, and would surely want to, protect and enhance the rights of every single child. Currently, three mechanisms operate together to ensure that children’s rights are protected: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Domestically, as far as I understand it, no explicit commitment to children’s rights exists at government level. While the Human Rights Act 1998 offers some protection for our children’s political and civil rights, its provisions do not reflect the full scope of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was so important that the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the rights of the child in yesterday’s debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds spoke of the Brexit debate being clothed in purely economic terms, as set out on the now infamous battle bus with its livery of £350 million. We have also heard much before and after the referendum about the need to protect borders, trade and British values. But, as a country, the UK must also protect children and their rights.

Young people very much regard themselves as European. As a matter of fact, 71% of 18 to 24 year- olds voted to stay in the EU. That is perhaps why the Government were reluctant to give the right to vote to 16 to 17 year-olds. Under the Erasmus programme, thousands of EU students annually go to study in another European country for up to a year funded by the EU. In 2015, for example, 30,000 young people came to study in Britain and 40,000 Britons travelled to learn in other European countries. Although we are in the programme until 2020, what happens after that date is anybody’s guess.

Of course, young people in Northern Island will be able to study, work and play in Europe unrestricted after Brexit by virtue of the Good Friday peace agreement, which allows them all to have dual nationality. Do noble Lords remember the high drama over the frictionless Irish border issue, with the Prime Minister flying to Brussels early in the morning, having secured a fudge—sorry, agreement—from the DUP, the same DUP which wants Northern Ireland to be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK? How does that work, when Northern Irish residents will be able to travel to the rest of Europe unhindered, while citizens in England, Scotland and Wales will not be afforded the same rights? Perhaps the Minister, who avoided the question asked by my noble friend Lady Walmsley the other day, might answer that directly at the end of this debate.

I end where I started. I very much hope that the Minister will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who said in yesterday’s debate:

“We should expect from Ministers a commitment to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this should be incorporated in law”—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1438.]


that is, UK law.

18:07

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that I will not annoy any Members by deliberately putting myself out of order, particularly with the Treasury Front Bench, but I hope that the unusual incident at Question Time will none the less result in the noble Lord, Lord Bates, reconsidering his decision and remaining on the Front Bench. Apart from his invaluable merits, he is such a rare example of a popular Conservative Minister. Therefore, it is even more important for him to be retained on the Front Bench. I should not have made those remarks and apologise for having done so.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, very much for placing an emphasis on children—that is the first time that has occurred in this debate—rather than on the 16 and 17 year-olds who we always think about. It is such an important issue for the future of this country.

The issue we are discussing is not just a nightmare, it is the greatest tragedy to have faced our country in the whole post-war period. The Bill itself is yet another detailed reminder of the great tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. Like Ian McEwan, I find it hard to believe that we are not dreaming a nightmare—that it is not happening. But it is happening before our very eyes. While I defer to the huge assemblage of constitutional and procedural experts in our House, who I hope will guide us into safer territory on this truly miserable, but unfortunately necessary, Bill, I have no enthusiasm even for seeing its passage sustained and returned to the Commons, for it is part and parcel of the incompetent and selfish Government we have to endure for at least a bit longer, alas, under our clumsy system, where defiance of wisdom and common sense is now the daily government routine.

Our colleagues in other EU countries cannot believe that this is happening either. They think we have gone mad, and after the PM’s catastrophic blunder with “Brexit means Brexit,” for which she still has to ask forgiveness, the Government have no authority whatsoever for pursuing this insane course of action simply because she is scared to death of Boris Johnson and even—would you believe?—Jacob Rees-Mogg. She might have had a mandate before the last election, but the 8 June 2017 election result killed that stone dead. Above all, the Government’s main sin has been to ignore the needs and wishes of our precious younger generation, all for keeping a reactionary minority in their own parliamentary party in unstable nagging for a new order which is 100 years out of date. What a total, utter shambles.

The PM now goes off to China to avoid scrutiny at a bad time, when sensitive documents have been falsified and concealed, but more and more people in Britain now, at long last, realise that the whole farce is coming to a head in certain, painful inevitability. Meanwhile crushing, pressing domestic problems are ignored: a huge housing crisis, a crisis of poverty and inequality, a crisis of rough sleeping in unprecedented numbers, a crisis in our National Health Service—all ignored by this Prime Minister obsessed with only one subject, Brexit. This will be revealed when the trade part of negotiations resume after the European Council takes place in March.

In my recent PQ on trade deals to the Minister on the Front Bench, I asked if the exercise in total insanity of having to negotiate now up to 70 new agreements with countries which already have agreements with the EU will take place after 19 March. The answer was confirmed: “Yes, that is what will happen”. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the talks will eventually just peter out. It is actually possible that that will happen. In his excellent speech yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, reminded us chillingly that 19 months had already elapsed since the PM took over, and that only 13 months remained to the target date.

There is no need at all for the exasperated EU negotiator and his colleagues in the EC and the Council to seek to help us out of a crisis of our own creation, thanks to the handiwork of the most maladroit Prime Minister in the whole of post-war history. Meanwhile, the long-suffering British people are enduring the derision of the rest of the world, with the dodgy exception of the worst President in US history. Eyebrows are still raised here and in the EU about the artificial and pork-barrel opportunism of the immoral agreement, after a £1 billion bribe of taxpayers’ money, to the Northern Ireland DUP, an unsavoury bunch of extreme right-wing Protestant enforcers, led by an equally questionable First Minister.

I live in France as well, and in countries like that with a sensible framework for good governance and a written constitution, such a deal would probably have been deemed out of order by the council of state and maybe even the constitutional court.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

I do not really want to give way, if my noble friend will forgive me, because of time. It would be unfair. I am concluding my remarks now. Oh, I give way.

[Lord Cormack]

Well, he is an old friend, but I just want to know where he picked up his very moderate vocabulary.

[Lord Dykes]

It is a circumstance of the urgency and the emergency in this country of this great and unfolding tragedy.

I appeal today, therefore, to the cowed bunch of pro-EU Tory MPs, for whom I have great respect, to find the strength to put country before party and save Britain, especially for the younger generation of our citizens, who are also citizens of the EU under Maastricht. They and others too, who are older, deserve better. They understand, like all the other member states, that individual sovereignty within the Union goes hand in hand with collective sovereignty. They are proud of the collective power that this gives each member state. Even small member states are proud of that combination of national and group sovereignty.

There is still time to reverse this utter madness. The Lords needs today to send out the crucial message of modernity and the future together. I came into politics as a humble helper of Edward Heath, who bravely took us into membership with the critical help of 68 Labour and other MPs. I pray that this time, too, the Labour Party from now on, led by Jeremy Corbyn and others, will rise to the occasion to save Britain when the time comes.

18:15

[Lord Dunlop (Con)]

My Lords, I should start by confessing my membership of the Constitution Committee. I say “confess” because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, mentioned, Monday’s Daily Mail took the committee to task to some degree, describing it as a committee filled with “Remoaners”. As noble Lords may imagine, this came as something of a shock to me. I had not before realised this until I read it in the Daily Mail—and I must say that it has shaken my faith in the Daily Mail as a paper of record.

This debate has been conducted in a generally constructive way. That is the spirit in which the Constitution Committee approached its task. Our report proposes,

“a number of practical measures to address the flaws in this Bill without jeopardising the achievement of its objectives”.

No matter how you voted in the referendum, “taking back control” is a powerful idea, so we should use this moment to strengthen our democracy and the sovereignty of this Parliament. Our report, I think, points the way. For example, it recommends that the Bill clarify—as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, explained yesterday, and to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern gave his benediction today—the status of retained EU law as primary legislation replacing what the report describes as,

“the ill-fitting ‘supremacy principle’—a European legal concept”,

with the UK domestic principle of the primacy of the most recent Act of this Parliament. Where we can safely replace in this Bill the risk of confusion with greater clarity and European legal concepts with British ones, we should do so.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on the Bill’s devolution implications, which many other noble Lords have touched on. Like every unionist I want to ensure that, as we leave the EU, we do not inadvertently jeopardise our union of four home nations. Indeed, handled carefully and sensitively, the process of exiting the EU can strengthen intergovernmental relations within the UK and give our union a renewed sense of purpose.

In the case of Scotland, it is notable that, contrary to expectations, not least of the SNP Government, Scottish opinion has, if anything, swung against Scottish independence as the exit process has continued. The Bill confers on the devolved Administrations powers parallel to those of UK Ministers to correct deficiencies in devolved areas. Clause 11, however, amends the devolution statutes to restrict competence in relation to retained EU law.

Clause 11 has been criticised as a UK Government power grab and as offending a fundamental principle of devolution, where what is not explicitly reserved by the UK Parliament is devolved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, noted yesterday. The Government have explained Clause 11 as being transitional, to provide an orderly process for agreeing with the devolved Administrations where powers repatriated from Brussels are best exercised and what common UK frameworks are needed, and to do so in a way that both respects devolution and protects the integrity of the UK single market—a market which, in the case of Scotland, accounts for 63% of its trade.

As a former Minister with some recent involvement in these matters, I accept that I am perhaps more inclined than others to accept the Government’s assurances at face value. Certainly, the UK Government’s recent devolution record is not the behaviour of power-hungry centrists—quite the opposite. However, I also accept, like many others on all sides of the House, that Clause 11 needs amending. As one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Constitution Committee put it,

“Clause 11 stacks the cards in favour of the centre”.

Clause 11 unamended would mean that if common frameworks cannot be agreed, the default will be that power remains at Westminster, and what is intended to be transitional will become permanent. We need a clause that is more balanced and which gives the UK Government and the devolved Administrations similar incentives to reach agreement. So I welcome the Government’s commitment to amend Clause 11, and to do so with the support of the devolved Administrations.

But in considering Clause 11, I hope the House will bear in mind two things. First, the 1998 devolution settlements were drawn up on the assumption of EU membership. As such, devolved Administrations are already constrained within their areas of competence. They cannot make law that is incompatible with EU law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, noted in a debate last Thursday, removal of this constraint will leave a void, providing, as he put it,

“a wonderful opportunity to create something new”,—[Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1102.]

in place of it. I agree very much with what he said. The need to replace the void should be interpreted not as rowing back on devolution but as a sensible step to ensure that the UK continues to work effectively as a whole outside the EU.

Secondly, just as we should avoid stacking the cards in favour of the centre, so we should also avoid stacking the cards in the opposite direction. If absence of agreement means that all powers flow, come what may, to the devolved Administrations, their incentive to reach consensus going forward will be weaker. Moreover, I do not believe that one part of the UK should have an effective veto over essential measures to protect the interests of the UK as a whole—interests that this Parliament exists to uphold.

I conclude on an optimistic note. The devolved Administrations accept that common UK frameworks are needed, and the UK Government recognise the importance of obtaining their legislative consent for the Bill. That is a good foundation on which to build agreement. I hope that it can be built quickly; I believe it can.

18:22

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a remainer and I will focus on the deficiencies of the withdrawal Bill in respect of environmental issues and how they must be addressed. But, to be honest, it grieves me considerably that we are going to spend months of effort simply to ensure that we get back to where we started on EU legislation—all this just to keep the laws we worked hard to shape and develop in the past 40 years. It reminds me of that bit in Winnie the Pooh where Pooh and Piglet wander round in circles, lost in the woods, before they finally come back to exactly the same point. Pooh says—as only he can:

“I’m not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost”.


This could be a good motto for the Government in their dealings with Brexit.

Proponents of Brexit will of course say that the benefit is taking back control of legislation. But the reality is that, with every trade deal we strike in the post-Brexit world, we will be agreeing to surrender some sovereignty over standards of many kinds. That is the nature of collaborative international agreements.

So the people have spoken—well, just over half of them have—and they may well speak again. In the meantime, the task in hand with the Bill is to bring safely across into UK law the 80% of our legislation on the environment that is European. We have taken a major role in the past in developing these laws within Europe and shaping them over the last 40 years, and they have considerably raised environmental standards so that people can enjoy cleaner beaches, cleaner air and water, better safeguarding from chemical hazards, and improved protection for wildlife and habitats. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House says that the Bill is simply technical and transfers all that effectively—but it does not. It will need considerable amendment.

On environmental legislation, the Bill fails to transfer across important environmental principles that have informed policy, law and judgments over the years. That includes principles such as “the polluter pays”, the precautionary principle and the principle that environmental damage should be rectified at source. The Government have indicated that they will come out with a new policy statement on these principles. But policy statements do not have the force of law, as is currently the case.

Then there is the status of this law when it has been transferred over. I much commend the position taken by the Constitution Committee that the retained law should be regarded as primary legislation. This law was originally agreed by a high-level democratic process and must not be able to be changed at the whim of a Minister by secondary legislation at any time in the future.

The Bill also fails to provide common frameworks, as the noble Lord said, to enable England and the devolved Administrations to work together on environmental standards which will underpin future international trade and future internal co-operation. Strangely, the environment does not recognise national boundaries. Most importantly, however, the Bill fails to provide a substitute for the powers to hold government and public bodies to account for failing to meet environmental standards, which the current EU monitoring, reporting and infraction processes provide. Nor does it transfer across access to environmental justice for citizens.

In the 25-year environment plan the Government have undertaken to consult on a new, independent body to hold government to account on environmental performance. Can the Minister assure us that this consultation will take place before the final passage of the Bill and that it will clarify the roles, powers and sanctions that the new body will have so that we can all judge whether it will be sufficiently independent and effective to take the place of the European provisions? Can he also assure us that the new body will be up and running before the demise of the European Court of Justice’s provenance so as to leave no gap into which environmental remedies can fall?

So a lot of amendments to the Bill will be required. We will have hours and hours of happy fun in the woods. However, even once the Bill has passed, more than 800 environmental provisions will have to be amended by statutory instrument to remain operable. The Government tell us that these will be minor tweaks, but we cannot judge whether they are really just tweaks, inadvertent changes or—dare I say it?—deliberate, more substantial changes. Personally, I believe in the cock-up theory of history and therefore that they may be inadvertent, but we could all help to keep the Government honest on these if they were published, open and consulted on before the final passage of the Bill—otherwise we are buying a pig in a poke.

It breaks my heart that Brexit is happening and that therefore we need the Bill. But we do need it and it needs to be much amended if precious environmental law is to come safely across—simply, alas, to maintain standards where they already are. I therefore encourage Pooh, Piglet and perhaps even Eeyore to come back into the woods.

18:28

[Lord Lupton (Con)]

My Lords, we are in the twilight zone of this long debate. I am speaker No. 161, and I have been positioned as the filling in a rich Young-Judge sandwich of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I will direct my comments to three general points, the first of which is referenda.

I have no doubt that referenda sit very uneasily with our long-established system of parliamentary democracy, which for many years appears to have worked in the least bad way you can expect government to work. I have no desire to see referenda on extremely complex decisions become the norm, and I believe that a referendum on the terms of our exit from the EU—which would give a second bite of the cherry to a minority who did not like the result they got in 2016—would weaken our constitution. I say that as somebody who both voted and campaigned to remain in the EU. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, in an enthusiastic speech yesterday which included a confession of possible future civil disobedience, raised some practical and strong objections to the details of when, what and how any referendum would be conducted. My objection is more fundamental, and I can do no better than to refer to the impassioned, tub-thumping words of my noble friend Lord Patten yesterday when he spoke so eloquently against referenda. This was echoed today by my noble friend Lord Hague.

Secondly, coming from the world of business and commerce, I find it perplexing to read demands for the democratically elected Government’s detailed negotiating position to be published. What an absurd notion, and how damaging to the nation’s interests such a demand is. The electorate usually shows itself to be more discerning than we parliamentarians, colourfully described by my noble friend Lord Ridley yesterday as, “popinjays” and “panjandrums”. The electorate will see through any theoretical or intellectualised argument to the contrary, since the truth is so obvious

Poker players—or bridge players if you prefer something more genteel—do not disclose their hands until the bidding is done, and nor should our Government in the Brexit negotiations. Yes, it is reasonable to expect the Government to define the broad parameters of the negotiation, but this notion that we must receive a blow-by-blow account of the detailed talks is for the birds. I think, however, we can expect the Government to comfort us that they know, when entering the room, whether they are about to play bridge or poker.

Finally, I find it interesting that we are now in a world where spokespersons from both sides of the Brexit debate demand this and that from our political leaders in the certain knowledge that their demands are unachievable. I caution all sides, in the national interest, to exercise some responsibility in their public posturing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said so eloquently yesterday, politicians should engage in respectful discussions and be less tribal—sentiments also expressed by my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Hunt of Wirral today.

We have to accept that each member of the EU 27 has its own agenda for the discussions, and we need an understanding of those agendas to be able to negotiate a practicable solution. Take Germany as an example. In 2017 Germany is estimated to have enjoyed a substantial budget surplus of some €28 billion—an enviable position—and in the 11 months to November 2017, a trade surplus of a staggering €225 billion. Meanwhile—this number is difficult to extract from the public documentation—it is believed that Germany has lent over €500 billion to the European Central Bank, and the ECB has lent €590 billion to Spain, Italy and Portugal. Notably, this number does not include Greece. You could argue, therefore, that Germany has a huge interest in discouraging other possibly wavering nations from leaving the EU, and in maintaining the stability of Europe—especially the eurozone—as it is effectively propping up a relatively weak currency with loans to the struggling south, funnelled through the ECB to spread its credit risk. No wonder then that many believe that even the main German industrial lobbies support taking a relatively hard line with the UK, reasoning that the sanctity of the single market is more important than losing some BMW or Mercedes car sales to the UK.

This is absolutely not the time to play partisan politics; this is a time to show statesmanship and work towards an achievable result that works best for the nation, and which complies with the result of a referendum that this House and the other place approved in 2015. However naive it sounds in today’s Alice in Wonderland political environment, what I ask for—and believe the nation should, and does, expect—is that we find a common purpose around which the national interest can coalesce. I very much hope that our debates on the Bill over next few weeks will seek to do that.

18:34

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, without this Bill exit day will be an Armageddon of legal chaos. Governments, public authorities and every single citizen will be in a complete mess; he or she will simply not know where they stand. I welcome the Bill. The result, of course, will be that parliamentary sovereignty will be restored. Parliament will no longer be subject to the supremacy of European law. The Bill itself speaks about this, but I do not understand why. It is a concept known in Europe, not a concept known in this country. When we leave Europe, the concept of European supremacy will simply be ridiculous.

This means that all the laws sent to us by Europe for the last 40 years or so will have legal force, not because they come from Europe but because, and only because, our Parliament has in effect re-enacted them for as long as it wishes them to stay in place and made them part of our constitutional arrangements. That, indeed, is parliamentary sovereignty. The summary, in the end, is this: the supremacy of European law will be at an end and the ultimate law-making power will have returned home.

This Bill duly honours the result of the referendum. I shall not spend time arguing the merits or demerits of the decisions that have been made by this country—we have heard quite a lot of them. I just want to draw attention to this: a little scrutiny reveals the flaws in this Bill, and we must rectify them. The Constitution Committee has identified a whole series of problems with it, and I shall not repeat them. I want to make a much broader point arising from the Constitution Committee’s report, but also from any reading of this Bill. Looking at the Bill as a whole, with the excitement of sovereignty returning home, I ask rhetorically: does the Bill as presently drafted, simultaneously serve to reduce sovereignty, not in constitutional theory, but in constitutional practice?

For the last 40 years parliamentary authority over the Executive has steadily diminished. It is no good fooling ourselves: that is what has been happening whichever party has been in power, and even in the time of a coalition. Perhaps this is because, under our obligations under the European Communities Act 1972, we had to accept laws. Perhaps it is because time is shorter than it was. However it has occurred, Parliament has acquiesced and perhaps been blind to the problem. Regulation-making powers have been strewn around Ministers like confetti at a happy wedding. Not a single Bill comes before this House in which there are not regulation-making powers. The last Bill we looked at, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, was nothing but regulation-making powers. There was nothing in it except for regulations or regulation-making powers.

I take these figures from The Devil is in the Detail, a marvellous book by the Hansard Society. Do we appreciate that every year 12,000 pages—12,000 small-typed pages—of laws are made by regulation? I wonder who reads them all—nobody. That is the result of vesting power in the Executive. So if parliamentary sovereignty is to mean what it says, law-making by Ministers should be reduced. We should look very closely when we decide that we are going to give these law-making powers.

This Bill as drafted, undoubtedly enhances ministerial law-making. In theory, that is all fine—there is parliamentary scrutiny. In the Commons, the Government accepted an amendment saying that there would be a sifting committee, and the Leader of the House suggested that she would have the same arrangement here. That is fine—till when? Do your Lordships realise what the sifting committee’s power actually is? It is the power to require an affirmative rather than a negative resolution procedure.

Again, I am taking my figures from the book that I have recommended, and I do recommend it—the summary is very easy. The whole book is pretty well written but when noble Lords have read the summary, they will not need to go much further. It tells us that since 1950 170,000 statutory instruments have been made. Of those, 17 have been rejected—that is, 0.01%. That has happened in the Commons 11 times, the last occasion being 1979. In this House, it has happened six times. On the last occasion, we were nearly drummed out of existence for having the nerve to take on the Government over one of their regulations, which was to do with the £4.5 billion arising from tax credits. Incidentally, I hope everybody realises that Mr Osborne was using powers given to him by a Labour Government. That is the problem.

My time is nearly up. When we come to look at the Bill, can we please examine whether it gives more powers to the Minister than he or she should ever have and whether we should control the Executive better than we do? If we do not do that now with this Bill, we will never ever recover the opportunity to do so again.

18:41

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to follow the line of argument developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In fact, a number of speakers in this debate have called for a meaningful role for Parliament in the Brexit process. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, was characteristically eloquent on this subject, and tonight I want to address the role of Parliament in the withdrawal process.

At the moment, Clause 9 gives Parliament one meaningful vote on any deal at the end of the talks. That is fine and I congratulate those who promoted it, but some of us suspect that the context for such a vote will be “vote for the deal or face the cliff edge”. There will not be too many other options around at that time. That will be being said not just by our government negotiators but by EU 27 Governments as well.

My key point in this debate is: what about a say and a vote for Parliament at an earlier stage, specifically on the mandate that the Government should follow in the talks about the future of UK-EU relations? At the moment, we have the Prime Minister’s red lines in the Lancaster House press conference speech. She rules out membership of the single market and the customs union and a continuing role for the ECJ. We had warmer words from her in her Florence speech and we have had a mixture of incompatible objectives and wishful thinking from individual Ministers, but none of that carries the authority of Parliament at this stage.

The EU, on the other hand, is currently developing clear mandates on the transitional arrangements, as we saw earlier this week, and in March it will develop one on the future relationship with the UK. But when do the UK Parliament—especially the other place, to which I certainly cede superiority in this matter—and the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, which will also need to be engaged, get to debate the UK’s approach and give the government negotiators a clearer mandate than they have at the moment? Sure, we will get to commentate in our own committees and in various debates in this House, but we will not play a central role in the process, and that is not good enough.

As many people have said, the Cabinet is in a muddle over how to take this forward, yet Parliament is exerting no pressure on it to get its act together and come up with coherent and practicable positions for negotiating with the EU. As an old trade union negotiator, I am, like the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, all for giving flexibility to negotiators, certainly once the talks start, but starting the talks without clear, practicable objectives is inviting disaster. We need to know whether we are playing bridge or poker when we go into these talks.

At this crucial stage in our island’s story, to progress these negotiations without a parliamentary mandate is careless and undemocratic. It is the opposite of taking back control. It certainly repeats many of the earlier mistakes to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.

Therefore, we need to amend the Bill to provide for a second meaningful vote in Parliament—this time on the mandate for the talks about the future relationship. This, if adopted, would force the Government, and others, to take a position before setting off to see Monsieur Barnier. It is time for Parliament to exert some control over the withdrawal process, and in due course there will be an amendment drawing on all corners of the House to this effect. My preference—I will be frank and lay my cards face up on the table—is for a mandate that prioritises jobs, rights and trade, as called for in an excellent briefing from the TUC, which I commend to all noble Lords.

I have always been comfortable with the shared sovereignty concept of the EU. I have never found it restrictive; the EU has given us extra scope, extra reach and extra power. It has not restricted anything at all in just about every single case. However, I accept that if Parliament votes on a mandate, the vote might go the other way. To some extent, that would settle the direction of travel, because that direction is not settled at the moment. I will be looking for support from all sides of the House for an amendment along those lines to be moved in Committee and on Report, making that crucial point and returning power to Parliament—which I think was one of the objectives of the leave argument in the referendum.

18:47

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill started life as an oxymoron—let us be honest. The great repeal Bill repeals some EU law but transposes it back into UK legislation, and what we have heard today has made it clear that it is not that great either. As many have already pointed out, it has numerous technical and constitutional defects. As a former head of the Treasury, I salivate at the prospect of raising tax via statutory instruments, but that is probably best avoided, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out.

The Constitution Committee’s points seem broadly sensible and I hope that the Government can accept them. The treatment of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Bill leaves me very puzzled. It is indefensible. I assume that we will be coming up with a new version of Clause 11 and that that will be cleared with the devolved authorities; otherwise, we will be completely stuck on that.

The Bill’s origin dates back to then Prime Minister Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum, which, in my opinion and to misquote him, was a disaster, not a mistake. I am a believer in parliamentary democracy, not government by referendum. However, given where we are now, the only question, to which I will return, is whether two wrongs would make a right. Today, I want to make some points in my role as a former Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, and in other roles as an economist. I declare various economic affiliations as listed in the register of interests.

I admire, but do not envy, my successor, who is trying to implement the Government’s policy on Brexit, whatever that is. Although there has been an inevitable and much-needed increase in the number of civil servants working on Brexit, Civil Service numbers overall continue to fall as efficiency improvements are delivered. But Brexit is inevitably squeezing out almost everything else.

Despite these challenges, morale in the Civil Service, as measured by the annual engagement surveys—and I like evidence—is at an all-time high. So it is particularly disappointing—I was very grateful to hear the support expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—to see a divided Cabinet resorting to attacking the civil servants who simply want to implement whatever policy Cabinet finally decides upon. The progress made to date and the fact that we have successfully moved on to the next stage of talks is witness to the hard work that is going on behind the scenes. Civil servants across a range of departments are delivering detailed analysis. Businesses, trade unions—as the noble Lord, Lord Monks pointed out—and think tanks have provided their input. The bickering and blaming of civil servants needs to stop. Cabinet needs to formulate a policy for the next crucial stage. The EU 27, and we should learn from them, have been strengthened by having a clear, public negotiating position—we need one as well.

For the next stage, I would say, now is the time for experts. We need Ministers to stay in post for long enough to master their briefs. Listening to the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Bridges, makes me realise how much expertise has been lost. Cabinet should abide by the principle—that very old principle—of collective responsibility. By all means argue in private, but please present a united front in negotiations.

On the economic aspects, I hope that Ministers and civil servants will study the wealth of analyses that is now being undertaken by a number of groups, such as the Trade Knowledge Exchange, which I am involved in, which are all committed to helping us get the best deal possible. Their analysis highlights that the benefits of a good trade deal with the EU are worth far more than the amounts discussed in the first stage talks and, I would argue, far more than deals with third countries. As Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO, has pointed out, the big costs in trade terms come from regulatory divergence. Yet the ability to diverge from EU rules is regarded as a big benefit by some. It is also true that trade deals with third countries will require similar regulations. Such deals will be governed by what I would call the tug of regulatory gravity, meaning that the bigger partners, such as the US, China or India, have the biggest say in determining the rules.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us that there is more to a good life than just prosperity. It is very interesting that those parts of the country with the greatest inequality in self-reported levels of well-being were the areas where the leave vote was strongest, and we should really analyse why this vote took place. We do not have the time to go into that here, but it is a very important point.

Jobs matter for well-being and the recently leaked document on various scenarios backs up most of the public research that has been available for months. It is not new; it has been around for a long time. It has shown that growth will be significantly lower outside the EU than it would otherwise have been. I know counterfactuals do not make for slick soundbites, but the time for those has gone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said. Fortunately, the world is going through a period of strong growth, including in our number one trading partner, the EU, so our headline growth figures will not look bad—unless, of course, you compare them with the rest of the world. Lower growth means lower tax revenue and lower public spending, and that has implications for the NHS.

So, assuming this Bill is amended sensibly, I will hold my nose and join my esteemed predecessors, including the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Armstrong and Lord Wilson, who have spoken in this debate, in supporting it. By the autumn we should know more about the kind of deal that is on offer. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, gave us that brilliant analogy last night. Will it be more “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” or “Reservoir Dogs”? We do not know yet.

For me, the issue of how Northern Ireland is treated will be a determining factor. I have absolutely no idea how you reconcile regulatory alignment and no hard border with leaving the single market and the customs union. Whatever is decided, peace must be preserved. When we have all the details of that proposed deal—in the autumn I hope, but I am not really expecting that—then, and only then, should Parliament consider whether the result of the negotiations is so far away from what was promised that the people should be consulted again. But this time we must give the people a clear choice between the terms on which we should remain and leave so that they know exactly what the terms are in both cases.

To conclude, this is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out, an essential Bill—there is chaos without it. But this House can improve it substantially. That will take time, which is running out for the Government, the country and me, so I will sit down.

18:55

[Lord Saatchi (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord. I would like to dedicate my speech, if this is within the conventions of your Lordships’ House, to another Member of the House—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds—for exactly the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, mentioned him. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that there is more to life than trade deals and that human beings possess the power of imagination, and can conjure up in their minds a vision of a better world and a better life.

So far in this debate, we have certainly been presented with many nightmare scenarios. So now, as we approach the end, perhaps I may paint your Lordships a picture, if you will allow me, of the dream scenario: a happy ending to the story.

So I bring your Lordships joyous news. It is a photo opportunity to be shared in social media and across all TVs, all platforms, all devices all over the world. It immediately goes viral and is downloaded 1.2 billion times in 43 seconds—a global media sensation. There are three people in the picture: German Chancellor Merkel, French President Macron and, standing between them and slightly in front of them, British Prime Minister Theresa May. The backdrop is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Chancellor Merkel speaks first. She says: “Today, every citizen of Europe gives thanks to British Prime Minister May for this historic agreement, signed by us, which guarantees the peace, prosperity and security of all the people of Europe”. A spectacular fireworks display then illuminates the Eiffel Tower and the whole of the sky above Paris is dazzling red, white and blue.

The Prime Minister comes home in a special plane of the Queen’s Flight. She is driven to Buckingham Palace to inform Her Majesty the Queen of her progress. Returning to Downing Street through crowd-lined streets under a pale May sun, the Prime Minister speaks—a lone figure, standing at the now familiar lectern outside the door of No. 10. She announces: “We are no longer a member of the European Union. We are now a partner of the European Union”. The crowd roars its approval as she reports: “All our red lines have been achieved. We are no longer a member of the single market. We are now a member of the single platform. We are no longer a member of the customs union. We are now a member of the customs group. We are no longer under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will not ‘take account of or have regard to’ the decisions of the ECJ. We will only have ‘due regard’ to its rulings, and we will no longer submit to free movement of persons. We will now only accept free movement of workers”.

Turning from the world’s cameras to speak directly to the British people, she says: “I have carried out the task you gave me. I have delivered the will of the British people. I now await your further instructions”. As she turns to enter No. 10, some reporters shout out: “Prime Minister, Prime Minister! Nothing has changed!”. But their voices are drowned out by the spontaneous burst into singing of the citizens outside the gates of No. 10 as the sound reverberates along Whitehall: “For she’s a jolly good fellow and so say all of us!”.

She is voted one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time, and a grateful nation erects a bronze statue of her in Parliament Square.

In the years that followed, the Prime Minister provided the British people, free at last, with an inspiring vision and sense of purpose. She saw that the most effective political statement of our time was, “I have a dream”. She had a dream too, and she made it come true: an “end state” where Britain takes its rightful place as the national leader of Europe. How did she do it? Every day she noted the statue of General Slim opposite Downing Street and remembered his lesson about the power of words to change the world. As he said:

“You cannot win a war unless your troops believe they are fighting for a noble object”.


She carefully studied how Germany had risen from ashes to ascendancy, dust to dominance, by changing just one word: “democracy”. As so many noble Lords know much better than I, in the original European Coal and Steel Community made up of six countries, democracy meant one country, one vote. German diplomats brilliantly changed it to one citizen, one vote, which is much more democratic. The moves that followed—reunification of the biggest population in Europe; the treaty of Nice, so that Germany outvoted Britain for the first time; and the treaty of Lisbon, so that the majority required to change EU law was reduced—were three simple steps to effective control of Europe. The Prime Minister thought, “They did it. Why can’t we?”. She saw the opportunity. Britain would soon have the largest working-age population in Europe, and according to the most recent estimates, faster economic growth than Germany for the next 20 years.

So the Prime Minister called the Foreign Secretary to No. 10 and asked to see the Foreign Office plan for Britain as the leading nation of Europe. She was told, “Britain at the head of Europe? It’s impossible. Pie in the sky. Head in the clouds. We must keep our feet on the ground”. But she thought that that would not do. She resolved to mobilise the English language and send it into battle; we know that. The Prime Minister understood that this would be the work of a generation or even two generations, as it was for Germany, but she recognised that the movie we are in—further to the choices made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—is not “The Great Escape”. The film needs a better title—“The Promised Land”—and a new script written by a fresh team of screenwriters. The Prime Minister held fast to her dream because she knew that a map of the world which does not include Utopia is not worth looking at.

19:02

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on this very day, 31 January, in 1606, Guy Fawkes was executed following the failed Gunpowder Plot—but it is vital that this Bill does not also expire. The Bill must be passed into law to allow Her Majesty’s Government to implement the will of the people in the referendum result and to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.

A recent Thomson Reuters report identified 52,741 pieces of legislation that have been passed in Parliament since 1990, many of which came from Europe. Transferring European law into British law is the quickest way to ensure continuity, and of course that is the purpose of the Bill. So I see the rationale for the so-called Henry VIII clauses allowing Ministers to streamline the procedures, but I put it to the Minister that these powers should be limited to technical issues only and that there should be a sunset clause. But in so doing, surely we have to learn from the past. Such a complexity of constitutional laws may not have served Britain well. Let us not forget that, after 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai, in the presence of Almighty God, the prophet Moses finally emerged with only 10 commandments to help humanity. If God had given Moses 52,741 laws, I suspect that he would have needed more than two tablets.

I spent some years as a barrister in what was known as “Rumpole of the Bailey’s chambers”. I stress that I am in favour of this Bill and I want it to pass, but there are some matters that I would ask the Minister to comment on when he winds up. There is concern that the Bill as drafted fails to fully assign a legal status to retained EU law. Will he also address the concern that Ministers are due to determine legal status only on a case-by-case basis, considering the fundamental nature of such a power?

The Bill seeks also not to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will the Minister address concerns that this may lead to a rather scattered landscape of rights, resulting in less protection for people? I am sure that all of these matters can be resolved, but I ask him to consider them.

Much has been said about Clause 11 on devolution, and I urge the Government to rethink it. Can the Minister also assure your Lordships that the House of Lords will play an equal role in scrutinising any secondary legislation, as I believe was promised by the Leader of the House of Lords in evidence to the Constitution Committee on 13 December? Might that even be written into the Bill?

This is an exciting time for our nation. No longer will we be shackled by the EU single market or burdened by paying huge sums into the EU budget. Britain will become a truly global trading nation, making trade agreements all around the world. On this very day the Prime Minister is in China with many of our businessmen, hoping to make trade agreements with the enormous Chinese trading bloc.

Much has also been said about the nature of this country post Brexit, and this is where I will refer to the Commonwealth family. My father came to Britain from Jamaica in the 1940s to do perhaps the most noble job known to mankind—to play cricket for Warwickshire. Although he was born and raised in Jamaica, he felt that he was coming home because he was part of the Commonwealth family. Let us remember that that family comprises 52 nations with one-third of the world’s population. It has an immensely rich and enduring history and culture, with English as a common language, as well as great admiration for our sovereign. The timing of the Bill is excellent since Britain is due to host the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in just a few weeks’ time.

This Bill is not a leap into the dark. When fear knocks at the door, we must answer it with faith. It is illuminating that throughout the Bible there is a clear theme of one empire after another eventually overreaching itself and gradually collapsing. In the Old Testament it was the Egyptian empire, followed by the Assyrian empire, the Babylonian empire and finally the Persian empire. They all collapsed. In the New Testament were the powerful rulers of the Roman empire such as Nero—but they all eventually fell. So the Bible and history demonstrate how national sovereignty always proves more durable than the politics of imposed empire.

For 10 years I was vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. Currently there is a British film which will probably win several Oscars for the British film industry. It is called “The Darkest Hour” and it is about the Second World War. We are privileged to be part of the most important season in British history since 1945. As we engage with our European counterparts, we must revive the winning spirit of Sir Winston Churchill. In the film, Churchill declares that, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”.

19:08

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, it is hard to follow the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and it is hard to follow Warwickshire cricket. I was going to say that the speech which has made the most impact on me so far in the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, yesterday. He spoke of the need for us to decide what kind of country we want, because only when we know what we want to be will we know what relationship with Europe is right for us. Not for the first time, he called on the Government to be,

“honest with themselves and the public about the choices we face. Then, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet must make those choices … to govern is to choose. As we face the biggest challenge this country has faced since the Second World War, keeping every option open is no longer an option”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1423.]

I could not agree more. I could not put it better. I am very uneasy about the silence of the sphinx. I am very uneasy when I see free-market wolves in cuddly sheep’s clothing promising undiminished farm support. I am very uneasy about fierce critics of the working time regulations promising that there will be no change to labour rights, employment rights, social rights and equality rights, and that we do not need to worry about giving Ministers the power to make changes to such rights by statutory instrument.

More generally, the Government need to come clean on whether taking back control means a bonfire of controls, and whether we are going to change our socioeconomic model, as in autumn 2015 the Chancellor said we might have to do. We need to know for two reasons. First, the Bill asks us to give them the matches to light the bonfire if they want to. Secondly, our partners across the Channel need to know. They will decide what access we can have to their markets depending on how far we will stick to the model of how their economies—most western European economies—work.

It will not do any longer just to say that we want something deep, special, unique and bespoke: we have to define what it is. It is not enough to say—as we said, far too soon—what we do not want. Mrs Merkel is quite right: we have now to say what we do want. When the 27 say that the British red lines mean that the British can have no more than a “Canadian” deal, we must stop putting our fingers in our ears and chanting “la la la—I can’t hear you”. It is their call: they will say what deal we will get. There are red lines, but it is their call. Getting a Cabinet to agree and stick to a line is always difficult, but that is the job. A sphinx- like silence will not do any more.

Of course we must pass this Bill, for all the reasons mentioned by so many noble Lords. If in the end we leave the EU, EU law has to be instantly repatriated to ensure legal continuity. We must, therefore, pass the Bill, and I am confident that we will improve it. I would like to see improvements in four areas.

The first is the area that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, among others, drew attention to: I do not see any need for such a massive transfer of power from legislature to Executive, and on that I very much agree with the warning from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. For me, the lightbulb moment was spotting Clause 9(2), where Ministers take the power to change—by delegated regulation—this Act. So we spend the next three months working day and night to improve the Bill and when it is on the statute book the Minister, with a flick of his pen, can cross out our work. That cannot be right. In the words of the Constitution Committee, it gives Ministers,

“far greater latitude than is constitutionally acceptable”.

Secondly, as a Scotsman I of course listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Mackay, and it seems to me that they are right: there is no need to attack and overturn the central principle of the devolution settlement—and there will be a huge price to be paid if we do. I do not understand the sphinx-like disdain for consultation with the devolved Administrations. It is exactly a year since the Prime Minister last met her devolved Administration colleagues in the JMC, the top-level committee set up for consultation with the devolved Administrations—a whole year. That cannot be right. I very much hope that the Minister will bring forward an agreed amendment to Clause 11 very soon, but we may need to nudge the process a bit and perhaps also make sure that the Belfast principles, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, cannot be undercut by powers taken in this Bill.

Thirdly, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I have difficulty understanding the link between this Bill and the stand-still transition period that, it seems, we want. The 27 reminded us in the mandate that they agreed on Monday that in the transition period the ECJ’s jurisdiction will rule. The Prime Minister acknowledged that in her Florence speech. Why, therefore, does the Bill strike out the ECJ’s jurisdiction? We will only have to put it back again if we get a transition period.

Lastly, I am uneasy that Ministers may try to duck out of the meaningful vote that we have been promised when the outcome of the negotiations is clear. Suppose that there is no deal. Suppose also that by then we have a different Prime Minister—the sphinx sits on shifting sands. Suppose that we have a Prime Minister who believes that Brussels should whistle for the money. Suppose that the negotiations break down. Will we get the meaningful vote to ensure that Parliament cannot be bypassed? This Bill has to guarantee that in all circumstances the moment of truth will definitely come—and come at a time when we still have the options of extending withdrawal negotiations, taking back the Article 50 notification letter or consulting the country about doing so.

19:15

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, as I seem to have done for the past 20 years. I refer to my current interests on the register.

In 1972, during Second Reading on the then European Communities Bill in the other place, Sir Geoffrey Rippon said:

“I believe that we shall walk tall into Europe on 1st January 1973. We shall take our rightful place in the counsels of Europe. We shall compete and we shall contribute”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/72; col. 1984.]


In leaving the European Union, we shall undoubtedly diminish our standing and influence in the world. It was Europe that brought me into politics. I was born of a Danish mother and Scottish father. Denmark was occupied during the Second World War, severely restricting the freedoms and liberty my mother could enjoy while growing up with occupying troops and tanks on the streets of Copenhagen.

I fervently believe that bringing our trading relations closer together across Europe, as our membership of the European Union has facilitated, has made the prospect of future conflicts in Europe much less likely. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall—I was there in November 1989, a day I shall remember all my life—we have seen an influx of countries and peoples from the former Soviet bloc, strengthening our defence against a potential foe. That same year, 1973, when we joined the European Union, I left Harrogate Ladies’ College to embark on my legal studies at Edinburgh University. I had high hopes of following a career in the European Community as it then was, and I did. I undertook a “stage”—an internship—in the Commission. I worked for the Conservatives in the European Parliament. I practised European law and I then became a Member of the European Parliament.

My overwhelming feeling in debating this Bill is one of sadness at the fact that many of the opportunities that I had in my 20s and 30s will not be available to future generations—namely, the right to live, study and work in another EU country.

I will set out why, in my view, the Bill is defective. In transposing into UK law those instruments such as regulations and decisions—instruments other than EU directives—the Bill seeks to introduce a new category of retained direct EU law, whose status seems far from clear, as was put most eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords. The provisions of the Bill lack clarity and legal certainty, and if I was a law student today I would find it impossible to understand its provisions. They do not entirely reflect the well-established principles of direct effect and direct applicability, and the relationship between the supremacy of EU law and retained EU law is simply not clear.

The Bill is further flawed by the huge power given to the Executive to pass secondary legislation through so-called Henry VIII clauses. While there is agreement across Parliament that new procedures are needed to ensure proper scrutiny—to hold the Government to account—I query whether new committees are required or this is best dealt with by beefed-up versions of the existing committees on delegated legislation.

If there is one unique contribution I can bring to the debate today, it is this: I argue—and have long argued in the other place and here—that there should be the opportunity to amend the content of those draft statutory instruments which come before both Houses, not just to vote for or against them. This is especially relevant as the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that these laws, once transposed, can then be further revised and amended by Parliament post Brexit. But this would be a new power: a power to amend not just the title but the actual content of each and every statutory instrument. Clauses 2 to 9 are therefore ripe for amendment. I have a word of caution for my noble friends Lord Astor and Lord Ridley, and fervent readers of the Daily Mail: those of us who wish to improve the Bill stand prepared to perform our statutory and parliamentary duty of making it better.

We are faced with inconvenient truths: the UK simply cannot replicate the free trade agreements with the 70-plus countries with which the EU has a formal trade agreement, including Commonwealth countries. Although there are countries such as Vietnam outside these arrangements, in effect the potential market is very small compared to the existing single market of 505 million consumers. It surprises me that the Government took the key tools in their negotiating pack off the table even before negotiations began—namely, our membership of the single market and customs union. Considering the remaining options available, applying to join the European Free Trade Association would seem the next best thing to membership of the EU; and leaving with no deal, on World Trade Organization most-favoured nation terms, the worst. Being in EFTA would minimise the potential economic damage, solve the question of the Irish border and maintain our sovereignty. Were we to be outside the single market and EFTA, a dispute resolution mechanism must be agreed in regard to cross-border issues involving British goods entering the EU post Brexit.

In terms of agriculture and the environment, I believe that the common agricultural policy has made the EU supply chain more sustainable and kept prices stable. Since the referendum and the collapse in the value of the pound, food prices have risen sharply. The higher environmental standards have turned Britain from the dirty man of Europe to the clean and green land that we are.

I am proud that our history, cultures and destinies are shared with our European partners. The question today is what exactly the nature of our deep and special relationship, going forward, will be and whether that will be in the best interests of this place, of our country, of the British people, of British business and, especially, of the younger generation.

19:22

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

I welcome this Second Reading to consider the continuing role of the UK Parliament in the future of Europe although, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the devolved parliaments are also a vital element. Having visited and collaborated with friends and scientific colleagues in countries all over the world, it became ever clearer to me that as the EU has welcomed new member countries and led the world in living standards, science and culture, it has become the greatest union of countries and confederations in the world—and that our small country off the north-west of Europe has been incredibly fortunate to be a leading country in that Union, as well as being a member of the looser network of the Commonwealth.

I suppose that all organisations need reviewing from time to time so, in the light of this general philosophy, it was perhaps reasonable for our Parliament, led by Prime Minister Cameron, to announce in 2013 a review of the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU. This led to the in/out referendum in 2016 that resulted in 52% of voters recommending that the UK should leave the EU. But extraordinarily, following the decision in the referendum, our Parliament did not then insist on moving a Bill to establish the legal framework and government policies for leaving the EU. It took the Supreme Court to tell Parliament to take charge of every aspect of leaving the EU and establishing procedures for the UK to work with the EU. Most importantly, these procedures must be relevant in helping people to move and work across Europe.

The woolly and uncertain government statements about wishing to work with the EU in future have not been enough so now, as other noble Lords have explained, we have hundreds of legal measures in this Bill. The Government apparently want to avoid these procedures and just control the leaving process by autocratic Henry VIII measures, as other noble Lords have emphasised. There is now much to be done to establish myriad measures to ensure that Brexit operates smoothly and openly for the thousands of organisations and millions of people who will be affected. But it has become progressively clear that the terms and conditions for the UK to function in relation to the EU will be quite onerous.

As a scientist, I have had many conversations during the past year with researchers, industry and government agencies. We have already seen the departure of important EU science centres that are in the UK and the movement of leading scientists away from the UK. Many European projects will certainly go ahead with significant UK participation, including Euratom, which will be debated in the House of Lords next month. But the UK may no longer take the leading position and UK industry may lose contracts in these new arrangements.

Other centres which the UK takes a lead on include the European Space Agency and the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts—a major centre here at Reading which, if I may say so, leads to such extraordinarily improved weather forecasts that in the United States they now talk about the European weather. There is currently also funding from the European Commission for these organisations. The tricky and important question, which is not well understood, is whether the UK will make special financial contributions in place of the funding that comes from the European Commission. If not, we will find that many of the guiding strategies and actions of these European agencies in which we are involved will no longer have a UK lead. Norway and Switzerland see this at present; they participate but do not have the leadership role.

The facilities in the UK may also not continue, which would greatly affect UK science, technology and universities. Perhaps even more important is how high-tech manufacturing industry will grow when it no longer receives development funding from the European Commission. These companies are well distributed across the UK, more so perhaps than financial organisations, and many of them work with UK universities. Some of them are already discussing moving some of their operations on to the continent. This is extremely serious for many important industrial communities in the UK. The companies will do this to participate in the most exciting future projects with EU funding.

As we look forward to the next decade, Parliament and the young voters who will then become the majority will realise that there will be progressive disadvantages in the UK’s quasi-independence from the EU. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Mandelson put it, plans may emerge eventually for a second opportunity for UK voters to express their opinions about the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU politically, which might be an element in the interesting play that we heard of from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi.

19:28

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches on this historic Bill, but it is a Bill that I nevertheless wholeheartedly wish was not before us. But it is, and it is our duty to play our part in ensuring that withdrawal from the EU is as orderly as possible.

I agree with most noble Lords that the Bill is flawed. I have reservations about several aspects, including on the scope of ministerial power and the appropriateness of empowering the Executive to such a degree, particularly in the light of devolution. Moreover, I share some concerns about the level of parliamentary scrutiny needed, and at what level. Speaking as chair of this House’s EU Sub- Committee on Financial Affairs, I will seek clarification from the Government as to how they envisage different levels of EU law and regulatory guidance being implemented in the UK. In this area, detailed parliamentary scrutiny may or may not be appropriate, depending on the level of decision we seek to transpose in our quest for regulatory alignment—something that we should surely seek to do where it is appropriate.

However, it is the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Adonis that I wish to address. I think of him as my noble friend because some 25 years ago, I delivered leaflets on his behalf when he was a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, so we go back a long time. I have enormous respect for him as a historian, a senior Member of this House and a thought leader on many of the thorniest issues that our country faces. I admire the passion with which he has engaged his campaign for a third referendum, but I wonder to what extent he has reflected on developments on the other side of the English Channel.

For the EU, while Brexit may have been a distraction, it is continuing a business-as-usual model, which is why we have seen such unity. Its priority is rightly to secure the financial stability of the eurozone, and work is continuing apace in that regard. The completion of the eurozone project, the banking union and the capital markets union has significant implications for the UK’s financial services sector. Moreover, ambitions for an EU Finance Minister and a eurozone monetary fund, and Mr Macron’s vision for a separate eurozone parliamentary caucus, present different challenges for our sovereignty and clout in the EU were we to remain.

The EU budget is also undergoing change. The High Level Group on Own Resources, led by Mr Mario Monti, to whom my committee spoke during his deliberations, has now reported. Among its recommendations are new ways to raise direct EU resources, such as a:

“Reformed VAT-own resource … corporate income tax-based own resource, financial transaction tax or other financial activities’ tax”.


It suggested measures relating to the energy union, and to environment, climate and transport policies, including a CO₂ levy, proceeds from the European emission trade system, and an electricity tax, a motor fuel levy and other measures. I set this scene just to remind ourselves that the EU we think we might stay in will not be the EU we were in prior to 23 June 2016. Crucially, the important decisions on the budget, the future of rebates, the future of the eurozone and changes to parliamentary accountability are taking place now and will do so in the period before mid- 2019, when a new Commission and Parliament will commence. Therefore, leaving aside the question of whether we should have another referendum, to which I am opposed, I argue that the opportunity for one is now behind us.

If I correctly understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, he seeks a referendum on the terms of the withdrawal agreement. I have two principal thoughts regarding that, as other noble Lords have also supported the view that we need a referendum on the withdrawal agreement. The first is that, if the withdrawal agreement is negotiated by October or November this year—as we have been told by Mr David Davis—the referendum presumably would be after that option is agreed or rejected by both Houses of Parliament, or rejected or agreed by the Commons, which has supremacy. In effect, therefore, the decision to hold a referendum will be legislated for in late 2018 or early 2019, with a referendum impossible till late spring 2019. The Electoral Commission requires six months from a decision till polling day. On that time line, the proposed referendum will be held after we have legally left, or are in transition under a different status, and we would have to reapply to join the EU.

If so, even if the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, then secures a yes vote—and I am pleased to see him back in his place now—we will almost certainly re-enter on different terms than those that pertained before 29 March, 2016, when we triggered Article 50. The UK rebate, the Schengen opt-out, the 35 or so JHA opt-outs and opt-ins, and, most importantly, the hard-fought renegotiation will all be off the table. The only other basis for us to remain in during the referendum period in 2020 would be if we did not withdraw and negotiated an extension to the Article 50 period, as permissible under Article 50. This would prevent the UK from striking any trade deals during the extended period, which is material.

While this is a possibility, we would only prolong uncertainty, and the change in Europe that I have described in 2019 would surely mean that there would be no final decision on the UK’s status for a further two, three or four years. All this while, businesses will have made decisions to relocate, investment will have fallen further and legal uncertainty will have been prolonged even further. The result would be a prolonged period of drip-drip decisions being made by businesses and institutions, which could only achieve a very diminished result for the UK, whether it were in or out. On that basis, I have come to the conclusion that we have to do the best that we can with withdrawal. I will expend my energy in making it a success to whatever extent I can, starting with this Bill.

19:35

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, many have spoken in the context of the tripartite relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary, of the balance to be struck in this Bill between Parliament and the Executive, and, of course, of the flawed nature of this Bill. I wish to speak solely in relation to the position of the judiciary as affected by this Bill and of maintaining its independence. Noble Lords may at once think that it is quite unnecessary for me to speak about the independence of the judiciary in this context, but it has become clear, not only from what has happened in this country but also from what has happened elsewhere, that the independence of the judiciary depends to a material extent on the legislature and the Executive doing what they can to keep the judges out of political decisions and the judges, of course, doing what they can to keep themselves out of such decisions.

The present draft of Clause 6 requires the judges within the United Kingdom to make decisions that could well be, or certainly be seen to be, political in nature. It is essential that Clause 6 be amended to that effect. This is not the time to develop the arguments, for in any event, they are set out in the excellent—or perhaps I should say, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—brilliant report of the Constitution Committee. There is a solution suggested; it needs discussion, and I hope that by the time the Bill comes back to this House, there is a properly thought-through amendment to that clause.

Although it is Clause 6 that directly affects the position of the judiciary in our constitution, it is important also to appreciate the potential effects on the judiciary and its independence of the present clause on devolution—Clause 11—and of Clauses 7 to 9. Those clauses have been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope as the Cromwellian clauses. I prefer the title Henry VIII. That is not merely because of loyalty to my predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who has done so much under that name to describe the real problems in the extensive use of those clauses and the dilution of parliamentary sovereignty that has resulted, but also because it was Henry VIII who abolished the separate laws of Wales.

It is clear from legal developments in the past decades that recourse to the courts will be used in any attempt to seek resolution of issues that have not been subject to decision by Parliament. That is a good enough reason in itself for decisions to be taken here. There is, as is well known, a ready route to challenge legislative powers exercised by Ministers, but probably not so well appreciated, to review issues in the devolution legislation which are not contained in well-thought-through—I underline those words—and clear provisions. The Welsh devolution cases are a pointer to the problems that can occur.

I have sympathy for the Government and their highly professional legal service when they have to bring about changes to a vast volume of legislation faced with the pressure of time and the uncertainty caused by the absence of agreement with the European Union. In those circumstances, I very much hope that this House and the Government will be prepared to explore alternatives in the legislative process, which have been mentioned by many noble Lords, and the use of expert bodies, such as the Law Commission, to assist by their advice in the process of scrutiny, which is difficult, and avoid unintended consequences.

It is the position of the judiciary that I wish to emphasise. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, forcefully pointed out that these issues are a matter of real concern to the judiciary as they affect it. So far, the judiciary has been one of the institutions that has remained largely unaffected by the issues relating to Brexit. However, the events of November 2016 arising out of the first decision in the Article 50 case, in which I participated, demonstrated the importance of the role of the judiciary in our constitution and social order, the relative fragility of its independence and the necessity of Parliament doing, as it did then, all it can to safeguard the independence and position of the judiciary.

There is a further factor which until recently may have been overlooked: the significant contribution our legal system makes to our economic prosperity. We should not ignore the fact that the events of November 2016 were publicised worldwide and commented on. I therefore hope that Parliament will do what it can so that the judiciary’s independence and reputation are not put in issue again.

19:41

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I remember the enthusiasm with which I voted for the 1972 Act and how I campaigned vigorously in the 1976 referendum on the Common Market. In the succeeding 40 years I moved the other way and I voted leave. I remember the Third Reading of the 1972 Bill. The debate was mainly about Commonwealth trade, not the great issues of Europe and all the rest of it. It was about Australian lamb and New Zealand butter. There were two Back-Benchers in that debate who forecast that if we were to join the Common Market there would be a substantial and irreversible transfer of sovereignty and power. They were Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. Over the following 30 years, their forecasts were correct: there was a substantial transfer of sovereignty.

Later in my political career I was involved in one such case. I was Home Secretary during the Maastricht negotiations and I was very keen to ensure that the responsibility of the Home Office for immigration, prisons and the criminal justice system should remain under British control. I had assurances from Douglas Hurd and John Major, given in great good faith, that that would happen. They had agreed with Europe that those issues should be put into a separate pillar. There were going to be three pillars. One would cover all the issues of the Home Office and they would be reserved to nation states. The night before the treaty was signed, I was rung up again and that pledge was reconfirmed. In all fairness, the European authority did set up a separate pillar, but it disappeared within 15 years. One should not be surprised at that because the very powerful institutions that the European Community had established, particularly the Commission, were not really interested in dispersing power from the centre. They believed in centripetal policies drawing powers into the centre. They were not very concerned about the periphery. Analysis of the British referendum shows that the periphery of the forgotten, the overlooked and the not-asked voted against the centralising powers of Europe.

When, as Home Secretary, I met the other Ministers of Justice, we were supposed to form a committee to be a check on the Commission because the Commission was always there. The trouble with the other Ministers was that they kept disappearing. Some were promoted, some were sacked and some were arrested. They were not about and they were not an effective control. They would always chide me on not being a good European. They were the last lot to do that because the Italian Minister went to jail for a huge financial fraud in Naples, the Irish Minister of Justice was sacked for fiddling his election expenses and the Spanish Minister for Justice won the booby prize as he went to jail for murder.

I voted leave for political reasons. I found that our institutions, such as the House of Commons, the courts and the judicial system, were much closer to the British electorate than their European counterparts. When qualified majority voting was introduced, our position at the table in negotiation was reduced very significantly. We lost far more votes than we won, so our position was diminished.

The decision to leave has been taken and I think it will not be changed. Jeremy Corbyn will not support a second referendum, and he is wise not to do that. I would not. I believe it is quite possible that in a second referendum the leave vote would go up, not down, because the way we have been treated by Europe over the past 18 months has been a pretty humiliating experience. Mr Barnier acts rather like a headmaster with a reluctant pupil. Parliamentary democracy should now prevail over plebiscitary democracy. Those who still want to be in the European Union, or to rejoin it if we leave, would be joining a very different body because already the centralising power has increased. Macron, Schulz and the former Italian Prime Minister want one fiscal policy and one Fiscal Minister, and if a Fiscal Minister is appointed one day, our Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to bow to him.

Before I sit down, I shall say something about the political situation and the position of the Prime Minister. I cannot recall any Prime Minister being subject to such vicious attacks, scornful dismissals, offensive vituperation and personally wounding comments on an almost daily basis. She is held in contempt by many people. She is not alone in that. Our last three Prime Ministers—Blair, Brown and Cameron—are also held in contempt, some of them in utter contempt. It seems to go with the job. The Prime Minister has been written off a hundred times yet could she form a Government? Yes. Could she get a Queen’s Speech? Yes. Could she get Article 50 through? Yes. Could she survive the Tory party conference? Yes. Could she restart the stalled negotiations before Christmas? Yes. These are not inconsiderable achievements. They are quite considerable. Faced with this avalanche of disdain, many people would have resigned, and she had an easy exit through her illness, but she has stayed on the bridge, I think from a sense of duty—that may be something to do with being a vicar’s daughter—to ensure that the electoral decision in the referendum, the largest democratic engagement ever in our history, is implemented.

She is the only Tory leader capable of carrying through the Government over the next year. The Conservatives are split, and the Labour Party is split. The Liberal Democrats are not split, yet gained no electoral advantage at all. Perhaps they have missed something. The Prime Minister has set herself one very simple target, namely that Britain will leave the European Union on 29 March next year, an act that for the last 50 years was not thought possible. That will be her moment of history, just as Ted Heath’s moment of history was joining the Common Market. It will be a major turning point in our history that will determine the path that our country will take. I know that some Conservative Eurosceptic MPs want to have all the freedoms on 29 March. I say to them, because we share some agreement, that they should perhaps remember the words of Oliver Goldsmith in the 18th century. They should not be,

“too fond of the right to pursue the expedient”.

It is not often in our history that our two Houses have to make a momentous decision, and that decision should be a parliamentary one, not a referendum one. It will affect which path exactly is to be taken. We have been doing this as an institution for more than 700 years. We have to decide which path to take. We have great sense of history in this House, and I think we recognise that the European Union is a form of empire. In the great roll call of history, it is the empires that collapse and disappear, and it is the nation states that survive.

19:50

[Lord Alli (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Leader of the House opened this debate, she implied that this was a narrow and technical Bill and made it sound like she thought the House was in danger of overestimating the importance of the Bill. However, as we have the largest number of speakers in a Second Reading debate in our history—169 speakers so far and 20 more to come—I suggest to the noble Baroness that we in this House believe this is one of the most important Bills the House will consider for some time.

Almost every speaker I have listened to has been united in agreeing that this Bill is badly put together and will need substantial amendment. Despite the plaudits of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for the Prime Minister, I believe the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should hold their heads in shame for delivering up a Bill in such bad shape and for trying to intimidate this House and the other place out of amending it. It is pathetic to do so.

I am not without sympathy for the Government’s Front Bench in this House. Those on it will have to put forward arguments in Committee that almost no one, including them, believes credible. They will be asked to get powers that no one in their right minds would give to individuals and will be asked to attack anyone who wants answers on what the Government intend to do post Brexit as potential saboteurs of the Bill.

The Government have continually tried to bypass Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny in this process. We have a role, alongside the House of Commons, to ensure they do not do that. We see with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill their attempt to insert any discussion of the customs union into that Bill. Here is the sneaky bit: they are then going to try to designate it a finance Bill, to avoid the scrutiny of this House. Can the Minister reassure us, at the end of this debate, that no such ploy will be used?

A flawed process and a flawed negotiation were inevitably going to lead to a flawed Bill. We have a duty to amend it, and to deal with some of the issues raised by the Select Committee on the Constitution and highlighted by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to name a few: the relationship between Parliament and government, including the broad range of dangerous delegated powers the Bill would like to take; Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales; the customs union and the single market; and the issues of disability as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. A host of other issues have also been raised by noble Lords.

We have a duty to ensure that the House of Commons can revisit some of these issues, which it may not have had time or information to fully consider in its deliberations. We have always challenged the wisdom that once a decision is taken by the democratically elected House of Commons, it is somehow sacrosanct and cannot be changed or challenged. We are the place that says, “We know you took a decision, and we understand the democratic legitimacy of taking it, but we believe you should reflect on it and think again”. Some of that wisdom may be needed by the House of Commons when it comes to the referendum. It should be confident that a referendum is not sacred and sacrosanct but can be changed, and that people can be asked to think again. The public are not stupid: they understand that events change and that it may be necessary to consult them again if, and only if, the circumstances warrant it.

The question is: who decides what circumstances warrant it? For me, that is a matter for the House of Commons and not for your Lordships’ House. What we have to ensure is that this Bill does not block the House of Commons from exercising its judgment on whether that is necessary or not. We have to build flexibility into the Bill for the House of Commons, to allow it to do its job.

I end with a quote, from 19 November 2012, in a speech about Europe:

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”.


The author and speaker of those words was David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I hope he still believes them to be true, but then again I respect his right to change his mind.

19:56

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. As he said, more or less everyone agrees that the Bill in its present state requires substantial improvement. The objective must be maximum clarity, to take a phrase from the Constitution Committee’s very powerful report, and minimum legal uncertainty. I think that is the right phrase, as legal certainty is just not achievable here. UK judges will be grappling with issues thrown up by this Bill and related legislation for many years. Your Lordships’ duty, it seems to me, is to make their job manageable. Personal views about the merits or demerits of Brexit seem to be largely irrelevant to the performance of that duty.

It is a bit late in the day for legal stuff, so I apologise, but I want to say something about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I think is likely to take up a bit of time as the Bill goes through the House. On this point, the Government are probably right to exclude the charter from the body of EU law which is to pass into post-Brexit UK law. I agree with what has been said about that by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but will add a few observations of my own.

The Government seek to justify the exclusion of the charter on the ground that it adds nothing to existing rights, and therefore its exclusion is of no consequence. This is most unpersuasive, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has said, because it invites the response, “Why bother to exclude it then?”. It is also incorrect as a matter of law. The retention of the charter as part of UK law would, in fact, make some difference. I recognise that it would provide litigants with a few additional arguments, but it would also lead to considerable legal uncertainty. In particular, it would lead to unnecessary complications regarding its interaction with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which, as the House knows, is a very similar foundational document.

The convention was drafted in 1949. As is well known, a large part of it was brought into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Some parts were left out, advisedly. That Act was very carefully drafted, under no pressure of time—unlike this Bill—and struck a balance between the protection of human rights and the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. It achieved that by means of the Section 3 obligation to construe legislation in a way that is compatible with human rights, and by means of the Section 4 power to make a declaration that primary legislation is incompatible with a convention right. It does not give the court a power to strike down legislation on the basis of such incompatibility. Almost every practising lawyer and judge would agree that the Human Rights Act and the convention behind it have worked very well. The scope of the Section 3 presumption has been defined in the case law, and Governments have respected declarations of incompatibility.

The charter was drawn up in 2001, but had no legal force until the Lisbon treaty of 2009, which provided that it,

“shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”.

The UK and Poland negotiated what they thought was an opt-out—at least that is what the politicians said—but in December 2011, the CJEU said that in fact it was a document whose purpose was to remind the British and the Poles that they had opted in. At this point, it began to dawn on UK litigants and their lawyers that the charter could be invoked. It is a pleasing irony that one of the first litigants who took the road to Luxembourg was David Davis, who was then on the Back Benches. The point of reciting this history is that throughout the period from 1998 to around summer 2016, so far as I can tell, almost no one said, “Look, hang on—the convention isn’t working. The Human Rights Act isn’t working. We need more. We need the charter”. No one was saying that. What has changed? I am not sure.

The charter differs from the convention in two important general respects. First, its scope is limited by Article 51 to the actions of member states,

“when they are implementing Union law”.

The precise scope and meaning of that phrase is debatable. In any event, no such limitation applies to convention rights, so the scope of the convention is broader than that of the charter. On the other hand, the powers of the domestic court pursuant to the charter go well beyond any power conferred by the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the convention. If legislation is incompatible with charter rights, the court must disapply it. If legislation is incompatible with convention rights—which will often be identical—the court cannot disapply it but may grant a declaration of incompatibility.

These distinctions can have odd results. In the Benkharbouche case decided a few months ago by the Supreme Court, employees at the Sudanese and Libyan embassies made various claims which were, on the face of things, barred by the State Immunity Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act was incompatible with both Article 6 of the convention and Article 47 of the charter—which resembles the former but is not quite the same. Some of the claims were EU claims within the charter, some were not, but they were all claims about working conditions and pay. The Supreme Court found that the EU claims within the charter could proceed since the Act had to be disapplied, but the latter could not. It was a strange and, noble Lords may think, unprincipled outcome.

Is there harmonious co-operation between the ECHR in Strasbourg and the CJEU in Luxembourg? One might have thought that there would be, given that Article 6(3) of the Lisbon treaty provides that the EU should itself accede to the convention—and if there were such harmonious co-operation, the potential for conflict and legal uncertainty would be much reduced. But there is not. In December 2014, I think to general surprise, the CJEU issued an opinion which explained why accession to the convention by the EU was not permissible. It is an interesting document that can be summarised, not unfairly, in one sentence: “The continent is not big enough for two supreme courts”—delivered in the manner of the film that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, took his maiden aunts to.

The problematic nature of the relationship between the charter and the convention—and between Luxembourg and Strasbourg—is illustrated by the proceedings I mentioned brought by Mr Davis in relation to data retention legislation. Mr Davis relied on Article 8 of the charter and the Digital Rights Ireland case in the CJEU. In that case, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal expressed perplexity and concern that the CJEU had not dealt with a competing and diverging sequence of cases in the Strasbourg court. So the Court of Appeal made a reference to the CJEU and said, “Help us, please—tell us what you mean. Do you mean to expand the charter beyond the convention?”. The CJEU’s response, which came about a year ago, was imperious. It said, in what is again not an entirely unfair paraphrase: “The convention is not an EU text. The charter can reach parts which other conventions cannot, so the UK court’s request for clarification is inadmissible. We are telling you nothing more”.

Allowing human rights law to flow from two separate and, frankly, warring sources is a recipe for legal chaos. The convention works well, and the common law’s protection of human rights is alive and kicking, as the Supreme Court’s judgment in the UNISON case showed. A proliferation of foundational texts is unnecessary and damaging. We do not have time to waste in Committee, and for my part, I think the charter can safely be left in Luxembourg.

20:04

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I respect and support the principle of the Bill as a key piece of legislation which will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 but, at the same time, copy EU laws on to the UK statute book to ensure a smooth transition. At this stage, I am not going to rehearse the problems that many other noble Lords have identified with the Henry VIII powers, which are equivalent to the Statute of Proclamations of 1539, contained in Clauses 7 to 9 and Clause 17. Nor am I going to go into detail about my concerns with Clause 11 and the effect of the Bill on the devolved Administrations. I will only point out—as many other noble Lords have done—the criticism in the cross-party Constitution Committee’s recent report on these clauses, as well as the Hansard Society’s concerns.

I will instead focus on the Bill’s proposed use of legislation via statutory instruments, as has already been analysed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. As many noble Lords have stated, between 800 and 1,200 separate items will be made in this way, according to MPs in the other place. I welcome the sifting committee that has been proposed by the other place, but it needs to go further. At the moment, the Bill’s proposed way for parliamentary discussion of these items will be the automatic negative procedure. In this House, such items are put on the Order Paper and there are 40 days to pray against them—if this happens, they are then discussed on the Floor of the House. Of course, if noble Lords do not read the House’s business papers in detail every day, they will be blissfully unaware that secondary legislation is sailing through by default—especially on an Order Paper such as today’s, on which noble Lords may not have got as far as page 18. No negative procedure statutory instruments have been turned down in the other place for 38 years, and only 17 have been turned down since 1950 according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

If, on the other hand, the proposed statutory instruments are to be discussed by way of an affirmative procedure, they will automatically be taken on the Floor of the House. This is much more satisfactory. To support my argument, I pray in aid the recent report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Summary point 5 states:

“In the absence of a convincing explanation to the contrary, the affirmative procedure should apply to Henry VIII powers under clauses 7 to 9 and 17 that allow Acts of Parliament to be amended or repealed”.


In summary point 6, the report continues:

“Ministers should not have an unfettered choice to apply the negative or the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments under those clauses”.


As an alternative, the committee proposed a sifting mechanism and that all instruments should be laid in draft before Parliament, and that either the affirmative or negative procedure should be proposed. It recommends that where the Minister proposes an affirmative procedure it should apply, but suggests a different process where the Minister proposes a negative procedure. It states:

“a parliamentary committee has 10 sitting days in which to recommend the affirmative procedure instead. If no such recommendation is made, the negative procedure applies”.

Finally, the committee believes:

“Where the committee recommends the affirmative procedure, it applies unless the relevant House rejects the committee’s recommendation within a further period of five sitting days”.


Continuing in the same area, I highlight two more changes recommended by our Delegated Powers Committee. Summary point 3 says:

“Regulations under clause 14 stipulating exit day(s) should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.


At the moment, exit days means such days as a Minister of the Crown shall appoint. This would be solely in the power of the Minister. Thus anyone passing this Bill must be prepared to be a spectator to what the transitional measures will be and how they will operate. This is not satisfactory. As an aside, my personal preference would be to stay in the single market and customs union at least for the transitional period.

The committee also criticises Schedule 4 with regard to taxation. The report says:

“All regulations made under Schedule 4 which introduce or increase fees should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.


I agree.

I do not have the time to go into the Delegated Powers Committee’s concerns on sub-delegation powers leading to tertiary legislation, as set out in the UCL and Bingham Centre briefing on the Bill.

Like others, I ask the Minister whether he will put down amendments to satisfy the concerns of our Constitution and Delegated Powers committees. I feel that these are really necessary to make this a better Bill. Could he also answer my and many other noble Lords’ concerns on the devolved Administrations issue?

20:10

[Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I am consoled in the thought that I am not alone in living a life of blissful ignorance. Although it may seem like a century ago, I refer back to the beginning of this debate and thank and congratulate my noble friend the Leader of the House for and on her clear, authoritative and altogether excellent speech. Again, it is a distant memory, but I thought that the speech of the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition had some very interesting and constructive ideas as to how the Bill could be improved, and the House is indebted to her for the tone and content of her opening speech.

Having listened to many hours of debate and read Hansard extensively, I am in no doubt that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House in believing that we should leave the European Union, and even more in a minority in thinking that no deal is better than a bad deal. In fact, I find myself saddened, not that some speakers disagree with me, but that they appear to think that a bad deal is acceptable. I do not see it that way.

Speakers have fallen into distinct groups, and I belong to the smallest. The second group is represented by the majority of the party opposite, and others, who accept that a Bill is needed and whose opposition will have regard to the constitution and conventions of your Lordships’ House. If I am right about this, we have a lot to be grateful for. Then there are the Liberal Democrats, whose was the only party at the last election that wanted by one means or another to reverse the referendum—and look what happened to their vote. They are quite unabashed, rather admirably so, I suppose, by their numbers being so grossly disproportionate to their representation in the country. They lecture the rest of us on the merits of democracy and then threaten to defy the will of the people, manifesto commitments and votes in the other place. I sometimes wonder whether they place less value on your Lordships’ House than many of the rest of us.

Finally, there is the group that appears to be gathering under the flag of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which quite simply wants to ignore the referendum result, as I see it, and sabotage the Brexit process. I have a copy of the noble Lord’s resignation letter here. It is a very long-winded, petulant and self-serving document. I keep a copy on my desktop so that I can show it to my grandchildren as a masterclass as to how not to resign and keep some vestige of dignity. He characterises those who voted for Brexit as “populist” and undergoing a,

“nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump”.

So he joins fellow aspiring wreckers who insult us leavers as being stupid, ignorant, bigoted, racist or simply, as the mealy mouthed Mr Tony Blair would have it, having “imperfect knowledge”. The noble Lord describes the Bill rather mysteriously as the,

“worst legislation in my lifetime”,

and promises to oppose it relentlessly, and so he begins to do today—or did yesterday.

Perhaps he will be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who last week foretold gleefully that Britain could be made to come to heel. Apparently, he enjoyed the prospect of our country being humiliated so much that he actually said it twice. His tone today was, happily, rather more moderate. Having spoken to other retired mandarins, and I know a few, I am left wondering whether it is legacy that these people worry about. If so, this is a dangerous trend. Surely all of us who have seen policies to which we have devoted time and effort be changed have to live with that without throwing the toys out of the bath.

As has been pointed out, there is something surreal about remainers from all parts of the House affecting to be concerned about parliamentary scrutiny, when you consider that membership of the EU has, over the last 40 years, eroded to vanishing point such scrutiny. That has been raised by others. Since they want to enshrine in perpetuity this grotesque state of affairs, their virtue-signalling pretence at outrage rings pretty hollow.

Time does not allow me to talk of trade beyond saying I have worked in the SME sector for most of my working life, and my personal interests appear in the register. Brexit will indeed mean change, but who is afraid of that? It has been a feature of my life every day for the last 40 years or so. Of course, fat corporatists and their CBI mouthpiece tell you otherwise, because they want to go on buying favours from Brussels so as to disadvantage their smaller competitors.

What has attracted rather little attention is the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said yesterday, the EU institutions appear to have no appetite for change. This is what seems to embed our position. They continue on the fateful road towards a federal European state; they want to hobble the City, which by my calculation produces revenues enough to pay for the NHS. The EU has become a brutal and amoral protectionist fortress, devoid of humanity, and inflicting pain and suffering on the poorest, not only in the developing world but also among our own EU citizens.

Again to draw attention to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, we can all find lovely quotes from Burke, I think for almost any occasion, but perhaps he might like this one:

“Free trade is not based on utility but on justice”.


The EU wants armies and harmonised taxation regimes, and it wants oversight of national budgets—there is very little that it does not want to control. It is simply beyond me to understand what is attractive about this construct, which is doomed anyway through its total want of accountability.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds quite early in the debate asked,

“what sort of Britain, or indeed Europe, do we want to inhabit?”.[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1386.]

His close proximity to me should not make him worry, but I am not confident that he will be entirely happy with my answer to his question. He is right to point out that the question is not solely about economic issues. Of course no one voted to be poorer, and no one will be. Having campaigned daily for a Brexit outcome, it was perfectly clear to me that people put other things ahead of economic concerns. People understood, in ways that the metropolitan elite did not, and will not give them credit for, that this country’s historic embracing of the rule of law is the foundation of freedom.

Since the dawn of time, far earlier than the Magna Carta, in these soggy islands—places of such beauty and enduring romance—it was established that we would be governed by consent and not by diktat. The settlement has at intervals been challenged by the Norman invasion, by the Stuarts and, dare I say it, by families like my own, who from time to time got out of control and had to be reined in. These same people I met on the campaign trail also understood why their parents and grandparents suffered and gave their lives so that we, their successors, could enjoy the golden benefits of the rule of law and breathe the sweet air of freedom. I have inherited their passion and, in consequence, ask for this Bill to be given safe passage.

20:17

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Whips arranged the speaking order for tonight’s debate in order that I might be provoked into responding to some of the more outlandish comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I am afraid that I shall disappoint them and try to stick to my script. I might be in a minority in your Lordships’ House in that I was not old enough to vote in the 1970s European referendum, so I cannot start my speech by saying how I voted back then—but I can start by saying that my whole adult life I have always believed strongly in the European Union and its predecessors. I would probably go further than most Members of your Lordships’ House by saying that I believe strongly in the concept of shared sovereignty at the European level. I believe it is consistent with a belief in shared sovereignty between the four nations of the United Kingdom. I do not see any discrepancy between a belief that that works in the UK and a belief that it works in the European Union as well.

I voted remain. I was dismayed by the campaign that promoted that cause—but I did vote remain. However, I accept the result, and it would be very wrong if this unelected House chose to try in any way to obstruct the will of the people as expressed in June 2016. I shall not support moves designed to do that.

I also wish we had more opportunity now—a year from exit day—for discussion of the immediate implications of the Brexit vote. This is not the time or the place to debate the future of, for example, our development aid relationship with the European Union, or the nature of those trading relationships that should, in my view, be based as much on fair trade as free trade. But it is the time and place to discuss this Bill. I will highlight two points of particular concern to me.

First, there have been many fabulous contributions from noble Lords across the House over these two days about fundamental rights, highlighting in particular employment rights and so on, but I raise the issue of children’s rights. If the issue of consistency of rights and consistency of application of European law in UK law is not handled correctly, if we do not couple that with an appropriate approach to the consistency of the justice mechanisms that exist across Europe just now to protect children, and if we do not take an appropriate approach in the forthcoming immigration Bill to child migrants, it will be the most vulnerable children who fall through the net that is created. We need to be very aware of that. There are many interests that will be promoted in your Lordships’ House in the coming weeks—employment rights and other rights mentioned in the charter—but issues around children’s rights could lead to the worst impact falling on the most vulnerable. We need to be very careful to protect the consistency and application of rights in relation to children in our forthcoming debates.

My second point relates to devolution. While I am sure that there are faults on both sides—I think the Scottish Government need to be a bit more practical and positive in their approach to this issue, as do the UK Government—I cannot believe the situation that the UK Government have got themselves into over devolved responsibilities. The initial devolution settlement was based not just on 20 years of debate, national consensus and a settled will, but on a rigorous application of political and intellectual thought to make sure that the settlement created in 1999 would stand the test of time. Through all the ups and downs of politics in the last 18 or 19 years, the legal responsibilities of the devolved Administrations have very rarely been subject to a successful challenge. That rigour, applied particularly by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine but also by other colleagues in the Cabinet back in 1997 and 1998, has stood the test of time. To try to overturn that in any way at the moment is either really incompetent or very sleekit indeed. The Government need to respond to this, not by springing amendments on your Lordships’ House at the last minute, but through proper, open and transparent discussion that raises the common frameworks and perhaps, at times, common legislation required at the UK level in some of these areas, but which is firm and clear that, where responsibilities were devolved in 1999 or subsequently, they will continue to be devolved after 2019.

It is a matter of real regret that the Government have not used this opportunity to try to refresh or regenerate the Government of the United Kingdom. If we are to take back control—however much some of us regret the decision and the implications for our interdependent world of this move back towards the nation state—we should do so on the basis that we reinvigorate our democracy at the same time. There is an opportunity here to change the relationship between the UK Government and the three devolved Governments of the United Kingdom. It is not yet too late to take that opportunity, either in the next 12 months or in the two-year transition period, for a combination of common frameworks, with Ministers sharing decision-making at a UK level between the devolved Governments and the UK Government on an equal, respectful basis in certain areas, and for the further devolution of powers to allow the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have full control where that is appropriate. The opportunity still exists and the Government should take it.

20:24

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, as several noble Lords have mentioned, and as the Constitution Committee report said, lessons can be learned from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. That is a sectoral Brexit Bill, not saving legislation and not aimed at policy change. It was explained, variously, as a technical bill, as dealing with deficiencies and as not changing policy—just the same vocabulary used to describe the withdrawal Bill and operations within it.

I will elaborate more fully on some of the lessons. First, all creation of new criminal offences by regulation was taken out, not just those over the threshold defined as “relevant” in the withdrawal Bill, which means sentences greater than two years. When voting on this constitutional point for the second time, there was a massive vote to remove from the anti-money laundering part, where sentences were indeed limited to two years, any new criminal offences. If anything, the case is clearer for the withdrawal Bill: why should “saving” legislation create any new offences?

Secondly, in the anti-money laundering part of that Bill, it was frightening to compare the unlimited, policy-free, mechanistic list of delegated powers with the far richer policy context and predictability of the EU money laundering directive that it replaced as the source legislation. Until amended, this proposed primary legislation gave absolutely no substantive foundation against which to test future secondary regulation. It was without constraints or policy now, empowerment for total policy change by regulation later. I call that a constitutional-level policy change. We have a similar wolf in sheep’s clothing prowling parts of the withdrawal Bill.

Thirdly, with its amendments, the anti-money laundering part is much improved. Nevertheless, businesses are in a more uncertain place because the Bill is no longer set in the richer EU format. Uncertainty is not a good direction of travel for our home-made laws and we should not be inured to it—we can do something about it.

The good news is that the withdrawal Bill aims, so we are told, to save policy context—the idea is right. The bad news is that the legal status is confused; it certainly cannot be case-by-case at ministerial convenience. There are “panic button” clauses giving delegated powers without objective definition and stretchy schedules that expand, sometimes for ever, what you thought had been limited in clauses. The Explanatory Notes say the law is not deficient merely because a Minister considers that EU law was flawed. Such clarification must surely be in the Bill; so must objective qualification of the much overused “appropriate”—that is definitely an alpha wolf, not a sheep.

Businesses have been promised policy continuity. So, in considering amendments around status, legal clarity and interpretation, my test is that, however legislation is saved, it should not mean sacrificing policy. Policy continuity means keeping all relevant factors to assist interpretation or challenge; keeping them after modification, because that has been stated as being only to clean up language; and keeping them for EU-derived legislation, such as directives, under Clause 2. Just as Ministers quote rules and precedents to justify their words in legislation, similar happens when negotiating directives. A great deal is contained in recitals, which are relevant for interpretation by the EU court and regulatory authorities, even though they are not transposed and their content is needed.

In that context, my final point is to ask how EU constraints on delegation of power will be retained. My goodness, we need to get some constraints from somewhere. This has relevance to financial services, where the European supervisory authorities are bound by the Meroni principle. Will the FCA and the PRA be so bound when taking over—and if not, why not? At present, it is the EU that implements international standards, such as Basel rules, via co-decision and providing policy guidance for tertiary legislation. Where will the implementation and policy guidance come from in future against which to measure secondary and tertiary legislation? Will this Parliament have any role, or will the UK be run by delegation and deference—delegation to regulators and deference to the same regulators sitting in international regulatory bodies? Will this Parliament be given comparable time and opportunity for consultation and scrutiny of regulatory proposals? I say to the noble Lord opposite that I should like an opportunity to do here one fraction of what I did in the European Parliament.

20:31

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Before coming to the Bill itself, I must say something very briefly about where I come from in relation to it.

The overriding reality of our time is globalisation—the ability not only to move goods and manufacturing around the world and communicate across the globe in an instant, but to shift money at the press of a button. This is a world in which multinational corporations have unprecedented leverage and an international financial elite has extraordinary influence. In the past, a sovereign state could to some extent control the power of capital in the interests of the country as a whole. In a globalised world it is simply not possible for one nation on its own to do this. It is only through close co-operation with other countries and building shared institutions that we can build the kind of society we all want.

In his thoughtful and sombre speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said:

“Europe is already moving in directions that we have traditionally resisted”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1389.]


In particular, he mentioned more screening of overseas investments. For some of us, that is one of the reasons why, in a globalised world, the European Union is of such crucial importance. However, the Bill is about much more than that. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, stressed, what about defence and security? What about the essential co-operation necessary in the struggle against terrorism, international crime and cyberattacks? For many of us, this issue is about a great deal more than markets. The European Union is not a guarantee of close co-operation in these areas, but it makes it much more likely. When will we hear about these issues and how they will be achieved if we leave the Union?

Closely linked with the concept of co-operation is the notion of drawing on a larger perspective and a wider wisdom. This country is not the sole repository of wisdom. Here, I turn to the Bill before us, and in particular to the fact that in the transfer of European law into UK law there is no mention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government have repeated their claim that all the rights safeguarded by the charter are in fact contained in individual laws and that it is not therefore necessary to include it. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has done a detailed clause-by-clause analysis of the issue and shown that this is simply not the case. It points out:

“Firstly, some of the rights will inevitably be lost as they derive from membership of the EU … Secondly, Charter rights which are based wholly or largely on ‘general principles of EU law’ will no longer confer an enforceable right. This means a loss of enforceable rights such as Article 1 (human dignity) … Thirdly, a number of the Charter rights derive from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which are incorporated into domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act … Whilst these rights will continue to exist and confer an enforceable right on individuals, the standing is narrower and the remedies are weaker under the HRA compared to the Charter … Fourthly, some of the Charter rights may be reflected in domestic statutes, but may not be as comprehensive as the Charter … for example, the rights to data protection in the Data Protection Bill … Fifthly, some of the Charter rights that are based on EU treaties may be retained by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill if they are directly effective, but it is not always clear whether these provisions are directly effective. The Government itself appears unsure … Sixthly, some of the Charter rights are based wholly or in part on provisions of the ECHR or other international treaties that have not been incorporated into domestic law, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.


Liberty and Amnesty International agree with this analysis. They point out, for example, an issue that is of interest to some of us in your Lordships’ House: that Article 25, on the rights of the elderly and the right of older people to lead a life of dignity and independence and participate in social and cultural life, will be lost. This right is unique and has no equivalent under the ECHR or any justiciable international treaty or convention to which the UK is a party.

I was a Member of your Lordships’ House when the ECHR was incorporated into UK law. I cannot help wondering if the opposition to this that came from some quarters at that time has become refocused to exclude the Charter of Fundamental Rights from this transfer of European Law. I believe that we need it. It acts as a benchmark—an interpretive principle in the light of which human rights as a whole have to be seen and understood. Without it, as the JCR has shown, we are losing rights and remedies that we now enjoy. As the right honourable Kenneth Clarke questioned in the other place, why has the charter been singled out,

“uniquely among all other … law”,

not to be saved in domestic law? He asked,

“what evil it has done, what danger they think we are being protected from by its repeal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/18; col. 759.]

That question has yet to be answered.

20:36

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord with his customary thoughtful speech. I must admit that I agreed with some of it, but not as much as I agreed with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

Some noble Lords have suggested that people voted to leave the EU but did not vote to leave the customs union or the single market. I am sorry but that is nonsense. The government-funded propaganda leaflet, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the whole remain machine and the global elite stressed over and over again that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and customs union, with all the dire consequences that would entail. Of course, the Treasury in its May 2016 dodgy dossier also said that there would be an immediate loss of 500,000 jobs and the economy would crash into recession.

As John Longworth, writing in the paper on Monday, said, either the Treasury economic experts got their model hopelessly wrong or they were deliberately lying. I thought at the time that it was just sloppy modelling for them to be so wrong by as much as 400%. Now it seems the Treasury is at it again with the leaked Project Fear forecasts. I admire its astonishing accuracy. It forecasts a 0.3% reduction in growth every year for the next 15 years. That is amazingly accurate considering that over the last 12 months it has been 400% out. Producing that dodgy dossier once may have been a mistake but its latest leaked analysis by the same discredited economists is clearly a deliberate attempt to foist more ludicrous forecasts on the British public. I find it a very sad day when reports by Her Majesty’s Treasury have less credibility than the Zinoviev letter.

We have this Bill before us because the electorate wanted back control of our money, laws and trade policy, and they knew that by voting leave we would leave the single market and the customs union. When the Bill goes into Committee, I understand that there will be amendments seeking to ensure that no British Government can diverge from EU rules and regulations, and that is what I want to concentrate on. I believe that is foolish and it shows little faith in our Parliament, which will once again be free to properly hold the Government to account. The whole point of Brexit is to give the UK Government and Parliament the right to make our own laws and diverge from EU bureaucracy, bad law, Luddite regulations and the concept of a socialist Europe, which is making us more and more uncompetitive in comparison to the Far East and the USA. I do not want us stuck at the bottom of the regulatory scrapheap making analogue laws for a digital world. We are a great country and we need the freedom to make better regulations.

I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to Monday of this week, when we debated the 25-year environment plan. What an inspiring document that is—inspiring because it shows how much better our land and marine environment will be when we do not have EU law destroying our fishing stocks, damaging our wildlife and ruining our soil. We can get rid of the wicked CAP, which the EU still boasts is a marvellous achievement. We can ban any plastic products we like without having to wait for EU approval. We can restore our fish stocks. We can impose proper biosecurity regimes to stop our plants and trees being decimated by imported diseases we are currently unable to stop because of the free movement of goods. And of prime importance, we can impose our own much higher animal welfare standards to replace the cruelty of live animal exports, which the EU happily endorses.

We will have the freedom to set our own VAT rates on any products we choose. German car companies paid out billions to US consumers within months of the diesel car scandal breaking. Not one single EU consumer has had a penny compensation because of the cosy, corrupt cartel between EU policymakers and German car firms. I would hope that an independent UK could impose our own air quality standards and ban dangerous polluting vehicles.

On financial regulations, there are those who say that we must not do a Singapore and have a race to the bottom. I agree entirely: we must not race to the bottom, but Singapore has a GDP per capita of $53,000 and ours is $40,000. The cost of living in Singapore is 14% cheaper than London. It is the third in the world for life expectancy and we are the 20th. If that is the bottom, I want to race to it as soon as possible. Singapore has risen to be one of the most successful economies in the world, with an exceptionally high quality of life, because its people embrace free trade and cutting regulation.

When we read yesterday about the head of the London Philharmonic Orchestra, who is a remain supporter, complaining about onerous EU red tape and looking for opportunities outside Europe, we got a snapshot in that tiny area of the dead hand of EU regulation holding back not just our productive industries but our creative ones also.

I have just rushed through a few examples, but in every sector of our economic and public life we are being constrained by poor, bad EU regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said yesterday, we will need the freedom to move very quickly to regulate for technological change, which the Luddite EU cannot do. We will need the freedom to regulate quickly on artificial intelligence, genetic modification, innovative medicines and treatments to name but three. We need better regulation. We need British regulation. We need this withdrawal Bill, with some technical amendments, passed as soon as possible.

20:42

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was quite a contribution from the noble Lord. I must say, when I hear Singapore promoted as the vision that we should aim for, I think it gives the lie to where we are going if this Government continue: a country where deregulation abounds and protections are limited. That is where some noble Lords in your Lordships’ Chamber wish to take us.

I will make three points but, first, I must comment on the remarkable speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. He challenged us to show good ways of disagreeing well. I think, on the whole, we have met that challenge.

My first point concerns the appropriateness of this House’s making changes to the Bill before us. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House described it as a technical measure, but, of course, it is much more than that. Why else would she implicitly warn the House not to thwart the will of the people expressed through the referendum? Why else would the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, suggest we are on the brink of disaster, repeating the error made by your Lordships’ House more than 100 years ago in rejecting Lloyd George’s budget? Even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt the need to warn us off using our extensive powers.

I am mindful of convention. I know of no threat to the progress of this Bill. Of course it will pass but, equally, we have every right to make substantive changes to the Bill and to send it back to the Commons to allow them to think again. I hope we do. I hope we will ensure a meaningful role for Parliament at the end of the negotiations; that we will make sure that delegated powers cannot weaken environmental, consumer, health and work protections; that the devolution settlement will be respected and the charter of fundamental human rights retained as part of UK law; and that membership of the single market and customs union will continue.

I come now to the negotiations, because we cannot look at the Bill without looking at the negotiations. The Minister ducked this at Oral Questions today. He has another chance. Whatever else he does in responding to this debate, I hope he will spell out what the Government are seeking in negotiations with the EU. What a sorry state those negotiations are in. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, put his finger on it yesterday: how can you possibly negotiate effectively with the EU when you will not declare what you want? The noble Lord, Lord Baker, valiantly defended the Prime Minister this evening, but it was she who laid down the red lines right at the beginning that have so constrained the negotiation. Subsequently she has given us no vision and made no attempt to reach out to the 48% who did not vote to leave. Not one effort has she made to speak to the nation as a whole; she has given us no strategy and precious little hope. Whatever her virtues, she is simply not leading at a time when the country is crying out for leadership and to be brought together.

As the chairman of the Commons Brexit Select Committee put it this week, after 19 months no one is any the wiser as to what the Government want from the Brexit negotiations. The Cabinet has not reviewed, evaluated or decided on the desired outcome. The gap between Mr Hammond’s aim of a modest change in the UK’s relationship with the EU and Mr Rees-Mogg’s assertion that close association with the EU is unacceptable is utterly unbridgeable.

That of course brings me to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Adonis. I know some noble Lords feel it is premature. My noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, was clear on that point, and we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about some practical issues concerned with the second referendum. If, however, the terms of the deal in the end are seen by many as unacceptable, surely we should not close the prospect of the public’s having a final say.

If the rush to trade agreements with third countries is detrimental to our environmental health and food protection, if we cannot achieve a frictionless border for Northern Ireland satisfactorily outside the customs union or the single market, if the economy looks very risky in terms of our trade with the EU in the future, or the dawning reality finally breaks that there is no middle way—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said yesterday, that you cannot have your cake and eat it—it seems to me, though I am no expert, that it is becoming clearer and clearer that there we face only two options. One is a hard Brexit, on WTO rules, with high tariffs, huge economic risks and a desperate attempt to agree free trade agreements with the US and other powerful countries, where, as a middle-ranking economic power, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, we will be subject to their extraterritorial reach. Alternatively, we could have some kind of close alignment with the EU, but on EU terms and rules, with little or no influence on those rules, which may well change over time to the UK’s detriment. Neither of those options appears very palatable to me. I certainly say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: none of that was available at the time of the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said that the referendum was full of half-truths, or at least, as he might have said, the protagonists were economical with the truth. But at some point, the consequences will become very clear. Surely we as a country deserve some say in the outcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Hague, attempted to frighten us this afternoon with the nightmare of a referendum merry-go-round. But what if the voting had gone the other way in the referendum? Does anyone think that passionate Brexiteers would have shut up shop and walked away quietly into the night? As Vernon Bogdanor argued this week:

“If the country is willing to pay the price, a referendum would legitimise Brexit in the only way possible. If it is not, the people have a perfect right to change their mind”.


The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—I will finish here—said that the Lords is at its best when opposing the Government but on the side of the people. I thought we were doing that when we challenged Mr Osborne’s working family tax credit cuts, but the noble Lord did not quite take that view then. In the end, surely we have to do what is right. To give the public a chance to decide on the terms of the deal is not anti-democratic. They should be given that right.

20:50

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we are coming towards the end of a passionate two days of debate, during which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested that Clause 1 struck a dagger to his soul. I have always thought that the soul is a little more intangible, so a dagger to my heart would be somewhere closer to what I feel—and where the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, started off this morning.

We have heard some hyperbole and passion on both sides of the Chamber. We heard the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Cavendish of Furness, suggest that somehow there may be Members of your Lordships’ House who are seeking to wreck the Bill or derail it, and who will cause untold damage to your Lordships’ House because we are not taking the 2016 vote or the elected Chamber seriously. With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has obviously spoken for himself, I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships’ House is seeking to wreck this piece of legislation.

My noble friend Lord Newby in his opening speech yesterday pointed out that,

“we on these Benches have no intention of derailing it or unnecessarily spinning out debate”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1382.]

The vote in 2016 was to leave the European Union. The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act triggered the legislation necessary for that. This piece of legislation is obviously required to ensure that on the day the United Kingdom leaves the European Union there is a full statute book in place. So far, so good, so necessary. But it is not necessarily a good piece of legislation, and we have heard from right across your Lordships’ House that perhaps amendment is necessary.

We also heard Members of your Lordships’ House talking about 1972 and voting passionately to join the Common Market. We heard one Member say that they were not quite old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum. I do not remember life before we joined the Common Market. Therefore I will look back not to 1972 or 1975 but just five short years—or at least I would have said they were short years, but the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, pointed out that Brexit years appear to be rather like dog years. In January 2013, the then Prime Minister gave his Bloomberg speech in which he promised reform, renegotiation and a referendum. Why? Was the country divided over Europe? Were people clamouring for a referendum? No. Most ordinary citizens were not saying that the European Union and membership of it were at the top of their list—but the Back-Bench Conservative MPs were. The Prime Minister was throwing a bone to his Back-Benchers; he played a gamble and he lost it. He offered a referendum and said that he would campaign heart and soul to remain—the soul comes in again—and, obviously, he lost that gamble.

After the Conservative Party won the election of 2015, perhaps unexpectedly, we ended up with a piece of legislation that allowed the referendum. Some Members of your Lordships’ House spent day after day, hour after hour debating the EU Referendum Bill—rather fewer than are here talking about the legislation that will ensure we have a full statute book on the day we leave the EU.

One of the things that those of us who were debating the EU Referendum Bill did was listen to the other side. Some of us spent so long listening to the leave side that we could have stood in for them in a debate and been able to rehearse all their arguments for them. Indeed, if the Prime Minister had listened to the leavers, he would have understood that a piece of propaganda—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, called it—would have gone down extremely badly with the leave campaign and that an intervention from a foreign leader would have gone down really badly. But the former Prime Minister did not listen, and the cost of that was a failed referendum and the decision to leave the European Union.

So this piece of legislation is necessary, and no one is going to seek to avoid the legislation entirely—even if many of us hope that the will of the people could lead to an uprising to say, “Give us another referendum, let us free ourselves from Brexit”. In the absence of that, we need this piece of legislation—but it needs amending. It needs amending in terms of the powers of the devolved Administrations—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said yesterday that power would be returned to London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast—but this piece of legislation does not do that.

If noble Lords think that this is merely a Liberal Democrat saying that, I suggest that they look at Hansard from last week’s debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, about the role of devolved Administrations, in which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, said that the legislation for Clause 11 needed amendment. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward amendments in that area? If not, he can certainly expect several amendments to be brought forward—and the same is true of many aspects of the legislation.

In opening the debate a mere 36 hours ago, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested that the Government were going to be in “listening mode”. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, had been one of the few Conservative Ministers who was popular. Could I suggest to the Minister that he and the Government Front Bench might court some popularity if they do as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested and listen to members of your Lordships’ House, and to amendments brought forward in good faith, to ensure that the legislation is better and returns power to this sovereign Parliament instead of being an Executive power grab. There is an opportunity for us to make this legislation much better, and I hope that the Government will listen.

20:58

[Lord Palmer (CB)]

My Lords, when I asked the Government Whips’ Office if I could speak late today, it never crossed my mind that I would be followed by four such very distinguished speakers, who have now filled the Chamber with those waiting to hear their pearls of wisdom—therefore my plan has totally backfired. When I saw such a long and distinguished list of speakers, I hesitated to put my name down, but since then the list has trebled.

I am speaking today because I lived and worked in Brussels for a year, and also in Wallonia for three years. On my return to Scotland, I was appointed the Scottish representative of the European Landowners’ Organisation, and had the occasion to address the European Parliament in Strasbourg. There I first met my childhood hero, Lord Plumb, when he was president of the European Parliament. It is particularly sad that he is now retired from the House, as he would have made so many useful contributions as we face this long and complicated Bill. As other noble Lords have said, this is probably the most important legislation that any of us have had to debate in our lifetime, let alone our children’s, or indeed, in my case, my grandchildren’s lifetimes.

The fact that Brussels decamps once a month and goes to Strasbourg is a complete scandal. That decamp costs a mere €114 million. Nor must it be forgotten how much time it takes to close down one operation and restart the whole thing, particularly from the staffing aspect and their downtime. I have also done several stints on what was then European Union Sub-Committee D, which in those days covered agriculture and the environment, and I served under three distinguished chairmen. We made several trips to Brussels —although to not much avail, if I am completely honest.

We really are in the most terrible muddle and mess. Every day a different worm pops out of the can and only goes to emphasise the hiatus that the United Kingdom is in. The mind really does boggle as to how things will eventually turn out—and indeed, more frighteningly, when. It is the dreadful uncertainty that is terribly worrying to businesses and institutions across the board, as my noble kinsman Lord Hunt of Chesterton mentioned in his strong contribution earlier today.

Having been involved in the food business all my walking life, I know that food today is incredibly cheap. Forty years ago, 47% of the weekly wage went on food, but today it is in single figures. I remember that 25 years ago during harvest the telephone rang non-stop at lunchtime, with merchants offering me £165 a tonne for good-quality, low-nitrogen malting barley. Oh to be offered that today, especially when one realises what a huge increase in wages and all other farm inputs there has been in those 25 years. If European Commissioners, officials and staff earned the same today as they did 25 years ago, I am not altogether sure that we would have a European Union at all. I declare an interest as I receive a single farm payment, which keeps me roughly sane and solvent.

During my time in Belgium I saw at first hand the gravy train that pulls along the Commissioners, who are unelected and unaccountable to anyone or anything. If they are British, they retire on a nearly six-figure pension and a seat in your Lordships’ House. Currently we have seven ex-Commissioners. In no way do I blame them, but the system really is crazy.

If two countries within the United Kingdom cannot agree on a policy, how on earth can 27 countries do so? And how can you make laws that affect the Greek islands and the Outer Hebrides? Surely it is nothing short of farcical. I believe strongly that the United Kingdom ought to have remained within the European Union and fought long and hard to disband this corrupt and expensive organisation altogether.

21:03

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, that is rather like suggesting that one ought to remain inside a burning house in the hope of putting out the fire. I am not sure that I follow the logic of the noble Lord’s argument.

I am in a minority in this House with my views on Brexit—I have noticed that. I am very proud of the way that we in the House of Lords have conducted ourselves over the last 36 hours. I read in the newspapers that we were going to reverse the decisions of the House of Commons and wreck the Bill but, instead, we have had a typically incisive debate. We should be particularly proud of the report produced by the Constitution Committee.

I do not know where I come in the speakers list— 194th or something like that—but I thought that I needed to find something new to say, so I would like to tell the House that there is a blue moon tonight. For those who do not know what a blue moon is, it is not a reference to the Tory party; it is a reference to the fact that there has been a full moon twice in the same calendar month—a very rare thing.

When I got an email from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—who I hold in very high regard—asking me to support an amendment that we should spend four days on Second Reading, which would mean that we would now be only halfway through, I thought that perhaps the lunar effect was having an effect upon him. Then, when I read that he wanted to suggest that we have a second referendum, I just reflected that we voted on this last year in this House and voted with a majority of more than 200 against that, so I admire his courage and his consistency.

The best speech of many speeches, I think by far, was the one given from the Cross Benches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He set it out absolutely clearly, and I feel guilty that I took the advice from the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House and went through the Lobby the other evening, adding to the burden of these Henry VIII clauses. I am impressed that perhaps this is an opportunity for us to take a stand while looking at this Bill. But I have to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, disappointed me. He actually compared this Bill to Cromwell. He suggested that it was Cromwellian that we were taking powers away from Parliament in the way that Cromwell had done.

[Lord Blencathra]

Thomas Cromwell.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Ah, Thomas Cromwell.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In which case I withdraw entirely my criticism. But some people drew the parallel between taking powers away from Parliament and this Bill, whereas actually, if there is a historical parallel, it is the Restoration, because it is returning powers that were given away in the 1972 Act, which this Bill will repeal. Some 20,000 EU laws were brought into British law over which Parliament had no say whatever. So I take with a pinch of salt those who suggest that this is a terrible Bill because it is denying Parliament the ability to decide matters. It is returning to Parliament the ability, once this Bill is passed and we are out of the European Union, to alter the Bills as we see fit.

I voted to join the European Community, and in my youth—I have to confess—I was once a member of the Young European Federalists—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But I grew out of it.

We are keen on Edmund Burke quotes. The one I would suggest the House might look at is this one:

“The people never gave up their liberties but under some delusion”.


I was under a delusion that the Common Market would be a free trade area. Instead, it has turned into a European Union which has been a tyranny for many of the countries of Europe. The noble Lord looks quizzical. Go to Greece and see what the European Union has done to the people in Greece.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Could the noble Lord inform the House what proportion of the Greek population wishes to remain in the European Union?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have no idea what the proportion is, but if the noble Lord is suggesting that they have a referendum then I think he has enough on his plate with trying to persuade the British people that they should have another referendum. This Bill is a major first start in a process which is about taking back control, making our own laws, and being able to police our own borders and spend our own money.

On the devolution issue, as far as Scotland is concerned, because I have nothing to say about Wales, I have to say that it is absolutely hilarious to watch members of the SNP say that there is a major constitutional crisis because they might not have the powers over agriculture, fisheries and other matters which are exercised in Brussels while at the same time arguing vehemently that Brussels should continue to exercise those powers. It is this Government who are going to create the opportunity for those powers to be exercised in the Scottish Parliament. Many noble Lords have made speeches saying that the Bill is defective because there is no amendment to achieve that purpose. It does not require an amendment; it requires people to sit down in a constructive manner to talk about the arrangements that need to be in place in order to ensure that the various nations of the United Kingdom work together. What the SNP is doing is once again turning everything into a constitutional crisis in its efforts to break up the United Kingdom. We should not give it any quarter on that matter, a point which was made very effectively by my noble friend Lord Dunlop.

This Bill is not a vote to leave or remain, it is not a vote on future policy, it is not a vote on whether we have a free trade agreement and it is not a vote on the devolution of EU policy. Let us just think of the volume of legislation that would be required if we did not have some Henry VIII clauses. I looked at the Open Europe 2005 estimate of EU law passed since 1957 and it amounted to 666,879 pages. I have worked out that if Parliament sat for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and we did that for a year, we would be able to look at each page for 47 seconds. The practical reality is that we need a Bill of this kind to deliver what the people voted for in the referendum. There are people in the Scottish Parliament who say that they will refuse legislative consent. I wish them well if they are going to try to go through all that legislation and legislate for themselves.

I appreciate that I am running out of time, but leaving aside Thomas Cromwell, perhaps I may give a quote from Oliver Cromwell to those in the House who are so firm in their opposition to responding to what the people voted for:

“I beseech you … Think it possible you may be mistaken”.

21:11

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, quote someone as left as Cromwell before. In my darkest moments during the referendum I would try to persuade myself that at least one of the benefits was the increasing awareness, familiarity with and affection for their European colleagues that would be engendered in the British people through the discussion. I was prompted in that by an incident that took place 25 years earlier during the 1992 general election, in which I was a candidate. A week before the election it looked as though Labour was going to storm to victory, but in the days leading up to election day our votes, according to the opinion polls, decreased. I was walking through Bellshill in my constituency when a chap came up and said to me, “John, how do you think it’s going?” I replied, “Well, to be truthful, I’m a bit worried about the polls”, at which he said, “Don’t worry about the Poles. Some of us have lived here all our lives and we’ll be voting for you”.

I am not sure that the referendum debate had the desired effect, but in the midst of it, because of the commonplace now of declaring our positions, I have to say that I was anguished at times. I was not decisive on one side or the other. I did not gravitate towards Europhiles or Europhobes. I was what was called a reluctant remainer. I can tell the House that, having watched the course of the negotiations, I have changed my opinion. I am no longer reluctant; I am now a very strong remainer. That is because I believe that we are heading towards a disaster—a halfway house. I think it was my noble friend Lord Hunt who asked earlier why the Government do not outline their objectives. I will tell you why. It is partly because it is a bad negotiating ploy and partly because it would split the governing party. By renaming some of the objectives they are hoping—I believe, and we will see it in a year or two—to get to a position where in all but name we remain in the customs union and the single market.

I say in all fraternity to my colleagues on the Government Benches: all they have to do is look at the Irish border question. It has been mentioned several times, for very good reasons and very emotionally. I, too, feel a degree of emotion but I want to look at it very simply. We all know about the border: 300 miles, more than 200 crossings, 30,000 people a day crossing for work alone and 400,000 commercial vehicles a month. The Government have said, “We pledge to plug that gap, but there will be no hard border”. So they contrive to do it by two promises. It is the implication of putting them together that the Government Benches should examine closely every day.

First, they promised in the framework agreement that there would be “complete regulatory alignment” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Secondly, they publicly responded to the DUP—whom I do not blame—that there would be complete regulatory alignment between the British mainland and Northern Ireland. Let us follow the daisy chain of logic in this. It does not take a genius: my heavens, Jacob Rees-Mogg worked it out. If the British mainland is aligned with regulations in Northern Ireland, which is aligned with regulations in the Republic of Ireland, which is aligned with the rest of Europe—Ireland remains an EU member, noble Lords may remember—then Britain must be aligned with the rest of Europe. The only way to do that is by remaining in the customs union or in the single market. You cannot square the circle in any other way. That is why, within 24 hours of making the declaration, David Davis went on television to row back, saying “We didn’t really mean it”. By the way, David Davis does not think that anyone in Europe watches British television. He guaranteed that it would be written in blood legally when we get to that discussion.

I mention that because it is symptomatic of all the other discussions that are going on. We will end up in the worst of all worlds, because there is a difference between Ireland and Britain in that scenario: Ireland and Europe are making the decisions on the regulations, while Northern Ireland and Britain will be taking them. It is a classic example of the change in our status: everywhere we are free and yet in shackles. We will be shackled by regulations that we have no power to manufacture in the first place.

We all know the phrase, “power without responsibility”. This Government are contriving to give the United Kingdom responsibility without power. We will be, as near as you can get in the trade arena, a vassal state. This Bill can do nothing about that. But there are three things that we can do in the Bill that can shape the ability of the House of Commons to do it. The first is to make absolutely sure that the House of Commons has the ability not just to reject or accept but to shape, compromise, amend and exert the very sovereignty which, it is claimed, we are withdrawing from Europe to accomplish.

Secondly, we must involve the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom in that decision. Thirdly, we must not preclude the chance of going back to the people. I am not asking for a vote. I am not saying that that will be necessary. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who said last night that we have got into this mess via a referendum. I do not believe that we can get out of it by precluding the legitimacy of another referendum. There is no constitutional reason why we should not do it. Those three elements will greatly assist the elected Chamber in this Parliament to accomplish what is necessary.

Those elements, I remind the House, do not undermine our parliamentary sovereignty. The first represents the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty by enabling the Commons; the second will involve all the democratically elected organisations and institutions in this country; and the third, in the last instance, will give the people of this country the chance when there are new facts and information—new attitudes and explanations—to exercise their ultimate sovereignty. That is what this House can do, and if it does it, it will do a service to the country.

21:20

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow two noble Lords from Scotland—the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Reid. I warm more to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, at the end of his speech, which point a way forward. We have also heard a number of valuable contributions from Wales in the debate. In this long debate the most poignant moment for me, as for the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. He said:

“Clause 1 of the Bill … strikes a dagger to my soul”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1411.]


That touched a nerve for many of us and I often wonder, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally, how I should look into the eyes of my grandchildren when they ask, “How could we have allowed the tragedy of Brexit to occur?”.

There is some merit in coming 186th on the list if one is a Plaid Cymru Peer. There is just the possibility of a few things not having been said, so perhaps I may put forward Plaid’s viewpoint on some of these matters. We regard Brexit as a political disaster for both Wales and the United Kingdom but as democrats we accept that the voters of Wales, for diverse reasons, chose to leave the EU. While there may be a mandate to leave the EU, there is no mandate whatever for any specific new relationship with Europe or the world. So while I accept that the Bill should have a Second Reading I reserve judgment on its Third Reading, depending on how it is amended between now and then.

I accept the need for continuity legislation to avoid uncertainty about the fundamental rights of citizens, employees and consumers; and what trade rules apply when Britain leaves the EU. As all existing EU regulations will automatically carry over on 30 March next year, the Bill in fact accommodates an ongoing relationship with the customs union as a possibility. The Prime Minister, in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches, spelled out four considerations to which several noble Lords have drawn attention. What was spelled out is, first, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed; secondly, that the Government are hell-bent on quitting the EU on 29 March next year, deal or no deal; thirdly, that no deal is better than a bad deal, however defined; and the fourth consideration is the irrevocability of Article 50 and a precise exit time, regardless of negotiations and whether Parliament has had time to approve any last-minute deal. If there is no deal because of last- minute complications, chaos would reign. We must consider the Bill’s robustness for such circumstances.

Other legislation may deal with the transition period or what practical difficulties might arise, although there are also implications for this Bill. The real dangers arise from giving Ministers Henry VIII-type powers. If the Bill goes through in its present form, can we adjust our order-making procedures to allow both Chambers to amend statutory instruments, and have the devolved Administrations agreed how they would handle these matters?

In that context, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, Clause 11 is wholly unsatisfactory. Political parties in all three devolved territories have stated that it is not acceptable. The Government recognised this during Commons debates but failed to bring forward amendments on Report. Why was there the delay? Clearly, there must be mechanisms to avoid market distortion within the UK unitary market. Some have proposed a statutory UK council of Ministers. If that were to transpire it must be a council of equals, not a consultative fig-leaf. The lack of progress on this matter is causing immense frustration in Cardiff, as in Edinburgh. It is feared there that the UK Government are using Brexit to roll back areas of devolved responsibility. Two weeks ago, the National Assembly in Cardiff voted unanimously for Wales to have its own continuity Bill, so that all powers returning from Brussels which relate to devolved matters will automatically transfer to devolved competence. Every party, including the Conservatives and even UKIP, supported that resolution.

Another question is how the final deal will be ratified. Both Houses of Parliament and the devolved Assemblies should be required to ratify it. It is essential that the deal includes some new type of relationship that allows ongoing trade between the UK and the European mainland, particularly for manufacturers and agricultural products.

An EEA-type customs union relationship might be an acceptable compromise. It would probably resolve the difficulties in respect of Gibraltar as well as Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke so forcefully yesterday. If, however, by the Government’s self-imposed deadline, negotiations fail to reach a deal and we look over that horrible cliff edge, the consequences will be devastating. In those circumstances, the people must surely be asked if that is really what they voted for in June 2016. The people have the right to change their mind. They should have the final word on any hard Brexit, by way of a confirmatory referendum. If the voters then rush over that cliff edge, so be it; but if, in that new dawn of stark reality, they decide, “No, that’s not what we want”, then their judgment should be respected and we should step back from this whole sorry saga.

I shall not vote against Second Reading, but I shall put down amendments to give MPs a chance to think again and, even more importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, to give a hook for the other Chamber to address these issues. I only hope that the other place will, by then, have found the courage to make a stand and be counted on such momentous decisions.

21:26

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as it always is. It is also a pleasure to follow 185 other speakers; but I do not envy the Minister who has the job of summing up the debate.

Reference has been made several times to the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill in 1972. I have to confess that I, too, was another person who participated in that debate. My noble friend Lord Baker referred to the speeches by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. He did not refer to my maiden speech, illustrating what the writer Mackworth Praed meant when he referred to,

“a maiden speech,

Which all men praise, but none remember”.

If I have a dagger to my heart, it is the opposite to that of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The dagger to my heart is that I strongly supported our joining the European Community at that time. Quite why I and others over subsequent years developed increasing doubts about the European Union is illustrated by the Bill before the House, because it incorporates both visibly and when you dig into the Bill such a huge amount of EU law covering all sorts of things, from zoos to human rights, beaches, canals, immigration, extradition, foreign policy mechanisms, policy in north Africa and overseas aid. At the time of the 1972 debates, we were assured by the Law Officers that the supremacy of EU law was confined “essentially to economic matters”. Those were assurances that were repeated both by the Prime Minister in 1972—Ted Heath—and by Harold Wilson in 1975 at the time of the other referendum. Some 12,000 pieces of legislation later, and after Nice, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon, we can clearly see why many people like myself think they were mistaken to believe the assurances that we were given.

We had at the opening of this debate excellent speeches from the Leader of the Opposition the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It was particularly excellent that they made it quite clear that they did not intend to obstruct this Bill and that they approached it in a constructive spirit. I totally agree with all three of them that there is great need and scope to amend this Bill in certain crucial areas.

A lot of concern has been focused on the so-called Henry VIII clauses and the number of statutory instruments that will flow from this Bill. This is, of course, the mirror image of the problem that we had when we joined the European Economic Community in 1972. Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act allowed EU law to have legal effect in the UK by delegated legislation. Some of that delegated legislation was by Order in Council and directives that totally bypassed Parliament. However inadequate the procedures that we are examining tonight are, they were even more inadequate in 1972. None the less I do not dispute for one minute that it is quite right that this House should seek to strengthen the safeguards, although some wild things were said in the House of Commons such as that this Bill could be used to alter the composition of the House of Lords or to postpone the date of the next election. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made a powerful speech. He referred to the powers of the House of Commons. Statutory instruments are not government by fiat; they are a parliamentary procedure. If you object to something, turn up and vote against it. As has been said in this debate, it is not easy to see an alternative to the use of statutory instruments. Given the huge volume of legislation, it would be quite impractical to incorporate it all by primary legislation.

These are serious issues, but some of the speeches that we have had, although serious, were not really about the merits of the Bill but criticised the Government’s tactics in the negotiations as a means of getting a second referendum on to the agenda and into the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who I see in his place, was rather flirtatious—rather triangulating—about this question. He said he had been of the opinion that the referendum ought to be binding but it was no longer axiomatic. As Clemenceau once said to Lloyd George after an ambiguous speech: “Pour ou contre? Oui ou non?”. We all know which way, in the end, the noble Lord is going to go on that question.

The Opposition present the phrase “the single market”, which they parrot all the time, as though by finding a phrase they had found a policy. They never go beyond the phrase to explain why a free trade agreement would be worse than membership of the single market. We know that if you export into another market without being a member of the single market you have to observe the rules, just as many countries do—many countries that have increased their exports to the single market more than we have, faster and to a larger extent. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, referred to the customs union. I wondered whether it was the same distinguished noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, the Commissioner who used to preach the virtues of free trade—that it was a spur to productivity and helpful to consumers—as he was defending without further argument, just by the phrase, a customs union that imposes very high tariffs on food and goods, including textiles and clothing, from poorer countries. I found that very difficult to comprehend.

I regret that this country has been so divided after this referendum and that some people have been so upset by the result, but that is no excuse for caricaturing Brexit as some dangerous extreme nationalism. Brexit is not a rejection of the values that we share with Europe, those values being human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Some Liberal Democrats were cynical and dismissive of the Prime Minister’s call for a special deep partnership with the European Union and called it just rhetoric, but why should we not have outside the framework of the EU co-operation between universities and in science and technology just as Switzerland does. Is Switzerland any less European by being outside the European Union? No, it is not.

Yes, Brexit is about self-government, sovereignty and making our own laws through our own Parliament rather than through a Parliament in which we have only 15% of the share of the votes. Millions of people voted for this because they believe in the nation state and that the nation state and democracy are two sides of the same coin. That is what people voted for and this Bill is necessary to facilitate that. It requires amendment and improvement but it should be given, expeditiously, a Second Reading.

21:35

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to start by saying that the image I cannot get out of my head from these two days of debate is that of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Lamont, sitting in the bath singing “Je ne regrette rien”, but then my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pinched my line—he will be hearing from my lawyers, although I cannot afford any of the quality in this House.

Like many noble Lords, we on the Lib Dem Benches hugely regret Brexit. We fully understand the lack of belief that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, expressed in the “sunny uplands”. My noble friend Lady Humphreys impressed on us forcefully the harm that pulling out of the single market and customs union would do to Wales, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. My noble friend Lord Razzall said the same about business across the UK. So far, so Brexit. Had you asked me last spring what was the topic of the inappropriately named great repeal Bill—which as my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out early in the debate was neither great nor repealing—I would have retorted, in a nod to Bill Clinton, “It’s about Brexit, stupid”. I am older and wiser now: the context of the Bill might be Brexit, but the content is about nothing less than the constitutional and legal integrity of this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that is what we must concentrate on.

I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, was wrong when she said in her speech last night that “no one ever said” that Brexit would be “easy”. I found a list of 11 such culprits, among them no lesser luminaries than Liam Fox, John Redwood and Michael Gove. Another favourite adjective is “simple”. Brexit Secretary David Davis breezily said:

“It’s very simple. At the moment we leave, Britain must be back in control. And that means EU law must cease to apply. To ensure continuity, we will take a simple approach”.


It is all going to be a piece of cake—maybe even a piece of Boris Johnson’s cake, the type you can have while also eating it. But as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, that gives you indigestion.

Besides ease and simplicity, the other assurances we were given about the nature of the Brexit process were of certainty and clarity. In her foreword to the White Paper last March, the Prime Minister said the Government’s first objective is to provide,

“as much certainty as possible as we move through the process”.

She referred to the Bill as an essential part of the plan for clarity and reassurance. That is not what the Government are delivering, and my noble friend Lady Kramer deplored the instability being created for businesses and individuals. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, is that they cannot even tell us where they want to go. This is, suggested the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because of too many back-seat drivers. For goodness’ sake, choose the destination, demanded the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, reproached those he feared were talking down our negotiating position—but I think he needs to find the mote in his own Government’s eye. Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, sagely observed, it is the side that is supposedly winning that is blowing a fuse. It says everything about our current, sorry situation that although the EU can secure consensus among 27 countries, the British Cabinet cannot achieve consensus among 27 Ministers.

The task of scrutinising and reforming the Bill is huge. We are fortunate to have had the pioneering contribution in debates in the other place, and since, of the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve. We must pick up the baton. We are aided in that task by superb briefings from experts from many organisations, and now by the hugely valuable report from the Constitution Committee, which warns us of “uncharted territory” and,

“a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and unprecedented”.

It also says, as many have quoted, that the Bill is,

“fundamentally flawed from a constitutional perspective in multiple ways”,

and,

“as drafted is constitutionally unacceptable”.

It is certainly not a boring Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, feared.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, warned that there must be no attempt,

“to make a constitutional Horlicks of this Bill”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1395.]

Well, that is already the case. We will have to smooth out the lumps with some very rigorous stirring.

It is extraordinary, considering the rhetoric about regaining sovereignty, that the first defect we will have to deal with is that Ministers rather than Parliament are taking back control. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who as we all know is a little bit expert on these matters, said,

“if the Bill before us is enacted without significant amendment, it will represent the largest single peacetime transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1490.]

Apparently, these are not Henry VIII but Cromwellian powers—though whether Thomas or Oliver of that ilk, I will not adjudicate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warned strongly in this debate, just as he did on the “Today” programme yesterday, when he even managed to subdue John Humphrys:

“We need to wake up to this”.


Perhaps this Bill can be the catalyst for a wholesale reform and improvement in the processing of secondary legislation, as several noble Lords proposed. After all, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey commented: “Sifting is not scrutiny”. The second challenge is to sort out how, in the words of the Constitution Committee,

“the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in a number of ways”.

That is quite a contrast to the certainty that the Prime Minister promised. This is because of lack of clarity about the creation, status and interpretation of retained EU law and how it can be challenged.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge, highlighted the anomaly of preserving the supremacy of EU law post exit, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, warned about undermining the independence of judges. The committee’s suggestion, to give all retained law the status of primary legislation, is one we will no doubt want to examine very carefully.

Many noble Lords have rightly opposed the proposed exclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, as do we on these Benches. The charter is the key to unlocking the meaning of EU law and it makes no sense to exclude it when that law is itself being kept. Why, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked, is it,

“singled out as the exception to … continuity”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1410.]

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, was similarly baffled by its exclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, recalled that the charter adds not only rights absent from the European Convention on Human Rights but also remedies. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition reminded us that David Davis had himself taken a case based on the charter to the ECJ, so it is rather hypocritical of him to deny this legal remedy to others.

The great worry articulated by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and which we on these Benches share, is that the legal framework of rights and protections built up over the last 45 years will be at risk—including those relating to inequalities and human rights, employment, the environment and public health, and other fields. The noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Triesman, fear the risk of scapegoating and reminded us of the vow “never again”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, fears the loss of disability rights. Despite the Government’s assurances, the freelance comments from some Ministers looking forward to slashing red tape have not allayed those fears.

I am grateful for the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and will be perusing it with care. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said in respect of criminal measures like the European arrest warrant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said in respect of family law, it is impossible for the UK to unilaterally deliver reciprocal arrangements. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Metropolitan Police are very keen to stay in Europol and to have access to EU databases

Many noble Lords spoke of the threat to the devolution settlements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was astonished at the Government’s failure to respect them and said their changes were naive and very damaging. My noble friend Lord Purvis and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness raised similar fears, while my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford thought that the best thing to do would be to remove the devolution provisions from the Bill and start again.

In addition, there is particular concern about the effect of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland and the all-Ireland integrated economy that has flowed from the Good Friday agreement. Many noble Lords, among them former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, expressed this concern, which we fervently share.

In our consideration of this Bill, we will want to pay some attention to the lack of clarity about what happens next autumn. Parliament and the people need to keep control of the country’s future through a meaningful vote in Westminster and a final say for voters, in which they have the option to choose an exit from Brexit. A transitional agreement and a long-term agreement will mean a lot of rewriting of the Bill, but we cannot yet see how. Many noble Lords supported the option of a final say for citizens and that this should be an option after a meaningful vote in Parliament. Indeed, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg have in the past supported such a two-step process, with a confirmatory further referendum once the facts are known.

In conclusion, we on these Benches believe that Brexit would be a disaster for this country, not only economically but socially and environmentally. This Bill threatens to ravage the constitutional and legal fabric of the UK and its parts. We have our work cut out. We will need the input not only of the Brexit anoraks, among whose number I proudly count myself, but of every single legally and constitutionally informed brain, many of whom have spoken impressively in the last 36 hours.

The sniping directed at this House for daring to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny is far off the mark. Far from being seen as sabotage, I believe there will be some gratitude for our efforts in making this Bill fit for purpose in all but the most ideologically blinkered circles. As my noble friend Lord Beith said, we are just trying to fix the steering wheel and get the Bill through its MOT.

21:47

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been the most extraordinary debate, has it not? We have heard from former judges, Permanent Secretaries, EU Commissioners, MEPs, Cabinet and Brexit Ministers, and former Speakers, Leaders and Chief Whips of your Lordships’ House. We have heard from former ambassadors, negotiators, Attorneys-General, high commissioners and governors, party leaders, Chiefs of Defence, trade unionists, farmers, a police commissioner, a Clerk of the Commons and a Lord Chancellor—to say nothing of current lawyers, Bishops, academics and medics. It is a reminder to our detractors that what this House brings to our democracy is not final decision-making but the wisdom of years of experience and public service devoted to the future of our nation and the interests of citizens. Decry their expertise, and the Government risk losing both credibility and help.

Hearing virtually all 188 speeches has been a privilege, as well as quite a bit of fun, with the call for help from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, from “Hope, Judge and Pannick”; the discomfort of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, at his father’s posthumous victory over him in the referendum outcome; the salivation of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, at the thought of raising tax by secondary instruments; and the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to three imaginary aunts to see “Reservoir Dogs” or “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, conjuring up images of the nights of relaxation spent by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, when released from the Chamber. But there was also some solemnity. Few will forget the words of the aunt of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, his only family member to have survived the war in Nazi Germany, who said that it was mad,

“to begin to take apart the structure that we put in place to prevent this happening again”.—[Official Report, 30/10/17; col. 1427.]

That was a poignant reminder of what the EU is all about, as my noble friend Lord Radice recalled from his 1955 bike trip across Europe. Perhaps that is why Clause 1 is like a dagger to the soul of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.

Meanwhile, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds invoked Martin Luther King with:

“If we do not know what we … die for, we have no idea what we … live for”,


then asked:

“Once we have done Brexit, then what? What was it for? Who do we think we are?”.


He stressed that the answer should be about human flourishing and a common good. He also lamented the atmosphere around Brexit, where arguments that are inconvenient are ridiculed, and where there has been a,

“normalisation of lies and … demonising of people who … venture to hold a contrary view”,—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1386-87.]

with an “undisguised language” of suspicion, denigration and vilification. As he said, our media have not helped. I also challenge our country’s so-called leaders to get a grip on this.

With only the rare exception, these near-200 speeches have all said that we are not questioning that we will leave the EU and that, to do so, we must have everything ready in time. But the Bill is not yet—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hague—in its “perfect, finished form”, able to bring EU law into our legislation. It fails to give Parliament its rightful say. We need, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, an assertion not an abdication of parliamentary democracy.

As the Constitution Committee said:

“The Bill as drafted is constitutionally unacceptable”.


In seeking to meet the “essential” but “unprecedented” task of converting EU law into domestic law, it risks “fundamentally undermining legal certainty”, causing,

“constitutionally problematic uncertainties and ambiguities”.

Furthermore, the Bill,

“represents a challenge for the relationship between Parliament and the Executive”,

and grants Ministers “overly-broad powers” and,

“greater latitude than is constitutionally acceptable”.

To quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds—I am sorry, he is popular today—again,

“if ‘taking back control’ by Parliament is to mean anything, it must mean refraining from bypassing the essential scrutiny that Parliament is … required to provide. Hard parliamentary scrutiny might be inconvenient … but the … consequences of granting Ministers unprecedented powers … must be considered, as they will … change our assumptions about democracy”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; cols. 1386-87.]

The Minister would be well advised to heed such words. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, warned that such powers might become the mother of all Henrys, referring, I gather, to Elizabeth of York.

Much has been said, so I will touch on just five areas. First, despite the Government saying that they would bring over all current rights and protections, the Bill in fact specifically excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as covered by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. It also fails to guarantee that protections cannot later be weakened by secondary legislation. We will work to give the retained law the solidarity of primary legislation. Secondly, it fails to respect the devolution settlements, grabbing back to Westminster non-reserved areas that reside in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast. Thirdly, still on power grabs, it takes to Ministers, rather than Parliament, swathes of decisions relating to the returning law, while creating legal uncertainty. Fourthly, there remain big questions as to whether the future of the Good Friday agreement has been factored into the Government’s thinking. Fifthly, it would be for Ministers alone—not Parliament —to decide on the withdrawal deal, on any transition accord and on the framework for our future relations with the EU. That is not acceptable.

Just as, with Article 50, a court decided that it should be for Parliament, not the Crown prerogative, to take that momentous step, so it must be Parliament—not No. 10—that takes these enormous decisions that will impact across the nation on our future trading, security, and every other relationship with the EU 27. This is also why I cannot support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Adonis.

We need to amend the Bill to give Parliament the say on these complicated, vital issues—Parliament, where Ministers can be challenged, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, where the implications of the deal can be examined and debated, and where decision-makers are then accountable for their deeds. Perhaps at that stage the elected House of Commons might judge that it needs a people’s mandate, but that is for them, then.

For the moment, our role is to question the Government’s negotiating strategy—assuming they have one—and examine the secret evidence on which it is based, though as the Times says,

“voters have the right to see what is being done in their name”.

We therefore welcome the decision of the Commons earlier today to require the Government to hand over their impact assessment to the Exiting the EU Committee. Can the Minister confirm that this House’s EU Committee will receive the document on the same terms? Once more people have read it, perhaps many will side with the Justice Minister, Philip Lee, who says that if the figures are right, there is a “serious question” over whether a Government could legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational considerations indicate would be damaging. In the words of my noble friend Lord Liddle, the thrust of our argument is that we must challenge the vacuum left by this hapless Government and that Parliament must be placed centre stage in the coming negotiations and approvals. Just as the European Parliament has a vote on the deal, so must our Parliament, including on any proposal for the Government to walk away without a deal.

Recently, we have heard a new word—BINO, or Brexit in name only—which the lifelong Brexiteers so fear. I do not know about that. I do not know how long the transition should be or on what terms, or exactly what arrangement would best protect our jobs, health and social services, children’s and citizens’ rights and the future of our grandchildren—and yes, I have a six day-old grandson. So, for Ilyas’s future, this is important to me. Although I do not know the answers to all that, I know that those judgments must not be made simply by a Prime Minister to protect herself from dissidents in her own party, but by Parliament in the interests of the country.

So, as the Minister rises to respond, I ask him: to guarantee that these wider, national interests will guide the hands of negotiators; to listen to the calls from across this House to amend the Bill to restore powers to Westminster, not No. 10, and provide legal certainty for the courts; to ensure that the Government will preserve both the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlements; to work with noble Lords in Committee to safeguard the consumer, environmental and employment rights from any change without primary legislation; perhaps to respond to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to pause the Bill while the Government make the necessary amendments; and, above all, to defend the right—no, the duty—of this House to advise him and the Commons on the detail of the Bill. That is not much to ask.

21:58

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the nature of the debate that has taken place over the past two days has shown the value of the expertise that this House brings to the legislative process. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this.

The legislation we have been debating is of great consequence for the country and is key to delivering a functioning statute book on 29 March 2019. It is therefore not only politically and constitutionally significant but practically essential, as many noble Lords have acknowledged. It is in recognition of the essential nature of the Bill that I want to emphasise my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The sheer number of noble Lords who took the time to attend and participate in the debate is a tribute to this House. Peers have excelled in their contributions, which have been—mostly—constructive and wholly befitting to the role of this House as a scrutinising Chamber.

I am sure noble Lords will understand that the late hour and time do not allow me to respond to each speaker individually—I am sure that noble Lords will be delighted to know that. However, it is clear that this debate has benefited from the extensive personal knowledge and professional experience in this place. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, set out in her opening address, this Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to avail themselves of the genuine expertise on offer in this place.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has tabled an amendment, to which I will respond shortly. I should like to acknowledge at the outset the frustration and regret which many of your Lordships have expressed in this debate over the outcome of the referendum. But we are not here today to revisit the question of having a referendum, or to examine the reasons why people voted the way that they did. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will come before Parliament, will be the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the domestic legislation implementing the final agreement we strike with the EU. Therefore, again in the interests of time, I will not address all those points today. Before I come to the noble Lord’s Motion, I will address the contributions made by other noble Lords on the subject of this Bill over the last two days. I will attempt to cover the main points but will also place a letter in the Library answering questions about the Bill that I have not covered in my answer.

There has been much discussion of the delegated powers within this Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Lisvane, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Bridges and Lord Tugendhat, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Taylor, and many others who have spoken eloquently on this issue. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the power to correct deficiencies in retained EU law arising in consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is essential to achieving the core purposes of this Bill: to ensure that our statute book continues to function on exit, providing certainty and continuity for both businesses and individuals. The Government do not propose delegated powers lightly. We are committed to avoiding the twin spectres of permissions to do too much and permissions to do too little. The power is broad but limited and is, crucially, a time-limited solution to a unique problem. We want to strike the right balance between scrutiny and speed, and to ensure that the Government can complete this exceptional task in time for exit while tailoring the powers as tightly to their purpose as possible. It is important that there is no slack in a power of the exceptional type needed here. The Government do not ask noble Lords to accept on trust how they will be used. The correcting power was already adjusted in the other place to limit the scope and put the Government’s policy even more firmly in the heart of the power.

I have heard the concerns raised in this House. Be in no doubt that the Government are in listening mode and are willing to consider constructive suggestions for change. Many noble Lords have already made useful suggestions, including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and many others, and I am confident that there will be further helpful suggestions to come in Committee.

I now come to the scrutiny procedures for the secondary legislation which will be made using the powers in the Bill. I of course recognise that the House has a strong record of scrutiny of secondary legislation under the auspices of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Government have always wanted to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the secondary legislation to come. While major policy change is for other Bills, the Government introduced this Bill with triggers for the affirmative procedure on all the key powers. There will be many SIs under the Bill which contain small and technical amendments which will not substantially change how the law operates for firms or individuals in practice. The affirmative procedure would be disproportionate in those cases.

To provide greater clarity on this point, the Government have published draft SIs to show the types of legislative changes that would be made under each procedure. We have always said that we would listen to Members of both Houses in the passage of this Bill. In that vein, the Government were pleased to accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in the other place. Those amendments ensured that Ministers must submit SIs that they are proposing to make under the negative procedure under the three principal powers in the Bill—Clauses 7, 8 and 9—to a sifting committee, which will consider the appropriateness of the procedure.

I know that noble Lords will want to ensure that the expertise of this House is properly brought to bear on secondary legislation. I share this view. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out yesterday, we will bring forward proposals in due course following appropriate consultations.

I will briefly address the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Dinton, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Howell and Lord Storey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady D’Souza, and many others regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The UK has a proud tradition of respecting human rights. Leaving the EU does not and will not change this commitment. This includes children’s rights, which will of course continue to be protected under the Children Act 1989 and through our remaining party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope that this reassurance will aid the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord McConnell and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and I thank them for raising this important issue.

The Government have been unequivocal about this. Our intention has always been that, in itself, not incorporating the charter should not result in a significant loss of substantive rights. This is because the charter only reaffirmed the rights which were already protected under EU law, which will now be brought into UK law by this Bill. It is not, and never was, the source of those rights. The Government have also published a non-exhaustive memorandum setting out for each provision of the charter where the underlying rights will continue to exist as part of retained EU law or domestic law or the common law, but the simple fact is that leaving the EU will inevitably result in a change to the current arrangements. Therefore, it just does not make sense to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The clue is in the title; the charter applies to EU institutions and member states, but it applies to member states only when they are acting within the scope of EU law. We will not be a member state, nor will we be acting within the scope of EU law once we leave the EU. As such, the charter itself will not be converted into UK law, and I agree with the remarks made on the subject earlier in the debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

We have heard several contributions concerning the interpretation of retained EU law in Clause 6. This is not surprising, given the exemplary legal minds in this House, and I will endeavour here to speak to the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

I also extend my thanks to the Constitution Committee for its report, which many noble Lords have made reference to in this debate. This is a long and detailed report, and the Government will consider it carefully. From the beginning we have been committed to working collaboratively with parliamentarians to improve the Bill wherever possible.

The Government have heard the concerns raised in relation to whether and to what extent our UK domestic courts and tribunals should have regard to post-exit decisions made by the Court of Justice of the European Union, or to anything done by the EU and its other entities, when interpreting retained EU law. The UK is leaving the EU. This will end the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU. For our courts to remain bound to the future case law of the CJEU would be to undermine the clear position and ignore the reality of our withdrawal. It would also limit the discretion and independence of our courts, whose judicial authority we had sought to return.

We have a world-renowned judiciary, many of whose former members, I am pleased to say, are now in this House, and the Bill’s position in Clause 6(2) reflects the Government’s confidence in the judiciary’s independence and expertise. With this in mind, I emphasise that Clause 6(2) is intended to reflect in statute our strong belief that the courts are best placed to determine the right approach to questions of interpretation concerning retained EU law.

Clause 6 therefore provides that our domestic courts are not bound by post-exit decisions made by that court, as well as anything done by an EU entity or the EU itself, on or after exit day. The courts, however, may take such things into account if they consider it appropriate to do so.

We believe this provides a clear and certain position for our courts following our departure from the EU. Again, however, the Government have heard the concerns raised in this House over the last two days, and from other sources previously. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen is eager to engage with your Lordships on these provisions over the coming months.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Callanan]

He told me to say that. The wealth of expertise and experience in this House is ideally suited to the task of considering and agreeing an approach which can command the broadest possible confidence. I hope that this leaves your Lordships in no doubt as to how seriously we take these questions, and I hope that we can continue to engage constructively throughout.

I know that devolution, perhaps more than any other issue, has featured in your Lordships’ contributions over the past two days. I pay particular tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his constructive remarks, of which I have taken careful note. I also thank my noble friends Lord Dunlop and Lord McInnes, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and many other noble Lords for their contributions.

Our priority is to ensure that our withdrawal from the EU is as smooth and orderly as possible for the whole of the UK. The Government remain committed to the devolution settlements. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this presents an opportunity—which the Government have seized—for sincere and mature co-operation to find consensus. The Scottish and Welsh Governments agree that there are areas where common frameworks are necessary. The Government agree that in areas where they are not necessary, those powers should and will be a devolved responsibility. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that after we leave the EU they will continue to be able to do anything that is now within the competence of the devolved Administrations. There will of course be a need for common frameworks in some areas, as the noble Lord recognised, but the outcome of the UK leaving the EU means that more decision-making powers will be with the devolved Administrations.

As your Lordships are aware, we have made a commitment to bring forward changes to Clause 11, and this commitment remains absolute. We are engaging in intensive discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on what those amendments will look like, and we are making good progress towards the right outcome. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will travel to Edinburgh and Cardiff this week to further discuss our proposed amendments to Clause 11, which I hope will reassure the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay, and others, on her point about proper consultation with the devolved Administrations. Any such amendments to Clause 11 will of course need to speak to the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, while ensuring maximum certainty once we have left the EU. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, we are working closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and we are doing all we can to restore devolved government to Stormont.

Closely linked to these discussions is the work being carried out on future frameworks, guided by the principles agreed with the Scottish and Welsh Governments at the Joint Ministerial Committee. We will publish our analysis of where we expect there to be a need for legislative frameworks in whole or in part, for informal arrangements, and where we expect that no additional cross-UK mechanisms are required.

I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Luce, Lord Hoyle, Lord Kilclooney and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for their remarks concerning Gibraltar. The Government are clear that Gibraltar is covered by our exit negotiations, and we have committed to fully involve it as we exit the EU. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom and will leave as one United Kingdom.

I turn to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for another referendum to be held. On this point, let me be completely clear. The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a clear majority of people vote to leave the European Union. On this subject, as on so many others, I can do no better than to advise noble Lords to look at the comments of my noble friend Lord Hague, who wisely said that it cannot be in the national interest to participate in a referendum merry-go-round. In the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act this Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities for that legislation. In the general election last year, both parties campaigned to take us out of the EU, as my noble friend Lady Pidding reminded us yesterday. Only last weekend I watched the leader of the Labour Party say that “that ship has sailed” and confirm that, “We are not asking for a second referendum”. You cannot go back to the people time and again in the vain hope that eventually they will give you the result that you wanted.

The British people can trust the Government to honour the referendum result. This does not mean that the process will be without scrutiny, and of course we will consult Parliament further. There will be a vote in both Houses on the final agreement reached with the EU. Then there will be a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that will give Parliament further time to debate and scrutinise the domestic legislation implementing the final agreement that we strike.

Any commitment to a second referendum would actively undermine our ongoing negotiating position. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union noted:

“The consequence of putting a second referendum at the end of the negotiation is to invite every single member of the European Union who does not want us to leave to propose the worst possible deal, in the hope that we will change our mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col 176.]


This point was reinforced by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. We are not going to do that. We are seeking to get the best deal for the UK and we intend to negotiate under the best possible conditions. To do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme.

This debate has served to highlight the weight of the matter at hand and the importance of this House’s scrutiny. I look forward to the forthcoming Committee stage where we can enter into proper scrutiny and debate on the issues that have been raised over the past two days. I echo the words of noble Lords who have spoken of our constitutional duty to scrutinise this historic legislation. This place benefits from a wealth of experience and expertise, and I am confident that your Lordships will bring this to bear over the coming months.

Amidst some of the more colourful and entertaining rhetoric, metaphor and simile, a recurring theme has emerged in this debate: the Bill is necessary, the Bill is not perfect, and the Bill should be improved and strengthened but not obstructed. There was a visible and tangible consensus around these sentiments.

The people have spoken and this Government now have a duty to deliver a smooth exit. We owe this not only to those who voted to leave but to those who voted to remain. Regardless of how people voted, it is in the collective national interest to have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. This Bill delivers that by providing certainty and stability to businesses, consumers and citizens across the United Kingdom and I commend it to the House.

22:17

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it was someone other than Burke who said that on all great matters there was more to be said, but I do not think it necessarily needs to be said at 10.18 in the evening after 190 speakers and two days of debate.

These matters will be much debated over the coming months. I expect that the debate on the referendum and the case for the referendum will gather pace over that period, and I was very keen to put down a marker. We have not heard the last of these great national debates. We hope, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, that they can be conducted in a civilised way. We are very mindful of the fact that the first thing Oliver Cromwell did when he took absolute power was to abolish the House of Lords as dangerous and useless. We intend to ensure that we are not dangerous and that we are very useful. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 10.19 pm.